In 2018, the leaders of France and Germany called for a “true European army”. Since then, the arguments for deeper EU defence integration have seemingly grown more persuasive: the world is becoming a more volatile and geopolitical place; economic pressures on defence spending are almost certainly going to increase given the impact of COVID-19 on national budgets; NATO is experiencing “brain death”, and Britain (which contributed around 20% of all EU military capabilities) has finally left the EU.

Yet what would a “European army” actually mean in practice? How would decisions be made about priorities and deployments? What would the command structure look like? Would citizens really be willing to fight and die for Europe (particularly when the EU can’t even agree a budget without descending into acrimonious squabbling)?

Curious to know more about proposals for a European army? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Irene, saying: “With Trump, Brexit and Putin, EU countries are growing more vulnerable. Who knows what will happen? Brexit breaks the balance of forces in Europe. I believe the EU has to be prepared to defend the EU countries.” Do European leaders share her analysis? Will we ever have a European army?

To get a response, we put Irene’s comment to Paul Taylor, contributing editor at Politico, a former European affairs editor for Reuters, and senior fellow at Friends of Europe, where he has authored a series of reports on European defence issues. What would he say?

For another perspective, we put the same comment to Ulrike Franke, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), where her areas of focus include German and European security and defence, the future of warfare, and the impact of new technologies such as drones and artificial intelligence. How would she respond to Irene?

Yes, I think this analysis, overall, is shared [by many EU leaders]. We’ve seen, since 2014 and the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and everything that came afterwards with Brexit and the election of US President Donald Trump, that the global climate has become rougher for Europe. So, in response, there have been a lot of voices in the EU calling for a Europe able to do more on the geopolitical stage and defend itself militarily, and this is why we have these discussions about ‘European strategic autonomy’ and ‘European sovereignty’…

Does this lead necessarily to a European army? I don’t think it does, and I don’t think the majority of people in Brussels think it leads to the idea of a European army.

Next up, we had a comment come in from Kirstie, asking: “Who will ultimately be in charge of this European Army, who will decide which conflicts my loved ones will be deployed to fight in?”

How would Paul Taylor respond?

Finally, what would Ulrike Franke say to the same question?

This is the perfect question that Kirstie is asking, and it is the question that – to be honest – nobody quite has the answer to. The problem with the idea of a ‘European army’ is that is sounds quite concrete – it means soldiers and power and something very concrete, right? But it’s actually not very concrete at all, because it’s completely unclear what such a European army would look like in practice.

Some people, when they talk about a European army, seem to be suggesting something in addition to national armed forces. At this point, there are 27 EU Member States all with some kind of armed forces, and some people are talking about a European army as extra forces on top, commanded by some kind of EU body – it’s also very unclear what that would look like. The problem is that this would require more money than is already spent at the moment, and budgets are unlikely to grow these days, so that’s a hurdle. And who would command these forces? Would it be the European Parliament? The European Commission? The President of the European Commission? All of this seems very impractical.

Another option would be to have a European army replacing national armed forces. This is the idea that rather than having 27 national forces, which sounds very wasteful, we combine them into a single force. But this is an enormous endeavour. Just think about this: who would decide to send out these new European armed forces? I would argue that we would never be able to send them out because the 27 EU Members rarely agree on foreign policy, and even less often agree on military operations.

So, it seems to me that these armed forces would never be used. But maybe more importantly, it is the monopoly of the state to decide the deployment of military forces. Because, as was alluded to in Kirstie’s question, these are questions of life and death. So, I can’t imagine a situation where some countries in Europe would be in favour of doing a military operation and they would decide to send, among others, soldiers from another country that didn’t agree with the operation into harms way. So, this shows how tricky it would be to have this kind of combined force…

Is a European army ever going to happen? What would such an army look like in practice, and who would ultimately be in charge? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: Flickr – (cc) European Defence Agency


142 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Catherine Benning

    Is a European army ever going to happen?

    To what end?

  2. avatar
    Sergio

    It’s about time! Long overdue

  3. avatar
    Giorgos

    It must happen as NATO is falling apart.

