Do you support the establishment of an unified EU military?
November 7, 2024
Are you in favour of creating a unified European Union military?
29 comments
Yes, we should not be reliant on US for EU security, it makes zero sense in the age of Trump and his ilk.
Brit here. Despite us not being in the EU anymore due to the brexiter idiots who voted us out, I would be in favour of an EU military.
The threat from Russia isn’t going anywhere and so anything that can bring the EU closer together would be a good thing. I’m not too sure how it would differ from our current NATO military alliance but I would be in favour of it.
I am.
I have no faith in my western ally anymore and being sandwiched between them and Russia will either lead to us being submissive to one or the other unless we pull our recourses together to form a strong unified defense.
If you asked me a few years ago maybe I would have said no, however between the Russia Ukraine war and trump getting reelected ( who has repeatedly said he wants to pull out of nato and focus on the US only ) we need it now more than ever.
Not sure of a unified army yet, but moving in that direction with further standardisation across European militaries, and a NATO style command structure. Which is close but not quite there.
While Trump will only be another 4 years, no Democrat is going to win supporting NATO, the American people have made that clear. so NATO in its current form is likely over; or if it does limp on will be of no use to Europeans.
Europe will have to defend itself. And it is well capable of doing so.
In general, yes. But there are two big issues:
– not every EU-Member is in NATO and vice versa.
– There is no common EU foreign policy.
It might work if the individual states retain a smaller Military for overseas deployment and the EU military is purely for homeland defense.
Yes. And not even because of Trump, but because if we’re dependent on someone else to defend us then we’re in a perfect position to get screwed over when something unexpected happens.
A unified procurement chain would go a long way. Just to get the benefits of scales rolling. More bang, literally, for the buck.
No need for 20+ different rifles, uniforms, boots, tanks, ships, jets or different air defence systems.
Something like the Nordic Countries are already doing on a smaller scale, like buying the same uniforms.
Added bonus. If you build an ammunition factory in Slovenia, it creates jobs in Slovenia, that makes Slovens happy and less hostile to the EU, provided it is actually sold as an EU project.
Nah, don’t reinvent the wheel. Most countries are NATO-members and already have a unified command structure. More co-operation on procurement to get standardized equipment would be good, although there are a lot of national interests working against this model. -“More bang for the buck”.
Sweden and Finland just ordered a new service rifle together and the Nordic countries are also implementing a standard uniform.
I would, if it became a separate structure on top of our existing militaries. Dispanding our own military in favour of the EU military? No.
What language would the EU military speak? English is the international language but I would like to see the French for example accepting that.
Seeing as how different EU countries seem to be divided I would actually argue for larger national armies, but with increased cooperation, coordination and most importantly, spending, which is already slowly happening. This is a very tricky thing to do, if you want to go in depth, check out the youtube channel Perun who makes high quality videos about military spending and the mechanisms behind it.
My largest argument against EU level coordination for militaries is that every country can veto something, which is not what you want when you want to have a strong unified military unit. I mean, what if a small US state like Rhode Island can just veto a large militairy spending budget, limiting the US’ military actions? cough Hungary cough
The idea of a stronger EU in principle is a good one, but since we are still made up of different countries with different interests first I do not see it happening for now. What is some guy decides Europe needs to be invaded and that one guy knows a guy on the inside that can hinder things? This is what is happening now and all other countries need to have the freedom to not have to be bothered by a very clear mole in the system to be able to defend themselves. That being said, most EU militaries have common weapons systems, plenty of which are also developed on an intra-national level, just not with all EU members involved.
So, we basically already are, just not as unified as a country like the US is, which isn’t as cost effective, but still assures national autonomy and strenght.
In Finland there is strong consensus of importance of military and willingness to server if and when needed to protect our sovereignty. This cannot be said of every EU country, let alone about willingness to protect and serve country you don’t live in. It would also be hugely unfavorable in western European countries that do not share border with hostile country.
I deployed twice with an EU military mission, Op Sophia and Op Atalanta (you can do your own research on these missions) the attempt to merge diverse and sometimes dysfunctional navies fragmented by divergent political ideologies was embarrassing. The operational delivery was close to zero as each nation would ‘chop out’ of a mission if it didn’t align with their own ‘Rules of Engagement’ or the appetite for risk of the home nation.
