Poland is the new military power of Europe.

@Bratwurst Boy

I like the sounds of all that. NATO can still exist under that makeup-just more balanced and no need for nuclear proliferation.

*nods*....we will observe that buildup and what Warsaw does with it in the end! The possibilities are all there...

@Bratwurst Boy

There's a problem, though, if Poland is the only EU nation that beefs up. For an EU army to work, all of Europe must beed up to some degree.

@AntV

Hmm... maybe this whole war is just an American intrigue to force Europeans to spend more money on their armies. ;)

One issue with that is that the leading European military isn't in an EU country. Premier Sunak is interested in participating in it and they certainly want/need the British on board however public opinion at home (especially among conservatives) is that it's a combination of a vanity project by Micron and a sales opportunity for the German government.

Może...that and for the American arms producers to make gobs more money. Oh, and let's not forget the secondary purpose of weakening Russia to a third-rate shell of itself.

Germany can surely pay it's way out and some of our arms manufacturers are only waiting for more orders....

But Poland wouldn't be alone in an EU-Army....most EU-countries have strong military histories and would like to chip in with people and materials (and money)....but someone needs to make a start....Poland would be a better one than Germany or France, I would say...

But, the point is for the EU army to become a potent enough military to defend its own interest as well as to become an attractive partner for powerful armies such as GB and its smarter, richer, and stronger younger brother, USia.


That is a very good point. There must remain something of a parity amongst all members

....it's also better for the image of such a newly build unified army....if it's NOT seen as a german project....someone of the newer members, not especially of the old core...

The unifying effect will be alot greater!

We have some kind of german-french military already (a brigade)....it plays no role whatsoever, and it surely wasn't the starting point for the buildup of a new EU-Army.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_Brigade

It wouldn't be one.


It isn't an EU army as such; not all prospective participants are in the EU and most if not all are already in NATO. France's role as a NATO member has been complex and chequered, and post-war Germany (or at least West Germany and its successor) has been defended by other armies stationed there without spending much of their own money.

There are already joint exercises within NATO that are led by European countries however the responses to the current r*SSia-Ukraine war haven't reflected particularly well in France at all or on Germany until recently. A lot may change over the next 5 years.

You started well enough, but then you put your British patriot hat back on.

The strongest military in Europe is Turkey. By any objective measure, sans nuclear weapons.

They are not part of the EU. They are Muslims. There is a lot of them - 85 MILLION! They are located much more strategically than Britain.

I would agree however that Britain is number 2 after Turkey. Then France. Then Italy/Poland, etc.

Poland would be ideal to shake things up....

@Bratwurst Boy
Yes. Unless they somehow eff it all up, Poland's role will grow.

Poland still dreaming of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Looking for an opportunity to occupy western Ukraine while being protected by NATO.

@Pawloff
Why would Poland need to occupy western Ukraine? Ukrainian workforce is more then willing to work and earn money in Poland. Same with Belarusians. Poland doesn't need to invade anybody to gain the benefits of her neighbours. Maybe Russia should learn a thing or two from Poland?

For the record, West Germany spent more than 4% of its GDP on defence during the COld War and as a result had the strongest conventional army of all European NATO states.

We disarmed too much later on and are now no longer capable of sustaining a large war. But to be clear here, that is a mistake all Western countries except the USA made and even they massively reduced their capabilities.

True.But Germans need to be thinking less about that "Cheaper Price" and thinking more about why Europe's greatest economic power are such wimps when it comes to defence.

Aside from our history probably due to the same reasons other European countries have downsized their military: Lack of a nearby threat and the wiah to spend money on other issues.

Quite. They have to understand that they don't run the continent and that attempts to cosy up to vicious dictatorships in order to get cheaper oil than neighbouring countries so they can undercut them is something they won't get away with again.

And of course there's no chance there'll be oil sold directly to western democracies by ruzzia for the foreseeable future, certainly decades, and nor will trade with ruzzia return to pre-war levels for a long time if ruzzia remains within its present form and borders.

