Future of EU Defense: NATO or the EU?

[@mdavideums]

Together we are stronger!

[@soundscape26]

That's basically it

[@avve1835]

100%, I as a Swede have no problems fighting to defend Europe!

[@georgedevries3992]

@@avve1835 If only a certain Scandinavian country thought the same way, cough Norway cough.

[@triceratops7084]

​@@georgedevries3992Norway isn't made up of morons willing to join the EU and lose their sovereignty

[@flavio7180]

Yeah, tell that to Italy and France who have done close to nothing for Ukraine while Germany was shamed by the entire world into helping. The EU's "Big Three" are completely worthless military allies to Eastern Europe.

[@michaeljf6472]

This isn't taking away from or duplicating NATO. it's simply moving from a US being dominant over many small states to US and EU being two equal members. Why are people acting like there is such a thing as some NATO military? It's always members forces put together.

[@veronicajensen7690]

as long as there is NATO and as long as EU support the USA, the USA will dominate they simply don't know how not to dominate it's their entire ideology that they have to dominate

[@JSK010]

“US and EU being two equal” Sure but you’re not going to achieve that by rearranging deck chairs and remaking some logo’s. The European governments and peoples need to get serious about defense (spending). Not sure how the EU - with very little own money - can help.

[@emildavidsen1404]

​@@JSK010its not, just, a spending issue. Look at the totals he gives at the start, then wonder why the actual military capability of the EU is so much worse than that of China. Too much money is being wasted to ineffeciencies of the current setup.

[@JSK010]

@@emildavidsen1404 also that, the efficiency at which spending is transformed in output

[@paul1979uk2000]

@@emildavidsen1404 Spending could be higher, but even at current spending, if it was a single military, it would be far more powerful than it is today, the real issue is having 27 militaries with all the waste and duplications, not the military spending, because let's be honest with ourselves, even if each EU country spends more, it's not going to change anything and leaves Europeans at the mercy of the US, for that to change, Europeans in the EU have to start working much closer together with pooling resources together.

[@isaks7042]

One strong army is better than 27 smaller armies.

[@reucutajar]

Not for the smallest members.

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

​@@reucutajar Especially beneficial for the smallest members.

[@nero9506]

​@reucutajar It's even better for them, since they would end up with a bigger and stronger army which would work as a far better deterrent for outside aggressors. Not only that, but being so small they would virtually pay nothing for it as well, and they could save hundreds of millions of Euros annually from taxpayers' pockets, or reinvest that money for other purposes (healtcare, education, infrastructure etc.).

[@Mrblazed420]

Didn't help in Afghanistan against small groups

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@Mrblazed420 We are talking about national defense. We do not talk about guerrilla war or adventures abroad.

[@OnyedikachiBenedict]

Why are the the Germans so terrible only when they are on our side.that got me😂

[@Jiyu567]

Why? Because every ally shit their pants otherwise. People laugh at Germany's military, while casually forgetting, that they are the sole reason why Germany's army sucks.

[@SP95]

Because their military pensions eats up most of their budget, otherwise they would be very powerful

[@E.Wolfdale]

​@@SP95 because even when there has been a full-scale war in Europe for 2 years, Germany spends only 1.5% of GDP? Poland in same time spends 3.9%, USA 3.5%, Greece 3%. Germany continues to parasitize on security provided by others.

[@matthiasklopke161]

We had a huge army until reunification. After reunification, we drastically reduced the size of our army(s).

[@samuelwiedaskamel]

@@matthiasklopke161 Actually it was the biggest right after reunification but the moment the USSR collapsed we started to sell e.g. tanks for there steel price and so on.

[@davidblair9877]

Tier 4. “[Europe] United with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than [Europe] disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” -Federalist Paper No. 51, attr. James Madison. I highly recommend that you read some of the Federalist Papers from the founding days of the United States of America. We struggled with many of the same concerns that Europe does today: loss of state sovereignty, wildly different economies, cultural clashes, and so on. It’s not a one-to-one comparison, but the parallels are very real and very informative.

[@Jason_vinion]

Let's get to tier 3, and see how that goes, if it's working well then let's go up, but I think tier 3 should be the baseline, and decide where to go from there.

[@1aboPLZ]

First get rid of veto

[@dantetre]

1) Ireland, Cyprus, Malta and Austria are not NATO members and most likely to disagree would any progress or outside interventions. 2) 23members are already Nato member. So how making efficient military spending and cooperation would be against Nato?

[@floriangroi4911]

Hey from Austria, so our troops won't be deployed through NATO-Missions but in EU-Missions for defence they could then. (Neutrality in our constitution) With these exceptions there is no reason not to go to Tier 3.