I don’t care if an opt-in military was created but I would not support Ireland joining. Ireland has traditionally supported the EU as a mechanism for peace building and economic cooperation and given our neutral past, I wouldn’t like us to compromise on our anti-imperialism values for a machine that we would end up playing a very small role in. Seeing the disconnect between different member state’s initial responses to the war in Ukraine and also now to the Middle East, I don’t have the confidence that we could all sit together at a table and agree on a single position for a single military. The beauty of the EU is in its ability to foster cooperation and globalisation while respecting and preserving the individuality of member states.
[deleted]
As much as I support the creation of an EU army, it might be easier to create a new NATO like treaty that would only includes European members, but not limited to EU member states.
Each country would retain and independent military and foreign policy but it would enforce common défense in case of attack.
It could also include a requirement to buy EU produced equipment in priority instead of relying on the US for that.
No. We cannot trust foreign forces that much.
Firstly: a foreign army can be compromised by Russia if pro Russian movements win enough elections. If every country has their own military instead, then only parts of the united front will fall off, never the whole army, when Russian supporters inevitably get into power somewhere in Europe.
Secondly: priorities. Any European army will prioritize the defence of Poland and thus Germany over the defence of Finland. We must have out own army that cannot be withdrawn to defend higher priority fronts in any event, even if the Chinese are attacking across the Oder.
Finally most of Europe just sucks at defence procurement and will to fight in comparison to Finland. We get more for our buck when we use it ourselves and our people is actually willing to fight, unlike most of Europe.
I am in favour in general though I have no idea how are you going to convince people from Portugal, Spain or Ireland to die in a fight somewhere near Polish or Lithuanian border. Army (especially ground forces) require a bit of patrotism/nationalism towards the country you are fighting for. I dont rememember if anyone ever tried multinational units in combat – usually you have national divisions or brigades fighting under joint allied command.
Its much easier to imagine common Navy or Airforce though and I feel these should be the first steps.
I support an expansion of the Eurocorps, but not a unified European military. European decision-making is too concentrated within the German/French/Benelux elite and I am afraid this army would be used for securing French neocolonial interests in the Sahel moreso than for defending Eastern Europe from Russian military aggression. I think the two things my country should never compromise on are military and currency sovereignty.
Yeah no wouldn’t work
Way too many different ways of seeing the world and way too many different political views. It’s better to have a bunch of friendly armies that are also very strong on it’s own that to have one enormous army with huge communication issues, bad teamworking ablities and poor freedom with hugher reaction time due to more leadership steps.
Also, some countries would have to carry others and it would also fuck up the systems of basically every single country.
Some countries also have higher will of defending the country. So having some countries go like ”YEAH! GO AHEAD, SHOOT THE FUCK OUT OF THOSE RUSSIANS” whereas others are at the back like ”Could Russia please invade us already? Our government sucks, this war sucks, Russia is a better country to live in”
A soldier should fight not because he hates what’s in front but because he loves what’s behind. And I can safely say I do not love EU or any other EU country as much as I love my own. Hell, some don’t even love their own let alone others.
TL;DR: no, it would only cause issues.
Depends. Are you talking about a unified military, as in any soldier from the EU will share the same uniforms, training grounds, MPs etc.? Then no, that will never work. There’s too many different people groups, military cultures and so on for this to work. Besides, what happens if one member has a government which does not like EU or wants to get out? Someone who is hostile to the EU? Would the soldiers have to defend their own country or defend EU?
If we’re talking about tighter cooperation between the different armies (such as participating in exercises, sharing ideas and so on), but still being in your own country’s army, then that is something EU should be much better at. We’re talking improving NATO or maybe have a EU-only equivalent without the US.
As a Norwegian, we are pretty much dependent on someone else coming to the rescue if Russia decides it wants the north. Wether it’s the US or a stronger EU doesn’t really matter.
Would depend a bit but no.
My problem would mainly be that countries like France and Germany would have a huge amount of say in how the military would be used and when. As a result I doubt I’d be used proactively well, they’d just sit in the side until it was too late. It’d be like most UN peacekeeper forces, not doing anyone anything good.
I fear that it would be a mistake to dissolve some countries’ armies that are very well organized and equiped for their national interest, that are often different/opoosed to UE’s interest (like France or Finland) and build from scratch an EU army with the necessary approval of countries that don’t know shit about anything (like Germany mostly but also almost every member of the EU). The worst part is that Germany by its size and economy will contribute financially the most and might want impose bad decisions and there’s a chance that they would want to spend the EU budget to buy weapons “made in Germany”. Germany showed us so many times they would destroy the eurozone or the UE if it Was more profitable for its indusrry go do so (like they almost did by causing and being reluctant to solve the EU debt crisis, same by becoming dependant of Russian gas and recently they are want to become China’s best friend for profits).
