American Reacts An EU Army can challenge China and Russia - Here is why

Original Video: • An EU Army can challen...
Discord: / discord
Watch stuff and learn and chill hi whatsup ⚔️👋🧐
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through KZbin videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
Patreon: / mcjibbin
#europe
#eu
#army
#europeanunion
#military
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[@ac1455]

Kind of weird how they compare all these countries like the Eu members and China, says their spending is nothing compared to the US but doesn’t adjust it to the US level of 3.4% That’d increase the increased 2% spending in the video for the Eu around 50% and double for China. If they’re going to go into whatifs scenarios, it could at least be consistent.

[@SilvanaDil]

The EU countries would abandon their welfare hammocks to spend 3.4% on defense?! Not gonna happen.

[@SomeOne-hw6jw]

"they have a bigger army so they"ll win for sure" -every idiot since 190 000 BC

[@draculakickyourass]

😆Yeah,he surely didn't studied history. There were many wars,for example those of the Ottoman empire against the romanian principates,where the ottomans have been defeated having a ratio of 10 to 1 ....That's why i would say that Dracula wouldn't agree,haha.

[@destadhouder3689]

as of march 2023 the Dutch landarmy has largely been absorbed in to the German army and is also under German command The Netherlands however continues to decide on the deployability of the Dutch troops

[@FXGreggan.]

Just a thought, how much of US spending _actually_ goes into weapons/planes/ships produced and how much is research that will or will not see any real use? I know the research is necessary - that's not my point, but how much actually goes to real production?

[@TheSaltyAdmiral]

I don't think I have noticed it before your hair got some length, but damn you look like a young Benicio del Toro! :)

[@unrealversum7729]

he forgot one thing at 13:30. China's economy is growing faster. but eu grows from the members. Ukraine, Moldova, Croatia, Georgia... will also be part of the eu.

[@archmilan]

The 2% rule is much more complex than it seems on the surface, because here is the kicker; if all NATO countries would hit that 2% mark, but spend it exclusively on their own military industry there would be a huge falling out with the US (and there have been threats issued by US diplomats to drop NATO altogether if that were the case), because it is expected that NATO members buy largely US equipment. This partially makes sense because if everyone aligned uses the same gear operations can be more streamlined, but it is also definitely a tool used by the US for funding their military industrial complex. The status quo basically means that there is a tension between the US and the rest of NATO, where underspending is preferred to creating European (or canadian for that matter) military industries.

[@mnessenche]

a more federal EU also goes against US interest. A more powerful EU means a more independent Europe.

[@yolo7169]

A small remark: Objectively it makes no sense to compare aircraft carriers with and without nuclear propulsion... Their abilities have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

[@sally5983]

This really touches a little bit on how some of the supporters of Brexit felt. Currently everything is centralized in Brussels , which covers European law and finance. Skeptics saw and see the aim of one army as loss of sovereignty. Already they have one currency and the aim surely looks like more unification. It's not going to sit well with all countries to loose their independence.

[@Alexander-vo4gv]

brexiteers also somehow believed farage and bojo. it still blows my mind how brexit even happened. but yeah, there's been talks for federalisation for decades and it's never happened. I personally think it's a good idea, as most EU states get on well with eachother, but only time will tell

[@applecrumble8424]

Most EU countries want a closer union, Brexit being a driver for it when they see around them the consequences of isolationism

[@mikefraser4513]

@@Alexander-vo4gv There are more EU skeptics from France 47%, Greece 44%, Czech Rep., 43%, Italy 38%, Netherlands 34%...that is quite a lot of skeptics, especially France.when you see that the UK had 3% less. (the same as Greece). The critic: Too much bureaucracy too much political power in Brussels, corruption (Pier Antonio Panzeri, Eva Kaili and Andrea Cozzolino) and altho the EU claims to be consisted of democratic countries, I certainly wouldn't put Hungary's Orban or Poland's Andrzej Duda in this category. (Altho I must say I voted against Brexit).

[@arturobianco848]

@@mikefraser4513 I wouldn't put the UK electorial system in a full adult democracy either. But you are correct that a full federal system will not happen or at least not soon. The EU needs to be able to get rid of its problem children first or at least a mechanisme that can do that (lets see how long the population of those country's will wanna hang on to their politcal problem makers then). But even then i don't see a full federal european state happening (or at least not before an Eu army is established). You do not really need that though for a unified defense organisation. you don't really need to have big to rivall the other powers just big enough that they don't wanna mess with you. Also you can a smaller central one next to the normal ones by country who can then also be somewhat smaller. The eu would just be the enforcer that evrybody pays up. And you would need a seperate structure set up for the actual militairy organisation. Including the decision making proces of when to fully mobilize and when why and how to employ.

[@KimForsberg]

Basically, for the EU, we are not too far theoretically from delegating more powers to the EU, and military may be one of those. It wouldn't mean that each country would have no military, but that the EU commission would have access to a larger standing multinational force that is not part of any specific nation state. This would allow for an expeditionary force with more costlier pieces that otherwise no single nation state would afford. The Commission have a small force now of one battlegroup with an additional one on rotational basis fielded by member states. I would compare this to the difference between US states national guard vs US federal military, but with member states maintaining sovereign control of national defence. Is this likely to happen... who knows. One thing for sure, the EU member states would never in the foreseeable future delegate all defence/military power to the EU "federal" level. National defence is very much a matter of pride.

