France and Germany plan' more active' EU defence

[randomradio]

The logical follow-through is that if everyone leaves ...

... the common defense will be stronger than ever?

That could well work for France but how about Latvia?​

You can make it work, no different from how India, China or the US is doing it by placing most of the military closer to the the borders, not haplessly spread out across the continent like in Europe today.

You don't need 80% of your military in France or Germany, you can move them to Poland and Latvia and Finland and Estonia etc. South India, which contributes a large percentage of its revenues to the military budget in India, doesn't even have its own dedicated fighter squadron or air base.​

You are correct, which is what I mentioned earlier about Europe being an economic/industrial superpower which almost no single country can match. However, what E.U countries lack since the end of WWII is the WILL to take defence commitments/military spending seriously. Call it COMPLACENCY.

The budgets of the individual nations are too small for that.

The French can make the EU defence policy more aggressive. We need an aggressive EU in the near future, not this burkha clad wuss that it is today.

 

[Gripen]

I hope to see more joint operations with our German brothers in the war against terrorism. I appreciate the help of them in our operation against Daesh.

 

[mike2000 is back]

The budgets of the individual nations are too small for that.

The French can make the EU defence policy more aggressive. We need an aggressive EU in the near future, not this burkha clad wuss that it is today.

Well, as I said before, the main problem E.U faces is the lack of WILL when it comes to military spending/commitment both it's political leaders and public alike with exception of France and Britain . For Germany it has more to do with U.S/U.K post world war II over denazification of Germany. However even the U.K and U. S have been calling for Germany to shed this past guilt and increase its defence commitments/spending invane.lol
So if U S and U.K couldn't convince Germany to do so. What makes you think France can make German people and leaders change their mind in this regard?lol
As far as western Europe isn't threatened directly per se, this will continue.

European powers are the only countries who currently have the technological capabilities and experience to match the U.S in almost every sector, as far as they have the will to do so. A look at Airbus, Rafale/Typhoon, Astute/scorpene/barracuda subs proves this

 

[Vergennes]

​

The French can make the EU defence policy more aggressive. We need an aggressive EU in the near future, not this burkha clad wuss that it is today.

It's a welcome idea for both countries. The main issue with this plan is that E.U countries(bar few small weak countries like Poland, Greece etc)don't take defence/military spending Seriously,much less forward deployment/interventions when necessary. So I don't have much hope for this so called E.U Army. Except if France will be ready to shoulder all the responsibilities that this entails. I doubt France can , since she will have to spend tremendously to be able to shoulder all these defence commitments . Judging by E.U countries feeling of complacency when it comes to defence, Good luck with this project.
All I know is that none of the major countries will commit fully in increasing substantially their defence budgets or even more so their defence commitments both locally or intervening overseas when needed.
If anyone believes countries like Italy, Spain etc will do this, then they need a reality check. lol E.U countries lack the will to invest more on defence and will rather focus on other social program etc as the public itself is in no mood for military intervention
Don't get me wrong though, Europe is an economic and industrial powerhouse, as just an average European power like Italy has a bigger economic output/GDP than Russia. However, due to the fact that Europe has been at peace for a long time since WWII many European countries have put defence/military spending on the back burner bar big powers like U.K and France maybe due to the global interests and colonial empire building influence we have. The rest of European countries who are more forthcoming in their defence commitments are either too small to make a huge difference or they do so due to threats they face(read Poland/Baltic countries vis a vis Russia or Greece visa vis Turkey).
So it's a rather troubling /intriguing situation .

Let's see how this works out though, since many E.U countries can't even meet their NATO commitments much less E. U defence. Lol.

It's more political than anything else. France as always,will remain at the front of the protection of the Union and its interests.
After the 13/11 attacks,we invoked the mutual defence treaty of the European Union,meaning that our 'allies' should provide us military assistance... A total fail.
And when the same countries are asking us to deploy aircrafts and troops on their soils and to be more "aggressive",I don't know if I should laugh,cry or be desperate ?

