What is the Future of EU Defense (ft. UEF)

[@Kaslor1000]

"Why are the Germans only terrible at war when they are on our side" - that's honestly hilarious.

[@thembastoep733]

Yall made sure they were defanged, now they have no teeth

[@thorH.]

@@thembastoep733true

[@connorcrowley1]

Germany (both sides) were beasts of a military untill the 90's. Now their military is generally not considered functional or even able to mount a domestic defense.

[@badluck5647]

​@@thembastoep733 You can't blame German degrading their military through bureaucracy on anyone except Germany

[@NIdo-tj7vu]

Nope, we are to blame. The bureaucracy is like a depression that numbness the entire country. We can't build a toilet without 100 different permits

[@jaro551]

Can I just say, I love all my European brothers and I hope we'll grow strong together! We need to work together. 🇧🇪🇪🇺

[@ProjectMirai64]

Love and respect from Romania to you and to all our European brothers and sisters!

[@Blabla-od7vt]

We need more Europeans with your mentality!

[@Autoblindo]

Respect from the Italian Republic. Divided we fall. United we resist!🇪🇺

[@jakobtarrasericsson4295]

Merry Christmas and respect from Sweden! We stand with our European brothers and sisters in arms for our future, made stronger together!

[@Autoblindo]

Marry christmas man

[@absolutezeronow7928]

As an American and someone who believes in the vision of the EU, I definitely agree that the EU should become more independent of the US especially given how toxic our domestic politics are. Hopefully EU stands strong against Russian aggression even if my country again makes the mistake of going isolationist.

[@herptek]

Europeans tend to be almost as woke as America. So it is almost as bad here as there, although the ideology has anglophone origins. European military doesn't increase our military security, it only stands to decrease the security of those countries that have always handled their own business in this matter.

[@wyldhowl2821]

(Speaking as a Canadian) you are correct about that. Toxic politics tends to bleed over borders as fast as COVID, and with an even worse effect. One has to wonder: if Europe had done so previously and rejected George W. Bush's push for NATO expansion, whether Russia would even be an aggressor today. Putin might never have gotten the kind of "justification" for the things he did, as escalating the aggressive posture of Russia required a lot of buy-in from Russia's military and intelligence services (who needed to be convinced Russia was facing a mortal threat if they did not act aggressively).

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

​@@herptekuhh there's alot of influence in this ideology from French intellectuals.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Yes, because it's the job of the US to help subsidize the "vision of the EU"? Right? Self loathing Americans desperate for approval from Euroepans guna self-loath.

[@herptek]

@@chickenfishhybrid44 In the particular form that is currently fashionable it is mostly an anglophone phenomenon. Bizarre rebellion movements like BLM are typically American liberal currents that white liberals everywhere like to ape to show allegiance to ideology.

[@Blabla-od7vt]

I agree with your opinion. The US is unreliable, but so is the EU with its principle of unanimity and the apparant lack of common geostrategic goals or the capability of putting them into action.

[@markangellotti893]

Requiring unanimity is a huge weakness. Even in NATO this is a problem because Sweden is prevented from joining. Qualified majority voting, not unanimity.

[@csibesz07]

"US is unreliable" They have been quite reliable so far.

[@kkrolik2106]

US is more reliable than Germany

[@heressomestuffifound]

Exactly this.@@markangellotti893

[@tnickknight]

Germans are the biggest problem

[@SuperTommox]

We absolutely need a EU army. We can't expect other people to fight for us.

[@sockosophie3132]

And we can't sacrifice our people so that the US can bring "democracy" and take the oil in "exchange"

[@MrOliver1444]

And spend so much for nothing

[@namelesswarrior4760]

The US brings nothing but pain and suffering to everything that it touches.

[@zonehd3433]

@SuperTommox And we should not have to fight for a cause, we do not support.

[@Nowherenear-w1d]

Some countries like Ukraine or Afghanistan already relied on US. We all know how it played out. US citizens do not care about the rest of the world, sad truth

[@michalipiperakis9380]

I love Europe!!! Love from Greece! GO EU and thank you to our US buddies! :)

[@IMGreg..]

Trump and Ukraine are exactly why Europe shouldn't depend on consistency from the US for its defense. It should match US global capabilities and unify organization. Don't exclude Canada, we can be Europe's energy and resource supplier.

[@beasley1232]

Canada is the USA closest ally, where ever US foreign policy pivots to, so does Canadas. Canada follows the USA (not in a bad way tho since Canada does have criticism of the USA). For example: The USA pivot to Asia, Canada ALSO pivots to Asia and the pacific, what do you think the Canadian navy is doing in the Taiwan strait, they are training with the US navy in the region to counter China. While Canada is a close ally to Europe, they are a closer ally to the USA. Since ww1 Canada and the USA have fought on the same side in every single geopolitical war or conflict.