[@bgcvetan]

We have to remove the veto for more egalitarian system. The damage that a single traitor in high position could do is beyond reason. Just read the history of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth it is not a story that the "PaTrIoTs" will tell you.

[@DerDop]

See Hungary 2024.

[@marconeudecker6533]

Yes, exactly

[@turulliberalis]

I don't know... If people like Le Pen and Orban gained majority, we'll really wish that we didn't get rid of those vetos. P.S. but I've been interested in Lithuanian-Polish history for a while, so I'll look into it.

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

I would keep veto but I would also give countries the option of opt-out in case they do not want to participate but also not directly veto the initiative. Right now it is all or nothing which is not healthy.

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@bgcvetan The veto is not the problem for self-defence. We only need appropriate EU law. When the EU border is compromised, we defend with full power unless we unanymusly agree not to do so. The veto will only limit the ability of the EU to act abroad. This would be an issue in a Ukraine situation. Hungary could block EU actions. So I agree, we should stick with a simple mayority.

As a Spanish citizen, I believe this should be the path forward, getting to at least tier 3. In a polarized world a join army can help in deterrence but also in European integration which is something we desperately need. I am aware also that each country should spend regardless the mandated 2% of GDP and contribute the same proportional number of soldiers to the army. An army in the context of the EU is a fundamental part in a world which is becoming multipolar and the US is in trouble with internal division.

[@erosgritti5171]

The Etruscans, the Celts, the Greeks, were all powerful but divided peoples. For this reason they were easily conquered. I fear that Europe will end up the same way.

[@georgedevries3992]

Since you're a Spanish citizen, how come your government decided to built and sell a drone carrier to Turkey (that claims half the Aegean belongs to it) thus betraying Greece in the process?

[@Pidalin]

@@georgedevries3992 Spanish people also support Hamás....these things are clear evidence that EU army and more integrated EU (not even talking about Federation) can't happen, we are all just too different with different historical experiences. It needs another like 100-200 years.

[@georgedevries3992]

@@Pidalin Seems like Spain likes Islamists a lot for some bizzare reason. In any case, we don't have that kind of leisure. Only one individual can save Europe and Humanity as a whole at this point.

[@ad_astra468]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@Pidalin I don’t get what Israel’s interests have to do with us, Spain going against Israel doesn’t make it any less reliable of an ally. If anything it makes it more reliable since it shows it doesn’t base its geopolitical position on the USA.

[@Martcapt]

At this point, at the very least having a joint procurement department seems like a very basic and doable step. Having 20 different tanks makes no sense in any form. Tier 4 would be nice, further out.

[@Twiggy163]

Yea the PESCO initiative. Guess who wasn't happy with the prospect of less European money going to their defence industry and more towards Europe's?

[@canemcave]

the problem is sharing technology and the benefits for industry, science and employment. You cannot have one country monopolizing the procurement in its favor

[@grafity1749]

I think Tier 3 is a good goal, it will be more realistic, but Tier 4 would obviously be the best.

[@SpellMenderDev]

American here. I like what was said in another comment, that joint procurement would be a good first step. The military complex here is freakishly huge, but stupid well-organized. I can't imagine the logistical nightmare coordinating 27 militaries would be. That's an elephant you'll need to eat one bite at a time to be a US military peer. I hope you can achieve it before our country loses its sh#t...

[@GdzieJestNemo]

two highest tiers are achievable only if EU becomes a country

[@Real_MrDev]

Tier 4 is the only thing we should persue, times have changed we cannot stay disjointed any longer or else we will become fully reliant on the US for military related problems.

[@avve1835]

Agreed, specially now with the uncertainty if trump wins the election there. We unfortunately can’t trust America for their protection anymore.

[@Dargor110]

Choose a tank. Rheinmetal? the french will veto. French tanks? The germans will veto. American? The french and likely everyone else will veto. Jets. Use Gripens? The French will veto. And so on and so on.

[@redkraken6516]

Even through I agree with you, there is still problems. As commentator above wrote, it's hard to choose who produces what. If we talk about an united army, the first question that comes to mind is which language it will use to operate. And no, it's near impossible to coordinate even in two languages. P.S. My bet they should finaly use esperanto as paneuropian language.