[@BS-vm5bt]

The main thing is that its a generational split and these old jackasses will eventually die out. Traditions will die out eventually and the more old people force us to follow that tradition with negative consequences the more resentment towards those traditions will appear. And eventually it will just die out completely this is what is happening with small towns across the world where we can not live in those traditional places anymore so we move out until it becomes a ghost town. The same you could say with nations just look at hungary where its experiencing a brain drain, its also common across many eastern european nations since many people do not want to live under a traditional conservative regime.

[@Mr.Incognito11]

So let's say a way stronger and far more prepared power decides to invade you.

[@Mr.Incognito11]

We actually see the in the EU because NATO is forcing Europe to Devolpe modern and capable armies

[@Micha-qv5uf]

You should reconsider your opinion about China being one entity. What we in the West percive as China is basically a han chinese ethno state in a huge and culturally diverse country. China is discriminating entire ethnicities inside it's borders. Uigures, Tibetians, Mongolians, southern chinese people. China doesn't act like one entity at all. It's just that many parts of it don't have any political power and are not representated on the international stage.

[@meriadecdebersacsurrivelie5235]

Many years ago, France had 3 aircraft carriers. Now, only one (but with nuclear power and flat bridge, a technology used only by France and USA). During many years, some said it was important to create a french-english aircraft carrier. With no result. A brigade has been created by France and Germany in 1989. It still exists. With no result ? I guess, yes. France decided to leave the programm of the Eurofighter to developp, alone, the wonderfull jet Rafale. Wars are political decisions. Even if we are allies and friends, there are limits to what we can do together. The ultimate limit is the potential use of a nuclear strike.

[@kaas352]

You could see nominal GDP as the amount of dollars, but GDP PPP as the actual production comparison.

[@Victor-jy8ko]

In Spain we de facto control the arguably most important and strategic point in the world which is the strait of Gibraltar controling the access to the Mediterranean and also the Black Sea. Also we definetely have tensions with Morocco + a history of being a country with a lot of military strength. Also the ability to project force over regions we have influence like Latin America added to the fact that Spain aspires to replace the void that the UK leaved in the structure of power in Europe since Italy has to deal with a huge ammount of internal problems and Poland although is closing the gap, remains so far behind. Those reasons and some othes make Spain spend a lot on its military

[@robertcottam8824]

Don't worry about The Straits of Gibraltar. Probably best to leave Gibraltar to the UK to look after. That way you can concentrate on your enclaves in Morocco - Ceuta and Melilla. Mediterranean closed. Job done.

[@andreabianchi6156]

Militarily and economic wise I don't see you guys taking third place from us, there's too much of a gap between Italy and Spain at the moment. And what internal problems are you referring to, exactly?

[@stampcollector74]

What about harbours in Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Amsterdam etc.? The Mediterranean may have been "the centre of the world" one time, but this is centuries ago.

[@Moribax85]

@@stampcollector74 I'm not spanish, so I'll act as neutral... Tell me: where do ships from Rotterdam pass through to get goods in China? Do they circumnavigate Africa? Do they brave the Arctic sea north of Russia? Do they go the other way around through the Panama Canal? No, they cross the Mediterranean to pass through the Suez Canal. The Mediterranean is still the center of the world for commercial shipping, denying it would only show one's ignorance on global logistics.

[@stampcollector74]

@@Moribax85 Spain is not even in the top 10.

[@FXGreggan.]

Even if not all EU countries commit fully it could surely have a smaller joint quick reaction force, not having to follow all NATO guidelines..

[@FXGreggan.]

@@micade2518 but an attack/defence force not bound to NATO requirements could enter conflict areas NATO can't.

[@FXGreggan.]

@@micade2518 Greece and Turkey has clashes now and then. A european force does not have to enforce NATO standards, unless the NATO cuntry in question is attacked but then its a NATO force hitting back - not the european force,

[@arturobianco848]

I'm fully supportive of an EU army but it will be supportive of NATO and use NATO standards. And it will follow NATO guidelines of course it also can deploy outside the NATO guidelines.

[@jonC1208]

Tge thing with spain ks that nato requires 2% of gdp in defense and spanish gdp is masive comparing with salaries etc

[@Elementalism.]

I have issues with the original video First: they left out a massively important unit type in these comparisons: Artillery, just look at Ukraine to see how important it is. It also assumes all these are equal, but looking at all the conflicts with western vs russian (and derivative) weapons, and you fill find that western weapons and crews more then make up in quality, what they lack in quantity. For example: russia has a carrier... it gets towed everywhere... but it still counts as a carrier We have seen russian air defenses fail time and time again, making them extremely vulnerable. We have also seen the difference between modern professional armies, versus conscription. Ukraine for example, a country relatively new to a professional army, is about 6.5 times as effective as the russian military, when comparing loses. So I think the EU could easily take on China And i could see it win a defensive war against the US as well

[@xxx_phantom_xxxw_t_a9479]

