EU Army Questions and Understanding

funkey_monkey

Hi

Not sure if this should be posted here or in the politics forum, but I'll leave that for a mod to decide.

What I'm wanting to know is where this is all coming from.

My initial understanding was that after WWII protection for Germany rested with the Allied Powers - USA, UK, France and Soviet Union. What happened as time gone on is beyond me a bit, but I am assuming that with the demise of the Soviet Union protection for Germany from them dissolved.

With Trump incumbent in the USA and Brexit this has made the EU look to within as the EU will have less of an influence with NATO with UK leaving. The UK were not part of PESCO either.

There were comments from Macron about protecting from the USA. However from here on I'm a bit lost and confused from reading the online articles I found. Also USA withdrew from the INF treaty which I understand has worried the EU.

• Has the USA decided not to continue provision of protection (or what was the true background to this story of USA providing/withdrawing protection?)
• What is difference between PESCO and an EU Army?
• Is the EU acting short-term due to a single US president?
• What is the likelihood of a EU Army being formed?
• Can an army of nations (PESCO?) be as efficient as a dedicated single army (EU Army?)

Thanks.

Smiles35

Wow. I just realized that France is now the E.U.'s only nuclear armed nation.

I'm not that well read to say more to your post. Geopolitics is big, I don't want to say more anyway.

purplepanda

Germany, Italy, Belgium, & Netherlands are still NATO nuclear sharing states with access to US B61 Bombs for deployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing#NATO

Townton

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Hi

Not sure if this should be posted here or in the politics forum, but I'll leave that for a mod to decide.

What I'm wanting to know is where this is all coming from.

My initial understanding was that after WWII protection for Germany rested with the Allied Powers - USA, UK, France and Soviet Union. What happened as time gone on is beyond me a bit, but I am assuming that with the demise of the Soviet Union protection for Germany from them dissolved.

With Trump incumbent in the USA and Brexit this has made the EU look to within as the EU will have less of an influence with NATO with UK leaving. The UK were not part of PESCO either.

There were comments from Macron about protecting from the USA. However from here on I'm a bit lost and confused from reading the online articles I found. Also USA withdrew from the INF treaty which I understand has worried the EU.

• Has the USA decided not to continue provision of protection (or what was the true background to this story of USA providing/withdrawing protection?)

Thanks.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Hi

Not sure if this should be posted here or in the politics forum, but I'll leave that for a mod to decide.

What I'm wanting to know is where this is all coming from.

My initial understanding was that after WWII protection for Germany rested with the Allied Powers - USA, UK, France and Soviet Union. What happened as time gone on is beyond me a bit, but I am assuming that with the demise of the Soviet Union protection for Germany from them dissolved.

With Trump incumbent in the USA and Brexit this has made the EU look to within as the EU will have less of an influence with NATO with UK leaving. The UK were not part of PESCO either.

There were comments from Macron about protecting from the USA. However from here on I'm a bit lost and confused from reading the online articles I found. Also USA withdrew from the INF treaty which I understand has worried the EU.

• Has the USA decided not to continue provision of protection (or what was the true background to this story of USA providing/withdrawing protection?)
  
  
  
  Thanks.

To answer that specific question the answer is no. It is insinuated by EU politicians that the Americans are looking to wind down but that goes against all evidence pointing otherwise. American European command budget has been massively increased under Trump he also brought back the heavy armoured divisions and strike capability which were withdrawn in 2013.

The EU army or defence organisation would be NATO minus four of the five major conventional powers (US, Turkey, UK and Canada) and two of the three main nuclear powers. The biggest ructions have been the European states unwillingness to meet their spending commitments, and the criticism of that by Trump is perfectly legitimate and correct. Which would lead one to question how genuine they are in their criticism if they aren't even willing to spend the money necessary to maintain an effective defence. If they cant do it in NATO why on earth would they do in separately from it? The facts all point to EU politicians trying to make a political point (e.g another thing to criticise trump for which is fashionable these days and a further argument for closer integration ect.) rather then actually being concerned by defence and security.

Larbre34

An Army is simply an integrated suite of tactical units performing different field tasks under unitary command.

PESCO is anything but that. Its basically a coordinated system for research, training, procurement and joint capability development (e.g. tactical airlift) to drive innovation and efficiency. In time, the experience from PESCO of Member States cooperating in this area could extend to full theatre of operations work, but I can't see NATO being eclipsed as the primary tactical command structure for allied European forces any time soon.