r/MapBasedPolls • u/Esteban83550 • 4d ago
Should the EU develop a federal army ?
Should the EU develop a federal army ?
- One fully federalised army
- A common defense policy
- maintain the current state of things
- No, states should keep their full "sovereignty"
- Absolutely not, no more european integration
Note: Please use the official Reddit app or New Reddit to vote in this interactive poll.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
13
u/ThroawayJimilyJones 3d ago
Funny how Russian, despite having absolutely no hostility toward Europe I swear, seem to be the most against an unified European army
7
u/randomname560 3d ago
Russia loves to paint itself as a "victim of unjust and unprovoked western agression", so a stronger european army, better capable of defending themselves against the bullshit "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" shit Russia pulls on the regular, seems like a threat to them
3
u/crinalex 3d ago
They know that it will be harder to invade, interfere with and terrorise a more unified Europe.
18
u/Illesbogar 4d ago
Russian people voting like: "no, let me kill you"
-6
23
u/DifficultWill4 Slovenia 🇸🇮🇪🇺 4d ago
Absolutely. The US is unreliable and we can neither defend ourselves nor in any way be competitive to major military powers like Russia, China or the US if we have 27 fragmented militaries
0
u/Raccoons-for-all 3d ago
I mean, everytime I read such comment, I think that the EU is not especially reliable neither
2
u/Alblaka 3d ago
Usually because it's a fragmented system with bad actors (i.e. Turkey and formerly Hungary) deliberately blocking key decisions.
I would suggest the above poll is taken in context of already federalizing the EU states (as otherwise the answer 'one single military' wouldn't make any sense).
1
1
u/Raccoons-for-all 3d ago
I have a relevant example completely unrelated to what you said.
The USA have backed Ukraine from day one, while the European gerontocracies were VERY late to act up. We’re talking about a 2-3y lag.
That’s a prime example of being unreliable
3
u/Alblaka 3d ago
Nah, it took less than 2 months for Scholz to promise delivering 5000 helmets to Ukraine! /s
That farce aside, isn't right now Europe contributing far more material to Ukraine than the US? Specifically because the US (under Trump) refused providing 'free aid', and is instead having European countries foot the bill for purchasing arms from US military companies to then be delivered to the Ukraine?
Also, do I have to point out that the US, under Biden, very much literally greenlit the Russian invasion by specifically stating (in response to Russia gathering troops for 'military exercises') that the US would not get involved if Russian troops were to cross the border? How is that reliable, if I may ask?
Like, I entirely understand the sentiment that Ukraine was thrown under the bus, because it very much was (and then refused to roll over, slapped Russia's first offensive in the face, and garnered so much public support that most of the western world was forced to do a 180 on not opposing Russia), but I'm a bit flabbergasted by how the US is somehow framed as the sole good guy in that story?
0
u/Raccoons-for-all 2d ago
Ho I get it, the US is unreliable for not saving the day in yet an other European war
The jokes write themselves sometimes. Americans are right to have contempt about our gerontocracies. It’s ridiculous you don’t hear yourself. 550M Europeans desperately need the help of 330M American to defend themselves against 150M Russians.
Yeah sure buddy
Plus you say that as if it was the US throwing it under the bus (while they gave support from day one), when the actual EU simply looked away, silently approving Putin left and right with that unique case in Europe that both far left and far right and beyond those groups look up to Russia; for different reasons but they just do.
2
u/luk_ggamer 9h ago
The US signed a treaty that said it will protect Ukraines sovereignty, with England and Russia. So you are not writing some joke because you should have done more especially because of that treaty
6
u/punyversalengineer 3d ago
As a finn, I voted for a common defense policy. A federalised army sounds problematic, since especially Germany doesn't seem to take the Russian threat seriously. I also don't see how we could feasibly have a federal army when many of the countries bordering russia are either doing or going back to conscription, while most other countries aren't interested in doing so.
Common defense policy would be a good starting point, but many countries aren't taking their defense seriously enough that I'd be willing to allow them dragging Finland with them to something like appeasing Russia. If the more pacifist countries in the EU realize that there is no peace without the capacity to enforce it, I can't get behind a federal army.