Beside I think we can’t forget the United-Kingdom when it comes to the defense of European democracies
As a French citizen I don’t want Germany to have a say in my country’s army (including our nuclear capacity, our aircraft carrier and our interest to operate in Africa and the Pacific). Fuck Them !
I don’t think a fully-fledged EU army is the right approach, but I do support the idea of greater standardisation across European forces. Aligning on things like equipment, weapons systems, and camouflage would make joint operations more seamless and help to reduce costs. Collaboration on new technologies could also lead to a stronger, more unified defence capability across Europe.
Of course, each country has its own budget constraints, so any standardisation efforts would need flexibility to respect individual financial limits. The advantage of this approach is that with compatible systems, countries with smaller budgets could borrow resources from larger allies when needed, creating a more balanced and responsive alliance.
Even better would be to pursue this kind of cooperation and standardisation across NATO as a whole. My only concern there is that, with so many countries involved, the development and production of new technologies could be slowed down. But overall, increasing standardisation could still be a valuable step forward for joint defence.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Depends on what you mean. I’d not oppose for there to be EU unified command for when it’s required or improved cooperation between national militaries. But I very much would oppose abolishment of national military forces in favour of combined European one.
Yes, and I want the UK to be part of it despite Brexit. The US is really putting us in a hard position here, so naturally it’s the best thing to do.
Clearly with Trump coming back Europe will need to rethink our defence strategy significantly as US support for nato is no longer a given.
But I’m not sure an EU military is the answer.
1. There are obviously several key European military allies (UK, Türkiye, Norway) who aren’t EU members. Who need to be a part of common European military planning.
2. I’m not enough of an expert on security policy to know how well the EU coordinates military action currently to know if full unification would be effective or wise.
3. Giving the EU military powers would be a further massive transfer of sovereignty from the member states to a European government. I don’t think you have to be a brexiteer or necessarily anti-eu (and I’m not on the whole/on balance) to recognise that the legal and democratic basis for the EU is murky. A world where the most powerful military forces don’t all belong to state actors is a dangerous thing
No. The current model of cooperative national militaries is the best. The EU isn’t a state and should focus on expanding the military industry, not get themselves involved in military command where the member states and Nato already have it covered.
Not while trojan horses (Hungary) and “neutrals” (Ireland, Austria) can abuse the veto to make it useless.
29 comments
Yes, we should not be reliant on US for EU security, it makes zero sense in the age of Trump and his ilk.
Brit here. Despite us not being in the EU anymore due to the brexiter idiots who voted us out, I would be in favour of an EU military.
The threat from Russia isn’t going anywhere and so anything that can bring the EU closer together would be a good thing. I’m not too sure how it would differ from our current NATO military alliance but I would be in favour of it.
I am.
I have no faith in my western ally anymore and being sandwiched between them and Russia will either lead to us being submissive to one or the other unless we pull our recourses together to form a strong unified defense.
If you asked me a few years ago maybe I would have said no, however between the Russia Ukraine war and trump getting reelected ( who has repeatedly said he wants to pull out of nato and focus on the US only ) we need it now more than ever.
Not sure of a unified army yet, but moving in that direction with further standardisation across European militaries, and a NATO style command structure. Which is close but not quite there.
While Trump will only be another 4 years, no Democrat is going to win supporting NATO, the American people have made that clear. so NATO in its current form is likely over; or if it does limp on will be of no use to Europeans.
Europe will have to defend itself. And it is well capable of doing so.
In general, yes. But there are two big issues:
– not every EU-Member is in NATO and vice versa.
– There is no common EU foreign policy.
It might work if the individual states retain a smaller Military for overseas deployment and the EU military is purely for homeland defense.
Yes. And not even because of Trump, but because if we’re dependent on someone else to defend us then we’re in a perfect position to get screwed over when something unexpected happens.
A unified procurement chain would go a long way. Just to get the benefits of scales rolling. More bang, literally, for the buck.
No need for 20+ different rifles, uniforms, boots, tanks, ships, jets or different air defence systems.
Something like the Nordic Countries are already doing on a smaller scale, like buying the same uniforms.
Added bonus. If you build an ammunition factory in Slovenia, it creates jobs in Slovenia, that makes Slovens happy and less hostile to the EU, provided it is actually sold as an EU project.
Nah, don’t reinvent the wheel. Most countries are NATO-members and already have a unified command structure. More co-operation on procurement to get standardized equipment would be good, although there are a lot of national interests working against this model. -“More bang for the buck”.