  4. avatar
    Παυλος

    If That army has to wait for permission for action from 30 different parliaments it will be like it doesn’t exist at all..
    So until the European states are ready for such commitment is better to stick to “task force” recipe

  5. avatar
    Tiziano

    I think the eventual collapse of Nato will at least call for it to happen. However before that we would need a stronger political union that has control of Fiscal, not only monetary, polocies.

  6. avatar
    André

    It should. We need it quickly. The dependence from the USA is bad for Europe…

  7. avatar
    Γεώργιος

    Not needed.European police force needs improvement

  8. avatar
    Ray

    We need it. We also need a unified, European Police force.

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      at least for counter terrorism and border control on the perimeter of the union

    • avatar
      Peter

      that’s a whole different category than military cooperation. Defending from external threats and internal law enforcement is incomparable. Local laws are different, policing traditions are different, languages and customs are different. A Spanish military police officer has a very different internal role than his Dutch counterpart. EU Federal policing institutions apart from Europol go way too far. Extradition treaties and judicial cooperation are already well developed. Bypassing local law makers and police organisations is not a good idea and would be counterproductive.

    • avatar
      Ray

      i see your point but I beg to disagree that these issues should pose an unsurmountable stumbling block for greater European integration. The EU family of diverse nations can work closely together on securing internal matters and a unified Police Force can serve as a crucial part of that ongoing process. What should happen first is the creation of a legal umbrella that governs this Police force. The intitition of this centralised police force will entail standised training, uniforms and equipment. This force will then need to be adopted by the willing EU states, naturally starting with the Schengen members to lead (and test) the way. It will not be an easy task, but hey!…neither was the Euro or the Union itself. I believe it can and will work well.

    • avatar
      Николай

      We need internal justice system

    • avatar
      Peter

      I do not think it is possible, nor do I think it is desirable to use an EU police force as a way to integrate Europe. There is cross border cooperation and you’ll always need local knowledge and mandates to effectively police. A centralised police violates the principle of kin police. Policing matters are by definition local affairs, acting on national and local laws. National police forces cooperate with other national police forces, and there should not be an EU level added to that. There are already multinational task forces. I see no reason why Berlin should have the same laws as Budapest or Madrid. Different cultures, different rules. An EU police would be regarded as an occupational body, interfering with national responsibilities and would cause insurmountable trouble and even violent actions.

    • avatar
      Tonino

      I believe we need to open the discussion of more nations exiting the Union, just as the UK did.
      I believe time is ripe and national consensus in many member states is there, if we avoid manipulations.

  9. avatar
    Chris

    There’s no EU, just national interests. Look how and fight over wether to support or , because of their investments, despite art 42(7). EU is now just a construct that helps the exporters.

  10. avatar
    Victor

    No, the EU is not a country and should not be a country. Each nation must have as much control over itself as possible, an EU army would arguably be an occupational force

  11. avatar
    Peter

    It’s a pipe dream as an independent organisation. EU institutions lack the formal and informal authority and trust to send Swedish sons to Greek wars. That power remains a national responsibility, and for the most part defense spending too. I do think European countries should be able to defend themselves without outside assistence. That requires a shared strategic plan and coordinated purchasing of equipment. The first steps are made with PESCO, though it’s still modest and needs fine tuning. It requires training and going on missions together too. The past has proven that if push comes to shove that the EU is hopelessly divided. The challenge is in the political sphere.

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      but what is the point of a political union if that union can’t defend it’s borders? Even an oriental dictator with a strange mustache will be able to blackmail that union, as erdogan did few years ago during the refuge crisis
      And by the way if Europe hadn’t given in to erdo blackmails we wouldn’t be here today talking about ” Greek wars”.
      At the end of the day if we want to play in the big boys arena we have to learn to play like the big boys or see our teeth and blood on the floor

    • avatar
      Peter

      The point is that the EU doesn’t have capabilities to act as an independent actor. And when things get real the EU or a European coalition should have the political will to act. That has never been the case after WW2. Not in the Balkan Wars, when European nations had enough equipment but no unified political position, nor in Afghanistan when the EU took on a role it wasn’t equipped for, neither did it have enough support of member states. The Libya campaign was a disaster on many levels. Border protection is more a police and coast guard task and that definitely should happen in EU context.
      I agree European nations should be able to carry their own weight. But the reality is that everytime Europe tries to act in an EU context, nothing happens! The EU is not the right organisation for warfighting and it will never be. European nations are too diverse with too many different agendas. What should happen is that clusters of European nations, outside EU structures, must act in a military sphere in a European coalition of the willing.

