There are 18 battalions, including:
*14 battalions with ~1,500 soldiers
*4 battalions with ~2,500 soldiers
right as we speak.
Why would it be so bad to increase these battlegroups to say 40 or 50, which would means say 100,000 soldiers were ready to use for joint EU missions?
And then deployments would be done by decisions by the EU Council. If countries disagree with a deployment, their battlegroups would not take part.
Just so you know, an individual battlegroup is not composed of soldiers from all 28 member states, it is basically a battalion of one or a group of EU states which remain under the national states' command - but they agree to cooperate as part of the battalion.
>>68099939
Dubs
>>68100336
What is dubs?
>>68099939
its just, like, a bunch of different units from different regions, with different languages and loyalties are not going to be able to work together nearly as effectively as a group from the same country with shared language, experiences, group values etc, it is more of a political symbol of peace and unity than an actual military instrument, and the EU has far more useful things to spend money on in the spirit of international unity than military
in practice NATO does whatever the EU army would be useful for, and the US pays for most of it
>>68099939
Maybe because it wouldl be expansive, right now only France has something that looks like a real army in Europe and EU coutries don't have many common things to defend together?
>>68100896
shit, muh typos
>>68099939
Because they will be used to rescue and escort shitskins, not kill them.
because we don't want a failed union to have a military power it can exploit
>>68099939
The eternal cuck is at it again
>>68099939
An unelected group controlling an entire continent's military, whatever could go wrong?
>If countries disagree with a deployment, their battlegroups would not take part.
Oh boy.
>>68099939
NO. because that means there would be a way to defend sweden in a possible invasion.
i hope sweden is invaded and BTFO
>>68100689
I am not sure you really understand how the Battlegroup work. Not all of them are from several states. Some are from one state only.
And English is a must for officers in all of Europe.
There is a French Battlegroup, there is an Italian Battlegroup, a German Battlegroup, a British Battlegroup, a Spanisch Battlegroup.
And then there are 2-combo battlegroups without a language problem: the French-Belgium Battlegroup, the UK-Netherlands group, the Czech-Slovak group, the Nordic group.
And yes, there are a few groups with language programs, for instance the German led group which includes Austria, the Czech Republic, Macedonia, Croatia and Ireland. But those groups have worked out in practice in the past with embedded soldiers from smaller countries e.g. on the Balkans.
My solution to all this would be if we increase the battlegroups to 50 with an average strength of 2,000, I assume that bigger countries such as Germany can provide several battlegroups, while smaller countries such as Austria can provide 1 battlegroup, potentially aligned with Germany... or Greece can do 1 battlegroup itself.
>>68099939
Because the EU (as is) is not a democratic Institution. Why whould I even think about giving the commission an army?
It should be a independent (i.e. outside NATO) military alliance, but that's it.
French and British will never give up control of their armies (and British are out soon anyway).
>>68100938
>>68100896
Stop the meme that only France has soldiers. There are 28 countries in the EU, all of which have soldiers and every single one of them could at least create 1 Battlegroup.
Battlegroups do not replace national armies, they are battle ready battalions which can be deployed to NATO missions or EU missions alike. It is an organizational and cooperation matter, ... and it would force certain countries to spend a little more to keep the battlegroups in shape.
>>68100475
Hello newfriend.
>>68099939
Because it further increases the power of the EU.
The EU of today is the USA of the early 19th century and they are just waiting for their Civil War equivalent so they can subjugate national governments.
>>68099939
Fuck off, Germ. Even if the EU and a joint European army sounds good on paper (which I'm not even sure it does), you ruined it for everyone by making it your private stage to get your shitty policies through. It does not represent European interests, only yours.
Nobody else in Europe wants to live in the cuck paradise you've envisioned for yourself, so the sooner the EU - as it currently exists - gets dismantled, the better.
>>68101090
>Because they will be used to rescue and escort shitskins, not kill them.
You do know there are EU missions right now? By far not all of them are there to "rescue and escort migrants".
>>68099939
eu has no army per se. First politicians decided not to fund army anymore, because it costs too much money and they can steal the money themselves.
Now many countries cant afford big armies because they must pay refugee salaries
>>68101312
>>If countries disagree with a deployment, their battlegroups would not take part.
>Oh boy.
Why do you "oh boy" me? This is current law in the EU. If a country does not want its sodliers to take part in an EU military mission, that country isn't forced to supply soldiers. That has happened countless times.
Why is that "oh boy"?
>>68100689
This.
No way are Greeks going to fight on the same side as (God forbid it happens) the Turks.
Germans and Italians?
French and anyone...
And also
>decisions by the EU Council
Yeah, fucking EU bereaucrats are well know for keen decisiveness in a crisis.
Anything military will be a joke - Belgium handwringing about lawfulness, France surrendering, Italians eating, and Germany falling over itself to welcome the invader... etc.
Meanwhile, muslims enter and take Europe
>>68099939
>Just so you know, an individual battlegroup is not composed of soldiers from all 28 member states, it is basically a battalion of one or a group of EU states which remain under the national states' command - but they agree to cooperate as part of the battalion.
That won't last for long.
Same shit they pulled in the US
>Don't worry we will just borrow your state militias till the end of the war .......
107 years later we still have not got them back
>>68101663
You just posted proof why EU missions are completely useless and waste of funds.
>>68101507
It is not the EU commission which commands the EU battlegroups. It is the EU Council which agrees on EU missions ... and the EU Council is made up of the governments of the state. And if one disagrees with a mission, that country does not take part.