[@thomashsiai6250]

The European nations cannot afford a military that could rival the US -Any possibility of such requires a huge and concentrated military alliance beteeen EVERY European nation -The funding of which would mean more tax hikes on Europeans who make less money than the average American - Large services like healthcare have to be defunded which would cause more unrest than usual -Any US collaboration needs to be severed or limited such as the F35 project and NATo’s existence has to be evaluated

[@didixtar2863]

@@thomashsiai6250you’re right, specially considering that the US will double the nominal GDP of the EU in a few years, this is just not realistic

[@mortenlund1418]

I think the US is part of the free world which we should support and expand. We need closer integration to fight the wasteful duplication and loss of economy of scale. US needs Europe and Europe needs US. Its a fact. I even think we need more in the boat. We need to rethink how we deal with less wealthy parts of the globe. I doubth how many voters realize the strength, China posesses now and even less what they will posses in the future. It is unbelievable to watch our politicians strategic sense. But we get what we vote for.

[@beasley1232]

@@mortenlund1418 while the EU and the UK are important partners of the USA, the USA still has enough allies outside of Europe to spread its hegemony and influence. Coupled with the fact that by 2030 the US gdp is expected to be about 35 trillion dollars, China is expected to have 32 trillion dollars and the EU is only expected to have about 21 trillion dollars, they are falling behind China and the USA. The USA doesn’t need Europe as much as Europe needs them. Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦, Japan 🇯🇵, Philippines 🇵🇭, Vietnam 🇻🇳, Canada 🇨🇦, Morocco 🇲🇦, India 🇮🇳, Pakistan 🇵🇰, Thailand 🇹🇭, Israel 🇮🇱, Australia 🇦🇺, Taiwan 🇹🇼, South Korea 🇰🇷, Panama 🇵🇦, Nigeria 🇳🇬, Niger 🇳🇪, Liberia 🇱🇷, South Sudan 🇸🇸, Chile 🇨🇱, Jordan 🇯🇴, Mexico 🇲🇽, Brazil 🇧🇷, Botswana 🇧🇼, Ghana 🇬🇭 and Costa Rica 🇨🇷 are examples of American allies where the USA could realistically spread its hegemony or influence outside of Europe. Right now, there is a mini Cold War in Asia between the USA and China to battle for influence in the Asian pacific Asian. This is why we’ve seen increased diplomatic relations between the USA and Vietnam for example, Vietnam upgraded their relationship with the USA to a comprehensive relationship giving the USA the same diplomatic position in Vietnams government as China, Russia, Malaysia or Indonesia. The USA is now Vietnams largest export partner while China is Vietnams largest import partner. Saudi Arabia and the USA also signed a military training agreement deal recently as well. As Saudi Arabia is trying to push the USA to guarantee their protection in exchange for recognizing Israel. The Philippines renewed their military alliance with the USA allowing the USA to set up 9 military bases in the Philippines aimed at countering China in the South China Sea. Papa New Guinea also signed a military alliance with the USA for the first time in the country’s history. And ofc Morocco 🇲🇦 is the USA oldest ally with the treaty of peace and friendship in 1786 establishing full economic and military trade and alliance between the 2 nations. Morocco offered to protect American naval ships from the Royal British navy. The Muslim nation describe the US and Moroccos alliance as a friendship that will live on forever. The USA considers Morocco the only democratic Muslim nation as well. So it’s not like the USA doesn’t have allies outside of Europe. The USA has many allies outside of Europe. That’s one of the USA’s biggest advantages in global politics, while it does have enemies it has atleast 100 allies across the globe on every continent. No country Can really threaten or challenge the USA except for maybe China 🇨🇳. Other US enemies like Iran, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria or Yemen are either weak, in political turmoil/civil war, or in rapid decline in their military and economic power, OR just the most vile evil regime in the world who refuses to collapse (North Korea & Iran)

[@OneOnOne1162]

Great video. The thing that I think a lot of us need to internalize is that while America is our ally, they are an ALLY. They are not US. And sometimes we have very divergent interests. I'm all for Europe continuing to work together with the United States as part of NATO. But we also need to be able to defend ourselves and stand up for our interests. And the U.S. would prefer we are entirely dependent on NATO and them because that is just to their benefit. But not to our benefit.

[@markangellotti893]

I'm an American and I don't think it is in US interests for Europe to have such a divided and ineffective military. I support EU-Defense. See my comment above.