  12. avatar
    Miguel

    the roman empire had its army so anything is possible.

    • avatar
      Miguel

      also the galatic empire had stormtropers

  13. avatar
    Manuel

    Europe need’s it’s army.

  14. avatar
    João

    We do need it. Only investing on it on this so difficult crisis moment,shouldn’t be the most advisable one.
    Anyway a qualified team should from now on be nominated, and studying its structure.

  15. avatar
    Georgi

    Heavily armed frontex first

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      it’s merely a police force and already overwhelmed..
      In case of an all out invasion it’s obvious that we can’t really on a small task force

    • avatar
      Georgi

      I meant seriously armed staffed and intelled frontex

    • avatar
      Georgi

      the immigrants policy – kerguelen is EU interior too 🙂

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      a task force to protect the outside borders of the union could be a good start and a way to test the concept but sooner or later we will have at least to coordinate our forces with common training, equipment, terminology etc 😉 the NATO is gradually becoming an other ” UN” and soon we’re going to be on our own

  16. avatar
    Jovan

    First democratically elect a president. Can’t think of anything more dangerous for a free society than creating a nuclear armed military for half a billion people whose civilian commander is an appointee selected by 27 different appointees who themselves are appointed by 27 different parliaments.

    • avatar
      Peter

      what are you talking about? France’s nuclear weapons are in no way under control of some EU bureacrats.

    • avatar
      Jovan

      I am talking about reading the question before you hit the keyboard. The issue is whether to integrate the militaries of the member states, including Frances into a “true European Army” which is not going to have more powerful military contingents by member states, no more than Texas or California control America’s arsenal, or Kareliya and Tartarstan control Russia’s.

    • avatar
      Arnout

      I would still love to see multiple presidents but yea. Or advisory boards with power. Dont see the use of 1 powerful leader, with such an army either.

    • avatar
      Peter

      the question is read and very well understood, and the answer is no. Precisely because of your wild conclusion the EU or some bureaucrats are ever going to control France’s nuclear weapons

  17. avatar
    Martin

    It would be a first step to generally allow qualitative majority decisions within the EU council being not blocked by a single veto. Which would mean to revise the Lisbon contract. Nobody wants to touch this tough. Thus, EU in limbo on all issues.

    • avatar
      Peter

      Many policy areas have quality majority voting. There are good reasons why that’s not the case with foreign affairs and military policies. First of all: why would a Spanish or Finnish representative have a say about sending some Irish kid to war? Second, why would military ambitions of a select group of countries be paid for by fiercely neutral countries like Austria or Ireland? That’s never going to pass. There are all kinds of possibilities within the EU structure to act militarily, also with a smaller group of countries, but somehow that never works out. Quality majority voting is not going to change that.

  18. avatar
    Tiago

    I defend it, though we would need a transition period, where we would have a national and european army. This way it would be better planned and not rushed. Europe can’t count on the US forever.

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      or an even simpler solution unified strategic command and gradual ” synchronization” of the already existing armies just like the allies did during ww2 ( using the same standards on equipment terminology etc)

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      what is for sure is that if Europe does not learn to rely on their own recourses soon will be a distant memory

    • avatar
      Tiago

      Well it worked then, but at a huge effort because each country wanted to be in command, example Montgomery x Eisenhower x De Gaulle. They didn’t get on with each other very well, thus causing conflits between them. With a unified army the structure of command would be unique and simpler, as for logistics.