[@SICARIO-SM1]

@@redkraken6516 Esperanto is a failed language experiment. Even if it's not my first language, I think English would be easier and more realistic since most European countries have a high English proficiency rate, and even if the goal is to not rely on the US it would still make sense to use a common language since they are also part of NATO, and you can't expect Americans to pick up Esperanto. Furthermore, if any military were to implement a language that the people do not commonly speak it could accidentally sow division and create conflict between civilians and the military. Some countries wouldn't like it and protest about it but military organization is about practicality and logistics. Some people have been arguing in the comment section about how impossible it would be for anything like this to happen since countries would never agree on anything, but they don't have to. Remove veto power and establish a majority system and the problem is suddenly fixed.

[@inbb510]

Good luck persuading Ireland and Hungary. These two countries will probably leave the union if the EU decided to pursue anything close to a military alliance.

[@Jurjen.]

Tier 1-3 must be fully functional within this Parliament's term, while tier 4 should be reached in the Parliament's next term.

[@matpk]

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Both 2 BOXERS WERE BORN FEMALE WITH VAGINA NO PENIS Only woke countries such as USA send Trans into female sport😂😂 They HATE Trans in Taiwan and Algeria

[@MeNoweakneSS]

4th Tier is a must. We saw how vulnerable EU is. Psyops, propaganda bots, organised crime syndicates. We have taken peace as something granted, but peace is something you always fight for.

[@MrCosinuus]

These cooperations already happen on bi-national levels: There is a French-German brigade. Two of the Dutch brigades are integrated into German divisions. Germany and France have one common maintenance center for their transport airplanes. Belgium/Netherlands and Sveden/Finland cooperate also a lot as far as I know.

[@je3996]

The Nordics has a joint air force with over 250 high-class fighter jets, making it one of Europe's most powerful air forces, if not the very best.

[@antoinebaldur2941]

Belgium, France and Luxembourg have pooled most of their land forces' systems. The CAMO cooperation shares Griffon, Caesar and Jaguar vehicles, and the future reconnaissance vehicle will also be part of this cooperation. They will trains together with these systems.

[@mguitarte]

While we are small, the baltic states also do joint procurements of military equipment.

[@MrMakabar]

The Dutch Army is completly under German command by now.

[@Supertobias7]

1:52 to be fair, the Typhoon is the replacement of the Tornado. It was just that Italy didn't have a lot of Typhoons delivered yet.

[@Olafje]

I think there should be a tier 3,5: certain member states merge their militaries while others stay on their own, this also prevents certain countreis (ahem Hugary) from blocking other member states that want further integration

[@Hijoyer]

i swear bro hungary is so annoying

[@Morgead]

Great video, I think Tier 1 and Tier 2 are a must do, Tier 3 should than be the minimal goal plus more integration and cooperation leads to Tier 4. A Good example for Tier 2 are the north-european states, or Germany and the Netherlands.

[@PoulNoergaard-j3f]

Europe is a high wage area, which we can be because of high productivity and efficiency. Comparing expenditure euro to euro, gives a wrong picture. What russia can get for 100 euro, we probably pay about 6-800 for. Because we make so much more.

[@victimized1]

I think comparing raw numbers of military spending is not accurate. Yes, EU may spend 4 times more money on defence but it's not adjusted to the salaries, prices of ammunition and equipment, etc. 1000 artillery shells can cost more than 4 times when produced in EU, compared to the cost of 1000 artillery shells produced in Russia.

[@MDP1702]

If you look at PPP values, China is just above the EU with $377bn, Russia is around $121bn in 4th, closely followed by India at $111bn.

[@JSK010]

@@victimized1 I think ppp adjustments aren’t good enough. Ppp only works for tradable goods (that’s where the “parity” comes from). Military expenditure is generally non-tradable non-market. A German solder may earn 5x what a Vietnamese does in PPP, but he is probably not going to fight 5x as well. In a tradable, market good situation either the wage of the German would go down or that of the Vietnamese would go up, reaching “parity”. That obviously wouldn’t happen in reality.

[@sergio7248]

Tier 4

[@ivangnilichenko4269]

Definitely we should targeting to Tier 4!!

[@RogueSecret]

US launched 251 military interventions/state coups since 1991, and 469 since 1798, are that the culture we are trying to be a part of?

[@pep-qew]

Yes

[@fernet8394]

Maybe we should start with merging the defense industries as we did with the coal and steel industry in the Montanunion ( European Coal and Steel Community) in 1951

[@maninredhelm]

There's little downside to the EU having a better defense strategy. The challenge is resolving the chain of command issues. What happens if the enemy is invading but France and Germany can't agree what to do? The US may be a bad team player at times, but the upside is it can make decisions and execute on them quickly due to its disproportionate strength. A single NATO member may sabotage a vote on official NATO actions, but it can't stop the US acting independently. That dynamic changes when you have a large alliance of relative equals, as well as an enemy who excels at sowing division. What happens when Poland wants to fight but Germany wants to discuss it with the Americans first but France doesn't want to involve the Americans?