[@ChristiaanHW]

it seems more and more that the US is an ally as long as it's able to dictate the terms. they (seem to) try to keep the EU divided so they won't lose the power they have to influence the individual member states. just recently in The Netherlands we wanted to reduce the number of flights a year landing/taking off from Schiphol airport because those flights pollute a lot and we wanted to bring down the polluting in part by reducing the number of airplanes landing at Schiphol. but after a tantrum of the US the government had to do an 180 and pull that plan.

[@davidkinnear1905]

@markangellotti893 then why would it be that despite the US asking European countries to increase their spending, EVERY time the EU wants to make it more effective and work together the US starts complaining. It is pretty clear that they don't want cause it would reduce US influence.

[@MyPrideFlag]

I'm Polish and I trust Americans more than I trust French/Germans. They treat us as a buffer province and would sell us if the alternative was full scale war with Russia. There are divergent interests within the EU. So Polish army first, then NATO. We don't need an EU army.

[@MyPrideFlag]

@@davidkinnear1905 I prefer American influence in Europe over becoming a German Land or being sold to Russians.

[@p.serrano3546]

As a Portuguese and European, this week I was happy that the EU took decisions to regulate platforms and social networks on the internet for all EU countries. More than power, this shows unity, fraternity, concern, teamwork and a sense of state. This is the Europe I want. A Europe capable of protecting itself and creating mechanisms to have a joint military force that allows, above all, to show unity, strength and equally guarantee the safety of all of us.

[@mikek9297]

That's great news... I wish that in the spirit of "F you in particular" they focused their regulatory tool on Xitter in response to apartheid's nepo baby's threats, but that would be too good to be true.

[@tilikum4714]

🇪🇺 We need to stand for ourselves 🇪🇺

[@jh5kl]

for sure 😀👍🇪🇺❤️💪🤝

[@Raar5467]

Yes but still work whit USA ❄

[@apb2081]

My choice is EU european army part of NATO. THE EU army will make NATO even stronger the two things work very well together , the EU army will be the second best army in the world after the US.

[@attilaabonyi8879]

This i agree

[@Ganymede559]

Good idea.

[@filipe5722]

Likely not after the US, but after China. Anyway, we should strive to be the first, not second after anyone.

[@apb2081]

@@filipe5722 china has a very weak army

[@marshalljulie3676]

Nah EU needs to be able to stand without the US in case of war breaking out over disagreements. EU is powerless right now US blew up Germany's pipeline and the Germans can't do anything about it but ignore it. That's not how a sovereign country acts.

[@albevanhanoy]

Absolutely stunning video! I strongly agree with all your arguments. A true common defense policy, deeper cooperation and integration of our armed forces and enhancement of our military industry are vital to preserve the sovereignty of Europe. The USA have proven they are no longer a trustworthy ally, and Russia has proven they are actually hostile. Thank you for your amazing work. This video deserves millions of views.

[@gonfer457]

I don't understand how there are people who think Russian is ever trustworthy.

[@didixtar2863]

How is the US an untrustworthy ally? Because their asking Europe to pull its weight? Or because their giving us billions of dollars for the Rusia-Ukraine wars? I think the reason why the US is not to keen on a united EU army is because they know the french would be calling the shots and the French are quite anti-Americans, look at Macron’s Napoleonic fantasies 😂

[@calc1657]

What have the US done to prove they are no longer a trustworthy ally?

[@daseinzigwahrem]

Unfortunately this will not happen due to Fr*nce

[@albevanhanoy]

@@daseinzigwahrem France is literally one of the most important driving forces of the union's military integration. You clearly don't know shit.

[@sciamachy9838]

Woooo, Camporini out of the blue? gg, content is really going up with quality

[@angriboi]

As a German, I would strongly prefer a european defense, than an american-dominated NATO one, as it has been clear for years or even decades, that American geopolitical interests are completely different, than those of european countries. Europe is nothing but a buffer zone for the US. Europe has to become more independent from Washington.

[@GnosticAtheist]

As a Norwegian, Im all good with NATO, but considering the issues with that funny orange man, if he wins again, we might have to consider the Union if they made an army. But without an army the EU is pretty irrelevant here, as we would just be a natural resource piggybank without getting security in return.

[@Blabla-od7vt]

For nobody in Europe is the EU irrelevant, not for the British, not for Norway, not for Russia. Norway is deeply integrated with the EU through EFTA and the EEA. I believe Norway's economy is more diverse than just being a 'natural resource piggy bank.' Joining the EU would likely bring both opportunities and challenges to Norway's natural resources sector and overall economic landscape. This naturally depends on the negotiations upon entering. Rest assured that no country will join the EU if it doesn't benefit from the membership.