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      they could do it rollety on the top like the European presidency,
      Of course is going to be conflicts but it’s still easier to really on already existing structures and for example make sure that they going to get the same kind of equipment or training
      Also there are issues like
      The language barrier on tactical level the units will have to stay “national” with people coming from the same place

    • avatar
      Tiago

      Well I’m not sure but it might work as well. As for the languages I think that’s not an issue, during Nato military drills they all use english as common language so it’s the same I guess

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      yes but at higher level, on the field people under pressure have the tendency to fall in ” factory settings” ( for lack of better wording) for example for a period of time Greek and Turkish warships was patrolling at golf of Aden for Somali pirates when the ships wanted to communicate to each other they was speaking in English but when each captain was giving orders to his crew was doing it in his native language to make sure that everyone understood him
      Actually that’s a good example since the command of the force was rotating between the Turkish and the Greek commanders every few days and it actually worked pretty well – given that we are talking about Greeks and Turks 😁😁

  19. avatar
    Yvonne

    I’m sorry but i just dont agree with that…ireland is a very small country..we spend very little on our armey and police..they are both for peace keeping purposes only..we are still a neutral country..thanks for asking tho .. 😃

    • avatar
      Chris

      that’s exactly why this wouldn’t work. The countries geographicaly protected by the bulk of europe don’t want to spend their resources for Europe’s borders.

    • avatar
      Ntinos

      and what about for those in the borders??

    • avatar
      Arnout

      well china, putin or erdogan will care little about your peace though. Besides that you have an army and you use it. So it can be perfectly part of an EU one.
      Or are you suggesting that sofar the EU is invading nations? It was mainly the US and the UK that wanted to go to iraq.

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      at the end of the the day we can at least just” synchronize “our armies with common training, equipment, and a high European command just in case we have to use them

    • avatar
      Yvonne

      hi ..yes probably..we could perhaps agree to support eachother..if in difficulty..that would be a good proposition..the only thing our armey does..excuse me armey..is peacekeeping troups for the Lebanon and other countries..and also peacefully escourt people to vote in elections ..in africa.. 😃

    • avatar
      Παυλος

      that’s already a lot 😊 since those type of operations are helping stabilize those regions and more stability means less troubles for our continent 😊

    • avatar
      Bertalan

      Just google security dilemma and you’ll see the issue.

  20. avatar
    Mike

    It risks the EU staying into areas where they’re not a best fit. How would such an army be managed when the EU is not a member of the UN or NATO. The U.K. took a very strong position with the EU to pensaré this does not happen. One of the byproducts of our leaving is the resurrection of these wild ideas.

  21. avatar
    Christos

    EU is good for backstabbing members

  22. avatar
    Gerard

    With France sharing its nuclear power in exchange for supplying an EU army with French hardware?

    • avatar
      Gerard

      It would be more cost effective and beneficial for the quality to have different, competing European suppliers. Also, I don’t see how defeating Napoleon and Hitler should result in French hegemony.

  23. avatar
    Ronald

    It’s not that difficult. That is, if one accepts what pro-Atlantic “believers” are so vehemently against..in part the replacement of NATO, an EUropean copy of NATO, called EDU. Then you don’t have to look at a real integrated European army at all. Because I think it is still >

  24. avatar
    Ronald

    >unattainable and perhaps (I personally think) undesirable. So stop blocking what is geopolitical logical, create this EUropean Defence Union #EDU, and give #NATO a new and more useful task and structure..so that it revives from its #braindead situation.<

  25. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    OMG! Here we go again.

    Has the “EU peace project” been captured by a group of madmen/women- the easily excitable ones, the imaginary brave, the over-eager Star war watchers & dreamers- all on standby & ready to be sent into battle with electronic sticks & bazookas by an EU Commissioner? Crazy.

    What a ridiculous thought & plan!

    How far has the once EU peace-loving concept deteriorated? Why does the DE time & again present the idea of a future EU army at every opportune time or looming conflict?

    Do the DE journalists or Friends of Europe support an EU army? Yes/No? Be brave on paper & tell! Once you are on the battlefront, it will be too late!

