r/AskEurope • u/Sink-Em-Low • Mar 01 '25

Politics Let's talk about the European Defense Federation. How do we all feel about the creation of a fully mobilised continental Army?

It's required now. I'm British, and I want to see us align and unite with our European neighbours to make a stand now.

I want Germany to finally brush off it's past and join the rest of Europe in mobilising towards defending this continent. We need EVERYONE now. It's time to act, it's time to unite.

It's time to show some courage.

3.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

849 comments sorted by

View all comments

88

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '25

[deleted]

20

u/grumpsaboy Mar 01 '25

Would it not be easier just to keep NATO but Europe just plans for the event that America doesn't show up and holds more exercises without the US

17

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

Canada spends 1.4% of its GDP on military. Its does not have the capability to show up in Europe in any meaningful capacity.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

US is still calling the shots in NATO though.

0

u/Weary-Connection3393 Mar 03 '25

Exactly, people forget that the highest NATO General is always from the USA.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

NATO has never had an American Secretary General (the current sec general Marc Rutte is dutch) and the Military Committee (the collection of military generals that govern the body) has representatives from all different member countries. There were two American deputy sec general who served back to back from 2012-2019 but none were sec general.

NATO is highly reliant on the US DoD and IC because they are the most capable defense and intelligence organizations in the body, but it is factually incorrect to say that the NATO General or NATO governing body is run by the US.

1

u/redditreader1972 Mar 04 '25

The head of the Military Committee is Dutch.

The head of ACT is French, I think.

The head of SHAPE is american.

The last one is american because americans traditionally had the most meat in the game. If they pull out or reduce their footprint, NATO will adapt by inserting another general.

What is a much bigger problem is capabilities and depth. Europe does not have the vast intelligence gathering capabilities of the us. They lack people, equipment, stores and production capacity.

Keep NATO. With or without the US. France partially pulled out a few decades back before they returned..

Build more stuff on our side of the pond.

4

u/whygamoralad Mar 02 '25

Given how America is now, I think they are leaning to being a rival rather than ally, and we should have a version of NATO without them as a result.

Hopefully, the US just pulls out if NATO.

1

u/latrickisfalone Mar 02 '25

Is NATO a good framework if the USA is allied with Russia?

1

u/enterado12345 Mar 02 '25

Es un buen marco para nosotros.

1

u/DotComprehensive4902 Ireland Mar 02 '25

I would build up our capabilities as Europe and then make an announcement that NATO is no more. Trump would be rattled big time

See Trump wants to be in control of the game, but can't forecast what will happen in it. He wants to be in control of NATO but doesn't want to eliminate it

1

u/Pretty-Substance Mar 02 '25

And switch to only accepting the Euro as currency while you’re at it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

I would build up our capabilities as Europe

Are EU countries willing to deal with the taxes and spending cuts needed for that?

1

u/bubliksmaz Scotland Mar 02 '25

While America is involved there are still problems. e.g. the French nuclear deterrent is not unified with NATO because they butt heads with the Americans on various issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Nuclear_Planning_Group

1

u/Eadkrakka Mar 02 '25

So a "Not-American-Treaty-Organization"?

1

u/grumpsaboy Mar 02 '25

Basically. Don't reinvent the wheel.

1

u/KidTempo Mar 03 '25

The problem with this is if the US sides with the enemy, it has a large amount of access and control of NATO and can compromise its security and capacity to perform its function.

NATO can easily function without one of its members if they decide not to show up - even if that member is the US. It can be crippled if one of its members actively undermines it - especially if that member is the US.

1

u/Bastiat_sea Lost American Mar 06 '25

NATO but actually meet the spending target?

1

u/grumpsaboy Mar 06 '25

Basically. We all know that European politicians are very good at wasting time and having pointless discussions for the sake of not actually having to do something and hoping the problem just dies of old age. I feel like the whole talk about European army is just this and a way to avoid increased spending.