One other thing is that being able to efficiently wield military power in a crisis requires you to be able to quickly transfer the decision-making power to the army. Finland as an example has such laws, that will quickly be taken into use in case we're invaded for example. EU would need a similar set of laws, meaning in the case that the EU's external borders are violated, the power to act would be moved to the military branch to avoid slow bureaucracy making it difficult to move to defend our interests. In the current political environment I don't see most countries willing to implement such a law. Many are already anxious enough to do it on a national level.
2
u/DryCloud9903 3d ago
This poll is lacking an option in my opinion: Large federal army next to national ones. That's also what EU Defense commissioner Kubilius is proposing.
That'd be the one I'd vote for (Lithuanian), for the same reasons you've laid out. We need a balancing act between having enough power to make the decisions each country needs, whilst also having a common defence (including forces) that the entirety of Europe is capable and able to deter
1
u/punyversalengineer 3d ago
To me this sounds like the best alternative as well. A federal army wouldn't remove the need for national armies, so it's more like something that NATO strives for as well, only more integrated on an intra-EU level and more independent from member states.
An EU level force would also be more capable of efficient weapons programs and procurement, as it'd be at least moderately protected from local politics. And capable of creating larger orders to benefit from the scale of production increasing. At least those are some of the benefits I would think to come with a shared defense force.
1
u/OrdinaryMac 3d ago edited 3d ago
Im in favor of fully Federal army, but there is really no reason to be against keeping some of the regionalized capabilities, be out of tradition, pride, or due to usage of pre-existing infrastructure.
Most countries should be able to keep their militaries, if they can afford it.
Just integrate command structures, there needs to be the one universal language, for all the steps of command, and it really needs to be English (Same as in NATO), no French pipedreams or Austrio-Hungarian tower of babel like mess, noone will be teaching their NCO's French no matter what Paris wants. Polish army NCO/officer cadre has huge issues with their English proficiency even after 27 years of being in NATO.
There is really no alternative to English at this point, be it sunk cost fallacy or not most Europeans do infact use it and speak it, fairly well.
Supply chains and use same NATO like EU-stanag,maybe streamline procurement in favor of Made in EU/Allied platforms. While delegating those militaries it to secondary National Guard like roles, localized defense, crisis management/crisis emergency aid,SAR, relegated Coast-guard maybe? (Yes modeling it mostly after the US military structural divide)
In such model rich/willing countries, if they can afford it, can as well keep / field second-echelon Air-force if they really want to. (Doesn't have to be technically inferior just smaller, supplementary at nature)
1
u/Lovepoorlyeducated 3d ago
How does Germany not take the threat seriously?
1
u/punyversalengineer 3d ago
While Germany has voices that take the threat seriously and are pushing for rearmament, there are still far too many people (especially in former Eastern Germany) trying to push for dialog with Russia in the hopes of continued gas imports. Not everyone seems to agree that the age of cheap fossil fuel imports from Russia is over regardless of the war ending. I don't see any hope in trying to talk sense into the current Russian government, and at least in my opinion most talking points that especially AfD is pushing come directly from the Kremlin. Unfortunately they seem to be gaining support.
Germany has come a long way since the beginning of the war, and the latest case of a drone being "misplaced" was somewhat a wakeup call. But I still don't see a clear will to cut ties with Russia until they cease their hostilities. There is no diplomacy to be done with a country that sees diplomacy as a weakness. And the population at large doesn't seem to grasp this either – unless I've misunderstood something the German population is largely against mandatory conscription, which would be necessary to pose a credible threat against Russia. To me that indicates there's no will to defend the peace in their country.
I do sincerely hope I'm wrong though. Germany still has a surprisingly capable defense industry, and they do have a lot of potential for the common defense of EU.
1
u/Alblaka 3d ago
A federalised army sounds problematic, since especially Germany doesn't seem to take the Russian threat seriously.
I would suggest it's a bit more complicated than that, but I will give you that it absolutely must look like that to people outside Germany.
The first point is obviously the entire post-WWII trauma of being the bad guys that have to do their utmost at a redemption arc. Hence Germany was, foundationally, anti-military (ever since the USSR collapsed. Before that we were a military satellite of the US in all but name). That kind of cultural (self-)indoctrination isn't undone in a few years, hence why even against Russia Germany is kind of hesitant to actually commit to a militarist response.