>>68101801
>EU military makes us strong!
>but you can opt out at any time, don't worry
So what's the fucking point? The only military forces worth a damn in the EU belong to Britain and France. All of these pansy faggots are going to just skip the latest war/quagmire and leave it up to the heavy lifters as usual.
>>68101816
>No way are Greeks going to fight on the same side as (God forbid it happens) the Turks.
They have done so in the past every time NATO started some war.
Dude what's wrong with an EU army?
Dude what's wrong with relaxing borders?
Dude what's wrong with centralising power just a little bit? :^)
Dude what's wrong with removing all state-level democracy?
Dude what's wrong with joining Europe together as one state?
Dude c'mon it's just baby steps I mean what could go wrong?
>>68102016
>You just posted proof why EU missions are completely useless and waste of funds.
Explain yourself. Quite some of those EU mission actually help to stabilize regions. See Mali or Chad.
>EU
>Army
When will this meme end?
>>68102393
When the EU dies in the next year.
The only allied European military will be against Germany in the inevitable third world war those fucking cucks start.
>>68099939
Because I, along with millions of other patriotic Europeans, don't recognise the EU nor wish to serve under the command of Mutti/Juncker.
>>68102258
>So what's the fucking point?
The concept of the battlegroup is not to create a centralized EU army, it is there to force EU member state to come up with necessary funding to deployable battalions. One problem there is, as you say, that a lot of EU states have armies which have zero deployable and battle ready units.
>The only military forces worth a damn in the EU belong to Britain and France.
That is unfair. The Danish, the Swedes, the Spanish, the Italians, the Dutch, the Germans etc. all actually can fight and have soldiers which can be deployed. HOWEVER, if you force them all to spend more money on coordination and have ready battlegroups, that is a good thing, because yes, they all do not enough.
> All of these pansy faggots are going to just skip the latest war/quagmire and leave it up to the heavy lifters as usual.
Hence, that is the point of expanding the battlegroup concept. This way, the small countries cannot just chicken out and hand the responsibility to Britain and France.
>>68099939
An EU army by default destroys the fundamental principle of a sovereign nation. Once you no longer have an army, you are nothing but a vassal state.
The EU is an attempt to turn Europe into a single non-white 'multicultural' country. Like america, but without the white people.
Why can't you Germans fuck off with your globalisation?
Because you people are ashamed of your history you shouldn't try and kill our nations too
>>68102393
>>EU
>>Army
>When will this meme end?
I do not quite understand your opposition to EU battlegroups. Russia should be delighted that EU members step up and for instance take a more active role in the fight against radical Islam in the Middle East and Africa.
Russia's and the EU's military interests in Islamic countries are completely 100% aligned.
>>68102742
>That is unfair.
hahahahahahahaha.
That's life, Klaus. Not that anyone in Europe should trust your country to protect anything.
>Active personnel: 178,573
>>68102751
>A FUCKING LEAF
But even the leaf gets it.
Not only will this posturing cause concern for our bordering countries (see crimea conflict), it'll also be a cause for concern for countries going against the grain.
Would YOU trust a German-led military force to protect YOUR country?
Remember: The Krauts are born continent wreckers.
>>68102556
>Because I, along with millions of other patriotic Europeans, don't recognise the EU nor wish to serve under the command of Mutti/Juncker.
Nobody asked you to serve under the command of Mutti/Juncker.
But the concept of expanded battlegroups asks the Dutch to put up some money to create a Dutch, deployable battlegroup, which - for instance - could be used in a mission to Libya to protect the EU borders from migrants.
Why is that bad? Why is it bad to force your own country to support your own army and navy so it is actually usable?
>>68103061
>could be used in a mission to Libya to protect the EU borders from migrants.
The only thing the EU should be doing for these migrants is shooting them.
>>68102899
Yes i'm sure Putin will be delighted to hear the news of an EU, which have interests in Ukraine, mobilize an army.
Because the European Union must be dissolved
>>68102030
Then there is no point. If countries want to start a joint operation they can already do so.
There is no reason for this to exist and it will only lead to intimidate smaller member states
>>68102903
>>Active personnel: 178,573
It is being increased right now and shall reach 200,000 or 2.5 soldiers per 1000 people.
Yes, America has more active personnel with 1.3 million people, but that is only 4 soldiers per 1000 people. Is that really that much more?
>>68103047
Not a single of the "refugee welcome" people serves in the German armed forces. Germany has had troops deployed in Afghanistan, in various African countries, in the Balkans and is currently having troops and advisors in Iraq and Kurdistan.
So what are you talking about? Are you supporting the Kurds with modern guided anti-tank missiles (MILAN) like Germany? No, you handed your anti-tank missiles to the Islamists which are now in the hands of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
There is no feasible war I could see where an EU army would be beneficial. Britain can defend itself adequately. Globalisation and centralisation is the enemy. I hope we leave he EU anyway.
>>68099939
Simply put we're not unified. And do you really trust the EU council to make decisions like that? Maybe a council consisting of generals might do the trick but for now I think NATO is enough.
>>68103061
Why do you assume that the only way to create an effective army is by joining those battlegroups?
Also, it's funny you're using the Netherlands as an example, their military has a much better size / effectiveness ratio than the Bundeswehr.
>>68099939
the EU itself is a monstrosity and must end.
>>68103224
>It is being increased right now and shall reach 200,000 or 2.5 soldiers per 1000 people.
