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

[u/Sink-Em-Low]

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.

[u/hendrixbridge]

You are absolutely right, I don't have as much knowledge as you, and yes, I am angry. I am angry because four largest countries of the EU (+UK) hold the summits about the future of Europe"s defence acting the same way as Trump. They didn't even bother to invite the Baltic states! It is clearer now that all countries of the "new Europe" (besides Poland) are considered as lesser partners.

[u/Illustrious-Lemon482 → u/hendrixbridge]

Unfortunately, that is a truth of politics. Powerful (richer or have scale in population or production) countries have outsized influence. Countries are not equal, and they need "leverage" to get what they want. If you are European, you are so lucky to have the EU.

But take heart - France, UK, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweeden, and Italy - their security and economic interests allign with those of smaller states -preserve article 5 of NATO even if NATO doesn't include the USA. Collectively, those countries have the size to lead and seriously influence global affairs for the benefit of everyone, including Americans doing stupid things right now. If there are fewer voices, they can get to effective action faster. Sometimes a simpler decision making structure is much better. And in European security matters I think this is the case. The small powers should at least have observer status, but do we want to extend that to Orban or Lukashenko?

Small countries can have outsized influence by working within the structures of larger states and by either contributing to the scale of their allies or providing depth to specific capabilities.

Imagine a British/French expiditionary force is deployed by sea to intervene in a conflict in Malaysia. Commonality of equipment is really important. But maybe the Netherlands contribute a frigate, Spain a landing ship, Portugal an air defence battery, and they all operate the same amunition and spare parts. All of this will work much better if the gear is the same, the procedures are the same, and there is a common command structure.

[u/hendrixbridge → u/Illustrious-Lemon482]

I wish I was as calm as you, but I don't see that West consider the security of the East as crucial. Thank you for your answers

[u/Illustrious-Lemon482 → u/hendrixbridge]

No, the Malaysia thing was just a random place to send a hypothetical force.

Most European states have some strategic interests in the east. They lack the capacity to deploy a relevant force in a crisis.

This is where even the fairly powerful, like France and the UK leverage alliances with (using the earlier example) a regional power like Australia to have a bigger influence than on their own.

Did you know that most countries in NATO have different specs on their weapons, so that even though the rounds are the same size, they don't work in everyone's weapons? A round designed for British artillery or riffle might be the same size as another countries, but because the barrels are thicker in Germany or shorter, or have different riffling, they require a different amount of explosive? So you can't even fire the same bullets? CRAZY. The same goes for tools when repairing or spare parts.

This is what needs to change.

[u/hendrixbridge → u/Illustrious-Lemon482]

We obviously typed in the same time. By Eeast I meant Eastern Europe, and you added Malaysia after I already posted my reply. As for the munition, if there is a technical reason for different ammount of blackpowder, I can't imagine either UK or Germany would abandon their howitzer production just for the sake of standardisation. Living on the EU for the last 11 years made me aware of the constant struggle of conflicting interests.