Compelling rhetoric, but only makes sense if EU citizens and states agree on a full-spectrum federal (super)state first.
A European army cannot exist without a European state, a European sovereign, with one political - democratic - chain of command.
There is no consensus on that, so no EU army.
A European army cannot exist without a European state, a European sovereign, with one political - democratic - chain of command.
There is no consensus on that, so no EU army.
Reposted from
Reinier Van Lanschot
27 armies won’t cut it. Relying only on NATO? Too risky. It’s time to fight as one. As Zelensky said: "The time has come for the armed forces of Europe to be created."
Let’s unite and take action!
Let’s unite and take action!
Comments
No? Whatever shall we do :P https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Z51no1TD0
You make a fair and valid point, but they’ve anticipated it.
So, the logical conclusion to break out of this rhetorical circle is to support federalisation.
It’s time.
The priority now is European defence, not European integration.
There’s nothing more important now than deterrence via hard military capabilities…
1/3
There may be some scope to optimise and share key military assets (strategic airlift, etc) but we’re avoiding the elephant in the room - nuclear deterrence - which requires a single, unified command…
2/3
Our job now is to make the case for a unified military command, & to highlight that federalisation is the only way it can be done.
3/3
Otherwise it’s undemocratic.
A beefed up Frontex with serious capabilities would complement at first and then replace MS mils.
The reasoning would be that national guards are what current MS militaries will turn into while Frontex aka the “EU gendarmerie” would over time develop to become the federal military.
Starting with a core scope and capabilities that includes intel, SOF, logistics, procurement etc.
Whilst I agree with your notion, I consider it too binary. There's a huge spectrum between no EU army and a fully federal EU army.
When we say "army" we don't mean army as you define it.
There's nuance in this question. And there's many steps that can be and will be taken towards defence integration in the EU.
I also believe a EU army is currently just a pipe dream, and I doubt it will come to fruition anytime soon if ever, but why would it necessarily require a federal state as opposed to countries agreeing to cede powers re defense, as is the case for monetary policy?
NATO 2.0 can exist too, with whatever FLA people want.
A silly debate.
Bottom line for an army to happen are 2 conditions: Big enough external threat and “Are we willing to die for each other (as Europeans)”. The next few years will show us re the latter
But your broader point holds very much.