Well golly gee that sure is powerful.
>Is that really that much more?
America's military budget is larger than the next 7 countries combined. Our technology is what wins wars (thanks for the nazi science by the way).
>>68103127
>The only thing the EU should be doing for these migrants is shooting them.
Be realistic. What the EU is debating right now is to get the EU naval campaign in the Mediterranean deployed into Libyan waters and push back all the fugees there right back to the Libyan coast. That, however, requires consent by Libya. But it is what is being negotiated right now.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/18/refugee-boats-david-cameron-early-intervention-libya-migrants-mediterranean-eu-leaders
----
Cameron said the EU rescue mission in the central Mediterranean needs to be expanded so that the international operation’s boats work with the Libyan coastguards to send boats back to Libya.
Cameron is extending the deployment of HMS Enterprise on anti-trafficking operations in the central Mediterranean at least until the summer.
Under Operation Sophia, the international rescue effort in the central Mediterranean, smugglers’ boats are being seized and destroyed, but the mission is operating in international – rather than Libyan – waters.
A UK government source said: “We think Operation Sophia has achieved a lot in terms of bringing the numbers down … but one of the challenges the operation has is that it is still only operating on the high seas.
The source said that at the moment those picked up on the high seas were taken to Italy, but there could be an agreement with the Libyan government to return people.
>>68102899
>EU's military interests
Oh boy...
>muh ebil russia
>muh crimea
>>68103459
>What the EU is debating right now is to get the EU naval campaign in the Mediterranean deployed into Libyan waters and push back all the fugees there right back to the Libyan coast.
Now will that happen before or after Europe is Merkeled?
Don't you realize that every nation in the EU hates you for what you are doing? Fucking Krauts don't even know they ruin nations.
>>68103133
>to hear the news of an EU, which have interests in Ukraine, mobilize an army.
The battlegroups of the EU have existed for more than a decade. There is no "news".
The EU actually has a military mission in Ukraine right now.
Having said that, I personally think that it is a disgrace that EU states such as Germany do not allow Russia and Eastern Ukraine to hold a free and fair referendum if they want to unite.
>>68102314
Some conflict with sand niggers isn't exactly an actual war. Even then they weren't fighting together (both of our units were rarely near each other).
>>68101090
NATO already does this.
>>68103424
Military budget is meme, John Johnson. It does not apply to reality.
>>68103190
>Then there is no point. If countries want to start a joint operation they can already do so.
But for 60 years EU countries have NOT just slacked off on the big brother NATO and not invested in deployable battalions.
the whole EU battlegroup concept is great because it forces ALL EU memberstates to cooperate and spend more money on defense.
Lmao fuck off Germany, we're crashing this union with no survivors come June.
>>68103539
>military mission in Ukraine right now
Source?
>>68103642
>forces
Fuck you. We are sovereign and we will choose our own path. The European Union must be dissolved.
>>68103642
>forces
>coorperation
Listen to yourself
>>68103711
any member state of the union is not sovereign.
this is fact
>>68099939
>Why is an army acting on behalf of mother Merkle at the rest of Europe's expense that bad?
>>68099939
An army for the EU in it's current shape (with all it's corrupt leaders) is irresponsible. We would be fighting for a lost and corrupted case.
I am however a supporter of a European military alliance instead of NATO. NATO is totally controlled from Washington D.C. so where are getting our share of neocon wars too. A European military alliance is better because we share a geopolitical agenda. The conflict in Syria needs to be solved and our borders need to be locked. If we had a European alliance we would've taken care of this, but NATO doesn't care about our borders and the EU has a globalist corporate agenda.
>>68103751
They should be.
>>68103751
He specifially said it must be dissolved my fellow souvlaki.
>>68103760
T A X H A V E N
A
X
H
A
V
E
N
>>68103459
>That, however, requires consent by Libya.
And this is why you should never put EU politicians in charge of military operations.
Libya is a failed state, it has no legitimate government to speak of, and they're still worried about maintaining an appearance of legitimacy?
Meanwhile, if a sovereign member state like Poland does something they disapprove of, Brusselniks don't shy away from using false propaganda, economic pressuring and dubios smear campaigns against them.
>>68099939
Because fuck Brussels and fuck you.
>>68103416
>Why do you assume that the only way to create an effective army is by joining those battlegroups?
I do not. I am saying that expanding the battlegroups puts pressure on ALL EU memberstates to contribute. Right now, a lot of smaller countries just leech off the bigger ones.
>>68103416
>Also, it's funny you're using the Netherlands as an example, their military has a much better size / effectiveness ratio than the Bundeswehr.
I have responded to a Dutch guy above.
Let's use Ireland or Austria or Finland then. All of which could provide a 2,000 deployable battlegroup. Such battlegroups from smaller countries could be used for UN peacekeeping missions to relieve the forces initially used in a mission - such as French or British forces. Why would that be bad? Why should the small countries not have to contribute?
>>68103696
Please do. Pretty please.
>tfw Brits are deluded and will stay in.
>>68099939
We are not a star on somebody else's flag.
>>68103424
Even Trump says that military spending in the US is wasteful for many reasons.
And I acknowledged that America spends more and has more active personnel.
>Germcucks are so pathetic they want an EU army
Eternal Kraut wants to protect shit skins again, what a surprise
>>68103798
Yes me too above, just wanted to give some emphasis to it.
>>68103796
ofcourse, but this is the union we have now.
>>68099939
Because want the EU to die.