[@Ganymede559]

@@Blabla-od7vt The EU is irrelevant for Britain because we have the CPTPP.

[@saturationstation1446]

orange man works for the brittish crown. no need to worry about that. any person who supports established power is almost guaranteed to be a european loyalist. also guaranteed to have never done a single day of real work in their lives.

[@GnosticAtheist]

​@@Blabla-od7vt You may have misinterpreted due to me not being clear enough; the EU as something to consider joining as irrelevant because the driving factor for Norway is the required military support of an organization. The economic part is not enough to get the people to vote yes in EU membership, but joining NATO was not a major issue, as that meant military security. We do not have the population for an effective army, thus making that the top priority for most people, and joining the EU requires a popular vote. I am fairly informed about the EU, but most Norwegians are not, or rather, dislike the entire concept of unionization, regardless of what it actually means.

[@MyPrideFlag]

@@GnosticAtheist Orange man won't dissolve NATO

[@parmentier7457]

The Dutch army has been integrated with the armies in neighboring countries for decades. There may also be other European countries that do this. The reason why the Netherlands cooperates with Germany in particular is because in the 1990s they made major cuts to the military. To save costs, they opted for more cooperation. - The United Kingdom-Netherlands Amphibious Force (UKNLAF), the collaboration between the Royal Marines of the United Kingdom and the Dutch Korps Mariniers. This integrated partnership has existed since 1973 and both armies train intensively together, use the same equipment such as wapons and all-terrain vehicles, the same landing craft, communications equipment and winter equipment, etc. And study each other's doctorates. The UKNLAF consists of 1,000 British and Dutch Marines. - 1st German-Netherlands Corps (1GNC) is a multinational formation consisting of units from both the Royal Netherlands Army and German Army since 1995. It is situated in Münster (North Rhine Westphalia), formerly the headquarters of the German Army's I. Corps out of which 1 German-Netherlands Corps evolved. The corps has national and multinational operational responsibilities. This army consists of 1,000 men at headquarters and up to 60,000 German and Dutch soldiers. - The 414 Tank Battalion. A German-Dutch tank unit of Leopard 2 tanks. The battalion consists of approximately 350 German and 100 Dutch soldiers. The battalion is stationed in Lohheide near Bergen in the German state of Lower Saxony. The tank battalion is under German command., - Admiral Benelux (ABNL) is a combined naval fleet of the Netherlands and Belgium based in Den Helder, Netherlands, since 1948. The ABNL is responsible for the combined operations of the Dutch and Belgian navies and can be charged with responsibility for the operational readiness and deployment of the combined fleets in joint operations, both during war and peacetime operations. The ABNL is primarily responsible for the efficient deployment of joint equipment and personnel and oversees the joint training programs of both navies. Both Dutch and Belgian sailors follow the same naval training and since 2022 both navies have worn the same new naval uniforms. Both navies have now jointly ordered frigrates and other ships. - Belgium and the Netherlands have jointly monitored the airspace of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg since January 1, 2017. They use fighter aircraft to protect the Benelux countries against civil and military aircraft that pose a threat. Currently, the Royal Netherlands Air Force has 30 F35s in their fleet. Now that the Belgians have also opted for the F35 to replace their F16s, the Dutch and Belgian air forces can integrate even better with each other. - The German army has access to Dutch naval vessels such as the HNLMS Karel Doorman and can use them whenever they want. What the German Navy lacks is a large multi-functional support ship for amphibious operations. The Royal Netherlands Navy has three of these large ships for transporting tanks, helicopters or large troop movements. - The Dutch light brigade and the Belgian medium brigade have been working intensively together since 2012. Here too, they train and practice together in the Benelux training center. The goal: to increase the output of operational capacity and military effectiveness by bringing the armed forces closer together. The unit consists of 6,000 Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourgish soldiers. I assume there are more European collaborations between militaries. A single EU army would be difficult to create, I think EU armies would work better together with countries that understand each other's cultures.

[@dexocon2658]

With Austria and Hungary, an european army could be a major risk. They would give Russia all informations on a plate..

[@Nowherenear-w1d]

or simply block any decision making

[@filipe5722]

In other words, you are saying that NATO membership is a major risk because Hungary (and Turkey) are already part of the alliance.

[@marshalljulie3676]

What the hell are you talking about? What information exactly? Russia literally helped Germany remain a powerhouse US is taking that power from Germany just look how quickly they abandoned France in Africa to save themselves no Europe is stuck footing the bills for Ukraine. Natural gas from Russia was much cheaper than what they are getting from US the pipeline sabotage was the only way to force Germany to buy natural gas from US which is much more expensive crippling factories and other businesses.