I hope to see more joint operations with our German brothers in the war against terrorism. I appreciate the help of them in our operation against Daesh.

Well,Bienvenue.

 

[mike2000 is back]

The budgets of the individual nations are too small for that.

The French can make the EU defence policy more aggressive. We need an aggressive EU in the near future, not this burkha clad wuss that it is today.

Well, as I said before, the main problem E.U faces is the lack of WILL when it comes to military spending/commitment both it's political leaders and public alike with exception of France and Britain . For Germany it has more to do with U.S/U.K post world war II over denazification of Germany. However even the U.K and U. S have been calling for Germany to shed this past guilt and increase its defence commitments/spending invane.lol
So if U S and U.K couldn't convince Germany to do so. What makes you think France can make German people and leaders change their mind in this regard?lol
As far as western Europe isn't threatened directly per se, this will continue.

European powers are the only countries who currently have the technological capabilities and experience to match the U.S in almost every sector, as far as they have the will to do so. A look at Airbus or Raffle/Typhoon proves this

 

[Taygibay]

You guys are seriously underestimating the combined EU resources that can be deployed by the current govts.

That made no sense to a European until you added this :

You can make it work, no different from how India, China or the US is doing it by placing most of the military closer to the the borders, not haplessly spread out across the continent like in Europe today.

You don't need 80% of your military in France or Germany, you can move them to Poland and Latvia and Finland and Estonia etc. South India, which contributes a large percentage of its revenues to the military budget in India, doesn't even have its own dedicated fighter squadron or air base.

Yes, we can but no, we won't.
​

The reality however is that as Mikey explained, there is no cohesion and little will.
India can concentrate its efforts as a single national entity, not so with Europe.
Some want all their marbles in NATO, some have but a handful and many are just
happy to cruise on under the American umbrella.
So few have both means and intent that after Brexit, we may be alone in that case.

It's sad but it's the truth.
Good day to you, Tay.

 

[randomradio]

Well, as I said before, the main problem E.U faces is the lack of WILL when it comes to military spending/commitment both it's political leaders and public alike with exception of France and Britain . For Germany it has more to do with U.S/U.K post world war II over denazification of Germany. However even the U.K and U. S have been calling for Germany to shed this past guilt and increase its defence commitments/spending invane.lol
So if U S and U.K couldn't convince Germany to do so. What makes you think France can make German people and leaders change their mind in this regard?lol
As far as western Europe isn't threatened directly per se, this will continue.

European powers are the only countries who currently have the technological capabilities and experience to match the U.S in almost every sector, as far as they have the will to do so. A look at Airbus, Rafale/Typhoon, Astute/scorpene/barracuda subs proves this

The conditions will change when common defence becomes a reality.

It's more political than anything else. France as always,will remain at the front of the protection of the Union and its interests.
After the 13/11 attacks,we invoked the mutual defence treaty of the European Union,meaning that our 'allies' should provide us military assistance... A total fail.
And when the same countries are asking us to deploy aircrafts and troops on their soils and to be more "aggressive",I don't know if I should laugh,cry or be desperate ?

The failure of the mutual defence treaty was expected. Once those smaller countries are incorporated in a common defence structure, then the EU military will become far more capable. French Army and Latvian Army will become irrelevant.

They Chinese are obviously planning a global presence similar to the USN. Imagine a unified navy with 10 carrier battle groups protecting pan-European interests instead of running to the US every time there is a problem. There is a lot of strength in unity. I hope the Europeans realize this sooner rather than later.

That made no sense to a European until you added this :

Yes, we can but no, we won't.
​

The reality however is that as Mikey explained, there is no cohesion and little will.
India can concentrate its efforts as a single national entity, not so with Europe.
Some want all their marbles in NATO, some have but a handful and many are just
happy to cruise on under the American umbrella.
So few have both means and intent that after Brexit, we may be alone in that case.