>>68099939
because it will incorporate muslims and africans and asians and whoever. They'll give foreigners who do millitaru service EU citizenship. The US does this A LOT. Whole platoons of africans, or puerto ricans.
An EU Army would be a foreign army that could march around the whole continent.
Don't worry, probably nothing you all do could stop it.
>>68099939
>being part of the cuckold army
>good
I bet that the only thing such an army would do is facilitate the import of mudshits. So yeah, go fuck yourself.
>>68103597
>John Johnson
¡Ay caramba!
>>68103947
>tfw flying out to Bulgaria this afternoon
See you soon friend
>>68103535
>Now will that happen before or after Europe is Merkeled?
Hopefully before. You may check that Merkel is also pushing for that Libya pushback mission.
>>68103535
>Don't you realize that every nation in the EU hates you for what you are doing?
I realize that they hate Merkel for having Germany as a magnet for fugees. But we are turning it around right now, there are no more fugees coming for the last 14 days. It is a start.
>>68103881
>for many reasons
The main one being that we are still paying for your pathetic cuck nation to not be added to the Caliphate next week.
Germans are scum and deserve everything that is coming to them. Fuck you for ruining Europe AGAIN.
>>68099939
Why would you spend more eu moneys on activating sleeper battalions during peace?
If EU survives long enough for a war then it will have more.
>>68104015
are you diaspora? or are you a tourist, in which case where are you visiting?
>>68099939
In the same way that the EU in general puts undue strain on those countries with a strong economy, an EU army would put an undue strain on those countries with a strong military. Britain gets fucked both ways.
>>68104033
>there are no more fugees coming for the last 14 days
>>68103700
What is EUAM Ukraine?
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/euam-ukraine/index_en.htm
>>68104079
>Germans are scum and deserve everything that is coming to them. Fuck you for ruining Europe AGAIN.
Did you already forget the refugee thing is done by your George Soros and your NGOs? I mean, come on, even the "Merkel Plan" was written by you.
>>68101648
This
>>68104117
Tourist.
Sofia and then on to Veliko Tarnovo. Expecting good things, it will be nice to see a homogeneous white country for a change.
>>68104145
>What is EUAM in Ukraine?
A civilian mission. Not a military mission as you said.
>>68103751
>any member state of the union is not sovereign.
Define "sovereign".
Is any country which is part of the UN or WTO or a free trade agreement etc. "sovereign"? Every single agreement that includes cooperation reduces sovereignty. It is not a black and white thing, it is grey and always has been grey.
>>68103061
Why is it bad?
Because we're Dutch, that means we are the kikes of all Germanics. We always have our own agenda and serving an entity like goyim isn't our thing.
>>68103830
>Libya is a failed state, it has no legitimate government to speak of, and they're still worried about maintaining an appearance of legitimacy?
The EU has recognized one side in Libya as the legitimate government. In order to keep things legal we need their consent. To get their consent, we, however, actually need to support them with weapons and money to kill ISIS.
>>68099939
because then they can force shit on countries who refuse and revolt
you cannot fucking joke about EU gaining even more power it definetly doesnt need nor it deserve it anyway
>>68104079
>The main one being that we are still paying for your pathetic cuck nation to not be added to the Caliphate next week.
I would be the first to argue that the US leaves Germany. I think it is a disgrace that the US still has occupation troops in Germany.
>>68104095
>Why would you spend more eu moneys on activating sleeper battalions during peace?
I want each memberstate to actually have its own army and navy and airforce battle ready. What is so bad about that?
>>68104314
>we, however, actually need to support them with weapons and money
We did that once, now there is civil war
>>68104132
>>there are no more fugees coming for the last 14 days
read and weep
http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/country.php?id=502
>>68104186
>Bulgaria
>homogenous white country
Not really, we have gypos, and especially in Sofia there are some mudshits and some vietnameese, but the good thing is people are very anti-PC so casual racism is a thing.
>>68104230
>Because we're Dutch, that means we are the kikes of all Germanics. We always have our own agenda and serving an entity like goyim isn't our thing.
So?
What does this have to do with forcing you to create ready and deployable battlegroups as part of your army, airforce and navy so that if there is a conflict and your government agrees to participate in a mission you actually have forces ready to participate?
>>68104486
>We did that once, now there is civil war
What happened is that we supported them and then left them to be fucked once Gaddafi was killed. It was a shit move and exactly what we did in Iraq.
>>68104651
>left them to be fucked
m8, they fucked themselves. These aren't western countries. They are muslim countries filled with different sects that grasp for power. If you really think we can or should control who is in power in those countries you truly are deluded.
Who should we support in Libya then?
The Council of deputies?
The General national congress?
The touareg forces?
>>68104891
Again, we helped them topple a long standing government which ruled Libya and had stability for decades.
Then we said "job done" and left. And this devastated country of course wasn't being rebuilt and radical Islamists had it fucking easy to conquer parts of Libya and smugglers love Libya for getting migrants to Europe.
We were wrong to leave them alone and now we better man up and move back in.
>>68104569
We don't care Abdulaziz.
We care so little that we got rid of our tanks.
>>68102314
We never ACTUALLY fought alongside Turkish troops, in fact, it was really discouraged since Turkish special forces and Greek special forces are very nationalistic with greater loyalty to their respective countries than to NATO.
>>68105202
>man up and move back in
Jesus, have you learned nothing from the previous incursions in the middle east?
We have been supplying different groups throughout the region with money and weapons for decades now. IT DOESN'T WORK.