[@shwetapatwa1327]

And a dozen nation in southern Europe are too scared of Russian FABs.

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@maninredhelm You are just pointing out one of the advantages of an EU army over the current situation. The described issue will ocurre in a NATO mission or an EU defense event. In a unified EU army we will have a clear chain of command.

[@smirkyshadow4152]

@@karstenschuhmann8334 I feel like their not mutually exclusive, an EU army would massively benefit NATO

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@smirkyshadow4152 Yes, I agree that NATO would profit from an EU army and a more balanced relationship between Europe and America. I just meant that the described issues with unclear leadership arise when different armies work together, not in a permanently unified army.

[@smirkyshadow4152]

@@karstenschuhmann8334 Aaah, thats true It'd also make it easier to supply soldiers, because they could have unified equipment, systems & training also it'd make a lot of the smaller european countries more valuable for defense Because realistic the dutch army isn't going to do squat (which isn't their fault they just feasibly can't afford a huge powerful army) But with a euro army, a dutch person could instead sign up for a euro army, and these smaller countries now had the added value of being pools of manpower

[@danielmanogillasheras9955]

We should move away from NATO and kick the US forces and bases from Europe, we have literally given our defense policy to a country in another country with it’s own agenda and objectives. We should create an army together, with a powerful and solid army industry to take control of our own agenda, waters, skies and protection.

[@imfromisrael489]

Severing the alliance with the US is a very bad idea.

[@The_Figueroa_Don]

Honestly a tier 3 EU would be a dream come true a full tier 4 I don’t see happening without a serious global event like a land war with Russia or the US going hard on isolationist policies

[@vincenzomanole6743]

We already have many projects on the table: mgcs, eurodrone, fcas (fuck the gcap), skynex and panthers. The base of the EU army starts from the industry as Roberto Cingolani said. If we relay on politicians we'll never make a step forward.

[@sailor67duilio27]

(fuck the gcap), perhaps you should inform yourself. (Roberto Cingolani is the CEO of Leonardo, Leonardo has invested in the GCAP and part of the Trio of countries Britain, Italy,Japan developing the Tempest...fcas has not gone anywhere.

[@vincenzomanole6743]

@@sailor67duilio27 Indeed, the only EU stupid state that invested in non EU technology. Fuck the gcap as I said

[@spidos1000]

''fuck the gcap''? Why? Are you anti British?

[@oadka]

@@sailor67duilio27 yes you're right. the really bad disagreements between germany and france in fcas have shown how hard co-operation is.

[@albevanhanoy]

Excellent and necessary video. Americans love to complain about Europe "not doing enough" for its defense, when Americans originally designed that situation in the first place.

[@aabbccdd4710]

Yeah, Americans would really really hate if every member paid their share 😂

[@FabjonHamitaj]

Correct

[@DerDop]

​@@aabbccdd4710 almost everyone pays their share. Americans would really really hate it if Europe had the same military as they have. if the EU gains strategic autonomy, you can bet on the end of US supremacy.

[@RealOGfikey]

@@aabbccdd4710 That's because they can't afford to. A unified army is obviously the solution. Not only that, but spending and fund allocations are two different things.

[@MW_Asura]

It's one of the reasons why I want a EU wide defense policy. It will be pretty funny because the yanks won't be able to use the "wE pAy FoR tHe Eu dEfEnSe" and "EU gEts HeAlThCaRe BeCaUsE Of Us" excuse anymore lmao, even though it was never the case

[@howmanybeansmakefive]

Joint procurement and standardization is a Tier 0.5 and to be honest I don't even think a true tier 1 is even possible without true federalization. Nothing cuts to more to the core of what a nation-state even is, its history, identity, sovereignty, than if its people are willing to see themselves as having a single unified interest. Will Hungary, Ireland, France, Sweden ever identify with each other enough to align their foreign policies? let alone give up their own armies and die for each other. Aligning on economic policy is much lower order and even that is an issue, let alone unifying approaches to the US, Global South, Ukraine, Israel, North Africa, Russia, etc.

[@ianribaltagene6087]

We should at least be at tier 2

[@darkschneider9730]

I would love us to unify even more but tier two seems to be hard enough to get to as things stand curently.

[@djdoubleu1]

4 is the endgoal. But getting a cohorent EU with someone in charge of EU defence should be the start.