    Why is this theme kept alive like an invisible but burning peat moss mine? Please extinguish it before it catches fire!

    Paul Taylor & Ulrike Franke give valid reasons of doubt, but need to dismiss such crazy ideas as outright foolish!

    It is high time the EU- represented by President Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen- does her job and unequivocally comes out against an EU army. Stop this warmongering nonsense to fester on! There is NATO!

  26. avatar
    EU Reform Proactive

    Sorry, not finished!
    Some inaccurate descriptions by journos & politicians need urgent attention!

    Please clarify the DE’s and EU’s understanding of a “European Army”, or a true European army”- while evading labelling it an “EU army” concept or project- knowing very well the EU is not a recognized state nor country. A great EU dilemma that is!

    Why let this deliberate confusion of misnaming this army a “European army” continue?

    The only non-member of a greater 47 European membership grouping or “true” European army of the CoE (Council of Europe) is presently Belarus.

    https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/who-we-are

    It needs pointing out, that Russia & Turkey are both members of a “greater Europe 47” cooperation formation. Turkey, not Russia is a NATO member as well. This illusionary and nonsensical inspired EU army concept automatically defeats the object to defend the EU27 against Turkey or Russia- while bound by the CoE Convention on Human Rights & peaceful coexistence. It was/is always NATO Article5- “an attack on one is an attack on all”. The “All for One” is/was usually a WW outcome!

    Modern European conflicts need a higher order of diplomacy. Not naïve sable rattling by battle unfit and flatfooted EU bureaucrats & their supporters. Have they forgotten what modern warfare means today?

    This dangerous EU gambling could bring us back to a situation of 1914 or 1939! All “superheroes” are underground by now!

    Let us name it correctly: a new EU army concept, advertised & pushed by a (small?) group of power-hungry EUROCRATS! Expose them, isolate them & stop them causing mayhem!

    It appears the CoE’s European Convention on Human Rights based on the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights will eventually conflict with some diverging, non-peaceful efforts by “some” in the EU27 over-eager, out of control empire builders.

    Macron seems a likely candidate, who’s eager to follow his little hero to hopefully succumb to stomach ulcer- before causing too much havoc.

  27. avatar
    Silvio Junger

    It is absolutely ridicoulos to believe that any European country on its own can take on an opponent like China or Russia. A European army is the only logical conclusion to this problem. Obviously, if a consensus of all EU member states is needed to deploy troops, the army is doomed to complete inaction. The logical commander in chief is the president of the European commission. Since this person would command one of the mightiest militaries in the world, measures to keep him or her in check are needed. Firstly, the president should be elected by the European citizens in a direct Europe-wide election. Secondly, a more powerful parliament is required to effectively control any executive actions by the commission. This setup should give the army the necessary democratic mandate to operate effectively. This army would then replace all national ones. Once we’re at it, we can just as well make the diplomatic parts of foreign affairs an exclusively European issue as well.

  28. avatar
    Luc

    We urgently need an own army, but therefor you indeed need a unified leadership and one government. Conclusion: a unified union is urgently needed. First step is very close collaboration, and this is progressing.

  29. avatar
    Olivier

    When I see te lack of support of Europeans for the French army which fight against islamists in Africa.. I doubt about it
    But it would be a solution to set Europe free from USA

  30. avatar
    José

    to protect corrupted politicians?

  31. avatar
    Germany

    Germany will keep striving. France is the only power in Europe with a nuclear weapon. Isn’t Germany’s finger on the nuclear button the threat of one in Europe that no European nation can bear?

  32. avatar
    Daniel

    Army of robots and drones should be just fine…

  33. avatar
    შმაგი

    Bad idea.
    Better defeat Putin, Trump, Jonson and Xi Jinpin by protests of local people or elections. No need for 5th paranoia centre – don’t make EU look like them

  34. avatar
    Adam

    Brace yourselves for the tin foil comments 😆

  35. avatar
    Frankie

    Like we have a choice in the matter. The EU doesn’t care for democracy and it will do whatever it pleases until one day the people want some democracy back and the EU will say bye bye.

