Poland is the new military power of Europe.

Hard to know who that rivalry is between unless you mean France and Germany which is somewhat asymmetrical given that you've conquered them three times (not 3x within living memory nowadays though I'm old enough to remember people who were over 90 when I was a kid who were alive for all 3 invasions).

Generally, it's petulance from the French who are sore losers and still like to think they're a superpower (which they've not been since 1815) and the navel of the world.

There's no reason for a European Army. Europe isn't a country, isn't a unit or a union or an alliance, however we do know how to cooperate when necessary. Our strengths are in our differences. French bloody-mindedness and German inflexible bureaucracy would not enhance the status quo and the closest example of pan-European cooperation which involves most but not all European powers is the EU which is far from being a shining example of flexibility, creativity or efficiency.

There isn't?

We wouldn't need to discuss who beefs up how much.....all would chip in, the burden would be shared.....it would cost each partner alot less to co-own the most modern army.

Actually the other possibility, many beefed up, expensive armies side by side so close in Europe makes no sense anylonger.....


That's why I was talking about an EU-army....and the EU for sure is a unig, a union and an alliance!

It makes sense to add a military option to the close economical and political cooperation, the open borders, the advanced unification....

No, There isn't.


How would that be organised or enforced?


Is that the other possibility? Can armies, navies etc not complement each other without being part of a unified structure?

Think of the British/American arrangement. We do snow, they do deserts. Yet we aren't one army.

...isn't that a common army already? They complement each other, build on different traditional strengths but still work together...these international NATO excercises show that it works...

Mainland Europe doesn't need so many different armies anymore....and nobody would need to feel threatened by a beefed up german military anymore!

Of course not. Why would you think it was? It's simply navies, armies etc cooperating with each other as civilised countries have done for centuries and will continue to do.

If you do think that's what it is, as your post suggests, and you do think that it's positive, why change that?

And who would be in charge, and how would it be governed?

@Bratwurst Boy

By common army do you mean an army being under the command of a single entity or do you mean something like a NATO where each country commands its own military but corrdinates under a common entity?

Every NATO excercise shows that it works and how it works.....every excercise has to have logistics and a command structure, a common language....where is the problem?


I mean something like NATO, just for mainland Europe, the EU.....

We would still be NATO....that would be the global "mother" if you so want....but we need to find a solution for mainland Europe!

Again....every european country maintaining it's own expensive army makes no sense anylonger! Not when we in the EU sharing so much in the meantime, have grown so close!

So let's keep it that way.


None. So why change the very successful status quo?

How do you think AUKUS (or JAUKUS as it is likely to become) would mesh with Micron's 'Euroarmy'?
What proportion of a country,s navy and army would be part of this and what portion wouldn't?

We have a gazillion armies in mainland Europe....armies are expensive....we have better armies and worse armies....modern armies and not so modern armies....where is the sense in that as everybody knows we, who are most members in the EU AND also in NATO, will never fight each other ever again....but we still live in a world of enemies!

It makes much more sense to share the burden and build up one most modern army with much less...something everybody can take part in and profit from!

We don't. We have three (U.K., Poland, France), with Bulgaria and Spain as second tier armed forces and a few minor ones.

What proportion of a country's navy and army would be part of this and what proportion wouldn't?
How much of their army would a country be expected to devote to this?
How much more would those countries with smaller armies need to pay into the common kitty than those who lend regiments?

There is only one...NATO is a fossil that is still trying to justify its existence. That's why good men are dying in large numbers in Ukraine.

You, BB, are too young to remember another snake aka SEATO. Well, that one, mercifully, has been dead since 1977. And guess what happened to Asia since the funeral... Burst into flames? No. Earth shook uncontrollably. Nope. Nothing. How could this be? Any ideas anyone?

I will think some more on the finer details! :)

But I guess what happens now with Europe as consequence of the Ukraine war...and what happens inside NATO because of this...will be quite the game changer....we will see what happens in the next few years.

When the Ukraine crisis is over China is waiting....we will have to bring more to the table as we can now.

And it will always make much more sense to fund a common army than every country having to shoulder their own burden alone....we could achieve so much more, so much bigger than every country for its own!

This question is interesting me the most:

How much of their army would a country be expected to devote to this?

I don't understand what you mean....the costs and burden will be shared....with the promise that this army will be used where it is needed....you mean?

Everybody....just look at a map of Europe....all these borders....so many countries.....even if so many countries have open borders, exchanging peacefully people and goods....but so many armies side by side are still needed? Mak sense? Are the best solution???

Nope!

That of course begs the questions of how burdens are shared and who decides where such an army is used.


Is that a bad thing?

You do seem to be studiously avoiding a very pertinent question:
How much of their army would a country be expected to devote to this?

Maybe it's different for continental Europeans than for UKians?

Otherwise for what else would you want to devote your army to if not for the defense of your own country, for Europe?

For the rules....well....NATO has a two percent rule.....and the EU is working with lotsa more rules....I don't think a common army is more complicated to build than the EU! :)

Especially not as we have NATO to learn how it works....