[@illuminati2341]

@@filipe5722Yes but Turkey isn’t pro Russia they are just pro Turkey which is the right way

[@JohnnySpan]

Austria?

[@MrBrunoMi]

Great video! Great channel. As a convinced federalist, I've been longing for such a channel for a long time, because most Europeans know little to nothing about the EU. The EU unfortunately does a relatively poor job of communicating about itself. This lack of knowledge from the part of European citizens unfortunately contributes to their lack of interest and European feeling. May your channel have all the success it deserves!

[@13BulliTs]

I so agree with your statement!

[@jh5kl]

very much agreed 😀👍🇪🇺

[@RuthroAlt]

the language barriers don't help sadly

[@BuildersSite]

We need stronger borders, I hope Frontex gets more funding and I hope we can remove the 1.5M illegal immigrants currently within the EU

[@zawiszaczarny7876]

Funding ain't the problem, eu is more involved in human trafficking into the eu than protecting the border. Cash was actually spend on teaching migrants on how to get to the eu, wake up sheep.

[@thomasbootham2707]

A man can only dream the eu is all for this illegal mass migration multiculturalism garbage that the people of europe never got a say on

[@ChristiaanHW]

the problem with Forntex is, that because of all the things once signed at the UN the EU has to do this and that. we need a real border guard system that protects the borders and sends away unwanted people trying to penetrate the border. right now they have to pick up the immigrants and drop them in a European harbor because according to the UN we have to help them all. the EU just has to find their balls and pull out of those outdated treaties, at the moment those treaties will end up destroying Europe.

[@MB-em9ek]

@@ChristiaanHWThe same UN that wrote report to encourage a Replacement Migration for Europe...

[@marshalljulie3676]

​@@ChristiaanHWwell the logical thing to do is stop exploiting poor countries stop creating wars end foreign bases in other countries. Stop meddling and funding oppositions in other countries and you will have less migrants.

[@flashpointfps7619]

"Why are the Germans only terrible at war when their on our side?" Priceless.

[@petrudanmandru9583]

Great video, as an Romanian I can say that EU need's an army, we have a conflict at our back door and instability in the Balkans. NATO it's a great alliance, but EU need to wake up and take action.

[@AdanSolas]

More countries, namely those in Europe, Israel, Japan and South Korea should work on becoming more independent from the United States and more capable of handling their own affairs.

[@zawiszaczarny7876]

No, quite the opposite. Half of europe is actually strenghtening relations with USA, same as Japan, Taiwan, Korea. So what on earth are you smoking?

[@AdanSolas]

@@zawiszaczarny7876 I’m saying that they should work on becoming more independent from the United States. An alliance is fine, good even, but they should not be beholden to the interests of the United States and they should be able to pursue their own national interests should they diverge from those of the United States.

[@thomasbootham2707]

European countries individually can’t defend themselves from the likes of China the future of European defence is either nato or an eu army

[@zawiszaczarny7876]

@@AdanSolasEU countries are not beholden to USA interest, i don't see Europeans standing in line in UN to protect Izraell for example, quite the opposite.

[@AdanSolas]

@@zawiszaczarny7876 Well, given that they haven’t done to Israel what they’ve attempted to do to Russia, you could say that it’s tacit support for Israel, at least. I believe, though, that support among Europeans for Israel is influenced more by certain “new additions” to their countries, so to speak, and will rise and fall as they manage that situation. But further to my actual point, the United States, although it says that it’ll always have Israel’s back, hasn’t actually left it in a position of true independence. It has a significant degree of leverage over Israel. That kind of relationship with the United States is what I was saying that countries should avoid maintaining.

[@cgt3704]

Yes. We need to be more independent from Washington and be taken seriously. And one way to do that is to have our own army that can deter any agression from countries like Russia. And it will boost our sense of unity and cooperation

[@MyPrideFlag]

I want my country to be independent from Berlin.

[@trthib]

@@MyPrideFlag That's easy, you just have to stop taking german's money, and investments, and stop exporting there, and..... Oh wait you'd be Belarus 2.0....let me guess, you are Polish....