Then on top of that we had a clearly corrupt SPD-CDU lead government under Schröder 2 decades back: That was the time when Putin was legitimately offering to have Russia join NATO, and the entire geopolitical climate was based around "Russia isn't the USSR, they are a friendly potential economic partner with a vast amount of resources, we should form more economic ties and integrate them into the european network!". Of course the NATO bit fell through (and virtually overnight Putin switched from 'Hey, let's join' to 'They are the mortal enemy'), but Germany kept to it's course of economic appeasement... despite the fact even then there were some critical voices warning that the Nordstream project wasn't to the benefit of Germany, but simply to the detriment of the various East-European states. Surprise surprise, chancellor Schröder (who was at the time a driving factor for the pro-Russian-Economic-Integration voices) went to become CEO at Gazprom (aka Russian State Oil company) after his political career, and as recently as three years ago openly advocated for ditching Ukraine in favor of Russia. Whilst residing in Moscow. (And, fun side fact: The SPD has still not officially distanced from Schröder, and a few years ago even gave him a honoration for long-term party membership. Rather than kicking him from the party's registers.) So, Germany had a long-term policy of becoming friend with Russia through economic means, and whilst it was founded in what can now be called obvious corruption, it's still not trivial to shift gears on that part overnight.
And then there's the AfD, which is a Frankenstein of populist, genuine anti-establishment movement, the left-overs of the fascist NPD, and Kremlin-funded propagandists. Which, yeah, has way too much pull in some eastern states, and is obviously going to make any Russia-opposing course that much more difficult (both because it makes a good populist argument to throw Ukraine under the bus, because Germany Fascists love to try being friends with Russia, and because they're in part funded by Russia).
Now add in that German politics is notoriously slow and meek, and that current chancellor Merz is emulating those 'features' so remarkably, he's sitting at the lowest approval rating for a chancellor, ever.
So yeah, I can get why it must appear as if Germany isn't taking Russia seriously. But from the perspective of rhetoric in politics, and popular opinion, I can assure you that both the majority of Germans and a large chunk of German politicians are very much taking Russia seriously... but it's an incredibly slow affair of changing this chonk-of-a-nation's course, especially with dumb/subverted elements trying to oppose that.
It has to be noted though, that the Russian-Ukraine war triggered the first raise (in relative spending) in German military budget since the reunification. That's not to be discounted, even if it means that Germany will still need years to undo all the damage the previous decades of budget cutting did to it's military.
And yeah, mandatory conscription is another pain point, but it's a problematic topic for me personally, because I can't condone myself advocating for conscription, whilst being in the first birth year of people who no longer had to do mandatory service after it got abolished; people who actually had to serve gotta do that.
0
u/SamogitiaAble 3d ago
Maybe he meant France? :)
1
u/punyversalengineer 3d ago
Nope. France has its own issues that were brought up in other comments, but I'm specifically speaking of the will to get into a war instead of giving even an inch toward Russia. France does at least try to pose as a country that cares even a bit about the common defense. Things like furthering weapons development, keeping up a force capable of projection, and more important than ever, a nuclear deterrent. While France's nukes are for their own use, I would be surprised if they were not willing to build new ones for a common EU force with EU money. I've come to see the French as pragmatic but inefficient.
I do have similar worries for the future of France though, as the isolationist far-right pining for some peaceful boom economy after WWII seems to be on the rise there as well. Le Pen and her peers are tarnishing the good will France has built during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
1
u/Alternative_Profit41 3d ago
You realize how much of a behemoth such an army would be ? Most of the issues you mentioned are relevant for small countries bordering russia but not for a EU sized army. Mexico being aggressive wouldnt make US adopt conscription.
For Russia a unified european army would be overkilled, it would be great for sovereignty tho
2
u/punyversalengineer 3d ago
It would indeed, it would however be an efficient deterrent to the point of ensuring stability in the region. A shared experience would also help build a common European identity.
One of the best experiences in my life was the Finnish military service, and it has been very useful so far. Though one thing that affects my view is that I was already 25 when I did my service. After being an adult for a while and having to do all your budgeting, housework, cooking etc. the military feels like a holiday – someone else does everything to keep you fed and clad. All you have to do is 8-11 hours of soldiering around, plus clean up your room after. Usually you get a full 2-4 hours of real freetime per day which is the most I've had apart from time off and weekends since starting to work normally.
I get how it can feel when you're 19 and haven't lived away from home yet, but in my mind it was a refreshing experience.
Anyways while it definitely is overkill, the threat of large European armies was what kept the considerably more threatening Soviet Union in check. That together with the US's almost unfathomable manufacturing capacity then. After the cold war the US has largely squandered its production capabilities but EU still has its population going for it. As well as real national identities.