Sweden and Finland just ordered a new service rifle together and the Nordic countries are also implementing a standard uniform.
I would, if it became a separate structure on top of our existing militaries. Dispanding our own military in favour of the EU military? No.
What language would the EU military speak? English is the international language but I would like to see the French for example accepting that.
Seeing as how different EU countries seem to be divided I would actually argue for larger national armies, but with increased cooperation, coordination and most importantly, spending, which is already slowly happening. This is a very tricky thing to do, if you want to go in depth, check out the youtube channel Perun who makes high quality videos about military spending and the mechanisms behind it.
My largest argument against EU level coordination for militaries is that every country can veto something, which is not what you want when you want to have a strong unified military unit. I mean, what if a small US state like Rhode Island can just veto a large militairy spending budget, limiting the US’ military actions? cough Hungary cough
The idea of a stronger EU in principle is a good one, but since we are still made up of different countries with different interests first I do not see it happening for now. What is some guy decides Europe needs to be invaded and that one guy knows a guy on the inside that can hinder things? This is what is happening now and all other countries need to have the freedom to not have to be bothered by a very clear mole in the system to be able to defend themselves. That being said, most EU militaries have common weapons systems, plenty of which are also developed on an intra-national level, just not with all EU members involved.
So, we basically already are, just not as unified as a country like the US is, which isn’t as cost effective, but still assures national autonomy and strenght.
In Finland there is strong consensus of importance of military and willingness to server if and when needed to protect our sovereignty. This cannot be said of every EU country, let alone about willingness to protect and serve country you don’t live in. It would also be hugely unfavorable in western European countries that do not share border with hostile country.
I deployed twice with an EU military mission, Op Sophia and Op Atalanta (you can do your own research on these missions) the attempt to merge diverse and sometimes dysfunctional navies fragmented by divergent political ideologies was embarrassing. The operational delivery was close to zero as each nation would ‘chop out’ of a mission if it didn’t align with their own ‘Rules of Engagement’ or the appetite for risk of the home nation.
I don’t care if an opt-in military was created but I would not support Ireland joining. Ireland has traditionally supported the EU as a mechanism for peace building and economic cooperation and given our neutral past, I wouldn’t like us to compromise on our anti-imperialism values for a machine that we would end up playing a very small role in. Seeing the disconnect between different member state’s initial responses to the war in Ukraine and also now to the Middle East, I don’t have the confidence that we could all sit together at a table and agree on a single position for a single military. The beauty of the EU is in its ability to foster cooperation and globalisation while respecting and preserving the individuality of member states.
[deleted]
As much as I support the creation of an EU army, it might be easier to create a new NATO like treaty that would only includes European members, but not limited to EU member states.
Each country would retain and independent military and foreign policy but it would enforce common défense in case of attack.
It could also include a requirement to buy EU produced equipment in priority instead of relying on the US for that.
No. We cannot trust foreign forces that much.
Firstly: a foreign army can be compromised by Russia if pro Russian movements win enough elections. If every country has their own military instead, then only parts of the united front will fall off, never the whole army, when Russian supporters inevitably get into power somewhere in Europe.
Secondly: priorities. Any European army will prioritize the defence of Poland and thus Germany over the defence of Finland. We must have out own army that cannot be withdrawn to defend higher priority fronts in any event, even if the Chinese are attacking across the Oder.
Finally most of Europe just sucks at defence procurement and will to fight in comparison to Finland. We get more for our buck when we use it ourselves and our people is actually willing to fight, unlike most of Europe.
I am in favour in general though I have no idea how are you going to convince people from Portugal, Spain or Ireland to die in a fight somewhere near Polish or Lithuanian border. Army (especially ground forces) require a bit of patrotism/nationalism towards the country you are fighting for. I dont rememember if anyone ever tried multinational units in combat – usually you have national divisions or brigades fighting under joint allied command.
Its much easier to imagine common Navy or Airforce though and I feel these should be the first steps.
I support an expansion of the Eurocorps, but not a unified European military. European decision-making is too concentrated within the German/French/Benelux elite and I am afraid this army would be used for securing French neocolonial interests in the Sahel moreso than for defending Eastern Europe from Russian military aggression. I think the two things my country should never compromise on are military and currency sovereignty.
Yeah no wouldn’t work
Way too many different ways of seeing the world and way too many different political views. It’s better to have a bunch of friendly armies that are also very strong on it’s own that to have one enormous army with huge communication issues, bad teamworking ablities and poor freedom with hugher reaction time due to more leadership steps.
Also, some countries would have to carry others and it would also fuck up the systems of basically every single country.