[@Stefanoll]

I think moving to tier 3 should be the move for now, it allows "personal" armies to engage "personal" enemies that the eu is not concerned with but still integration

[@robint6374]

The problem in my country (Belgium) and i'm sure many other EU countries have a similar problem to achieve this, is that the political landscape is to devided. We face many problems here, immigratian, energy, spenditure and the only political parties who formulate real solutions are the right and far-right. But at the same time, it are these parties that advocate to leave the EU or at least have less EU...

[@fury4539]

UK needs to belong somewhere, once again in my opinion Brexit was a complete dog mess.

[@Christian_Bagger]

It’s not like NATO got an army. NATO ask its member countries for x amount of soldiers to a giving mission, which means the same soldier that just took the NATO hat on can also take on an EU hat on. If the countries wants to be more independent from US, they’ve to spend more on their military budget

[@kieranmorris9827]

No they just need to send US back to its own continent

[@hungrymusicwolf]

The EU budget is sufficient, but the way it is spent is not. Economies of scale can easily lead to 30% increase of capability for the exact same price, but every country currently builds everything for themselves thus fails to reach that economy of scale. We need a unified defense spending strategy.

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@@hungrymusicwolf unified forreign policy, unified defense spending (buy European), and a unified command structure.

[@filipandersson]

Personally, I think T3 seems ideal, though I certainly wouldn't mind T4.

[@tommiii4542]

As a Greek we need more NATO and no EU.

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

Shared procurement is the lowest hanging fruit out there and easiest to achieve. Solo purchases of major weapon systems such as air defense, ships, radars, MISSILES should be something out of the norm. There should also be an intentional mix of technologies both of European and American origin to make sure there is a fail-safe in case something worked great on the testing range but not really on the actual battlefield.

[@je3996]

Wrong, that's the hardest part. No country wants to get rid of its defense industry for security reasons. No country wants to risk being disarmed in the middle of a war.

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

@@je3996 but they don't have to. There are realistically only 3 countries in NATO that can make air defense system (France, Germany and USA) and about 4 or 5 who can build ships on scale needed for mass purchases. Same goes for radars and other high-tech weapon systems. That is a start. Later when smaller things like tanks and APCs come to play nobody can really produce enough of them at fast enough pace on its own. Not even the USA can produce enough lets say new generation tank to equip their own army AND European armies at timely manner.... this is where licensed manufacturing comes to play.

[@Eianex]

Even though the absence of an EU army is the main problem.. How do we integrate it with National and Nato armies? Which chain of command should they follow? At first glace it's hard to combine them all.

[@1aboPLZ]

The European commission and parliament should allocate troop amounts

[@WaffleCake-q7d]

Russia is not a heavyweight as you mention. They have shown their true colours in Ukraine. They have a huge supply of men but their logistics are embarrassing, their troops are hungry and their procurement is corrupt. Russian POWs often haven't eaten in days, get beaten by their own commanders, are injured and are given 50 year old guns. They wouldn't last a week in a conventional war against the US or Europe. They might appear like a heavyweight but they're nothing more than a paper tiger.

[@kieranmorris9827]

As are most “powerful nations” this is why the idea of deciding which countries are powerful is nonsensical. You can’t determine strength of a country which is neither at threat nor investing in its military. Germany could create a top 3 military easily. India and Russia stockpile old crap because it’s their only option.

[@KitJBenn]

Bolloks!! Total bollocks!!!

[@Pidalin]

They are just typical russians. I remember those opinions that ukraine will fall in few days, I thought it's a nonsense from the beggining, first - defenders are always in advantage, that's a historical fact and second, it's not 90s anymore and Ukrainians were really against Russia, it was so obvious that they will resist. Ukraine is also pretty big and heavily militarised country, everyone who thought that they will fall in 3 days had to be crazy.

[@hungrymusicwolf]

@@Pidalin Had the western aid for anti-air weapons that soldiers could use not come they would have fallen. Even then there were several VERY close calls early on for Ukraine. This was not a settled matter back then. They could have easily fallen in the first week had a few things gone wrong.

[@Pidalin]

@@hungrymusicwolf But it was obvious that a lot of countries will send help to Ukraine, I expected that Germany will do nothing and after all, they helped more than I expected, probably because of baba Merkel doesn't rule there anymore.

[@ferry602]

As long EU countries are depending on US weapins/planes they never can have a EU independent army, EU army should have only in Europe produced weaponry and not rely to other foreign countries.

[@jensfredriksvensson]

Just one thing......nuclear weapons.....it is a dead thing without that?

[@fedethefico]

Great content by the way!