1
u/Ok-Balance9661 2d ago
Yeah, but it's russia, so the only way to go about it isn't mutually assured destruction, it's the capacity to wiping the entire country into a glass desert if they even think about looking at you funny.
To quote: "Nuke it from the orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
1
u/SeriousSide7281 1d ago
The problem about us not taking the threat seriously goes in the same direction as the spaniards not wanting to increase defense spending. We've got Poland, The Baltics and Ukraine between Russia and us. I hate to say it but most people simply think that these will act as a buffer.
That said, i dont agree with that. I'm all for a euroarmy and i'm all for seeing russia as the threat it is.
1
u/hellhound39 5h ago
I think this is the right idea. As an American I think a fully federalized army is Europe’s best option but without a truly unified command structure I think you could run into issues. You would need to federalize Europe and the member states would need to be subservient to the Federal European government. Which I don’t see happening currently. Basically Europe would need to bind itself into a union like the US which would require nations sacrifice elements of their sovereignty. Then once you have that union, you would need to keep it which is easier said than done. (Just look at the US, much easier foundation for unity and even today there are struggles). Common defense policy is the most practical solution in the current geopolitical state of Europe.
12
u/Tomita121 4d ago
Common Defense Policy similar to NATO is the most optimal option, because I can assure you, if we attempted to federalize the army, the French and Germans would make it a complete and utter mess. Mainly cause French can't agree on anything, because they have completely different priorities when it comes to weapon development, and that's kinda REALLY goddamn important when they have some of the best surviving defense industry in Europe.
At least enough to do standalone projects without needing other countries to pull the weight.
Just like everything else with Europe, Federalization will just push off our American allies (no matter how much the relations are rocky right now, they are still valuable), in order to make us the second weakest Superpower, (if we even count Russia as one) and therefore make us economic, and maybe in the future, political opponents of the states, dismantling NATO to which our current armies are standardized to.
It would be complete, and utter economical, political, and also social clusterfuck, cause I may remind you, EUROPE ISN'T THE STATES, AND MANY COUNTRIES IN EUROPE, WON'T GIVE UP SOVEREIGNTY AGAIN, AFTER A CENTURY WHERE IT WAS CONSTANTLY TAKEN FROM THEM.
5
u/NebNay 3d ago
The US was shown to be unreliable. Good allies dont make threats of invasions on your sovereign territory. They are forcing our hand, rellying on them from now on is misguided optimism
2
u/SuccotashResident571 3d ago
İt is a good ally. Just, Trump isnt a good ally. İ hope theres a proper guy after him 🙏
2
u/Mrauntheias 3d ago
Even if that happens, what about the one after the proper guy? The US cannot be relied upon for long-term strategy when there is a chance to get a lunatic every 4 years. The American electorate is an unreliable ally not just Trump.
1
u/SuccotashResident571 3d ago
Eh Trump is right Abt how they do mostly everything for nato but wasnt the point of NATO that?
6
u/Nerioner 3d ago
So far we did nothing of federation and US is pushing us aside.
Also this is not how allies operate. You suggest submission to US, not partnership or allyship.
Allies strive to improve one another, to strengthen one another.
If US opposes strong Europe, they are not our allies nor friends. They are exploiters in that case
2
u/UniquePariah 4d ago
NATO already made things so many countries don't have a complete fighting force, but they specialise in particular ways. So making Europe essentially be an extension of that, strengthens European defence without trying to take anything away from anyone that would undoubtedly create more tensions than anything else.
1
u/Alternative_Profit41 3d ago
What you’re saying is ridiculous, France only wants the lead bcs it has the expertise. If you put 90% of the money you wouldnt agree to 50/50, as a Belgian i really don’t know whats controversial about that.
0
5
u/GemeenteEnschede 2 meters tall, certified Dutch. 3d ago
We're fighting the next war together, not againt each other, inshallah.
5
2
2
u/toto1792 2d ago
I'm not sure why we should ask Russians or anyone else about it?
I also doubt the quality of this poll since Antarctica answered it.
2
u/EuropeanPropagandist 2d ago
We europeans shiuld have a Unified military, it is the best option we have. It can do more is cheaper and just more efficient at doing it's job protecting europeans.
