European military (in)capabilities - why is Europe so "weak"?

[Winner]

Guys, Warpus has made a good point. NATO accounts for three quarters of all world military spending. If that is not enough to keep in check the final quarter, there is a serious flaw in your system of power that mere raises in military spending cannot correct.

EDIT: Elrohir, if half of the military spending in the entire world can only buy you an absolute mess in a small 3rd world country like Iraq, it is not particularly effective.

On the other hand, countries like China or Iran don't participate on many peacekeeping (I don't like that word, let's use the popular "crisis managment") missions. They simply left that to NATO and the West in general.

The funny thing is that EU decided to develop the capacities I am talking about here, but they exist in name only. In fact, they stole those troops from NATO So now, EU and NATO operate the same troops. What are we going to do, when there will be two parallel missions, each requiing 60.000 troops? Then we're screwed.

60.000 for whole EU is pathetic. We need about 3 times as much and sharp increase in their readiness.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

So Winner, are you out and out advocating a fully centralized EU military? The dissolution of national European armies? If so I get the feeling your fellow Europeans aren't too keen on either. Especially not the latter any time soon. Can some other Europeans tell me if I am right in this assumption?

 

[Riffraff]

So Winner, are you out and out advocating a fully centralized EU military? The dissolution of national European armies? If so I get the feeling your fellow Europeans aren't too keen on either. Especially not the latter any time soon. Can some other Europeans tell me if I am right in this assumption?

you are, although I would personally support the idea

 

[Winner]

So Winner, are you out and out advocating a fully centralized EU military? The dissolution of national European armies? If so I get the feeling your fellow Europeans aren't too keen on either. Especially not the latter any time soon. Can some other Europeans tell me if I am right in this assumption?

I am realist, it is not going to happen soon, but in the long term, it is necessary.

 

[Steph]

Some comments.

It's not really a matter of Weakness, it's more having a military adapted to our needs.

France always tried to keep some balance and some power projection, as the English did.

Very few countries in the world have a power projection capability.

US of course, then France, UK, and Russia (although I don't know the rusting stage of their ships ).

We have only one aircraft carrier, true, and we need at least one other (if only for maintenance!). However, why should it be bigger? For the moment we don't plan an invasion anywhere. It seems to be enough for our needs.

The French army has been through an important reform when we abandonned conscription some time ago to move to fully professional army.

Our military spendings are not creasing that much, Chirac always protected the defense budget when we had some cuts to do.

France had a long tradition of independance. We have our own ships, own aircrafts, own tanks, own assault rifles... Now, we see that it's to expensive to do things fully alone, so we started to work with partner.

The Leclerc MBT has been developped in partnership with the United Arab Emirates. The Tigre helicopter is a Franco German project. The next aircraft carrier will be made with the English.

To increase our projection capability, we have a Franco German project again with the A400M.

The Eurocorps was initiated with French and German troops.

So we are a slowly moving to a European defence.

 

[REDY]

I think EU needs reforms how as soon as possible in all areas. For Czech Rep is good that we have not draft system now, but still there are many needless buildings and equipment.

 

[ArneHD]

Europe can still fill a role militarily - I don't think its in doubt that the UK has the best Special Forces in the world.

Actually, Norway has the best special forces in the world.
Link, wiki, but still: Marine Jeger Kommandoen.

Edit: Well, one of the best anyway.

 

[Winner]

Some comments.

It's not really a matter of Weakness, it's more having a military adapted to our needs.

Well, it is exactly the opposite. Or needs have changed, but our militaries have not (ok, to be honest, there are reforms going on in most of European countries, but they're too slow and half-hearted).

France always tried to keep some balance and some power projection, as the English did.

Well, I don't want to discuss the French military. You have fairly good and well-trained troops, especially the Foreign Legion, but I don't think your government is really willing to cooperate with the rest of Europe. In the french view, the common European army is just a way how to put France in command of European armed forces

Very few countries in the world have a power projection capability.

US of course, then France, UK, and Russia (although I don't know the rusting stage of their ships ).

