EU Army

[vardulli]

An influential Polish member of the European parliament has called for the EU to develop "hard power" and spend more money to build a European army.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7439104.stm

 

A good idea?

 

Personally I think there is world of difference between operating under a EU banner and having an EU army.

 

would be a worrying event if it did happen IMHO.

[Sardaukar]

I think EU Army is bad idea. Concept of EU BattleGroups is good one, IMHO and works well enough.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups

 

Finland is currently participating to both BattleGroup 107 and Nordic BattleGroup. Bunch of good links to articles and sources on that page to anyone interested.

 

Would be good if EU could meet this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Headline_Goal

 

Under this plan, the European Union pledged itself during the Helsinki summit to be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks (as set out in the Amsterdam Treaty), including the most demanding, in operations up to corps level (up to 15 brigades or 50,000-60,000 persons)[1][3] in order to be capable of intervening in any crisis that could occur in an area where European interests are affected.[4] The aim was to make those forces self-reliant, deployable within 60 days and over 4,000 km, and sustainable in the field for a year. This means the force would actually have to number around 180,000 troops so as to provide rotating replacements for the initial forces. The Petersberg tasks include humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.[5] EU-led forces assembled in response to a crisis would last only for the duration of the crisis and it would be up to the member states themselves to decide whether, when and how to contribute troops.[1]

 

The Petersberg tasks, which outline the duties of the ERRF, have been expanded from humanitarian, rescue, and peacekeeping and peacemaking to include 'joint disarmament operation', 'military advice and assistance tasks' and 'post-conflict stabilisation'. It also states that, "all these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories."[6]

Edited June 6, 2008 by Sardaukar

[CV9030FIN]

I think EU Army is bad idea. Concept of EU BattleGroups is good one, IMHO and works well enough.

 

Yeah in paper it sound really good, but the problem is that no country wants to partisipate on it anymore if is not really used soon. Concept has been ready for 2 and half years now and even units have been ready for year and half! Every participating country has now days problems even as it is to manage with all these commitments in AFG, Kosovo and Lebanon (some countries like UK even with Iraq too...)

[Xavier]

IMO a EU army(& navy & &airforce) would be a good thing, but not for another 20-30 years at least.

A EU military would only be useful when the EU has a REAL common foreign policy, i.e. only one minister/ministry for foreign affairs for the whole Union.

IOW, wait until the EU becomes a real (con)federation of autonomous states with a real sovereign government.

Until then, get the Eurocorps and the EU battlegroups running as supposed.

[Sardaukar]

Yeah in paper it sound really good, but the problem is that no country wants to partisipate on it anymore if is not really used soon. Concept has been ready for 2 and half years now and even units have been ready for year and half! Every participating country has now days problems even as it is to manage with all these commitments in AFG, Kosovo and Lebanon (some countries like UK even with Iraq too...)

 

Member states should at least start to spend some more for defence. That would remedy the issue a bit... It's not like it's peace and quiet in future either.

[Junior FO]

Member states should at least start to spend some more for defence. That would remedy the issue a bit... It's not like it's peace and quiet in future either.

 

Depends on what you want to do. Regime change in country x and keeping Russia out via deterence require very different spending levels.

[Tomas Hoting]

Depends on what you want to do. Regime change in country x and keeping Russia out via deterence require very different spending levels.

 

Increasing the defence expenditures in all EU member states to at least 2% of the annual GDP might be a start in any case.

[Sardaukar]

Increasing the defence expenditures in all EU member states to at least 2% of the annual GDP might be a start in any case.

 

That's what I was thinking too.

[Junior FO]

Increasing the defence expenditures in all EU member states to at least 2% of the annual GDP might be a start in any case.

 

If the objective is to keep the US out of Europe that sounds about right, however it's not enough for regime change and is way too much if you just want to keep Russia on best behaviour.

[Sardaukar]

If the objective is to keep the US out of Europe that sounds about right, however it's not enough for regime change and is way too much if you just want to keep Russia on best behaviour.