Hello from Switzerland (no EU member country), I think the approach of the video shown is wrong for several reasons. Because there are some member states that are neutral and would oppose either a common army or at least a military operation in the name of the EU. On the other hand, if Europe (as is currently the case) was threatened by events, several countries would certainly join forces, regardless of the EU (EU and Europe are two different things! see e.g. Switzerland and UK). Your concerns about the different countries are quite justified when you consider that these countries also maintain (at least partly neighborly) relations with states that are outside the EU. re I can't say very much about NATO, except that Sweden is not a NATO member. An aircraft carrier is there to serve as a floating military airport, it is its "main armament", other weapons are only carried by an aircraft carrier for self-defense (cruise missiles/short-, medium- and long-range missiles are mostly fired by other ships. It should also be considered here that an aircraft carrier never operates alone, it is always in association with other ships (cruisers, frigates, destroyers, supply ships and also a submarine), which also protect it at the same time. The strength of an aircraft carrier can not only be named based on the number of aircraft, many factors would also come into play, such as their weapon load, ammunition, deployment and weapon range, etc. hm, a carrier vs. carrier battle could well end in both taking significant damage, presumably the carrier's escort ships and defensive armament would play a crucial role. If you think of the UK's mistake in the Falklands War, a wrong tactic here can cost a ship (HMS Sheffield) and lives. I find it an interesting detail that the UK is "hidden" again and again, correct, it is not an EU member, but if a correspondingly violent conflict occurred in Europe, the UK would certainly be involved, which means that the forces (depending on) shift again would.

[@marcelrenes2435]

The reason The Netherlands is 5th on the list is we are a rich country. We are a country with just 17,5 million people. We do not even spend the 2% we agreed on! But from now on we will. I guess we were lulled into a sence of security because there was no imminent threat to us after the Cold War.

[@christineharding4190]

Cant speak for all British military but the word from UK soldiers I've spoken with on the subject was opposition to an European army. The feeling was that the British army, having more actual battle experience than other European armies, would end up doing most of the actual fighting. From what I've heard, European countries don't mind providing logistics but are very reluctant to commit their soldiers. Which is a fat lot of good if Europe is threatened. Regarding the language, the European Parliament uses English. The French wanted French to be the language of Parliament but it cost so much for translators that they reverted to English.

[@razorcat5491]

I feel like France is not that reluctant to use their soldiers & they have gathered a lot of experience from Special Operations in Africa for the last decades.

[@arturobianco848]

Wich war treathened the EU ? only one i can see is the one in Ukraine. and maybe the first IRAQ war although paying Iraq for the oil or quaite wouldn't have made a lot of difference. So you mean wars where england thought it was a good idea to back up its own interests? then you are correct we aren't that interested in fighting for that.

[@johnm7267]

What makes them think a European army could take on China or Russia. Putin said when criticized about Russian performance in Ukraine. " We haven't got started yet" apart' from boots on the ground Russia is facing NATO already and is winning

[@justarandomgothamite5466]

EC (european council( and EUCO (european comission) are the EU executive, by the way. So... I guess either the EUCO or EC president would be in charge?

[@FXGreggan.]

2% is a relic from the cold war, after soviets dissolution all european countries relaxed, but since Ukraine all spending rises steadily again...

[@maxxie84]

Sorry but I disagree with you, the USA was formed on the back of a civil war and currently the US is super uber divided, and many states have separatist movements, in China there were several kingdoms and wars throughout history as well

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

Its strange aircaft carriers, destroyers and frigates were all catergorised but not corvettes. The USA has no corvettes. China and Russia have about 80 each. Yes they are a smaller ships but they can still launch drones, helicopters and hunt for submarines. The force projection of having 80 of them is very big. Europe even has a "European Patrol Corvette Programme". It seems to be something the USA is pretty blind to, despite spending so much money on its military.

[@reeganana7094]

The reason is because why spend money on corvettes when frigate and carriers are superior in terms of power also you can still launch drones and Helios on aircraft carrier arguably more safer than corvettes or destroyers just because they have a lot of corvettes doesn't mean they will be going toe to toe with frigates or carriers they'll get blown out of the water by the bigger frigates or stuck down by air superiority of the US jets also it wouldn't be a good fit for the US NAVY as they aren't limited to small coastal defense which corvettes are limited to shallow waters as you wouldn't take something like that into deep open waters where they may as well as just be frigates also by tonnage the US weighs in more tons of displaced water because if you go by counting ships alone than China would beat the US by pure numbers but mineswipers or corvettes aren't going to stand a chance against a frigate or carriers also the US does field destroyers about 72 of them and 17 cruisers.

[@FXGreggan.]

Sweden has very capable stealth corvettes with great anti-ship and anti-submarine capabilites.

[@lazios]

The European Army will never take place, for many reasons (inside and outside Europe, e.g. the US who don't want that), that said, if we wanted to talk totally in abstract (again, it's something that will never be done in my opinion) it's forgotten that European states could easily bring military expenditure to 3% and the economic impact would be bearable without major problems and this means also that it could be increased further in case of necessity (obviously, being the European countries democratic, the public opinion would be the true problem to overcome). Another thing that is forgotten is the European technology, the skills of the various countries, each of the various single countries (at least the major ones) is able to build both conventional and atomic weapons (even countries that don't currently have them, however, have the internal competences to make them). In any case, we are talking about nothing, there will be no European army, the max that can be had will be more collaboration than today (especially against common enemies). Sorry for my English. 🍺

[@olivierpuyou3621]