Russia? No way. They can't move their troops to fight a war in say... Africa. They have a hard time to control their own territory and few colonies. The only difference is that Russians are willing to send poorly equipped, poorly trained and demoralized troops into operation, where a lot of them is going to die. Just see Chechnya - tens of thousands of dead Russian soldiers and what - Russian government is popular! Can you imagine that in France? What if you lost 10,000 soldiers in some African country? I guess people would make another revolution.

We have only one aircraft carrier, true, and we need at least one other (if only for maintenance!). However, why should it be bigger? For the moment we don't plan an invasion anywhere. It seems to be enough for our needs.

You need some aircraft carriers for air support in peace-enforcing operations. But you're right, Europe doesn't need huge carrier fleet. Just build your next carrier with the British and Europe would have 3 big carriers and several smaller. Then you should focus on air and naval transport, as well as support ships and maybe helicopter carriers to support special forces.

The French army has been through an important reform when we abandonned conscription some time ago to move to fully professional army.

That's good, but it is far from finished. Even our military is now fully professional.

Our military spendings are not creasing that much, Chirac always protected the defense budget when we had some cuts to do.

That's right, France is one of the few countries, that spend adequate money on defense.

France had a long tradition of independance. We have our own ships, own aircrafts, own tanks, own assault rifles... Now, we see that it's to expensive to do things fully alone, so we started to work with partner.

The Leclerc MBT has been developped in partnership with the United Arab Emirates. The Tigre helicopter is a Franco German project. The next aircraft carrier will be made with the English.

To increase our projection capability, we have a Franco German project again with the A400M.

The Eurocorps was initiated with French and German troops.

So we are a slowly moving to a European defence.

Yes, now you have to understand, that you're not going to lead it and all will be fine

 

[Winner]

I am still not decided, if the EU should just integrate the national armies, but keep units on national level, or create a fully integrated force on trans-national principle. Such force would be used for crisis management missions, while the member states would keep small territorial defense forces (something like the US National Guard).

Personaly, I favour the second option - fully integrated trans-national force down to company level.

 

[mdwh]

Probably, most criminals don't like being put in jail either. I don't really agree with most of our policing however though.

In this case, it's also that many if not most of the law abiding people don't agree with the policing. It's more like random vigilantes, who do more harm than good.

 

[mdwh]

Because Europe would rather give it's money away to bums who never worked a day in their life, and provide retirement benefits and free healthcare to illegal immigrants from Morocco. America spends it's money on the world's best military; Europe spends it on welfare. Personally, I prefer the military.

As a hard working taxpayer, I'm more concerned about receiving healthcare for myself. Would I rather that tax money be spent to make bombs to kill random people I don't know somewhere on the other side of the planet? Hardly.

 

[mdwh]

And talking about socialism is rather beside the point - I mean, is that a *privately owned* Army you have in the US?

European countries, especially ones like the UK, are primarily capitalist. Meanwhile, the US has some state controlled parts of the market including education and the military. A few parts of the market in europe have more state control than in the US (e.g., health, education), where as in other areas the US Government spends more than Europe (e.g., the military). So yes, perhaps the "problem" is that Europe spends more money on health than bombs, but it is not a case of being socialist.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Good thread Winner, well thought out OP although I disagree with it in parts.

First off I think you are putting the cart before the horse. How can we have an intergrated EU army until such time as we have a common Foreign Policy? Surely we need to focus our attention on that first of all before we start banding an army together?

Secondly I'm not entirely sure that the EU citizens are as in tune with US citizens as you imply. It's an unprovable point. Are Europeans less inclined to project their power because they have a small military capability, or do they have a small military capability because they are less inclined to project their power?

Aside from my point above, I've agreed with Sidhe throughout.

Actually, Norway has the best special forces in the world.
Link, wiki, but still: Marine Jeger Kommandoen.

Edit: Well, one of the best anyway.

It's propoganda. Everyone thinks they have the best Special Forces in the World. Until we have a "Special Forces World Cup" we'll never know who's are the best.