And for the eu military thing it just seems like you have a naïve view on the EU as an institution that is capable of anything but fucking it's projects up for itself. Luckily the EU is slowly but surely crumbling, no memberstates feel a sense of "union", everybody except Germany, France and the eastern european states want out. There is no cooperation, there is no legitimacy in the institution itself. It is undemocratic, nepotistic and an echo-chamber for the political correct elite. The collapse of Schengen at this point seems inevitable. Most of the problems in Europe isn't solved by the EU, most of the problems IS EU.
Good luck with your EU army mobilization.
>>68099939
Germany. This is the third fucking time. STOP DESTROYING EUROPE.
>>68105830
>We have been supplying different groups throughout the region with money and weapons for decades now. IT DOESN'T WORK.
That is why I am saying we need to go back in, not just provide money and weapons.
>>68105830
>There is no cooperation, there is no legitimacy in the institution itself.
And yet we had EU battlegroups for over a decade and nearly 2 dozen EU missions under the EU common defense policy. Explain that.
>>68102390
>Mali
>Stable
Pick one.
>>68106006
>We need to go in military
Sure was a succes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The presence of Western military forces sure is widely loved by the muslim crowd.
>>68105938
>Germany. This is the third fucking time. STOP DESTROYING EUROPE.
Stop this meme.
First time around, it was the Austrians and the Russians who started the shit.
Second time around we were trying to defend Europe from being overrun by communists from the East.
And the third time around we are now closing all the foreign EU borders and trying to set up a system to defend Europe from illegals.
And it is people like you who are unconstructive, just because you want to keep your mayonnaise on your fries instead of using ketchup.
>>68106223
>implying Austrians are different from Germans
Austrians are the brain and you guys are the brawn, that has always been the case.
>>68106133
We are in Mali right now. Guess where Mali would be without the EU helping down there in Mali. At least we are not doing what the US is doing ... wipe their asses and say "here is some shit, that is all we give about whether Mali is another failed state".
>>68106170
>Sure was a succes in Iraq and Afghanistan
The problem in Iraq, as everyone knows, what the dissolution of the Bath party and the Iraqi army.
And the problem in Afghanistan was the idiotic US attitude that you cannot make politics with local warlords, but need to kill everyone who isn't for "freedom and democracy".
Libya is avery different animal. The towns and cities are all at the coast and that country is just a few km away from the EU. It is in all our interest to get in there and secure the coastline together with the help of local forces there.
>>68106397
So you want us to become an America 2.0, we destabilize n shiet?
>>68106223
not a meme. merkel is more evil than history makes hitler to be. her policies have literally changed the face of europe from white to black
>>68106501
>So you want us to become an America 2.0, we destabilize n shiet?
No, I want the EU to actually protect its borders. And in order to protect the EU borders we need to project power because no one else will.
That includes sending battlegroups to Libya and to other countries in Africa and the Middle East, if necessary to stop the illegals coming.
Not sure why this is even controversial.
>>68106470
>"IT WILL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME!"
It will go as it always go > we support so-called "moderates" > moderates will be labelled puppets of the jew-supporting Western world > guerilla war against western forces and the so-called moderates will ensue with wide support from the populace > we will be there for years with no real progression > leave > civil war
>>68106703
Beating 3rd world shitholes isn't projecting power Ahmed, having aircraft carriers is...
The biggest problem is that the EU government is completely unresponsive to the will of the citizens of the EU.
Also, you need to very clearly establish: What's the difference between a unified EU command and NATO? EU command and UN forces?
>>68101663
>>68102390
Mali was essentially a french operation with NATO logistic help. And is that really the big win you want to hang your hat on?
>>68106397
You're skipping a very important question on under what conditions should Europe as a whole be intervening in countries half a continent away.
There's also a second question, which is how much of the role of your military is for defense of the country/continent, and how much is a mobile social aid program and UN 2.0?
>>68099939
If you have to ask, you'll never understand.
>>68099939
>why don't you hand over more control to a buerocratic nightmare?
>>68099939
because it will all come from us and france. why should we pay for your security, kraut?
>>68106949
>>why don't you hand over more control to a buerocratic nightmare?
That is not what I said in the OP. I said the battlegroups should be expanded. The battlegroups are NOT run by the EU, but by the member states.
It is just the case that e.g. the fucking Austrians would also have to support a battlegroup in Austria and if e.g. there is a UN peacekeeping mission in Libya, the Austrian battlegroup may be deployed there to keep the peace... after Germany, the UK and France fought the Islamists there.
>>68106703
At this phase of the game, I don't think you could even get the EU to agree on a unified coast guard/border patrol, much less any consistent policy in North Africa..
>>68099939
also 18 batallions is fuck all. absolutely useless in a real war.
>>68106781
>Beating 3rd world shitholes isn't projecting power Ahmed, having aircraft carriers is...
Most stupid statement on this thread yet.
Spending billions on some meme aircraft carrier does nothing to actually secure EU borders and keep illegals out. Actually sending ground troops to Libya does that at a fraction of a cost from some meme aircraft carrier.
Do you think Russia projected power into Syria through its military mission through an aircraft carrier?
>globalist army that fights battles for international entities for the elites agenda and doesn't give a shit about the people actually affected
GLOBALISM YES
>>68107138
Securing the EU borders isn't a hard thing, but you're not projecting power to send these immigrants home, you're projecting power against the other GPs. Securing borders would be easy if you weren't so "humane" and shit.