[@kaliodin]

Germany’s military is the equivalent of the final boss vs the final boss when you unlock him

[@simonbarnes8303]

The only way EU battle groups would work is if the components were fluid. For example each EU country would designate a part of their military to the EU and then when they are needed the countries that agree on military action supply their troops/equipment to the area they are needed. A unified foreign policy is very unlikely - even if you look at Ukraine as an example there are EU countries that seem to favor Putin and others like Germany that dragged their feet at the beginning of the conflict because of their pipeline interests.

[@Richard1A2B]

That's how the EU rapid reaction force works.

[@pep-qew]

Austro Hungarian Empire had 3 armies: Austria, Hungarian and shared Imperial. Both Austria and Hungary put everything on their own armies leaving Imperial Army with older weapons and worse equipment. Do you think this time it would be any different?

[@fireblade-uk]

Europe is never going to be united enough to have one army.

[@Carol_V]

Maybe Russia is helping in this issue, these days...

[@fireblade-uk]

@@Carol_V Probably, but not really the major factor. Our interests are just not aligned. I can't imagine Portugese, Spanish, Italian, French troops promptly going to come to aid Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia if those get invaded by Russia. The perspective on what to do in this situation is much different in Lisbon and Madrid than it is in Riga and Tallinn. Portugeese and Spanish will likely think the war is far away it's not their fight, their citizens would be against sending their troops for death in distant lands. People of Estonia and Latvia will see it as fight for all. It's their houses and infrastructure that is going to be destroyed. European Union is not United States of America when i.e. attack of Florida would make all the Alaskan soldiers wanting to go and help because they have a sense of unity as one nation. European Union is many separate nations thinking about their selfish interests, mainly money. We don't even speak one language.

[@Carol_V]

@@fireblade-uk I cannot really imagine a soldier being very enthusiastic when he has to go to - real! - war, but armies are no democratic organizations. If European Army will be just some putting together of national armies, than arguments like "'I'm from Madrid, why should I die in Tallinn?" might be valid. But if EU is able to have something like NATO (now), with operative rules agreed by all and written as legislation, it might be a back-up in case of MAGA implements it's dis interes regarding Europe.

[@Jiyu567]

Didn't Germany and the Netherlands already reach tier 4 with themselves?

[@MrMakabar]

No. The Dutch army is integrated in the German command structure. However that is only the army and not the airforce and navy. It still is the closest partnership of two militaries within NATO.

[@Jiyu567]

@@MrMakabar only a matter of time until they completely integrate no?

[@MrMakabar]

@@Jiyu567 If Germany for some made up reason would invade Russia, the Dutch army besides being under German general staff control still belongs to the Netherlands. Hence unless the Dutch agree to invade with them, they are not going to go. For a EU Army on level 4, if the EU wants to invade Russia, Dutch soldiers would invade Russia, whatever the Dutch parliament says.

[@dariusgunter5344]

Tier 3 though Id argue it would need more troops, though 60k is probably a good starting point. From there you can increase it and turn the national armies more into militias from where you draw recruits for the army itself.

[@atrumluminarium]

Keep in mind that there are neutral nations in the EU (Ireland, Malta, Austria, Cyprus). Any of this should be an opt-in/out

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

@atrumluminarium There are different types of opt-out from the Euro. But not taking part in the common forreign policy would mean having no say in this.

[@echidnanatsuki882]

Why not both?

[@kazomazo6646]

I am a big fan of EU, and I don't like to see it weak or got fragmented in the future. I really think the only way forward to have a safe and capable entity, is that EU seriously become more like one country. The EU need to be a superpower country like US, Russia, and China to be able to survive in any future challenges.

[@chuhaistyr3807]

Greetings from UA! 💙💛 Thanks for your job! ... Answering your question: Tier 4 of course! 1938 Hitler annexed Austria & the Sudetenland. Then Czechoslovakia & Poland. Nobody stopped Hitler then! "Consequence" -> "WW2"! Therefore: Tyrants and Terrorists (Hitler/Milošević/Putin) should NOT be APPEASED, but STOPPED, before "Consequence" -> "WW3"! N.B.: You can always help Freedom protect itself: Come Back Alive Foundation - Charity Organization, UNITED24, etc. P.S.: Join the Brave: International Legion for the Defence of Ukraine ...🛡UA = 🛡PEACE & ORDER in WORLD❕

[@herluisalvarado8366]

You forgot mean that the IIWW begin in Asia, when Japan invaded China in 1931 and Germany started realimitarized Renania violating the Versailles peace treaty, then Italy attacked and anexed Etiophia in Africa in 1936, following by occuping and Anexing Albania in 1937 and these in-actions by part of the West and the League of Nations were what allowed Nazi Germany, the USSR, Japan, Italy and later Hungary to become more aggressive and expansionist with their neighbors which result in the IIWW.