[@MyPrideFlag]

@@trthib Not taking money is pretty easy, even tho they never paid for destroying Poland to the ground. It would be nice if their paid for reconstruction of Saxon palace but it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things. They can stick both reparations and covid renewal money up their as*, as long as they don't treat as a colony, not much better than China treats African nations who receive their money. Stopping export would me more difficult, Polish economy is a subcontractor of German one and Germans controll many sectors of Polish economy and sell us their finished products. In time it will be done, tho (transition from subcontractor to highly developed economy). But if Germans force us into a federation and controll our laws we will be forever a poor German province. They already use EU institutions, trying to stop us from building nuclear power plants or cargo port in Świnoujście. And German controlled media attack the construction of CPK which would be a competition to Berlin or Frankfurt airport.

[@AlexiAtlante]

⁠you have 3 options 1-Be independent, again for 4th time be occupied by Germany or Russia of course the UK is your friend for fuck Germany like is a friend of Portugal to fuck Spain while they oppressed Irish for centuries 2- be controlled by Russia 3- be controlled by Germany 4- be in the EU with many other nations What do you want ? Look for the future , if you wanna repeat the history do it , but you need to be more wise and think, ok happend this , finish we unified with you you strong and all we can improve that’s it , or compete or cooperate.

[@yourdailybeats1127]

Why not create a full union of nato best of all worlds

[@vienna5526]

Much needed video on a very delicate topic. Thank you.

[@AtakenSmith]

US: "Spend more on defense! NO NO! don't make an army...!" xD

[@herptek]

Exactly. No need for some federal Europe if countries would just spend on their own armies.

[@ImperatorSomnium]

United European Armed Forces!!!!

[@giovannimezzadri266]

yes

[@smal750]

never id rather die

[@ImperatorSomnium]

@@smal750 we have a deal

[@Mr_Topek]

NATO is better

[@jaro551]

You're not a European... shush​@@smal750

[@catastoic]

As a Polish I doubt France and Germany will ever be able to understand that we are larger than they wish we'd be both economically and historically, we are ambitious nation that will not allow it's politics be decided in foreign states ever again (it never worked for us in the past 200 years). Uniting Europe''s foreing and internal policies is simply impossible as long as Germany and France will play more significant role than other states.

[@1justme]

If it were to ever work, every country has to accept the others as equals. 🇬🇧🇵🇱

[@pp38pp]

Whereas: 1. The European Union happily did without Poland until 1999. 2. Poland receives much more money from the EU than it pays out. 3. Poland deludes itself into thinking it is much more than it is, in fact the (few) steps forward it has made were paid for with German and French money. 4. Poland has been creating problems for the EU since its entry. It follows that, if Poland doesn't like the idea of a more united Europe, it can go out of its way as the English have already done.

[@ludovic2431]

The USA makes choices that are not ours. Time to stand on own legs and say good bye to US foreign policy.

[@lukesmhudson]

Gotta be careful how you say goodbye to maintain good foreign policy with the US

[@alm9322]

So does Germany, so it honestly doesn't make any difference.

[@marshalljulie3676]

​@@lukesmhudsonis that a threat or something😒.

[@lukesmhudson]

@@marshalljulie3676no not a threat, just an historical observation. I’m not from the US.

[@PeachDragon_]

​@@lukesmhudsonthere's nothing to be careful about US hegemony only exists because of our economic backing, you need us far more than we need you. We're cousins but the British have damaged our continent enough by chaining us down to your foreign policy

[@johnkelly7757]

Very, very complicated situation but a useful, informative video explaining. It.

[@mariosathens1]

A European Army is a MUST if we really want the EU to have a voice on global and regional matters . The USA promotes their own geotstrategic interests which sometimes are not the same with the Europeans. Furthermore, after Trump's Presidency it is obvious that the USA can not always be trusted as an ally. Europe has the money and the military industries to build an army. Of course the EU's current structure is a problem since there are many institutions etc

[@csvickers151]

That would mean the EU effectively becoming a country. Under a confederation or federation? When that happens does the EU procure its own equipment or US made equipment. I’d argue use US made equipment and nato standard equipment that way not undermine nato and for a way for the us to profit from it as well.

[@everypitchcounts4875]

US can't always be trusted as an ally? Why, because they told Europe to start pulling their own weight. Its Europe that can't be trusted. Damn freeloaders.

[@jean-philippebobin3732]

I'more for Europeen commande because if discorde start between politics, their a need for autonomie.

[@uqs57bju]

@@csvickers151 Obviously European. They have already been buying from several different countries and it doesn't matter to NATO. Also, if we have to buy from the US. You can never find a way for it to profitable for us. You would also tie us even more to the US.

[@Franco60.]

The European Union MUST HAVE ITS OWN ARMY. We must learn to manage our sovereignty, not only in terms of food and energy, but also in military and geostrategic terms. ♥️🇪🇺♥️

[@savethebeesplantherbs8809]

well you get a war with the us and uk then

[@PeachDragon_]

Most importantly to stop american imperialism in Europe

[@Franco60.]