>>68106838
Mali was pretty much an exclusive EU-African intervention led by France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Serval
People are hesitant towards anything that would empower the EU at the expensive of the member states.
>>68104228
Maybe there. But here we see Merkel on TV saying A and B and we know our gov will accept A and B and do it, regardless of their own agenda and the public opinion on the matter.
>>68106317
Jorgos here is right yknow?
>>68106838
>You're skipping a very important question on under what conditions should Europe as a whole be intervening in countries half a continent away.
Based on a discussion in the EU council and an agreement between EU member states to intervene. If a country says "I don't like this one", that country does not participate.
The EU battlegroup concept is not one to force countries against their will to wage war. It is one to provide the resources in all EU member states to potentially participate if they agree to do so in a specifc conflict.
>>68106838
>There's also a second question, which is how much of the role of your military is for defense of the country/continent, and how much is a mobile social aid program and UN 2.0?
0 on mobile social aid program and UN 2.0. Plus, the EU battlegroups are not supposed to work as "defense" but as an intervention force. That is the whole point of them.
>>68107275
What are you talking about, it was a french intervention
The only EU related thing in that intervention is EUTM Mali, which isn't involved in combat.
>>68107040
>because it will all come from us and france. why should we pay for your security, kraut?
Right now the battlegroups do not come from the US at all. And between France and Germany, Germany supports more troops in the Battlegroups. So what is your point?
>>68099939
Who leads it?
Then who stops every single other country in the mix from being absolutely furious when it isn't them in charge?
These two questions alone would bring it down, never mind the fact that you have no common language so you'll have communications slowed down by the need for every order to be translated by each nations particular branch, thus rendering the concept of an EU army completely moot as you'll still have each country commanding their own military otherwise they'll have a catastrophic loss of unit cohesion.
Basically the only people who think an EU army would work are singposting to the world that they are completely and utterly retarded and militarily incompetent.
>>68101549
>Stop the meme that only France has soldiers.
It's not a meme.
Only 2 countries in the EU have real projection capabilities: France & the UK
>>68107435
That the German armed forces are completely shit, on top of that the US is pretty much the only member of NATO that has the logistical backbone to keep their armies operating for a considerable period of time.
So even on a national scale Germany has a trash tier military, never mind actually performing wartime operations.
>>68107063
>I don't think you could even get the EU to agree on a unified coast guard/border patrol, much less any consistent policy in North Africa..
We already have a mission at the coast of Libya. And all EU states are in agreement to pursue a policy to work together with Libya to actually do more and also get into Libyan waters.
So your point is completely against the facts.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/france-says-more-eu-talks-on-libya-crisis-1458304885
Several EU leaders warned this week that the number of migrants crossing from Libya to Italy would increase once the Balkan route, which starts in the eastern Mediterranean, is shut down. The EU this week tied up a deal with Turkey aimed at stemming the number of migrants traveling this eastern route.
“What we want to do now is to try to take it to the next stage of going into Libyan territorial waters,” Mr. Cameron said at a news conference. “It is important we start planning now. The better we do in closing down the eastern Mediterranean route, I suspect we’ll see more pressure on the central Mediterranean route.”
>>68107106
>also 18 batallions is fuck all. absolutely useless in a real war.
That is my whole point. The Battegroups need to be increased to 50, or about 100,000 deployable troops. That would actually be a force which can be used in regional conflicts such as Libya or Syria or Iraq or Ukraine or in several African countries.
>>68107554
>We
>Libya
Germany is not involved in Libya you retard.
>>68099939
>giving a single penny to germans
>>68107416
>he only EU related thing in that intervention is EUTM Mali,
Wrong, see pic related.
>>68107275
>EU-African
eat shit faggot it's our operation do your own shit instead of stealing other
>>68107456
>Who leads it?
Common decision by all EU states in the EU council. Those who disagree with an intervention do not have to take part.
As to the individual battlegroups, they are commanded by the battelgroup commanders, the BRitish battlegroup is commanded by the Brits, the German by the Germans etc.
There is cooperation between them just as in NATO operations.
>Then who stops every single other country in the mix from being absolutely furious when it isn't them in charge?
Reality. Look at NATO. If a NATO country says "I don't want to be in that operation" then the others do it together.
>>68107701
So basically Germany played the part of taxi drivers.
Yeah everyone else get's to risk life and limb just as long as you get to hide in the rear with the gear eh Hans?
>>68107701
Those are individual countries supporting the intervention, not EU.
>>68099939
Because your militaries suck.
I'm sorry, but it's true.
Anyone who has experienced it knows.
>>68107542
>That the German armed forces are completely shit, on top of that the US is pretty much the only member of NATO that has the logistical backbone to keep their armies operating for a considerable period of time.
Thanks for making my point about the EU battlegroups. The whole point about setting them up is to have a sizable number of troops that can actually be deployed with a logistical backbone in various EU countries. There are standards for EU battlegroups, they need to be deployable and have the logistical backbone. And if you increase the number of EU battlegroups, then a lot of smaller countries but also Germany or Spain etc. will have to actually invest in equipment, structures and personnel to get these battlegroups into a state so they could actually be deployed abroad.
>>68107638
>Germany is not involved in Libya you retard.