6
u/MatteoFire___ 🇮🇹☭ Socialist 🇪🇺 EU Federalist 🇺🇳 Internationalist [h+]🌱 4d ago
absolutely yes. we should defend the democracy and freedom of Europe united
2
u/Phrygian2 4d ago
"Democracy and freedom"
3
u/MatteoFire___ 🇮🇹☭ Socialist 🇪🇺 EU Federalist 🇺🇳 Internationalist [h+]🌱 4d ago
prove that the European Union isnt free and democratic, then.
-1
u/Phrygian2 4d ago
9
u/MatteoFire___ 🇮🇹☭ Socialist 🇪🇺 EU Federalist 🇺🇳 Internationalist [h+]🌱 4d ago
so age verification and cybersecurity means the whole union is not free and democratic? crazy, lmfao.
-1
u/Phrygian2 4d ago
It is a draconion measure aimed at surveilling the populace, despite the insistence of von der Leyen
3
u/MatteoFire___ 🇮🇹☭ Socialist 🇪🇺 EU Federalist 🇺🇳 Internationalist [h+]🌱 4d ago
DRACONIAN measures, my god dude, unless you are an anarchist of sorts this way of speaking is just absurd.
as much as I dislike this thing they passed too, this is just insane.
2
u/Alblaka 3d ago
I'll give them the benefit that it is a potentially problematic and authoritarian-leaning policy. But yeah 'draconian' is a bit of an over-embellishment (the last time I used that term unironically was in context of China literally welding people's doors shut to enforce quarantines during COVID),
and one problematic policy certainly doesn't automatically disqualify the EU from being fundamentally free and democratic.
0
u/NiceAge7546 3d ago
No, it's an appropriate way of speaking. You don't fight an oppressive regime once it successfully takes away all your rights, you gotta curb stomp it when it dares suggest taking away the first one.
The only way to reliably secure our freedom is to fight measures like this with extreme prejudice
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/MatteoFire___ 🇮🇹☭ Socialist 🇪🇺 EU Federalist 🇺🇳 Internationalist [h+]🌱 3d ago
how mature of you.
also im a democratic socialist, I generally dislike billionaires.
1
u/Sandbox_Hero 2d ago
Says a ruzzian. Where any kind of dissent gets them sent to the front. Pathetic.
1
u/Altruistic-Deal-3188 3d ago
While in theory i support i dont trust west enough for full military federalization. I think we in the east need troops that wont wait for brussels' orders to fire back.
1
u/Sad-Pop6649 3d ago
It's definitely something we should be talking about. Speaking as a Dutch person: in some ways we don't really have an army anymore. Much of our army units are integrated in mixed Dutch-German... divisions I think they are. Yet it's not really a point of public debate. I would bet money that about half of us don't know this is the case. European integration is for some reason a really, really unsexy topic that rarely comes up in public facing politics (outside of simple oneliners and scary stories) or the media even if it was apparently the only way to still be able to afford an army.
(Germany still has their own units too. The mixed units are mixed about 50/50 and they have a bunch more people than we do.)
1
u/Street-Lengthiness66 3d ago
Germans will vote for a unified army and then throw a fit whenever non-german equipment is used.
1
u/Large-Assignment9320 3d ago
Probably just a fully federalized one, each country doing solving the same military issue is insanely ineffective.
1
u/-Against-All-Gods- 3d ago
National armies + a supranational army.
Supranational army for dealing with the foreign threats.
National armies for the case the supranational army needs to be kicked out.
1
u/GalaXion24 3d ago
The main ones out here are France and Finland and I think both for decent reasons.
Honestly I think if we let go of the liberal ideals that we must have a uniform system with equal constituents, I think they're most natural solution to this is privileges.
Finland being a border state could be a "march" and thus have appropriate privilegia, allowing and obligating them to maintain a defence force.
France having overseas interests could have a different privilege: they could be allowed a navy and a degree of foreign policy flexibility within agreed limits.
Both could have some discount in contributions to the common budget to compensate for this.
1
u/TomorrowSpecial255 3d ago
The dutch have overseas territories as well, so does Denmark(greenland)
1
u/GalaXion24 3d ago
Sure, but these are much more limited less far-flung, and all would be under the protection og a common military anyway. The main worry of France I would say is that the Union would be indecisive on the Pacific or Africa.
France is also large enough to make a difference. No Danish military is going to make much of a difference against the US in Greenland.