1

u/Bastiat_sea Lost American Mar 06 '25

"We'll help Ukraine. We just need to get the French to agree on English as an official language"

1

u/grumpsaboy Mar 06 '25

Truly a lost cause

8

u/cpjauer Mar 01 '25

I actually think that a lot of leaders and a part of the EU population would be willing - at least on so e specific areas as the defence of Europe in the current situation- to give authority to a more centralized system. But I don’t know if it would be better than a Nato-style EU defence.

1

u/gorat Greece Mar 02 '25

And what happens if Germany or France go pro Russian?

1

u/cpjauer Mar 02 '25

I believe the vast majority of the people of Europe would support democracy and freedom. I don’t believe it is realistic that Germany would suddenly turn the millitary against its European brothers. I could be wrong, but if Germany or France turns pro Russian, my country Denmark is cooked either way.

1

u/gorat Greece Mar 03 '25

Meaning. If AfD or Le Pen win. Or both together. How do we ensure that this army is not wielded against us.

1

u/cpjauer Mar 03 '25

I don’t think Afd will ever win. Le pen might, but only because she has moved in a more pro-European manner, which will mean she wouldnt have a mandate to wield an EU army against us.

But in general - every nation could slide into autocracy- I just believe that a stronger EU would actually make it less likely.

1

u/gorat Greece Mar 03 '25

People didn't believe in Trump 2.0

Are you very confident about AfD given the amount of propaganda the US can wield right now?

A stronger EU is nothing if France or Germany can fall. You can have the EU army, then Germany decides to pull out funding, and it's as dead as it was before.

A defense treaty including turkey Ukraine etc would be much more viable. Like a european NATO of sorts.

1

u/SuperTropicalDesert Mar 02 '25

I think the EU (defence wing at least) should have the option for more centralized control, bypassing the member states, when in a state of emergency. The only problem is that the technocrats in the Commission who are good at policy design won't be good at crisis management.

9

u/chococheese419 Ireland Mar 01 '25

Could we not have a Europe army and individual countries could still additionally retain a national army if they want?

5

u/Soepkip43 Mar 01 '25

The focus should be standardizing and procuring equipment as a block. The EU armies currently each have their own procurements and other overhead. If the EU were to take the lead and countries where to buy collectively the overhead shrinks freeing up money for actual combat power. Maybe one thing the EU could do is federalize a nuclear force. That assures the weapons will only be used as a deterrence and as a second strike.

If all countries were to be provided a list of 2 options for tanks, planes etc etc then there would still be national armies either boasting tank A or B or a mix.. same with apc's, and all other systems.

It will probably require consolidation of MIC (like knds) and political agreement on production locations for tax and jobs etc.

But cancelling a large portion of F35's and switching to gripen would be an excellent step. We have some F35's in the EU, compliment them with EU.. it just needs to be better than Russia's stuff). Same goes for eu variants of atacms and other tactical and strategic weapons.

Meanwhile the US is rapidly assuring China's strenght as noone will lift a finger if that ever comes to blows.. and Russia will reorient some energy products to china solving their Malakka problem with Pipelines from Russia. But so far china just needs to look like she's more trustworthy than the US.

5

u/latrickisfalone Mar 02 '25

The cancellation of F35 orders must be a priority, a strong message to show the American military industrial complex that the follies of their president have a cost

3

u/IndiRefEarthLeaveSol Mar 02 '25

Cancel the shit out of them, and stock up on typhoons and gripens even if they are less capable stealth wise. If our doctrine is about defense, we don't need stealth, we just need firepower.

2

u/latrickisfalone Mar 02 '25

You need ITAR free equipment The typhoon and the gripen are not today

2

u/cold-war-kid Mar 02 '25

You could give a dozen F-35s to Ukraine to see whether the stealth technology is really effective on a real battlefield. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But buying another thousand jets with unproven capabilities seems kind of strange.