The largest ship in the Libyan operation is German. WTF are you talking about? The German flagship is right there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Navfor_Med
A number of assets have been deployed:[3]
Italy: mission flagship Aircraft carrier ITS Cavour
Belgium: Karel Doorman-class frigate Leopold I
France: La Fayette-class frigate FS Courbet
Germany: Braunschweig-class corvette Ludwigshafen am Rhein & Berlin-class replenishment ship Frankfurt am Main
Slovenia: Svetlyak-class patrol boat SNS Triglav
Spain: Santa María-class frigate ESPS Numancia
United Kingdom: Type 23 frigate HMS Richmond & Echo-class survey ship HMS Enterprise
Historical[edit]
Germany: Berlin-class replenishment ship Berlin
Spain: Santa María-class frigate ESPS Canarias
>>68099939
BECAUSE we here in freedomtown might have to slightly increase our military spending to remind you that no matter what youre irrelevant
>>68107842
>Those are individual countries supporting the intervention, not EU.
What the fuck are you talking about? That is my whole point. EU states supported France. Just as EU battelgroups are supported by EU states and under the command of EU states.
The EU is not some abstract superstate, the EU is made of 28 INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES.
>>68107806
>Eu
>Common decision
Wow, okay that's actually even worse, Germany is absolutely adamant that they'll keep taking refugees pretty much indefinitely despite the protestations of absolutely everyone else in the EU.
Actually NATO doesn't get involved in most conflicts because they have concrete rules that basically state unless a NATO member comes under direct invasion or willful attack by a foreign power then it's down to the nations involved in the crisis i.e Turkey attacking a Russian fighter possibly triggering a Russo-Turk conflict without dragging in NATO as Turkey aggressed first.
Again though you're suggesting an EU army, NATO operates as independent contingents of a larger whole with intelligence sharing and combined operations through planning, the EU army you're suggesting is a traditional army led by a single commanding officer and if that ISN'T what you're suggesting then the concept is redundant as we already have NATO which would operate infinitely more effectively than your rag tag band of retards.
>>68108010
It is in the interest of the US that the EU gets its act together, increase the EU battlegroup and by itself manages to intervene in countries in Africa and the Middle East etc., so that America can concentrate on other areas of the world.
>>68099939
Sie würden sicher zu Kriegshandlungen gegen Russland, usw. missbraucht. Die EU nämlich ist eine marxistische Diktatur und kümmert sich gar nicht über die Sicherheit der darin einbezogenen Länder.
>>68107910
Right but not a single nation within the EU can perform thoise duties apart from France and the UK, so we're essentially relegated to being the only cunts who are actually worth a fuck.
That means we will have to carry the burden of defending the entire EU since most of the people within the EU find the concept of increased military spending completely abhorrent.
In other words pic related.
>>68099939
It is not at all what should be done. A new NATO-like international organization must be formed instead, which includes Russia.
>>68107977
>German flag ship
>Corvette
Do you see what I mean yet? Your flag shit is a glorified fucking tugboat and you want us to throw our lot in with that?
I would like an example of the last time Germany, Spain, Portugal or any other of the Fag-Tier nations made a contribution to actual soldiering in an operational theatre.
Oh, wait... you can't. Once again, it would all fall to the US, the UK and possibly France in the event something happened.
Daily reminder that italy alone have in service half of the aircraft carriers of whole western europe.
Are you guys even trying?
>>68099939
kill yourself you nigger
european army should never exist and eu shoud be destroyed
>>68099939
Jaysus what a disaster that would be. You'd end up with an army that's totally and utterly undeployable, filled with soldiers whose only purpose is to sit on their arses. The only countries in yurp with *any* degree of military credibility left are France and the UK (and even they're in a bit of a state). Neither Fr nor the Uk would be particularly well served by full integration into a unified EU army.
What'd make more sense is a coordinated procurement and support framework to maintain european defense industries, increase system commonality and save a few euros on procurement/support costs. Then adopting common command/control protocols and progressively harmonizing training regimes. This seems to be the direction that things are gradually heading anyway.
>>68108230
I think Sweden, Norway and Finland threw some ground troops and special forces in for the last Gulf War and Afghanistan.
Really though that says just about everything, that Sweden is more willing to throw people in while Germany want to hum and haw about bullshit and throw in a couple of planes to taxi shit around the place.
>>68099939
>Why is an EU Army that bad?
Because pic related will be in charge. I'd be totally ok with an EU army if the Visegrad Four were in charge.
>>68099939
because only cucks rely on others to protect their borders...fuck europe we are out we can look after our selves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMwGX7ftBoo
>>68108322
>in while Germany want to hum and haw about bullshit and throw in a couple of planes to taxi shit around the place.
So don't you think this should change? Why shouldn't Germany pull its weight? If Germany e.g. has to contribute 10 battlegroups to the 50 EU battlegroups, that means Germany has to invest in the military, in its logistics support and in deployable troops that can be used in conflicts.
Right now Germany doesn't have to do anything in this regard. It can just sit around and say "sorry, we do not have any deployable forces".
Is that the Europe you want? You fight and we laugh at you while you fight?
>>68108410
>ecause only cucks rely on others to protect their borders
So you want the current situation to continue with Greece just waving everyone through and Italy doing the same and France basically saying "who cares about Calais, that is a British problem"?
Is that really what you want, a Europe in which the poorer border countries just hand out maps to illegals and ISIS fighters how to get to the UK, Sweden and Germany?
>>68108023
>the EU is not some abstract superstate, the EU is make of 28 INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES
m8 you're moving the goalposts now. You claimed the mali intervention was EU-led. It isn't, it's french led, with the support of some european countries.