As a Frenchman I would never accept that our armies be commanded by anything other than a Frenchman, if such a thing were proposed no doubt that we would have a revolution (yes I know another one 😉) In France the army is inseparable from the people, like democracy (bread, wine and cheese. 😏)

[@rowaystarco]

Haven't seen much of those 12000 russian tanks 😅

[@EliasBac]

Long story short, the EU is not comparable to the US in the Unity. The EU is a union of sovereign countries. Not a country made out of states. It’s just a united market for selling goods and people can move around freely within it. Although I’m not against the idea of EU members being more united, I can’t see that happening anytime soon tbh

[@draculakickyourass]

Yes,it is true the europeans fought many wars between them in the past,but...god forbid somebody today attack a EU contury,the whole EU and Nato wiould respond immediately. It would be the dumbest move someone would do in the entire history.

[@stephendisraeli1143]

An EU army would be fighting on the instructions of a coalition. Ask the Duke of Marlborough how easy it was to fight under a coalition.

[@robertcottam8824]

A good point, well made.

[@nickandersson4165]

Germany actually has more tanks than France. The 266 for Germany are only the operational ones but not the ones in stock. Total: 328 x Leopard 2, 100 x Leopard 1)

[@olivierpuyou3621]

Having a lot of tanks is good, maintaining them is better. If I base myself on the report of the German parliamentary commission: less than 40% of all the materials in service would be able to go to the fire. And this observation is valid for all components (land, air, sea). Well, everything is relative.

[@MLWitteman]

You do know have many internal struggles China, or even the young United States have faced? Yes, the countries of the EU have fought each other countless times, but having one single Army, Navy & Air Force will actually force countries to work together. And actually, they already do right now with NATO.

[@Ganymede559]

Forcing co-operation will make them enemies, not allies. They will become greater enemies than they already are. And NATO itself isn't as unified as you imply.

[@MLWitteman]

@@Ganymede559 no one is being forced here. NATO countries willingly apply to join the alliance, with a democratic backing. Further integration happens in a similar fashion.

[@TheLastCrumb.]

If there was to be an eu army then nato would be obsolete

[@jsanchezba]

Yes, is correct. The biggest threat for Spain is and always will be Morocco.

[@razorcat5491]

Why would it be a threat nowadays ?

[@jsanchezba]

​@@razorcat5491 There's conflicts with the frontiers. Spain has Ceuta and Melilla in what Morocco consider it's their land, so they would want to recover them. Also for the fishing spots. They already did it once with the "Marcha verde" with the Sahara. Also keep in mind, that they are now buying more weapons than ever, including figther jets, so of course Spain can't let them think we can't defend ourselves. Every year we have a few diplomatic issues with them. Hope i did explain it correctly.

[@davidsande2342]

There is already an existing that is working right now. NATO.

[@williambranch4283]

NATO has European civilian leadership, but EU wants to replace US military leadership with EU military leadership.

[@Jarni1979]

2:48 division by zero incoming

[@chaosjoerg9811]

It's a 'it would be nice if it were 2$' doctrine the Americans develoed on the 90ies. Since you can't really ignore the Americans, it's a bit more than just a recommendation tho.

[@zoefezius6615]

i think we will need an EU army - or a plan to make Nato to an EU army after the US breaks with Nato for... Pto. But before building an army one would need a plan for what the army would be needed for. Atm no threats to the north, no threats to the west - some migration problems to the south, but nothing on needs military for. So main problem is Russia for now and the near future. So a european army should be a NATO army in its capabilities on the continent, but without needing the US. So in question would be financing the defending costs of Poland and Finland as a first step for example. A european iron dome perhaps. European nuclear weapons - to be not dependent on France and US-Nato ones. Africa we would need good politics to stop them from falling towards Russia and China and therefor autocracy tendencies. So we would need military aid for democratic countries there IF asked for. European aircraft carriers for that job, puh, don't know, some ships to fight pirates and protect ships could do it. We would need a better intelligence agency ... i mean it can't be that Russia starts a war and we so... ups, wait 5 to 10 years till we get our weapons an ammunition ready... so some european submarines perhaps, aswell for controlling the arctic and greenland. I don't think a european army would have things to do in arabia and the pacific region. Question is only where on the earth everywhere is France for example, and if they would want the EU army to protect there departements too. But i don't think a european army should build too much in that direction as the US would request that in the pacific for its problems with China. As i think it wouldn't be possible to take the EU army out of the NATO obligations... so long a EU army wouldn't be a complete second army not weakening the national armies, and noone could afford that i think, and otherwise the US will definitly kill NATO. As i think China is right in one thing, with the republican party getting more and more out of controll, europe should stand in for a multipolar world and try being one pole in it. As far turkey won't join the eu after Erdogan there will be no possibility to offer a third choice for the people in caucasus region. Personally i think it would be a great benefit for the people there, and for turkey as transit state from there to old europe, too - but without turkey being a stable part of the union the eu can't offer anything to georgia, armenia and aserbaidschan than the anger of Russia. The world wide peace work should be done by UN anyways. Thats why i don't get... why Russia hasn't called the UN troops into ukraine when it fears russianspeaking people being discriminated... UN should really be more powerfull somehow...