  36. avatar
    Arč

    Right after the constitution is finished and ratified

  37. avatar
    Luke

    Down with the small hat owned EU

  38. avatar
    Mino

    A Euroarmy and a stronger ESA.

  39. avatar
    Adam

    This will only fuel extremely speculative conspiracy hypotheses.

  40. avatar
    Lawrence

    Yes and the UK will be part of it…..

  41. avatar
    Catalin

    Let’s go for European army!

  42. avatar
    Reece

    This American hopes with all due respect that it does.

  43. avatar
    Burkhard

    The PESCO Agreement with 25 EU states of Dec.2017 was the first big step to united european armed forces and since they have signed the agreement lot has happen and in over fifty military cooperatios they allready work close together…

  44. avatar
    Stéphane

    The question is do we have to lose a war first ?

  45. avatar
    Ditch Brexit

    With the Trump family ruling the USA and aggressive Russia and China all endangering world peace the Europe needs to do more to integrate its armed services and move towards an EU army. It could start by harmonising weapons and equipment standards and specifications and having a “single market’ for defence equipment.

    • avatar
      Seán

      Biden or Trump it makes no difference…it is Israel that rules the United States

    • avatar
      Radu

      “with the Trump family ruling the USA and aggressive Russia and China all endangering world peace” ??? Man u get heavily brainwashed. Shutdown the fucking TV.

  46. avatar
    Martin

    I’m all for it, provided we don’t have 27 ministries of defense and 27 ministries of foreign affairs. And when you have a European ministry of defense and a European ministry of foreign affairs you need a properly elected European government…. So the reforms have to go much much further and we need courageous politicians

  47. avatar
    Piricleanu

    Maybe whe EU will trully help all eachothers and when they will start to help everyone to be as equal as the other countries😒

    • avatar
      Tobias+

      what you ask for ?

    • avatar
      Tobias

      what you ask for ?

    • avatar
      Piricleanu

      equality and to help and protect like a family. If you want, I can be more specific.

    • avatar
      Tobias

      yea sure what are it you like EU should do specific . I find often people ether complaint over EU don’t do that or do too much when the faq are EU only do what the member state have agree on it can nothing more nothing less

  48. avatar
    Dave

    With the US pivoting towards containing China Europe is simply going to have to start paying for her defence.
    We also can’t ignore an imploding Middle East and increasingly aggressive Russia on our doorstep.

    • avatar
      Dave

      why is that?

  49. avatar
    Petter

    First, NATO has to be dissolved.

    • avatar
      Martin

      why? EU can be a Nato member.

    • avatar
      Dave

      great idea! Let’s weaken our civilisation 🙄

    • avatar
      Andrew

      You couldn’t be further from the truth.

    • avatar
      Martin

      our civilization? You guys are out. Try and fix your island first before you start lecturing your neighbors 😂

    • avatar
      Filippo

      in my opinion it’s already the case in practice. It is an old club unable to act.

    • avatar
      Andrew

      You’re also wide of the mark.

    • avatar
      Petter

      I don’t want to be an ally of Erdogan nor Trump.

    • avatar
      Dave

      we’re still part of western civilisation 🤦‍♀️

  50. avatar
    Marek

    The Duchy of Muscovy will never accept any European army unless Moscow is in charge of it. We are setting ourselves up for a confrontation that will last forever.

    • avatar
      Georgi

      carthagenization

  51. avatar
    Grzegorz

    Anything led by Merkel and that globo puppet masochist cuck perv Frenchman should never happen, ever.

  52. avatar
    Michalis

    EU was born out of World Wars, it was born to build Peace in European Region, an army, maybe attractive for weaker Member States will not happen as first there has to be a tighter political union within the region, ans that is not happening.
    Richer Members will not pay for protecting the weak with military budget.

    • avatar
      Georgi

      it is inevitable EU the first successful continent unification via return of oceanic colonisation to reimperialize if the current Pax falls due to internal primitivism

    • avatar
      Michalis

      Explain please.