And Imperialism Russian !!!

[@person8203]

be careful what you wish for. Can you imagine each nation giving up their own military power and allowing the EU to be in control of a huge EU army. Might as well rename it to United States of Europe. Who knows what they would decide to do with an army, probably talk for 10 years and then nothing. Terrible idea. NATO without the US is still a strong well established group of allies that have spent decades training together. And on the plus side the US is still a big part of NATO

[@Jugement]

"European soverenty" will never be a thing for a simple reason. We arent part of a single country, and our nations all have very different foreign relations and national interests. We cannot build a credible common force in that regard, since every member with that prerogative would just end up veto-ing left and right. The only way to build a credible common force would either be to all federate under a unique country, or military command with absolute executive power. And both are obviously a complete deal breaker for every member

[@erik7999]

EU as an enabler sounds reasonable. EU-wide single army sounds like an enormous leap that we are not nearly ready for, but someday, with enough reforms and hard work put in, it will be attainable. I also find it agreeable that we shouldn't alienate our other allies who are from outside of EU. My country, Lithuania, hasn't been done wrong by the US or other allies and they are seen as a trusted friend and partner. That being said, we can't sit around and wait for the US to potentially implode from their internal problems. The full weight of our defence might end up falling down on our own shoulders in it's entirety and we have to be prepared for that. For now that means moving forward with political reforms in regards to decision making and developing common technology which makes our militaries more compatible.

[@badluck5647]

France protectionism would destroy any structure. If tanks aren't made in France, then France vetos. If jets aren't made in France, then France vetos. If ships aren't made in France, then France vetos.

[@the11382]

The EU as an enabler would be the glue that holds EU militaries together. Tanker aircraft and a couple of missile defense systems would go a long way.

[@jean-philippebobin3732]

​@@badluck5647France did by Germany rifles but got fck France did start Eurocopter with Germany and got fck France protectionism exist, but while Germany has one of the most slimy procurment system. France join MBDA with the British and other.. France and Italy did the FREMM And France has mostly respected their 2% and have the best army in the EU

[@badluck5647]

@@jean-philippebobin3732 France vetoed the EU from buying artillery shells from outside of the EU for Ukraine because they cared more about profit than Ukraine's defense. Let's also not forget how French protectionism has sank every EU trade deal. Macron only wants an EU army so he can pressure European nations to buy inferior French weapons instead of advanced American weapons.

[@benchoflemons398]

To be fair, the problem with all of government isn’t spending, but structure and incentives. Some things are innate.

[@inbb510]

One problem is definitely spending. There is a reason why the US doesn't have social programmes like the EU. If the EU pays for their defence and tries to completely replace American military with their own, then EU will become a lot like the USA with regards to (the lack of) healthcare and social programmes. Given your aging and declining birth rates, this is almost certain to happen if you Europeans actually went ahead with military sovereignty. Militaries aren't cheap and they take decades of continual investment and commitment by member States.

[@Terrorkarel]

The EU doesn't need to maintain a global reach for its security interests so it wont need as massive of a budget. But it will put some pressure public spending.

[@mattia8327]

​​@@inbb510 I don't think an increase spending is necessary, the EU could keep the same amount of spending and just unite all of them therefore being more efficient. Also the EU wouldn't need to defend the world, the focus should be against Russia, on land, and play a support role to the US to help with defending democracies like Taiwan around the world.

[@inbb510]

@@mattia8327 , that's still essentially freeloading off American defence then.

[@MDP1702]

@@inbb510 No, it isn't. Since it would be helping the US in something the US wants to do. If the US decides not so support Taiwan, neither will the EU. EU citizens don't want a military that acts as the worlds police (unilaterally). Cooperation with other nations if needed, sure. But there is no need to become a dominant global military power ensuring the safety of nations on the other side of the planet (again unilaterally).

[@jascrandom9855]

I think a Joint Budget and Procurement policy would be a good step if a united EU army isn't possible yet. That is all participating EU members join their military budget at an equal proportion of GDP and collectively fund the development and purchasing of equipment and weapon systems. The "Army of Europeans" I think should be made up of volunteer soldiers who want to join it of their own volition who want to defend Europe as a whole.