[@FINNSTIGAT0R]

NATO cannot kick anyone out, so yes, the 2% is more of a suggestion than it is a requirement. The 2% is kinda artificial anyway, since if your economy is horse crap and your country is small, then you cannot buy anything with that 2% but if your economy is super powerful and you have a big population, then 2% might be more than you actually would need. But I guess it's the best option, to be a percentage of GDP, so...🤷‍♂

[@nigelleyland166]

The possibility of this concept was one of the reason prople voted for Brexit. We are all prety much in NATO already.

[@UhOhUmm]

The levels of coping about Brexit are reaching new highs. EU army wasn't even a discussion point in terms of Brexit reasons.

[@QuantumShock1]

@@UhOhUmm Yes it was. Nick Clegg was asked on public television during the Brexit debate about it and his response was an EU army is quote "A dangerous fantasy." Just over half a decade later that "fantasy is looking more and more like reality.

[@UhOhUmm]

@@QuantumShock1 It's incredibly unlikely to happen without some radical shift in politics and if UK was still in EU then it could always prevent it from happening.

[@markwtal9453]

Well, it was mostly to stuff it to Cameron and the ruling vlass. Then the idiots came out of the woodworks. The farages and Johnsons and so on, and they promised rainbows. We've seen 100 different reasons from the leave campaigns, and the voters picked a variety of them. Idk, not even half of leave voters believed the UK would leave the customs union and the single market.

[@bigenglishmonkey]

@@micade2518 considering Brexit voters are overwhelmingly working class and its them that usually go and fight in wars, while the upper class remainers cower at home then yes they likely did. and its increasingly funny that you lot constantly shame, belittle, and insult the working class, the majority of the country, and then wonder why you lost. but hey, maybe calling them far right racists because they dont want things like grown men trying to sleep with their children, will work eventually.

[@edgarallen645]

That was interesting and enlightening... the two problems as I see it are, will the EU Parliament be in charge of this combined force or will there still be countries wanting to have individual control of how their own forces are allowed to be used i.e. France who at one time couldn't make its mind up whether it was in or out of NATO and, the issue of a common language.

[@arturobianco848]

Neither a seperate structure needs to be build for this with a very strikt definied autonous rectioan criteria. If there is a need to go outside of it either the Eu parliment and/or the Councill (maybe even to a degree individual countrys if a large enough part of the army needs to be employed) must make the decision.

[@olivierpuyou3621]

No, France never left NATO, it left NATO's unified command, which is very different. To explain simply, France would itself command its armies and would therefore be free in its tactical and strategic movements and above all it would not be under US command. This would not prevent it from respecting its obligations vis-à-vis its partners in the Atlantic alliance. Shades everything is in shades.

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

The reality of enforcing the 2% is that, even if they dont contribute it, their presence in NATO is still valuable. It means theyre not pushed towards an enemy, and their location can still be used for things like airports and ports by the larger militaries. I.e. MALTA has a massively important strategic position in the middle of the Mediteranian, nobody is gonna criticise them as Valletta port is so valuable in NATO. Its more geopolitics.

[@MAXIMUSLOK]

United States vs European igemony .... Ngad vs tempest and fcas Abrams x vs kf 51 leo2a8 AH64E vs tiger Uh60 vs nh90 Etc...

[@billydonaldson6483]

With 27 countries in the mix their would be a power struggle as to who would lead and who would follow. They twiddled their thumbs during the struggles in the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans. It was the U.K. and the US who took the lead, the EU had to have meetings in which to make decisions, getting all national reps together never mind agreeing to a common plan was a slow process. Some countries had alliances with the countries in the conflict. Unlike NATO which has a natural leader with the US being a superpower, Germany leading the pack because of its financial clout wouldn’t go down too well with some of the EU countries, especially those that were occupied during WW2; being a nuclear power France would want a bigger say in how or if these weapons were used, I doubt that they would submit to Brussels or want Germany to have command of those weapons.

[@dnocturn84]

Netherlands is merging their army with the German army right now. And they have been occupied in WW2 by the Germans.

[@Martini923]

EU doesn’t have army, for example Ireland isn’t a member of NATO nor is Malta, Austria, Cyprus, Ireland is a Ireland is militarily neutral country

[@user-sc5bu8or3p]

ПРИКОЛ, УМЕР НА МЕСТЕ!!

[@flioink]

"What language?" English, most likely. "Who's in charge" Hopefully NOT Germany.

[@zoefezius6615]

we could be in charge, but we should definitly not be in charge of purchasing management ^^

[@nathanielpettersen2560]

The "history" excuse isnt a good argument. If EU unite as one that doesnt mean the history in one nation just dissapears. And also most people see german culture/history as part of european culture/history.

[@TheLastCrumb.]

Go was trump berate European leaders about energy and defence. They laughed at him at the time.

[@user-sc5bu8or3p]

НАЧНЕМ, ЧТО КАРТЫ НЕ РЕАЛЬНЫ, В ТУАЛЕТ СХОДИЛ, ЧЕМ НА ПАСТЬ?

[@listerofsmegv987pevinaek5]

Let's be honest. If the French have their way, they'd be the one's in charge. All training, leadership, equipment, etc. Would be French. What they forget is they may have won many battles, but have won a few wars. And its the winner who really matters.

[@arturobianco848]

So who won a lot of wars lately? well nobody thats why its such a stupid thing to do.