 

I think sums up the "intervention" goals quite well: (up to 15 brigades or 50,000-60,000 persons)in order to be capable of intervening in any crisis that could occur in an area where European interests are affected. The aim was to make those forces self-reliant, deployable within 60 days and over 4,000 km, and sustainable in the field for a year.

 

I think with 2 % that would be attainable and would lessen the need for US troops in Europe.

[Xavier]

Increasing the defence expenditures in all EU member states to at least 2% of the annual GDP might be a start in any case.

I will be able to ski in Hell while watching pigs flying in the air dodging pieces of the sky falling down before that happens.

[Tomas Hoting]

OTOH, even though I'm certainly not against increasing the defence expenditures, I don't really believe the additional money would be put to good use either. Considering our Yurropean tendency for national prestige pet projects and the widespread mismanagement of funds, it might be a better idea to keep a tight budget and therefore force our various armed forces to cooperate on an even larger scale (more joint acqusitions, reduction of redundancies etc. etc.)

 

Just imagine the follwing discussion between defense officials after such an increase:

 

A: Jeez, look at all the money we have. What are we gonna do now?

B: Dunno, what about golden faucets in all the baracks?

C: Hookers for everyone!

 

[swerve]

Increasing the defence expenditures in all EU member states to at least 2% of the annual GDP might be a start in any case.

 

Those that are NATO members (i.e. most) committed to spending that much several years ago. Most have failed to honour the commitment.

[cbo]

Increasing the defence expenditures in all EU member states to at least 2% of the annual GDP might be a start in any case.

 

Dont know what the situation is in other European countries, but here in Denmark, it wouldn't make the armed forces any stronger. Currently, the problem is manpower, as many leave the armed forces. Reasons are many, but basically the lack of manpower increases the pressure on the organisation, causing more people to get fed up and leave. It is not so much a matter of money as it is a matter of necessary structural and leadership changes combined with better conditions for the troops, particularily those who are serving abroad.

 

Once changes have been made, fat cut and the machine is running smoothly, then increased defense spending may be used to grease the wheels and increase size and capabilities, but before that happens, it is simply pouring money into a black hole.

 

cbo

[Xavier]

Those that are NATO members (i.e. most) committed to spending that much several years ago. Most have failed to honour the commitment.

Indeed, we haven't reached the 2% mark since the early nineties and are currently hovering just below or over 1% *

 

* does anyone know how I get 2 different official figures for defence spending from the Belgian Statistics department and from NATO itself, the difference being almost €1 billion just how many ways are there to calculate spending

[swerve]

Indeed, we haven't reached the 2% mark since the early nineties and are currently hovering just below or over 1% *

 

* does anyone know how I get 2 different official figures for defence spending from the Belgian Statistics department and from NATO itself, the difference being almost €1 billion

 

Different ways of counting defence spending. There's a NATO standard, which is what NATO supplies, & innumerable different national standards. National governments usually count the spending of a specific department. NATOs is a "defence function" definition. The former can include stuff the latter doesn't, & it's very common for the latter to include spending by other departments. Spain & Italy have particularly big discrepancies between official budgetary defence spending & the NATO definition, the latter being much higher.

 

Comparisons between non-NATO countries often fall foul of different national spending defintions.

 

just how many ways are there to calculate spending

 

Too many.

 

The standardised definition of defence expenditure used by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) includes military personnel, civilian pay, procurement of major equipment and supplies, construction and infrastructure costs, and pensions to retired military personnel. The United States Department of Defence includes the NATO classification within its definition, in addition to items such as research and development, military assistance to other states, civil defence and family housing. The definition of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) provides for paramilitary forces, and the military aspects of atomic energy and space research. In France, salaries of the gendarmerie, the civilian police force, are included in the defence budget, while in other Western countries, research and development costs, much of which has military use, are excluded from the defence budget. In the former Soviet Union, the concept of national security was widely defined with military production taking precedence over civilian production and consequently no clear distinction between these two sectors in the economy existed. South Africa’s case is further complicated by extending the conceptual understanding of security to include non-military concerns, while simultaneously expecting the defence force to protect life, health and property, maintain essential services, uphold the law and assist with socio-economic upliftment in peacetime.