There's also the issue of ruzzian agents and collaborators in mainland Europe. Their names will almost certainly end up in the public domain with no chance to hide them behind data privacy laws. France and Germany have perhaps the most exposure to this among larger countries and sad to say, there are certainly ruzzian agents or agents of influence in other countries, including PL.


This is true, and we may well pay a high price for being penny wise and pound foolish over the years. Prior to 2022 only a few NATO states paid more than the amount expected, the U.K. and Poland among them, however there were still defence cuts in both places. The U.K. ones were brutal but done carefully and the British Army is certainly still the best in Europe, despite many rather short-sighted changes.

Actually they do it.

And the UK has to pay for the upkeep of its' nuclear weapons too from the same budget. It was both concerning and also admittedly rather gratifying to learn that both the French and British army are in no better shape than the Bundeswehr for fighting a huge conventional war.


To complete the picture, in the UK as well. Russian billionaires loved to spend their money there, and some seem to have had close ties to the Tory party. Not to mention how Russia won their first big disinformation campaign in the UK in 2016.

Massively reduced may be an overstatement, nevertheless reducing is one thing, but reducing to aneroxic levels is completely different.

All of that is water under the bridge at this moment. What matters now is Europe beefing itself up so it can be responsible for the lion's share of its own security.


I'd think from the POV of a unified Europe, that'd be much more terrifying than gratifying.

Well, masively compared to what they had before. They still have a lot, but still much less than during the Cold War.

Probably less than you'd think and do not forget for even one second of your life that those weapons are also there to protect you and your loved ones and that the British Army are exceptionally well-trained men and women who would give their lives for you as well as for me.

And it shows how efficient we are that we can pay for an active and permanently on patrol nuclear arsenal of 260 warheads, a standby one many times larger and maintain the best trained and most effective army on the continent.


You should think about becoming a comedian.

Of course we could always remove our troops completely from your country, suspend military cooperation and together with France, denuclearise and leave NATO. Make sure you take ruzzian lessons first.

@Tacitus

Less doesn't always mean worse. The question is more along the lines of potency and cost effectiveness of military might. What's more potent and cost effective, in general: carpet bombing or precision munitions?

It'd be interest to see where Polish military investment is being allocated.

But, yes, the US is smaller militarily now than during the cold war (at least, I think that's true).


You sound like Joker and JR. :D

You sound like a complete twat!

Germany has for far too long shirked it's responsibilites in order to increase it's economic growth.
And used the excuse of their Nazi history not to build up their military.
BS time is over.
Germany needs to show what it is capable of.

In a way, they're right. The Western Hegemony has its faults however its relatively open democracies and solidarity in the face of those who would change that maintain a stability and freedom that most of the rest of the world has not got, often aspires to and which certain countries (ruzzia and Germany within living memory) have tried to destroy and bring about the opposite.

I have no doubts of their capabilities. They could produce a very lethal force.. But, are they willing? I think they better start beefing up-which is pretty much what I've been saying throughout this thread. However, Germany must also be careful in not beefing up too big-there needs remain some sort of parity amongst the other EUians. In other words, Germany isn't the only Euro country that needs to beef up.

@jon357

But, I'm not sure removing US or UK installations out of continental Euro is beneficial to anyone in the West in the ling run. When us Usians, and I guess you UKians also, call for us to bacate, it's more frustration or offense than good strategic sense.

Which is my exact point. What we've achieved in terms of stability isn't perfect however it's better than any easy to imagine alternative.

There are however a lot of people in France who would very much like that to happen.


Indeed. There's a lot of outrage among U.K. conservatives on this matter, especially about France who sulk and become petulant about not being the leading European power. It's nothing new. In WW1 when British soldiers went to die there by the thousand because they couldn't protect their own borders from the Germans, some French people were spitting at the troops as they went to the front.

We could end that old rivalry with a common army.....