Some countries also have higher will of defending the country. So having some countries go like ”YEAH! GO AHEAD, SHOOT THE FUCK OUT OF THOSE RUSSIANS” whereas others are at the back like ”Could Russia please invade us already? Our government sucks, this war sucks, Russia is a better country to live in”
A soldier should fight not because he hates what’s in front but because he loves what’s behind. And I can safely say I do not love EU or any other EU country as much as I love my own. Hell, some don’t even love their own let alone others.
TL;DR: no, it would only cause issues.
Depends. Are you talking about a unified military, as in any soldier from the EU will share the same uniforms, training grounds, MPs etc.? Then no, that will never work. There’s too many different people groups, military cultures and so on for this to work. Besides, what happens if one member has a government which does not like EU or wants to get out? Someone who is hostile to the EU? Would the soldiers have to defend their own country or defend EU?
If we’re talking about tighter cooperation between the different armies (such as participating in exercises, sharing ideas and so on), but still being in your own country’s army, then that is something EU should be much better at. We’re talking improving NATO or maybe have a EU-only equivalent without the US.
As a Norwegian, we are pretty much dependent on someone else coming to the rescue if Russia decides it wants the north. Wether it’s the US or a stronger EU doesn’t really matter.
Would depend a bit but no.
My problem would mainly be that countries like France and Germany would have a huge amount of say in how the military would be used and when. As a result I doubt I’d be used proactively well, they’d just sit in the side until it was too late. It’d be like most UN peacekeeper forces, not doing anyone anything good.
I fear that it would be a mistake to dissolve some countries’ armies that are very well organized and equiped for their national interest, that are often different/opoosed to UE’s interest (like France or Finland) and build from scratch an EU army with the necessary approval of countries that don’t know shit about anything (like Germany mostly but also almost every member of the EU). The worst part is that Germany by its size and economy will contribute financially the most and might want impose bad decisions and there’s a chance that they would want to spend the EU budget to buy weapons “made in Germany”. Germany showed us so many times they would destroy the eurozone or the UE if it Was more profitable for its indusrry go do so (like they almost did by causing and being reluctant to solve the EU debt crisis, same by becoming dependant of Russian gas and recently they are want to become China’s best friend for profits).
Beside I think we can’t forget the United-Kingdom when it comes to the defense of European democracies
As a French citizen I don’t want Germany to have a say in my country’s army (including our nuclear capacity, our aircraft carrier and our interest to operate in Africa and the Pacific). Fuck Them !
I don’t think a fully-fledged EU army is the right approach, but I do support the idea of greater standardisation across European forces. Aligning on things like equipment, weapons systems, and camouflage would make joint operations more seamless and help to reduce costs. Collaboration on new technologies could also lead to a stronger, more unified defence capability across Europe.
Of course, each country has its own budget constraints, so any standardisation efforts would need flexibility to respect individual financial limits. The advantage of this approach is that with compatible systems, countries with smaller budgets could borrow resources from larger allies when needed, creating a more balanced and responsive alliance.
Even better would be to pursue this kind of cooperation and standardisation across NATO as a whole. My only concern there is that, with so many countries involved, the development and production of new technologies could be slowed down. But overall, increasing standardisation could still be a valuable step forward for joint defence.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Depends on what you mean. I’d not oppose for there to be EU unified command for when it’s required or improved cooperation between national militaries. But I very much would oppose abolishment of national military forces in favour of combined European one.
Yes, and I want the UK to be part of it despite Brexit. The US is really putting us in a hard position here, so naturally it’s the best thing to do.
Clearly with Trump coming back Europe will need to rethink our defence strategy significantly as US support for nato is no longer a given.
But I’m not sure an EU military is the answer.
1. There are obviously several key European military allies (UK, Türkiye, Norway) who aren’t EU members. Who need to be a part of common European military planning.
2. I’m not enough of an expert on security policy to know how well the EU coordinates military action currently to know if full unification would be effective or wise.
3. Giving the EU military powers would be a further massive transfer of sovereignty from the member states to a European government. I don’t think you have to be a brexiteer or necessarily anti-eu (and I’m not on the whole/on balance) to recognise that the legal and democratic basis for the EU is murky. A world where the most powerful military forces don’t all belong to state actors is a dangerous thing
No. The current model of cooperative national militaries is the best. The EU isn’t a state and should focus on expanding the military industry, not get themselves involved in military command where the member states and Nato already have it covered.
Not while trojan horses (Hungary) and “neutrals” (Ireland, Austria) can abuse the veto to make it useless.