Well....here in PF the discussions are always hot underway when the armies of different countries are the topic....and some countries seen as "shirker"....even this thread is about Poland maybe beefing up its army....and if other countries shouldn't better follow...

Every country for it's own is for mainland Europe just not the best and frankly not needed anymore....is that so hard to accept for an UKian?

Europe isn't a country though, is it...


Exactly. We have NATO which works well. Why replace that with something else? And of course some countries in Europe have existing commitments elsewhere. AUKUS comes to mind, as does Five Eyes.

You're still avoiding the question of how much of a country's army you would expect to be part of this. 5%? 10%? 25%?

....and still NATO exists....


I dunno what you want from me....the exact plan??? :)

I guess in the beginning there will be different parts, the sharing will be varied, after the possibilities of a country....how should I know. I wouldn't be to surprised if a closer cooperation between european countries is already happening inside NATO....especially regarding Poland, which has become a frontline state once again!

Of course not, since there evidently isn't one except in Micron's dreams.

More interesting is how you envisage this. Since you've been advocating for it here it's not unreasonable for you to explain what you're advocating for, so here it is again:

How much of a country's army would you expect to be part of this? 5%? 10%? 25%? 50% of it, or most of it?

I see the soon-to-be-starting NATO excercise "Air Defender" as good way how a common european army would look and work like....

So much better as so many armies besides each other....that makes no sense!

Perhaps a better way to describe it is as a good example of how NATO looks and works.

So how much of a country's army would you expect to be part of this? A very small part. a quarter? half or even more?

Given that you've posted for an hour on a 'common European army' you seem strangely reluctant to answer that question.

Or would you even want a country's entire land forces to be part of it?

I suspect we can guess your answer.

I told you why.....I have no idea!

But why are you so against a common EU army? UK won't be forced into anything at all....


....and how it works....without belonging to one country....but many different members with surely different shares and yes, even percentages....some of it's members can't even stand each other...

Why not the EU too?

It would surely take some of the defense burden off the USian shoulders...what's so bad about it?

Nobody is in a position to do that.


Since European counties and others already cooperate effectively. Do you disagree with that statement.


Europe is not the EU. the EU is not Europe, there's nothing to stop individual EU member states taking part in joint exercises with each other or with others. What is the benefit in changing a very successful status quo.?

....effectively what?

And of course the answer to the question you've dodged for the past hour is almost certainly that you'd lbe quite happy to see some or all countries having their entire army as part of this.

The EU has 27 members....members which are sharing alot with each other....who are about to unify their economies....twenty of them even share the same currency....with effectively open borders....and with Brussels even a kind of a capital....all markers of an independent nation....lets add to that a common military...sharing the costs so that every country will profit from it....


Thing is as the Ukraine crisis has shown, Europe right now is unable to defend itself and dependent on the US = this status quo is anything but successful, we have to change things!

That's news to the world.


It isn't a nation.

At least you've now admitted that you'd like to see each country's entire armed force merged under the EU (i.e. France/Germany) command.


We're in a defensive pact with them. There's also AUKUS/JAUKUS and Five Eyes. Do you see your 'eu army' being part of those as well as NATO?

That's a lot of alliances.

As far as your "anything but successful" comment goes, NATO is without any doubt, by far the most stable and successful defensive alliance in the history of the world. Why do you think we "have to change" that?

Would you seriously suggest withdrawing from NATO?

That's another thing...."Five Eyes" is only for english language members....curious, isn't it.....

I see a future EU army as part of NATO....a branch if you so want....and why the hell not. It won't threaten the status of UK as US' bestie...:) But I could imagine the US quite glad about it...they are thoroughly sick of defending Europe!

Good night

Is that a problem?

As well as America and the U.K., there are three other of the worlds most stable and successful democracies involved, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and soon to Japan (who may also join NATO though Micron opposes it since it marginalises him further).


Or the continent's foremost armed forces.

We already cooperate a lot with mainland armies, including yours (or rather West Germany's; you did say once but I don't recall whether you're from West or East Germany) who had troops stationed in Wales right through the Cold War.

What we've got works very well indeed and I agree with you that it should develop. Not a unified Euroarmy. Previous attempts at that (HRE, Bonaparte, Hitler) have all been deeply undesirable whereas what we've got now is the most successful defensive alliance ever.

I've a feeling that we'r coming to this issue from two very very different viewpoints and would do best to cordially agree to disagree.

Good night and take care!

That could work.

One of the biggest problems would be instead of dealing with two military bureaucracies, you'd now have to deal with three. There'd be a lot of things getting ground up and bogged down in the jaws of bureaucrats.


Yeah...it could create an environment of mutual haranguing of each other to pump up military might. As an American, that sounds good to me.


I see you are singing in a very melodious voice tonight, BB. :)

Like you said in one of your post, China is on the horizon (Russia ain't squit compared to it and its modernized military and calculating pooitical and economic strategy).