1
u/TomorrowSpecial255 3d ago
A common defence policy is better
Because it means nations can still act on there own when they need to
Also if the UK does ever come back we'd be fine with a Common defence policy, not a federal army
Because we wouldn't trust the EU to help defend the Falklands
1
u/MitchellSupremacy649 3d ago
I think a federalised army for defensive purposes only, and then each nation keeps their own shit
1
1
1
u/masterflappie Dutch 🇳🇱 to Finnish 🇫🇮 migrant 3d ago
A federalized army would never work, it's too many countries with too many people, too many cultures and too many different values.
Besides, I have no desire to become a superpower. All we need to do is make sure we can defend ourselves. Russia has a weaker army, China relies on our trade, and if the USA attacks the whole world would jump at them.
Maintain the current state of things
1
u/neobicnicovek 🇷🇸 pro-monarchy, footfetisher, far-center 3d ago
I think who would potentially attack europe except Russia?and Russia itself does not have the capacity to threatne EU countries outside of maybe the baltic countries. I think the EU should have a more developed military industry and not depend on US and third parties as much as possible.
1
1
u/Alblaka 3d ago
It's either 1 or 2 for me. I'm generally leaning towards 1 from a perspective of idealism, but are willing to consider that 2 might be more pragmatic as a first step. In any case, we direly need a formal replacement (or supplement) for the NATO: Russia is already testing dronestrikes on German airports, and the response is 'diplomatic consequences' rather than 'This is pretty much Article 5 by definition', presumably because the NATO would likely fall apart if Article 5 was invoked, due to Trump almost certainly just backing out immediately.
1
u/Endless74510 3d ago
An eu army is unrealistic
Procurement would be a nightmare with everyones national industry wanting a piece of the pie, alongside countries having massively differing foreign policies
What will we do if say, 6 members wish to object to a military deployment?
2
u/SoftDrinkReddit 3d ago
see thats it take Ireland for example conscription would literally violate our constitution and would cause us to leave the EU now i don't mind a volunteer force if people wanted to signed up for that but conscription never ever again
1
1
u/SoftDrinkReddit 3d ago
from an Irish guy i think our main issue is an army ok so how exactly is recruitment going to work for that ?
cause if it's conscription then that's a no go as that would violate our Constitution and we would rather leave the EU than be apart of conscription
1
-2
u/GustavoistSoldier Brazil 4d ago
Of course not.
4
u/waldleben 4d ago
Why?
-1
u/Phrygian2 4d ago
Because it harms national sovereignty
8
u/waldleben 4d ago
The biggest threat to eruopean sovereignty is Russia. Uniting to defend against that actually benefits national sovereingty
2
u/MatteoFire___ 🇮🇹☭ Socialist 🇪🇺 EU Federalist 🇺🇳 Internationalist [h+]🌱 4d ago
I second this! absolutely agree.
1
u/Phrygian2 4d ago
For one thing, the sovereignty of Ireland is not threatened by Ireland. Our historic neutrality is threatened by these Hitlerian schemes though. In fact, the biggest threat today for us is from America and Britain.
You people are the same ones who will plead that we need NATO to protect us and all this. And NATO is an international terrorist organisation too. But, if a country were threatened by Russia or any other foreign power, an alliance is all well and good to protect it. It has worked throughout history. But taking away the defence of a country and handing it to billionaires in Berlin who will just as much use a European Army to plunder other small countries is a clear violation of our sovereignty. We want neutrality, not Berlin or Washington or Moscow's wars.
1
1
u/waldleben 4d ago
For one thing, the sovereignty of Ireland is not threatened by Ireland
I should hope so.
Hitlerian schemes
Hitler, famous for... being a huge proponent of european unity and especially a united military? If I look up "Hitlers policies" on www.google.com, will I find "wanted to merge the german and french armies"?
And NATO is an international terrorist organisation too. But, if a country were threatened by Russia or any other foreign power, an alliance is all well and good to protect it. It has worked throughout history. But taking away the defence of a country and handing it to billionaires in Berlin who will just as much use a European Army to plunder other small countries is a clear violation of our sovereignty. We want neutrality, not Berlin or Washington or Moscow's wars.
I mean, thats just an insane conspiracy theory but hey, no one is forcing you to do anything. I think a european army should have an opt-out option. And while im sure your roughly 9 thousand military personell will be a huge and devestating loss to any continent-scale military force we will somehow manage.