[@Huggeman]

One EU-army would be/could be like the Habsburg Austrian army split and uneffective.

[@Cuz.im.batman]

Europe was against German unification but now want to be like Germany and unify? Europe has to much say in the United nations considering its a union like America is why do the so many provinces of Europe have so much say

[@maniacsmaxs6815]

Great video!

[@Lord_Stig]

I think a first step could be for different regions in the EU to merge more. Take the Nordic as an example. Easy to streamline our military as policy wise we already agree on many key concerns. Also Sweden and Finland have already been taking big steps in this direction for a while. The same could be done in other parts of EU.

[@yep3793]

It must be a flexible model, initially taking into account the specific problems of some countries.

[@bernadette7398]

Willingness to fight is crucial. This only increases if the goal is clear. Therefore, improving what you have is better than making quick, bureaucratic decisions.

[@AndreDeLimburger]

Move all the way up. The goals and priorities of the US and the EU don't always align and so we cannot rely on NATO. We need a EU army. It makes no sense for each EU member to have its own army.

[@beasley1232]

American states have their own military, they call themselves the states national guard. A private military that takes orders from the governors in there perspective states and governors only. Early this year, the Texas governor has ordered the states national guard to seize control of Eagle pass and the border and expel all US border agents.

[@Kiki67Cappi199]

National security is vital, it does make sense

[@Darktiger01]

Could also go with a 3.5 with larger regional combined armies Scandinavia / Baltic, Mediterranean, Eastern. With varying conditions of i see this as a win since it would atleast decrease duplication and allow regional armies be equipped with systems tailored for them which could be a stepping stone for further integration in the future.

[@jamesroy791]

Ok so maybe Trump was right about leaving NATO

[@mortenlund1418]

It might be a wall breaker, but defense is only one relative small part of budgets spending. There are so many areas that needs more cooperation. Education, health, public administration, research, media, payment, everything with digital transformation, chips production, energy and the list goes on…

[@susandarber9942]

At minimum tier 3 At best tier 4 Hell, I would even recommend using Latin to communicate. Latin is neutral, only the Vatican state uses it as a national language contrary to English. Europe should never become an Anglo-Saxon/ Anglo-American state. We are stronger, we are smarter, we are... Better! 😅

[@inbb510]

Ireland: NO

[@lostininternet3611]

The unification of the army should take place in stages, where at the beginning each army in Europe, for example, will have to buy an initial number of aircraft of the same model and rest will be able to choose the individually and similar with different types of armament.

[@jackduddle9449]

Non EU nato members such as UK Canada and Australia and US are three countries with large militaries combine that with the other non EU NATO members they are way better than an EU military plus NATO spends all its time working on cooperation and interoperability between nations

[@everypitchcounts4875]

AUKUS exists. Plus Canada, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand are considering joining AUKUS tier 2 hypersonic missile technology programs.

[@Unity_Work]

As Always, Great Video

[@Supertobias7]

The problem with all of this is that each country has something else they find important (although you did mention this in the video). For example France wants to be able to do independent operations in their former African colonies to keep influence. Why would a country like Poland be interested in helping with this? Or a country like the Netherlands who has a focus on having a good navy to support their allies (mainly the UK and US) all over the world. The thing just is that every country has different things that are important to them, so you can't have one single military. And equipment is made for different purposes. For example while the British Challenger 2 and the German Leopard 2 are both tanks, they are used and made in a whole different way. The Challenger 2 is made as a mobile bunker to halt the Soviet (now Russian) army until reinformcements from the US arrive, while the Leopard 2 was made to be a cheap and easy to make fast tank.

[@bohbohbohwut]

True, that's why we need a federation and start making these decisions at federal level

[@mariosathens1]

Europe needs its own alliance Army ... in close relations with NATO The world is changing, it is multi-polar now with big players all around.. I believe everyone sees the several security crises all around us.. From the Mediterranean to the Baltics. Several joined military exercises are a MUST, several armies should be able to communicate and exhnage info and picture, at least.

[@Darshil01]

Excellent video, I agree on every point. First step should be to stop buying American and Israelian weapons to unify and streamline army equipment throughout the union and enhance European own weapon development.

[@reddiego]

Despite EUMS having a clear stance on political aspects that are eventually always disclosed, it delivers it with more than enough neutral information that makes it clear when it does. Kudos to transparency.