[@JJBushfan]

I never understood why nuclear proliferation was such an issue. Surely it takes only one nuclear strike to destroy a city, and only a few to produce a devastating nuclear winter which would decimate the human population and destroy civilisation as we know it. It seems to me, therefore, that the number of warheads at the disposal of individual countries is just window dressing. Please tell me why I'm wrong.

[@arturobianco848]

The greater risk of nuclear eapons falling into hands of non nation organizations. And i don't even mean accedently. If evrybody has them its way easier just to give a small nuclear grenade to a terrorist organisation and keep plausable deniability. Now if a only a few countrys ahve them thats way harder to do. Also the change of a country getting a real lunatic in charge is way higher if everyone has them things might go boom then a lot quicker.

[@janbo8331]

Nothing wrong with your commentary, but the source video did not convince me. Mainly just counting budgets together which is a fool's errand. EU countries are far from being wartime self-sufficient. Artillery, anti-air and anti-tank systems would be out of ammo within a couple of weeks of high intensity combat. At that point it doesn't matter how many billiions the aircraft carriers and blue sea navies cost.

[@retropaganda8442]

Separating the UK from the rest of western Europe in terms of military zone makes absolute nonsense today. The whole conflation of the Union with the military relationship makes absolute nonsense. Brexit did not change a single thing when it comes to military. These are totally separate matters.

[@ryszardjanecki6998]

To są fantazje

[@donkfail1]

Never thought of that; will English still be as important in EU without UK? Hopefully so.

[@valeriedavidson2785]

The English language is still the most widely spoken, most important language in the world.

[@arturobianco848]

Yes its the most common languege we all speak. Also since non of the major powers inside the EU is an English speaking nation it would be ideal no squabling over who won that fight.

[@valeriedavidson2785]

@@arturobianco848 Ireland is English speaking and all European people learn English anyway.

[@arturobianco848]

@@valeriedavidson2785 So is malta but neither is a major power inside the EU.

[@valeriedavidson2785]

@@arturobianco848 English is THE international business language so the EU really has to use English.

[@paulbromley6687]

The problem with an EU army is its high command EU government control it will take so long to decide on any issue it will not function well. some elements will refuse to be aggressive and will only function in a defensive role.

[@arturobianco848]

Hi Paul that woudn't really be a problem if they set it up right and under what conditions they can employ. I don't think a single EU army will be created. But more of a core army to finance a highly mobile, high tech and the most expensive parts of it.With indivudual smaller milteiry forces tailord to the individual country's needs. Maybe also keep and maintain reservs of more absolete but still nice to have stuff. The core would need to be fleshed out by the individual country's during a big conflict. Now you are correct that it will be difficult to employe it in an agressive role but thats totally fine by me. I don't like other country's doing war upon other country's. Thats for warmongering states not ones that want to be strong enough not to be bothered by those agressive states. As for other conflicts it needs to big enough to employ for a small conflict outside of its territory. and you don't need the influx of personale there. Arrange it right one when, why and how you can employ before hand and the objectionary country's can protest all they want but the wouldn't have say in it if it met the criteria.

[@coolschatten]

this is old already now Germany is spending next year 2% GDP and an extra 100 Billion on top

[@AtParmentier]

A nation is not a country, a nation is a ethnic group/culture more or less tied to an geographic area. A nation state is a country/state that is made up of one nation or with a very big majority of one nation (France for example is made up of French and some local nations). A nation can be created from a culture.

[@emailvinz]

I don't agree at all, France is the exact opposite of this, if you take a look at France's history, you'll find out that France is made of many people with many cultures and even religions and languages. It is just an historic fact, not an opinion. If you have time to check into history, look at how Germany was made, and Italy, China... the USA... So a nation can be, as you said made of one ethnic group/culture ("ein volk ein reich ein führer" ?), but it is not the only way, it can be made by a common vision/interests too.

[@fabs8498]

@@emailvinz c'est pour ca qu'on a ca qu'il y a une culture millenaire d'integration en France et non pas de communautarisme.

[@mihapiha1]

I think a united European military has to be on the table. We especially should finance a combined airforce and combined navy. The army can/could remain national. However, the expensive ships and aircrafts should be a joint venture. It's stupid that most of the EU has to rely on Franc's military to protect trade ... at least if it's even done within the EU. Usually the EU has to rely on American ships to protect EU trade. That's just not a good strategy long term. It's cheaper, but not good.

[@peterweiss123]

The US one entity ???? in terms of military maybe Well, you know, who put the 2% guideline into place to strenghten the position of the US? And SOMETIMES, politics make misconstructions like NATO spendings possible.

[@NLJeffEU]

The 2% NATO spending rule wasnt a rule but a guideline. After Trump it became a rule but with corona no 1 really did it.

[@frogmaster83]

The EU take ages to agree on the simple stuff, can you imagine them trying to mobilise an army?

[@UhOhUmm]

That's why one of the first assumptions in the video was that EU would need to become more close to a federal state. EU army is unlikely to happen any time soon.

[@noureddine3648]

They can't and most likely never will , the member states don't share the same interests and priorities .

[@RoobrtLiwanduski]

​@@noureddine3648most likey will create a separate special forces army, they wouldn't replace the militaries probably

[@noureddine3648]

There's no need for it , when sweden and finland felt the threatened by russia they didn't ask for a bigger EU cooperation on defense they went for NATO , EU defense is just an illusion born from french anti-americanism

[@FXGreggan.]