 

Various countries, furthermore, use different methods to determine defence expenditure. In some countries defence expenditure is classified by the type of input - for example military wage costs and costs of procurement of weapons. Other countries determine defence expenditure by function (maintaining a core capability force) or by output (the level of security required).

 

The coverage and structure of military budgets vary with the system of public financing in different countries with the main problem being double counting. Depending on the kind of public financing system, a decision has to be made on the goods and services that are to be included in the valuation process of a budget. For example, paramilitary forces that also perform internal policing functions, and the use of research and development for both civilian and military purposes, give rise to problems when it has to be decided what to include in a defence budget.

 

http://www.iss.co.za/ASR/4NO5/Naidoo.html

 

NATO 2007

Edited June 7, 2008 by swerve

[Anixtu]

I got bored a few weeks ago and counted about 125 combat arms "brigades" in the combined armed forces of the member states of the European Union. How many of these can be deployed effectively outside the borders of their own country? Who is Spain going to invade with their 9 brigades on the southwestern fringe of Europe?

 

IMO only the easternmost states, those having land borders with significant nations outside the "club" have any excuse for maintaining large, undeployable armies for a homeland defence role. The central and western European states are secure and should concentrate on deployable regular ground and air forces (and the maritime and aeronautical means to deploy them) with a reserve component for homeland defence, if necessary.

 

Otherwise scrap the armed forces and spend the money on social projects.

[Sailor Lars]

I, for one, Welcome our EU overlords with glee. Just that they should get their shit together before that - which seems unlikely.

[swerve]

I got bored a few weeks ago and counted about 125 combat arms "brigades" in the combined armed forces of the member states of the European Union. How many of these can be deployed effectively outside the borders of their own country? Who is Spain going to invade with their 9 brigades on the southwestern fringe of Europe?

 

IMO only the easternmost states, those having land borders with significant nations outside the "club" have any excuse for maintaining large, undeployable armies for a homeland defence role. The central and western European states are secure and should concentrate on deployable regular ground and air forces (and the maritime and aeronautical means to deploy them) with a reserve component for homeland defence, if necessary.

 

Otherwise scrap the armed forces and spend the money on social projects.

 

Yup.

 

That means Spain, for example, needs modest garrisons in Ceuta & Melilla in case anything blows up in Morocco, a coastguard for catching smugglers & illegal immigrants, & expeditionary forces. Portugal needs a coastguard & expeditionary forces only. Ditto France & Italy. The UK, Belgium, Netherlands, don't really need coastguards, except for chasing illegal fishing boats & the like. Just expeditionary forces. The Poles, Romanians, Balts, Finns etc. need territorial defence forces. I reckon Italy could cut its army by at least 1/3rd, maybe half, because the Carabinieri cover some jobs we'd use troops for (e.g. lightly armed peacekeeping in a permissive environment), spend some of the money saved on more logistical support & better kit for the remainder, & give the rest to the navy & air force. Ditto Spain.

[Tomas Hoting]

Yup.

 

That means Spain, for example, needs modest garrisons in Ceuta & Melilla in case anything blows up in Morocco, a coastguard for catching smugglers & illegal immigrants, & expeditionary forces. Portugal needs a coastguard & expeditionary forces only. Ditto France & Italy. The UK, Belgium, Netherlands, don't really need coastguards, except for chasing illegal fishing boats & the like. Just expeditionary forces. The Poles, Romanians, Balts, Finns etc. need territorial defence forces. I reckon Italy could cut its army by at least 1/3rd, maybe half, because the Carabinieri cover some jobs we'd use troops for (e.g. lightly armed peacekeeping in a permissive environment), spend some of the money saved on more logistical support & better kit for the remainder, & give the rest to the navy & air force. Ditto Spain.