  53. avatar
    John

    No that’s what they have a treaty with the USA for

  54. avatar
    David

    The Germans won’t act outside their border so highly unlikely

    • avatar
      Georgi

      what makes you think so? No.1. And no.2. Where their border is?

    • avatar
      David

      their constitution prohibits military action outside Germany

    • avatar
      Georgi

      but eu is not abroad 😛

    • avatar
      David

      to my knowledge it is not yet a sovereign state and what use is an army that is geographically restricted?

  55. avatar
    Charles Knight

    A European Army dedicated to the defensive use of force to prevent unapproved perimeter incursions of all kinds might achieve consensus. There is an unlimited supply of cheap personnel selected from those who seek economic refuge – if citizenship were the reward for 5 years service (the Romans required 20).

  56. avatar
    Dan

    Oh God!, are we dragging up this old chestnut again. A European army, Putins wet dream.
    Listen, this is an increasingly volatile and dangerous world with a hostile Russia and a totalitarian Chinese government intent on dominating the world.The very last thing this decaying and increasing irrelevant continent needs is any crackpot idea which could lead to the breakup of NATO the most successful military alliance in history,and the one and only reason there’s been relative peace on this continent for the last seventy years.

  57. avatar
    Andreas

    Lol Merkel Germany is a hypocrite and Eu is a scum , germany selling weapons to turkey for illegally occupied side of cyprus , the wars in Syria and Libia all of these without taking notice of UN resolutions and embargo , hurting innocent people
    For their money game and imperialistic plans , EU has no future

  58. avatar
    Giorgos

    At some point. It’s inevitable.

  59. avatar
    Nate

    It’s the 1930s all over again

  60. avatar
    Steve

    A German Citizen //We have to create a European intervention unit with which Europe can act on the ground where necessary,” Merkel continued. “We have taken major steps in the field of military cooperation, this is good and largely supported in this house. But I also have to say, seeing the developments of the recent years, that we have to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day.//” The purpose of the (NATO Reaction Force ) NRF is to provide a quick reaction force of high quality to support NATO missions as required. The concept of NRF was first endorsed with a declaration of NATO’s Heads of State at the Prague Summit on 22 November 2002. It was then approved by NATO Defence Ministers in June 2003, and the first headquarters created in October 2003 in Italy under command of NATO Joint Force Command in Brunssum, Netherlands, designated NRF 1. Its rotation replacement was designated NRF 2 (2004) at the same time.So how many of you actually knew this exists ?👍🤣😱

  61. avatar
    Konrad

    A Polish citizen may not serve in a foreign army (during peace time) under a prison sentence of up to 3 years.
    Why is it like that?
    It is completely justified, because the Polish soldier serves under the Polish flag and under the Polish coat of arms and swears by the Polish flag and the Polish coat of arms.
    The Polish army has always had different regulations and rules.
    The Polish emblem has remained the same since the 12th century

  62. avatar
    Rod

    In a Europe defence environment, where the USA is pulling back from NATO and there are significant threats from Russia, then having a coherent pan-European defence approach fully resourced by the European states makes sense. It allows economies of scale in procurement and greater standardisation.
    In reality the European armies already are operating in a unified manner within NATO, and the command structure is composed of officers from across all nations.
    European division and lack of coherent investment in defence is simply exploited by Russia, and this leads to destabilization along Europes borders.

  63. avatar
    Julia

    It makes logical sense to have one. However, it is obvious EU decisions are made by stronger countries according to their personal economic gain, motivations and agendas. For example, Germany is pro-Turkey, a great trade partner and defence customer. Germany has more power in the EU, so what Germany says or opposes goes. What is the point of an EU army when this can happen?

  64. avatar
    Tonino

    We need to start having conversations on leaving the EU in many member countries.
    There is a consensus for this just like in the UK.
    If we avoid suppression of voters will and manipulation of public opinion, we will soon see things happening.

  65. avatar
    UnknownWarrior

    Why not? The idea of the EU is that all of the Europeans, become one nation. We should have one army as well. NATO is an American project. The Europeans should have their own army.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.