A full army is unrealistic but they could sure create a smaller combined quick reaction force like the NATO Response Force (NRF).

[@Anatoligg]

We have one currency why not army

[@user-sc5bu8or3p]

СТРАНЕНЬКИЕ вЫ

[@bentels5340]

0:44 God that irritates the 💩 out of me. Total military expenditure. Or budget. Or spendING. To spend is a verb, not a noun (unless you're a millenial)! 3:27 What's embarrassing about that? When would they have been deployed? During all the 0 times that the EU has come under military attack during 2007? Or during the 0 military situations since then that came under the purview of the CSDP? 5:03 It takes time (no problem), effort (no problem) and the political will (right now, an insurmountable problem). That we used to have wars is not an issue; we were all allies as often as we were adversaries. 7:59 It's a "NATO hasn't really been meaningful for over 30 years" thing.

[@robertcottam8824]

'Spending' is a gerund - rather than a noun - isn't it? (it's been a while since I revised my grammar. Pardon my presumption)

[@unrealversum7729]

14:30 English it would be 100% because you are part of nato.

[@user-sc5bu8or3p]

КОМЕНТ НЕ О ЧЕМ, НЕ ПРОКАТИЛО!!

[@northmen2018]

There is no such thing as eu army, there is only NATO

[@tomstorey8559]

EU army, another reason why the UK left

[@justanothername5199]

Read up on the history of china, buddy china is not much more homogenous than europe. Arguably india is much less homogenous than europe.

[@andersrefstad8235]

The "United" States ...

[@mosthaunted2]

The Common Language would definately be English, as the International Business Language is English,... We didn't Colonize the World for nothing.

[@user-ud7ug3ky4v]

you british? because in spanish ex-colonies they speak spanish. in french ex-colonies they speak french. Brazil portuguese, and so on.... Even in some ex-british colonies they speak other languages than english, like India, or Nigeria.

[@yeah91919]

greece has 1243 tanks wtf?

[@dnocturn84]

Yes, they are a bit scared of Turkey. There is a bit of a dispute going on between them for ages. Turkey is large and has a powerful military, so Greece has one that "matches" this threat.

[@user-sc5bu8or3p]

ПРИКОЛ В ТОМ, МНОГО РАЗГОВОРА, А САМИ НЕ О ЧЕМ!!

[@dutchman7623]

This is a very strange discussion because many EU members are also NATO members and work together on their defense. Example: the Netherlands have given their tanks to Germany and work together in tank operation. The Dutch navy is serviced by Belgium. What we'll see in the future is more and more cooperation and choices for one type of weapon(system). Whether the EU is involved or not. And maybe we will keep several types of tanks, but we will use the same ammo, when possible. You will see Belgian airplanes land on Italian carriers using German ammo while speaking English. Within NATO the rule still is: an attack on one, is an attack on all. So mutual commitment is already there. The EU part of NATO will, through integration, slowly become a single block within the NATO organisation.

[@itwoznotme]

it would never happen. lol i am now 3 minutes in and i think it is becoming clear this is madness.

[@Londronable]

Differences are just too big to do this on a EU scale but it is happening between neighbors. Benelux share airspace and navy, Netherlands share army with Germany, Nordic airforce, etc. But yea, it's not happeing between Romania and Ireland.

[@Mr.Incognito11]

We rebuilt their countries after ww2. NATO.

[@Mr.Incognito11]

Good luck getting a better deal from anyone than the US. Maybe France?... wait they are too interested in maintaining their totally non-imperialist holdings in Africa

[@thomascolman6943]

NATO

[@jonathanhodgson2142]

Weird, I thought that was what NATO was for.

[@UhOhUmm]

NATO is still a treaty, it needs countries to actually follow it. If EU army happened the people responsible for it wouldn't have to wait for countries to respond.

[@FXGreggan.]

Also single countries like Putins lapdog Orbán of Hungary, or even Erdogan of Turkey with his own agenda, can veto any new members to NATO... NATO needs to be disolved and reformed into something better, maybe into a more global alliance not centered around the Atlantic and allow countries like for instance Australia to join....

[@jonathanhodgson2142]

@@UhOhUmm You mean they would honour their commitment better than they would to NATO? I like your confidence even if I believe it to be misplaced.

[@jonathanhodgson2142]

@@FXGreggan. Maybe. But I suspect Australia, Canada et. Al. Would not be in an EU army. Certainly not America.

[@AingealDhe]

An EU army would outnumber both active and reserve troops for starters. Economy would bring the EU above the US as it stands today. Let's not forget that Germany alone is the wqorld's 3rd largest economy and for a country of 83 million, that's amazing. That only goes to show that the technology we have in Europe at our disposal is just as advanced, if not more advanced than in the US. After all, the US is only where it is today due to German scientists after the war, right? Even today NASA and the Air Force have their technology mostly having German roots. The EU also has the worlds most advanced SAM's, AAM,s battle tanks and also fighter jets. Eurofighter is currently the world's most advanced combat fighter (excluding stealth) whilst the UK & Italy work on the 6th gen Tempest combat jet's which will be significantly more advanced than any jet alive today. The EU is a sleeping giant but as the years go by, it is slowly waking up and thankfully learning to stand on it's own 2 feet without US influence. We do not need or want them in Europe and we do not need NATO. A European Force would be a HyperPower, a force that God himself cannot stop.