[@legendofminecraft6310]

United we are unstoppable

[@MackOrc]

The roadmap looks good and I think we should strive towards tier 4 whenever it will happen and in addition we should strive for more people at least 2 billion in Europe so that we could measure better with our rivaling superpowers ;)

[@MDP1702]

I think tier 3 is a shortterm goal. Tier 4 should be the endgoal, but realistically not possible untill the EU is much more politically integrated in a way that will allow the EU government to control this army (or a large part of it, like an EU federal part next to regional "national" forces akin to the national guard in the US).

[@75622]

Different countries could be in different tiers. For example, some countries dont have their own military anymore and are fully in tier 4, while other countries just use the same type of weapons and work close togeter with other countries and are in tier 2 or 3

[@matejluptak]

Important.

[@michaelpilos]

Harmonization & Organization 👍🏼

[@foolwise4703]

I am all up for tier 1. Thies does require a sort of constitution though wherein we define the rules of how our military can be employed. This needs a strong, direct democratic mandate. More good things that we need!

[@1LPMx1]

I think there is a possibility that over time tier 3 evolves into tier 4 all by itself. At the beginning tier 3 is easier to convince members of. Some members like Austria probably won't agree to a direct proposal for Tier 4. However, there is a chance that once tier 3 is implemented, over time more and more members do away with their national armies and begin relying solely on the EU-army as this might be easier and cheaper and offer better capabilities.

[@GZhechev]

I think reaching tiers 2 or 3 would be nice in the more recent future

[@franciscouderq1100]

Both To start with the question makes no sense

[@JustSomeTommy]

All the way up! 🎶

[@vencik_krpo]

4:31: Compliment != complement

[@iCandyFlip]

I think tier 3 is the one we should go for, until we can at some point fully integrate (which would probably take many many years, if even possible)...

[@lostininternet3611]

In my opinion, all countries in Europe should initially develop a similar army model where, for example, they use two models of tanks or planes and then the core of the air fleet of each army, for example, should be the same model of plane chosen by the whole of Europe and the second model constituting a supplement in each army is already an individual matter of each country, a matter of its own industry, etc. It should be similar with tanks etc. etc

[@caiomiranda8055]

If Europe wants to be a superpower it has to function as close as possible to a single country, however this will suffocate some local interests and destroy sovereign it will be interesting to see witch route you guys are going to choose.

[@rommels44]

Conflict of interests with NATO, you can bet your sweet potatoes if USA has different interests than the NATO as a whole it will choose it's own interests. From this stand point EU doing the same wouldn't really be any different.

[@lameguduzaku3772]

I just finished a thesis on this topic, and I am telling you that we currently are in between Tier 2 & 3, but we ain't moving up on those tiers anytime soon!!

[@bohbohbohwut]

We are not even at tier 1 because there is still unanimity requirement for foreign policy decisions

[@kf8228]

If the EU phases out old equipment and sticks to EU made when possible, those numbers go down. A lot of the Eastern Europe countries still have Soviet weapons. This should bring down the number of weapon systems if they upgrade to existing EU ones. Only buy foreign equipment if it’s really significantly better or there is no EU alternative.

[@TheLiberalHindu-f8q]

It is quite complex, as it has a huge cost more higher of the tier EU goes. The people would be burdened by tax rise and have to sacrifice their benefits like pensions, child allowances and education allowances etc. Economical situation will deteriorate. To save that EU has to be financially dependent on the USA anyway. So, it is better to be dependent on NATO rather than going back to WW2 era.

[@ab-ym3bf]

Both. The EU should integrate procurement and decision making so all members use the same, preferably EU sourced, equipment. It than is a comparable partner to the USA within Nato.

[@oadka]

IMO a separate sub coalition of like minded EU states should be made, who should make their own EU army with high levels of integration, NATO style. That way the usual veto-ists like Hungary can be kept out.

[@RasimonLPs]

Tier 3 would be nice. A european army while still having the ability to defend the single countries (because of some big differences between some contries).

[@freebozkurt9277]

This is a praise to be on this list.

[@GrigoriosGregorio]

You will NEVER be in this list turk

[@Snowiestttv]

we need to have the same types of everything, the artillery we produce are altered to our military not others, making it very difficult to share or repair etc..

[@princepsnamque1709]

Yes please

[@zenster1097]

EU is spoiled and doesn't want to contribute. Now want complete autonomy.

[@Aleks96]

The EU is not a state - you can't generalize an entire continent so easily! Poland, for example, spends 4% and soon it will be 5%.

[@kenkrak4649]

Why not just create a coalition of the willing who would create the EU army?

[@parco7735]

Should be a eu defensive army and then a nations army forces for each country