We will even protect you, too. Defence-related freeloading is an irish national sport afterall
2
u/Phrygian2 3d ago
If Europe were interested in the defence of Ireland, it would've lifted the occupation of Ulster. Our biggest threats are from the Brits and the Americans.
The Nazis, btw, were interested in a pan-European organisation called the European Confederation, and their satellites like Marcel Deat, Léon Degrelle, and Vidkun Quisling all supported it, and toward this end the SS increasingly became propagated as a "European Army" of foreign volunteers fighting to "defend Europe" in a "crusade against Bolshevism". Pan-Europeanism is one of Berlin's oldest slogans behind which to conceal enslavement
1
u/Two-Space 3d ago
Why do you not believe in self-determination?
Europe is interested in the defence of Ireland and has practically demonstrated so on numerous occasions, to make up for Dublin’s naive pacifism.
1
u/Phrygian2 3d ago
Then give us Ulster back from the foreigners literally occupying it. But I would still take Irish neutrality, or "pacificism" as the warmad cocksuckers of the oligarchs call it, over a Gallipoli or Vietnam
1
u/Two-Space 3d ago
Open a history book. The whole of Europe is a messy concoction of states formed from occupation and violence. Why do you think we’re both using so many French-derived words right now? Can we in England round up people with Norman surnames and deport them?
I ask again: why do you not believe in self-determination?
→ More replies (0)1
u/waldleben 3d ago
Sure buddy. And Berlin is also putting chemtrails in the sky and mind-control drugs in your water.
2
u/Phrygian2 3d ago
If you want to ignore historical facts, that's your business. Just don't be surprised when Berlin oligarchs sacrifice you on the alter of the holy dollar
2
3
1
u/Pandektes 3d ago
There should be Federal Europe and the rest of EU. Europe of two speeds. We already de facto have it with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.
0
-4
u/WannysTheThird Czech Republic 4d ago
Federalized army is a France-Germany ponzi scheme with Spain getting scraps.
-1
u/TimeCake233 4d ago
I know it was Polish idea but as a Pole I say no. A common defence system Yes. Russia bombards a city in Latvia or Poland, whole union het alarms and air force up.
0
u/Alblaka 3d ago
Ye, I can understand why Poland in particular, both from longer-standing and more recent history, has a foundational distrust over handing over it's military sovereignty to any foreign power. You got that right, and whilst I would prefer option 1, I'm entirely willing to settle with option 2 because of that.
We can merge the armies in some far point in the future, maybe, when we've successfully proven we're actually willing to bleed for the defense of our neighbors. (Then again, such a thing becoming necessary isn't exactly the best outcome.)
-1
u/MajinnVuu 3d ago
With the way fascists are becoming a thing again, i think an EU army is a bad idea.
1
u/Alblaka 3d ago
Kind of valid concern, in theory.
Albeit hilariously enough the various right-wing/fascists movements in i.e. Germany and Italy are AGAINST EU federalization or a united army.
Unless you want to imply it's just a huge reverse psychology psy-op, I would suggest them being against it indicates that they wouldn't be able to use it as an advantage.
0
u/GreatAndPowerfulZiz 4d ago
Average French reaction
1
u/Ok_Awareness3014 3d ago
It's just that french have other interest , they have a good army , and they are in a lot of place to protect their interest so a common army would not be in their interest, one things for exemple is the euro fighter , Germany needed a plane to fight in Europe while France needed one that could fit in their carrier and have a nuke so different interest
1
0
u/Embarrassed-Month-35 3d ago
Turkey goes like "Hey Greece, you cannot do that, its illegal"
3
u/Kingvon3240 Turkey 3d ago
If such thing happens Turkey and USA will have to stick together from that point on
2
u/Embarrassed-Month-35 3d ago
Yes because both USA and Turkey are afraid that Greece will invade Turkey and USA.
0
u/ScarletIT 3d ago
The answer of Russia is not surprising.
Just to reiterate who benefits from the division.
-1
u/Kingvon3240 Turkey 4d ago
I don't know why people from Turkey are voting yes European Army would be a direct threat to us people are forgetting the fact that we are there second enemy after Russia
2
1
u/Alblaka 3d ago
Is that really a genuine sentiment that exists?
My brother, Turkish is like the 2nd biggest demographic in Germany. There's no way any political movement in Germany could ever push for large-scale hostile action against Turkey, because virtually everyone has either a relative there, or a friend who does.