When you say shit like "EU-led", you're claiming that an institution is leading an intervention. You're wrong, this has nothing to do with EU. There was no decisions made in the EU about this.
I'm well aware that EU is composed by European countries, thank you - i'm not an idiot. But you can't use "EU" and "European countries" interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
>>68108442
Because it's absolutely never going to happen, you're gonna do everything you can to set yourselves up as the upper echelon of command, you can try and say you'll pull your weight but it's never going to happen because the people in charge will do everything they can to wrangle it like that.
Also I frankly find your country to be a revolting piece of shit at this point, the fact that you're even allowed in NATO astounds me, the last thing I want is an increasingly militarised Germany while you're sucking down millions of niggers a year.
>>68104033
>we are turning it around right now
>there are no more fugees coming for the last 14 days
BECAUSE MACEDONIA AND THE REST OF THE BALKAN SHITHOLES ARE SAVING YOU FROM YOURSELVES BY BLOCKADING THE BODERS
You've done nothing but exacerbate the crisis.
>>68108520
no lol we are gonna brexit in june and restore the commonwealth between canada,NZ australia and the uk and have no visas
you lot are on your own...our trident subs and ships are nearly finished
enjoy the muslims mate :P
>>68103459
>consent by Libya
Libya is a fantastic opportunity to completely solve the current migration crisis. Leave the Syrian clusterfuck to Iran/Saudi/Turkey/Russia and focus on Libya. Send "stabilisation" forces to help keep a lid on things there (basically annexing the country), pour in some cash and resettle ALL asylum seekers in Libya. When they realise they'll just be relocated to Libya the flood of migrants will dry up in no time.
can you guys afford a bigger military AND support the migrant takeover of your countries?
Huh. Even Finland has more than that.
>>68107395
So.... it sounds like it will have the same problems that the UN intervention missions have.
>>68107554
>We need to do something
doesn't resemble anything I'd call a consistent policy.
>>68107701
You happened to cut off the US contribution in logistics support, and air refueling. And that all the combat units were french. And the followup Operation Barkhane, which is french.
Alright. I get what you're saying. Big issue: Much of the EU thinks the current correct amount of intervention they should have outside of Europe is zero, or nothing beyond their current UN commitment. You want to get anywhere, you're going to have to change that. Using the EU to dictate that from the top is not going to work. I'd bet much of Germany is still completely freaked out at any force projection. Get your own country to field an army that they're willing to deploy outside of Europe first.
>>68108782
I could only imagine the tears in the UN if that policy were carried out.
>>68108577
>You're wrong, this has nothing to do with EU. There was no decisions made in the EU about this.
The EU consists of 28 member states. If some of them cooperate, they still are EU states.
The whole meme of "EU institutions" is irrelevant. The power lies with the EU states and if they agree to do a military mission it is an EU mission.
>>68109008
>If some of them cooperate, they still are EU states.
If only some of them cooperate then that's a cooperation of sovereign states NOT an EU joint action...
>The UN consists of 194 member states. If some of them cooperate, they still are UN states.
This is how retarded you sound.
>>68108631
>Because it's absolutely never going to happen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11861247/Merkel-expects-Cameron-to-back-EU-army-in-exchange-for-renegotiation.html
The Telegraph has seen an unpublished position paper drawn up by Europe and Defence policy committees of Mrs Merkel’s party, the CDU, that sets out a detailed 10-point plan for military co-operation in Europe.
It is understood to closely reflect her thinking, and calls for a permanent EU military HQ, combined weapons procurement and a shared military doctrine.
The paper says it is “urgent” to integrate armed forces “in the face of multifaceted crises”.
It calls for “a permanent structured and coordinated cooperation of national armed forces in the medium term.
“In the long run, this process should according to the present German coalition agreement lead also to a European Army subject to Parliamentarian control.”
It adds: “In the framework of NATO, a uniform European pillar will be more valuable and efficient for the USA than with the present rag-rug characterised by a lack of joint European planning, procurement, and interoperability.”
A similar paper has been circulated by Elmar Brok, a key Merkel ally, within the EPP party group in the European Parliament. It describes the lack of an EU military headquarters as "absurd".
>>68103788
>>68109133
If there is a resolution by the UN authorizing the whole mission and there is an UN peacekeeping mission next to NATO, yeah hell that is a UN mission.
>>68108913
>UN tears
That's the beauty of it, Libya's in such a mess at the moment. As long as one dresses it up as a "peacekeeping intervention" or "stabilisation initiative" or whatever, one can get away with pretty much anything and still recieve kudos for it.
>>68109160
There is absolutely zero desire here in the UK for an EU army, in fact there is growing support for an all out exit from the EU because of Germanys bullshit.
German cuck played too much Tom Clancy's Endwar.
Worry about your own country, not anyone elses. If other EU members want a better army they'll make one. Nobody will do this though because American controlled NATO works fine.
(As an Aussie our Eurovision guest appearance gives me permission to speak on this issue.)
>>68109471
>in fact there is growing support for an all out exit from the EU because of Germanys bullshit.
on June 24, if the Brexit vote is to Bremain, that paper will be rolled out again and Cameron be held to his signature that there will be an EU army based on the EU battlegroups and an EU military command structure.
>>68109957
Yeah no it's not, you've got a warped idea of what's going to happen due to the media within the EU, I'm telling you straight up the people who want to stay in the EU are unicorns.
I honestly can't wait to see the EU completely and utterly collapse, it'll be great to see Germany try and cope with their African horde then.