It's sad but it's the truth.
Good day to you, Tay.

I understood what Mike posted, but your economy is already cohesive, the first step has already been achieved.

You can first start off with a common Presidency for the economy. A common leadership for economy will ensure foreign policy will also follow suit. Once you have these two in the bag, the Franco-German common defence plan will see more countries joining in.

This won't happen overnight, but that's the direction you should be heading in. I hope Juncker's doing whatever he can to achieve that goal.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/612710/European-leaders-EU-ARMY-close-to-reality-Juncker

A disjointed military policy will weaken European nations considerably over the next 20 years. Countries like Mexico and Indonesia will end up holding more military and diplomatic clout than France, Germany etc with the way things are going right now.

 

[Jäger]

Well, as I said before, the main problem E.U faces is the lack of WILL when it comes to military spending/commitment both it's political leaders and public alike with exception of France and Britain . For Germany it has more to do with U.S/U.K post world war II over denazification of Germany. However even the U.K and U. S have been calling for Germany to shed this past guilt and increase its defence commitments/spending invane.lol
So if U S and U.K couldn't convince Germany to do so. What makes you think France can make German people and leaders change their mind in this regard?lol
As far as western Europe isn't threatened directly per se, this will continue.

European powers are the only countries who currently have the technological capabilities and experience to match the U.S in almost every sector, as far as they have the will to do so. A look at Airbus, Rafale/Typhoon, Astute/scorpene/barracuda subs proves this

hey brother its been long time since last time we chat, but i want more defence increasement, i believe we need to forget our past guilt and just move along like other european nations are doing.

 

[Penguin]

None of these smaller EU countries are going to be able to keep up in 5-10 years on their own with military advances, I'm particularly talking about the aerospace industry. All the countries are going to have to start pooling in resources for R&D. And I'm talking about big weapons systems, not just helicopters and modified tanks.

R&D will end up in the hands of larger states, particularly Germany and France, to a certain extent Italy and Spain. Especially with the UK leaving, so most decision making will be done in France and Germany when it comes to security.

That means the countries will stop investing in projects like the F-35 and invest that money in Europe itself. So much money lost to the US even though Europe has the technology to surpass the F-35.

Take the FCAS as an example. There will be more buyers for this under a united European defence agreement than relying on imports from America.

The % is irrelevant. Just the combined national revenues of France, Germany, Spain and Italy is more than the revenues of the US and China.

France - $1.3T
Germany - $1.1T
Italy - $1T
Spain - $0.5T
Total = $3.9T

China - $2.1T

US - $3T

The combined revenues of the EU - UK is way more than the US and China combined. It's 45% of the EU GDP. That's about $6T without the UK.

With a single decision making body for the EU, the military budget will easily rival that of the US or China with a lower percentage to GDP spent on defence.

You guys are seriously underestimating the combined EU resources that can be deployed by the current govts.

As a European, from a country that is among the largest contributor to the EU funds (in both absolute and relative terms i.e. total amount and amount per capita) and the smallest recipient, I am accutely aware of the frailty of the Spanish and Italian economies. And I am not alone in that. France and Germany aren't 'back' yet either from 2008.

2014 data: see the contribution by the 'little countries': Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark etc

https://select-statistics.co.uk/blog/much-eu-cost-uk/

The % IS relevant because defence spending gets decided at the national level i.e. it has to compete with other pressing national needs. EU notwithstanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#National_militaries

 

[Taygibay]

A disjointed military policy will weaken European nations considerably over the next 20 years. Countries like Mexico and Indonesia will end up holding more military and diplomatic clout than France, Germany etc with the way things are going right now.

Whoa! I'm not as sold on European integration of Foreign policy and economics as you are
but I am entirely aghast at the above said seriously on a military forum.

Wake me up when either of those regularly throws war parties of all sorts from spec ops to
full-fledged country cleaning and we'll talk about similarities in military clout and diplomacy.