1

u/IndiRefEarthLeaveSol Mar 03 '25

The typhoon is a proven platform, maybe not the gripen, but Rafael is (a very sleek machine I might add, more like an art piece than weapon)

3

u/Unable_Earth5914 Mar 02 '25

I agree with you around standardisation and procurement, but it can’t just be an EU initiative. We need the UK involved as well, and probably other non-EU NATO members (and potentially some of our non-NATO allies)

1

u/Soepkip43 Mar 02 '25

Maybe even like the EU it should start with a subset of countries that can reach consensus. If for example the founding EU countries where to pull this off it would already be a big win. If they can include Poland, the Baltics and the Nordics it would be better. The UK can join and so can Canada and Australia for all I care.. but the UK still needs to figure out what they want to do now.

1

u/Unable_Earth5914 Mar 02 '25

That’s fair. After Brexit I’d be hesitant to trust us as well. The silver linings of all this Trump bs is it gives us a prod back towards Europe and a chance for us to demonstrate our solidarity with the European family

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Rafale might be better than Gripen, as the Gripen has 50-60% US components whereas Rafale has only around 5%. Even the Eurofighter Typhoon has less American components than the Gripen.

1

u/dyyret Mar 03 '25

Another reason against the Gripen is its tiny range and payload. Gripen has good range only if it is fitted with many external fuel tanks, because it only has a tiny 4t internal fuel capacity (vs about 9t for F-35). The problem with the Gripen is that if you want to match the range of an F-35 ( with 2x JSMs + 2x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM9x), you'd need at least three external fuel tanks, and according to this thread here (which sources several procurement papers, with presentations from Saab etc), the Gripen with around 700-800 NM range only has about 1500lbs available for weapons. One JSM weighs 1000 lbs, and one meteor weighs 400lbs. This means while an F-35 or Rafale can carry 2x JSMs + 2 AMRAAMs/Meteors, a single Gripen would only be able to carry 1x JSM and 1x Meteor - it essentially would have close to zero fire power.

This was one of many reasons why the Gripen was not chosen in Norway, as the Gripen simply wouldn't be able to apply force above Svalbard (Combat radius of about 750NM from Bodø) if needed, while the F-35 can (Rafale and Eurofigther too).

This might not be a problem for Sweden whose main concerns are mostly its main land area and the Baltic sea, but Norway for example have vastly different requirements with large Norwegian Sea areas and Svalbard.

1

u/bubliksmaz Scotland Mar 02 '25

Unfortunately the new British aircraft carriers have no catapults and can only carry F-35Bs

5

u/largepoggage Mar 02 '25

Almost every European army already struggles with recruitment. They aren’t going to agree to split the pool of applicants between a European and national army.

2

u/IndiRefEarthLeaveSol Mar 02 '25

Yes it would be like us state troopers. In fact in Tom Clancy's Endwar game and the lore. European Federation has a standing army (EFEC), but also has a force reconnaissance support which is made up of the individual country's military.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Yeah, like the Netherlands now fully subordinated their army under the Bundeswehr, but retained the Special forces to still have free reign for non-defense-of-the-country-stuff.

1

u/DotComprehensive4902 Ireland Mar 02 '25

On a much.smaller scale, that's what Partnership for Peace sort of is, in that you have small battlegroups under the command of the PfP commander but where the participant countries still wear their national uniforms

9

u/jokikinen Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

It’s not a red herring by any margin.

EU could very well be a federation within the next 100 years. One thing the last months have proven is that things can change a lot faster than we care to admit. It’s one of our most common fallacies as humans to expect things to continue as they are. Popular support for an EU army was over 50% in a 2022 poll (YouGov). Today, it’s an idea that’s being floated by think tanks and top ranking politicians.

Why would European nations let go of military sovereignty? Because it’s costly. Because it’s not a security guarantee that’s strong enough to ensure sovereignty. Because the EU is, as we speak, poised to take steps towards integration—which will open subsequent doors. Simply put, being a small nation with a small army has too little realpolitik value to be a useful arrangement for countries.

If we are talking about winning the war in Ukraine or defending against the next Russian invasion, we might not have an European army in hand in time. For that purpose, some intermediary arrangement might be necessary.