[@joaquindiaz4730]

Rusia dont have 12 thousand tanks,they had 3500 and now 900 after ukraine war

[@williambranch4283]

One ... EU doesn't border China. Two ... EU before 2022 was pro-Russia. Three ... total money spent is less important than any of the other factors.

[@pershorefoodbanktrusselltr3632]

The size of your military doesn’t make you the most powerful as Russia has clearly shown, America failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan and failed in Vietnam, the Brits held off the Nazi war machine for two years alone and defeated their airforce as well, even though they were severely outnumbered. So saying well we got 50 tanks and you’ve got 20 tanks, so we win is just so naive!

[@CatholicSatan]

Sigh... there is NOT going to be an "EU army". The EU is simply trying to get all EU countries to synchronise its hardware and software so that procurement and interaction work together more efficiently. The EU can then use its buying power to get more for less. Not difficult to understand.

[@camrs125]

They have mentioned an EU army many times..from when drunken Junker was the top man…plenty of clips of various MEPs saying they want an EU army…sigh

[@robertcottam8824]

@@camrs125 Something blurted by a drunken juncker does not a policy make.

[@dnocturn84]

A unified army would not be a bad idea. More efficiency, better purchasing power, better distribution, better specialization. Large military projects with sufficient funding and a strong and capable weapon industry. There are many advantages for it, especially when military tech is getting more and more expensive over time. All of the arguments pro-EU, in terms of economy and trade (large trade area that can counter balance super nations like the US, China or India), are also true when you transfer them to the aspect of military.

[@garysimpson1486]

As Churchill said we will rally the English speaking world and commonwealth 🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿🇺🇲 Canada

[@lg5819]

We don’t need an EU army when European countries already work collaboratively under NATO. The narrator of the video, who suggested can an EU army challenge China and Russia, made an ignorant comment about the UK’s military power, when it’s been underfunded for decades, and cutback since the ending of the Second World War. The U.K. military can be so much more than it is, and I’m sure, with the current threats we will see a stronger military emerge from the U.K., to support NATO.

[@lg5819]

@czoncZ I agree but France is the instigator to creating a federal Europe. France wants a United States of Europe with its own military. Macron supports that! Like, reinstating French imperialism. Germany would go along with that, as well as Italy and Spain, but many European countries would be vehemently against it. If the EU pushes this, it will be the fuse that blows the EU apart. Ireland supports the EU but doesn’t want its army to take orders from an EU general in Brussels.

[@kimwilson3863]

When are they going to accept we are not in the EU club anymore! If China and Russia join it's goodbye to the USA empire building. As usual a pretty bias video. Please go back to world travel programmes, so much better, you are getting such a skewed bias view of world politics watching these videos. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@robertcottam8824]

It's fair to say that the folk in the EU don't give two hoots about Brexit/Gotterdammerung* anymore. It's not been a subject at any dinner table at which I sat for quite a while. Those tables have been located in eight countries, I think, which is a decent sample, particularly as it includes France and Germany which have the two largest populations. The sample only contains only relatively-educated folk. Six and a half years ago, the same people were horrified - just as their equivalents in the UK were. We just had no idea, regarding the depth of ignorance of the lower socio-economic classes. Personally, I'd never met anyone who intended to vote for Brexit. I'm not sure if I have even now. Regarding the poorly-educated, every country has 'em, of course (although few mainland Europeans exhibit the same levels of sheer ignorance of our own, dear tabloid readers. From what I have gathered, they were as glad to see the UK leave as our own xenophobes. As a rule, Europeans tend to respect - admire even - our suit and tie-wearing folk. Our shorts-wearing, drunken, beetroot-hued, soccer-following classes are universally loathed. In short don't worry over-much about the UK being missed. It isn't.

[@michelleclarke8264]

@@robertcottam8824 Oh dear, another Guardian reader !!!

[@robertcottam8824]

@@michelleclarke8264 My goodness, no. The standard of its coverage of the arts is dreadful. It doesn't employ any great wordsmiths in any field, actually. Used to be a Telegraph reader until it completely changed its editorial stance to milk 'the thick pound', post-Brexit. The Times has been going downhill since Murdoch took over. The rest of them are just filth, aren't they? I tend to read quality foreign dailies because they tend to be less parochial than our press. Thus a couple from: Der Freitag, Frankfurter Rundschau; Le Monde, Liberation, Le Figaro; La Repubblica, Libero etc. Way, way better for literary reviews than anything in England apart from Times and Telegraph... The New York Times is probably the best of the Anglophone newspapers if your Foreign languages have got rusty. Long answer. Sorry. Typing absent-mindedly as Im listening to the cricket. No. I'm not 'another Guardian Reader'. - whatever that signifies. I'm not even a Guardian reader. Best wishes

[@dnocturn84]

Who is "they"? The original video is up to date. The UK isn't part of the EU in any image or regarding its facts/claims. The UK isn't part of this topic at all, exept of being just another example in the discussed statistics and charts. So where exactly is your issue? Are you reading a bit more into this that there actually is, or are you talking about the comment section itself?