 

[Steph]

I am still not decided, if the EU should just integrate the national armies, but keep units on national level, or create a fully integrated force on trans-national principle. Such force would be used for crisis management missions, while the member states would keep small territorial defense forces (something like the US National Guard).

We already have a unit with trans-national principle with soldiers from any country. That's the Foreign Legion Of course, you will try next to claim the French try to remain in command

There is also the project to create battle groups, with mixed nationalities

Nordic Battlegroup — Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Norway
France
France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain
France and Belgium
United Kingdom
United Kingdom and the Netherlands
Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
Germany, Czech Republic and Austria
Czech Republic and Slovakia
Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania
Italy
Spanish Italian Amphibious Battlegroup — Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
Spain
Balkan Battlegroup — Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania

You have the project of European Rapid Reaction Force, the Eurocorps, the European Gendarmerie Force...

Common European defense is slowly forming.

 

[Steph]

Russia? No way. They can't move their troops to fight a war in say... Africa. They have a hard time to control their own territory and few colonies. The only difference is that Russians are willing to send poorly equipped, poorly trained and demoralized troops into operation, where a lot of them is going to die.

We are still waiting for the A400M project to be completed, but in the meantime we are often renting Antonov to Russia when we have to carry French troops abroad
I suppose Russia could use them for themselves if needed?

 

[Winner]

We are still waiting for the A400M project to be completed, but in the meantime we are often renting Antonov to Russia when we have to carry French troops abroad
I suppose Russia could use them for themselves if needed?

Probably, but they don't have anything worth the transport costs No offence to any Russians here, but their army is still too old-fashioned.

 

[Winner]

We already have a unit with trans-national principle with soldiers from any country. That's the Foreign Legion Of course, you will try next to claim the French try to remain in command

There is also the project to create battle groups, with mixed nationalities

Nordic Battlegroup — Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Norway
France
France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain
France and Belgium
United Kingdom
United Kingdom and the Netherlands
Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
Germany, Czech Republic and Austria
Czech Republic and Slovakia
Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania
Italy
Spanish Italian Amphibious Battlegroup — Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
Spain
Balkan Battlegroup — Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania

You have the project of European Rapid Reaction Force, the Eurocorps, the European Gendarmerie Force...

Common European defense is slowly forming.

Battlegroups are nice project, the problem is, that forces promised by individual countries for the battlegroups were also promied for the NATO rapid reaction forces. To be honest, we have to stop doing such tricks and build more units.

 

[Steph]

To be honest, we have to stop doing such tricks and build more units.

Do we have enough shields to do that?
I don't see the inconsistency here.
We have National troops. That will be part of European Battle groups. It doesn't mean they are no longer French or Czech.
Then, these troops are also part of NATO... Where is the problem?
Instead of having Czech forces "lend" to NATO by the Czech republic, it will be Czech forces lend to NATO by EU which borrowed it to the Cezch republic.

 

[Winner]

Do we have enough shields to do that?
I don't see the inconsistency here.
We have National troops. That will be part of European Battle groups. It doesn't mean they are no longer French or Czech.
Then, these troops are also part of NATO... Where is the problem?
Instead of having Czech forces "lend" to NATO by the Czech republic, it will be Czech forces lend to NATO by EU which borrowed it to the Cezch republic.

The problem is we're sitting on two chairs. We shouldn't make promises we can't live up to on every occasion.

 

[Steph]

The problem is we're sitting on two chairs. We shouldn't make promises we can't live up to on every occasion.

I don't really see the problem. NATO troops is made of national troops. EU battle groups will be made of national troops.
So NATO troups will be made of national troops via EU battle groups.

So instead of sending the 4th French regiment and 3rd Czech regiment to Afghanistan for NATO, we'll send the 17th European Battle Group made of the 4th French regiment and 3rd Czech regiment.

It's not as if we said the 3rd Czech regiment will fight at the same time in Iraq and Afghanistan

It's more a question of Organigram than actual use of the force.