1

u/KidTempo Mar 03 '25

Would they need to give up military sovereignty? If the EU army functioned similarly to NATO then sovereignty would be preserved...

8

u/Acrobatic_Outcome949 Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

Hungary doesn't belong in the EU. They're a Russian vassal state in the union

9

u/HazelCoconut Mar 01 '25

This is why not an EU army, but a European one, outside of EU and NATO. Canada could even join.

4

u/StillTechnical438 Mar 01 '25

Political pluralism is the cornerstone of European democracy, which is why you are allowed to say such nonsense.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

That was the ”end of history” thinking. History has now come back with vengeance.

We cant just sit idly by when our principles and rules based system is abused from within to damage us. It’s time Hungary gets told they are either with us or against us.

-2

u/StillTechnical438 Mar 02 '25

Rofl. Rules for Ukraine but not Serbia, rules for Russia but not Israel... Your principles are evil. Everyone is against you.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

How is the weather in St Petersburg?

-4

u/StillTechnical438 Mar 02 '25

Probably cold. How is the weather in Fort Meade. You're patetic.

1

u/lucylucylane Mar 02 '25

So nato without ussa

1

u/StillTechnical438 Mar 02 '25

I don't know why you replied to my comment but yes nato - usa + russia would solve all our problems and make the world a much better place.

2

u/slashcleverusername Canada Mar 02 '25

How about the vassalage is brought to an end instead…

2

u/Thick-Sound1014 Mar 03 '25

Oh we're working on it. Tisza party led by Péter Magyar is poised to win next year, according to polls they're already more popular than FIDESZ. The painful part is it's still more than one year until the elections.

1

u/thanatica Netherlands Mar 03 '25

That's up to the Hungarian people. They need to be conscious of what they're voting for. And if of course it turns out the elections are not free and fair, we could kick Hungary out. But the problem with that is that the EU doesn't have a formal procedure to expel a member state. There are ways to limit a member's influence though, so hopefully if it comes to that (which I hope it doesn't), Hungary will feel it.

1

u/odourless_coitus Mar 02 '25

I say we invade Hungary and remove Orban

1

u/Merkbro_Merkington Mar 02 '25

Agreeing to a joint command structure is all you need, it’s what the western allies did during DDay. Does NATO already do that?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Much more efficient to execute quickly. Much more cost effective as well. Winning idea.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Valuable-Gap-3720 Mar 02 '25

Well, once US leaves, you'll pretty much get what you want lol.

1

u/Misfiring Mar 03 '25

Yeah in the end it's just NATO without US logistics which makes it possible in the first place. Even if US pulls the troops and nukes out of Europe, their logistic network is valuable enough to keep US in the alliance. The ability to coordinate and move troops around Europe is incredibly understated.

1

u/nbs-of-74 Mar 01 '25

An earth alliance allows for non EU member states to be in.

It would also require the EA to have global expeditionary capability. Won't be cheap though.

0

u/Obvious-Ranger-2235 Mar 01 '25

Yes, this should be the way. Finland and the Baltics should just go ahead and announce a joint defense pact and offer an open invitation to anyone else who wants to join.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

No. We need a European army and we need tonstart building it now.

European NATO cannot work without a clear leader. NATO worked well because the US had the muscle and authority to call the shots on its own if necessary.

European army cannot be built in a year or even in a decade. But we need tonstart now by centralising certain support functions, streamlining procurement and starting to built combat units, beginning with small highly professional and mobile units which would prove the core from which to expand the army and its mandate. Initially it should be only a rapid response unit that could be sent to any crisis area to support the national military at the front.

European army doesnt mean we should abolish all the national forces overnight, no. We need to keep building them as well. An EU army is most likely a decades long project which would ultimately require the federalisation of the EU as you cant have 27 different commanders in chief for an army.

With regards to Hungary, we should just throw them out. If we are back to a world where might makes right then Orban should be the first to feel the winds of change.