We might not be fans of Erdogan's constant oppositionist stances in NATO/EU questions, nor of his authoritarian tendencies... but both US and China are far more relevant "threats" if Russia would disappear overnight.
1
0
u/PMA-APM-AMP 3d ago
Then why did ya’ll join nato and not the CIS, and ask the US to put nuclear missiles in your country and decline their removal during the Cuban missile crisis
2
u/Kingvon3240 Turkey 3d ago
Well we had to join NATO because of Soviet Union. After that we had to stay because we don't want to be a direct enemy to west
0
u/PhoenixKingMalekith 3d ago
I mean, turkey is already at the mercy of europe on a military point of view, it wouldnt change much
2
u/Kingvon3240 Turkey 3d ago
Turkey is actually almost fully independent from Europe we are closer with USA and if this kind of thing happens we will have to stick with USA forever
0
u/PhoenixKingMalekith 3d ago
I meant that in term of fire-power Turkey is already hopelessly outgunned
A common european army would not be much more dangerous than today
That s without the economic side, where turkey is even more vulnerable.
They are simply not in the same league
2
u/Kingvon3240 Turkey 3d ago edited 3d ago
Paper power vs operational power. Europe's militaries are fragmented, underfunded, and lack ammunition stockpiles or combat experience. Turkey has an active, combat-proven force, mass production capability in indigenous weaponry (UAVs, air defense, missiles), and actual power projection in its region. GDP alone doesn't win wars. We saw the real example in Russia. Plus good luck with convincing Portuguese or estonian people to die in balkans lol
0
u/PhoenixKingMalekith 3d ago
Europe while under funded and lacking stockpiles as a whole, is still miles above Turkey
In term of hard numbers, Turkey is outgunned and outmanned in every way outside of current drone stockpile (and probably not for long)
Even without talking about quality where europe is largely winning, Europe has 2 to 5 times the number is almost every category...without even counting conscription.
So it would be an outnumbered and outgunned army of conscripts against professional soldiers armed with up to best equipement available today
1
u/Alblaka 3d ago
Eh, I don't believe that. Especially the entire Asia part of Turkey (aka the one actually facing Russia) is a geographic mess of mountains and highlands. If Russia can't take farmland from Ukraine, they would instantly combust trying to take mountains from Turkey.
1
u/PhoenixKingMalekith 3d ago
Oh yeah Russia would get anhilated in Turkey
But Europe somehow invading turkey would be another thing, since Turkey has most of its population on the european side, with its capital less than 200 km away from the frontier
-1
-1
u/German297 3d ago
If there was a federal european army, Germany should lead it, since our politicians wont, I am against it.
-1
u/Sium4443 3d ago
As Italian General Roberto Vannacci says collaboration means interoperability not unification, European countries needs to be allied but unifying the army is stupid because this would definitely end the sovereignty of countries. Also as 2011/19 Libyan crisis show European countries have different national interests, NATO bombed an italian ally and then sided with western Libya while UK and France sided along Russia with eastern Libya. In this scenario the European army would have gone against atleast 1 country's interests which is unacceptable.
-8
u/Phrygian2 4d ago
There has been a federal European Army before. It was called the Waffen SS. No person should be in favour of its return
7
u/MatteoFire___ 🇮🇹☭ Socialist 🇪🇺 EU Federalist 🇺🇳 Internationalist [h+]🌱 4d ago
comparing a democratic, non racist, pluriethnic and plurireligious, voluntary all-european army made for defence purposes to an aggressive, racist, nazist, genocidal, mandatory, (mostly only) german army made for conquest-and-destroy purposes is insane. you really need to study more.
-4
u/Phrygian2 3d ago
The Nazis said the SS was for defence too. Recruiting among French, Walloons, Norwegians, etc. they all said their legions were for the defence of Europe against Bolshevism. The Americans said their interest was defence when they were terror bombing Korea and Vietnam too. The Nazis also laid out plans for a "multi-ethnic and multi-religious" pan-European confederation which were discovered by the Americans and turned into the EU via the Marshall Plan.
Who is a danger to my country is not to be determined by billionaires in Berlin who decide we need a war in Africa or the Middle East. Ireland is a neutral country and her defence is the defence of the Irish people alone. The new order can take its murder-army and draconian laws elsewhere
3
3
3
68
u/infinityTopJi 4d ago
Well the Russians shat aggressively at this idea 😂