That's the fundamental difference in tiers for armed forces.
Useless; Used at controlling interior; Used for territorial defense; Used for projection and
finally at the very top, used less at home than projected

For example, at the moment, France has an exceptional deployment at home of 13k troops
due to terrorism and that's still less than those deployed in about 7 main foreign countries
and on the seas of the world.

Good day, Tay.

 

[randomradio]

As a European, from a country that is among the largest contributor to the EU funds (in both absolute and relative terms i.e. total amount and amount per capita) and the smallest recipient, I am accutely aware of the frailty of the Spanish and Italian economies. And I am not alone in that. France and Germany aren't 'back' yet either from 2008.

That's okay. This stuff is temporary for now.

2014 data: see the contribution by the 'little countries': Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark etc

https://select-statistics.co.uk/blog/much-eu-cost-uk/

For defence you need the absolute value of money spent, not per capita. Otherwise Saudi Arabia has 3 times higher defence spending than the US and China combined.

The % IS relevant because defence spending gets decided at the national level i.e. it has to compete with other pressing national needs. EU notwithstanding.

It's not relevant simply because it is big as it is. The combined EU defence budget is about $200B without the UK. I'm talking about one nation, one military. Even with a 2% defence budget, the EU will have a military budget over $300B.

If Europe becomes united, then the disbursal of funds becomes better and the various armed forces can become more efficient under a single chain of command. A lot of units can be disbanded or combined into other units. Most of the obsolete weapons can be phased out overnight saving a lot of money. The number of bases can be reduced, most of the bases can be relocated closer to the borders. NATO will become irrelevant and more relevant security partnerships can be formed with other countries, including with African nations, most of them would have become very large and rich markets by then.

 

[Penguin]

For defence you need the absolute value of money spent, not per capita. Otherwise Saudi Arabia has 3 times higher defence spending than the US and China combined.

Left column isn't per capita. It gives the net balance of money paid to EU and money received from EU.

 

[randomradio]

Whoa! I'm not as sold on European integration of Foreign policy and economics as you are
but I am entirely aghast at the above said seriously on a military forum.

Wake me up when either of those regularly throws war parties of all sorts from spec ops to
full-fledged country cleaning and we'll talk about similarities in military clout and diplomacy.

That's the fundamental difference in tiers for armed forces.
Useless; Used at controlling interior; Used for territorial defense; Used for projection and
finally at the very top, used less at home than projected

For example, at the moment, France has an exceptional deployment at home of 13k troops
due to terrorism and that's still less than those deployed in about 7 main foreign countries
and on the seas of the world.

Good day, Tay.

Beating up small countries may be relevant now, but that's not going to fly when countries start to become richer. Look where was China 20 years ago, look where it is today, imagine where it could be 20 years from now.

Indonesia and Mexico are going to be among the top 5 economies of the world. It's obvious they will build up military clout enough to represent their economic power.

 

[Taygibay]

We'll see then as I plan on being there
and all the bet & best to you if I'm not.

Good evening, Tay.

 

[Penguin]

It's not relevant simply because it is big as it is. The combined EU defence budget is about $200B without the UK. I'm talking about one nation, one military. Even with a 2% defence budget, the EU will have a military budget over $300B.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/annual/index_en.cfm?year=2016

The EU budget 2016 is 155,004.2 million of which 4.02 million goes to 'security and citizenship'. None of this is defence spending.
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/annual/index_en.cfm?year=2016

There is also what individual nations in the EU appropriate for national defence.

If Europe becomes united, then the disbursal of funds becomes better and the various armed forces can become more efficient under a single chain of command. A lot of units can be disbanded or combined into other units. Most of the obsolete weapons can be phased out overnight saving a lot of money. The number of bases can be reduced, most of the bases can be relocated closer to the borders. NATO will become irrelevant and more relevant security partnerships can be formed with other countries, including with African nations, most of them would have become very large and rich markets by then.

Like the US, we would get pork barrel spending + lobbying, not a rational or optimal solution.