 

Disbanding one branch of the armed forces of some countries might be an idea as well. "Smaller" countries like the Czech Republic, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal might get their air policing done by the bigger countries, like in case of the Baltic states right now.

[Hans Engstrom]

Certainly I would support deploying at least a brigades worth of troops to Riga instead of having them dawdle along at home. After all, we've been there before, and, should anything untoward happen, there are a couple of scores to settle...

[lastdingo]

I got bored a few weeks ago and counted about 125 combat arms "brigades" in the combined armed forces of the member states of the European Union. How many of these can be deployed effectively outside the borders of their own country? Who is Spain going to invade with their 9 brigades on the southwestern fringe of Europe?

(...)

 

Yup.

 

That means Spain, for example, needs modest garrisons in Ceuta & Melilla in case anything blows up in Morocco, a coastguard for catching smugglers & illegal immigrants, & expeditionary forces. Portugal needs a coastguard & expeditionary forces only. Ditto France & Italy. The UK, Belgium, Netherlands, don't really need coastguards, except for chasing illegal fishing boats & the like. Just expeditionary forces. The Poles, Romanians, Balts, Finns etc. need territorial defence forces. I reckon Italy could cut its army by at least 1/3rd, maybe half, because the Carabinieri cover some jobs we'd use troops for (e.g. lightly armed peacekeeping in a permissive environment), spend some of the money saved on more logistical support & better kit for the remainder, & give the rest to the navy & air force. Ditto Spain.

 

I believe it would be a good idea to recall the raison d'être of military forces in a modern society:

The defence of sovereignty against external foes (preferably by deterrence, not actual war).

That's not only the raison d'être, but also the most noble occupation for them. All other kinds of uses have a terrible historical track record.

 

A national military can be absolutely perfect without being able to invade anything.

Invasions of distant countries are VERY RARELY a good idea. In fact, most such expeditions/adventures were and are despised for very good reasons.

Most of the time, it's a STUPID IDEA to invade some distant country.

 

It's actually a good idea to discuss whether for example Spain's forces are well-prepared for actions on Poland's Eastern border. But keep in mind that such a scenario would be a major conventional war scenario, and this means it would require conventional forces.

A country without an Air Force would in the long run have an army that cannot co-operate well with air power and that doesn't understand air power.

 

And btw; the NATO members are sovereign states, not patches to be used to create new monsters who willingly execute orders of 'you know whom I'm talking about'.

[Tomas Hoting]

A country without an Air Force would in the long run have an army that cannot co-operate well with air power and that doesn't understand air power.

 

This I kinda doubt. It's just a matter of the level of integration of the various national armed forces in some sort of "EU army", of sufficient joint training, exercises and political will.

[RETAC21]

Who is Spain going to invade with their 9 brigades on the southwestern fringe of Europe?

 

Morocco? look in detail at the Spanish armed forces, 1 parachute, 1 airmobile, 1 marine, 1 infantry and 1 cavalry brigade, all light forces capable of being deployed with local means (although not in one lift) to which you must add a mountain brigade equivalent and 3 heavy brigades, needed in case we run into tanks. Odds and ends in garrisons complete the picture.

[Anixtu]

I believe it would be a good idea to recall the raison d'être of military forces in a modern society:

The defence of sovereignty against external foes (preferably by deterrence, not actual war).

That's not only the raison d'être, but also the most noble occupation for them. All other kinds of uses have a terrible historical track record.

 

"Invade" in this case was sloppy shorthand for "engage in expeditionary warfare". Europe does not currently face any realistic conventional military foes and yet most countries of Europe maintain medium sized undeployable regular armies. In the absence of a threat, what purpose do they serve other than to waste taxpayers euros? I say use 'em (convert to expeditionary capable forces) or lose 'em (scrap and spend on social projects).