[@PapaOscarNovember]

In addition to consolidating defense contractors, EU should encourage (subsidize) resulting contractors to distribute their operations throughout EU countries, thus becoming multi-nationals. This way, there will be less opposition to government subsidies and awarding defense contracts, since these will benefit every member country. Also, there will be less opposition to adopting standard weapon platforms. BTW, this is how US defense contractors operate.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

And it has its downsides

[@samuelcollet8548]

Super vidéo! Completely linked with my european studies lessons

[@wyattdean5192]

Hey man! As an American I really think you hit all the points here. I 100% Agree that the the EU needs to shift towards becoming more militarily independent. I confidently believe that a Stronger EU would in a stronger in America and thus a more free world that benefits all of our interests. There are so many reasons why EU should become more independent in a military context

[@Yeosprings]

As a Brit reading the news over the past couple of months. I think even the UK is having doubts on the USA's commitment to protecting Europe within Nato. Especially if Trump get re-elected for another 4 years. As we seem to be doing more and more collaboration with other nearby nations with things like the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) etc.

[@Ganymede559]

Britain is pro-Trump so what are you smoking?

[@inbb510]

What's stopping Europe defending from self isn't America. It's Europeans themselves who have got too used to freeloading off American military support. Plus the young people would be against it anyways as that'll be "funding a capitalist military industrial complex which serves the cooperate interests". The young people prefer to make a "peace movement" in which we aim to achieve world peace by singing Kumbaya and waving protest banners cos hey, I'm sure that'll convince dictators.

[@raisinette35]

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine..how warm and affordable is that LNG? Not too bright EU. Russia, China, all of BRICS+ for that matter is not exactly suffering! What sort of paranoia have you adopted?

[@beasley1232]

@@raisinette35Vietnam and South Korea are fine. South Korea plus also has the 5th most powerful military in the world only behind India

[@raisinette35]

@@beasley1232 Who said they're not fine? The US hasn't won a war they waged since WWII. That's not much of an outcome for the most expensive and well equipped military machine in the world.

[@Greatshadowfighter]

A united european country would be so great in such every aspect. Please our politicians have to follow this concept and unite Europe the first time in history.

[@VitoDepho]

Great video. Agree with many points. Yes, it's time for the EU to de-risk from the 21st century uncertainties of American politics.

[@NickDeurloo2007]

First I wanted to say that I love the concept of a more united Europe, also wanted to say that I'm Portuguese🇵🇹 and Dutch🇳🇱. Well I agree with you said. But there are some countries that don't have the presence or not a total presence of a EU military equipment, in Portugal and the Dutch case it's their Air Force, they both have the F-16 and some other planes that don't make part of 'Made in Europe' , besides that if we act independently from the USA, we could get blocked of using those planes. That is my concern, even though I like the F-16. To conclude I think EU is getting united over time and that is a good sign. Merry Christmas and happy new year for you all.

[@Michaelcj-m2d]

Europe should only be buying from with in Europe. Euro fighter etc..

[@HotSkorpion]

While I agree that EU should move for more integration, and not just regarding Defence, the US would not be happy with it, and Portugal would definitely take the brunt of it because of Lages. Strong negotiations would have to be done to take Lages from the US, otherwise, the whole thing becomes useless as it would be a massive backdoor for the US to do whatever they wanted in EU. And I dont think they would ever want to do that. Additionally, our pact with the UK would also have to be considered as this one is much much older that the EU and US themselves, but still very much valid. If the UK would call on it, we'd be screwed...

[@Icenfyre]

Portugal has 97 F16s

[@NUNOANDROIDMOB]

28 :) @@Icenfyre

[@SeArCh4DrEaMz]

In the long term we need to dev a common EU defense policy (army) I really hate to admit it,I dont like the idea of having a powerful arms lobby in the EU but we cannot depend on the armericans, their agenda and interest isnt ours (war in iraq+afghanistan and the migrant crisis as a result..) a lot of the weapons systems that we buy here in europe from the americans only serve the interests of their own arms industry while at the same time we depend on them for our security and thus are subjected to what I would describe as an undesirable influence on EU policy...

[@ludovic2431]

Dutch and Belgium navys are also integrated.

[@RuthroAlt]

We happen to be very similar countries with very similar goals with our military, doing this EU wide would be far more difficult.

[@tobiwan001]

10:00 Germany only bought a small amount of F-35s and only for nuclear sharing. There currently was not other aircraft available certified to carry the B61 bomb and not hopelessly outdated. Which jut shows that Europe also needs joint nuclear weapons.

[@foolwise4703]

I could not agree more that Europe needs to unify its outer policy. Relying on nato means being fully dependent on the US, which is not a healthy friendship where the US get to dictate policy and demand more finances, leading to frustration on both sides.

[@Pouncer9000]

When G W Bush gleefully tried to (and partially succeed) divide the EU it made me forever detest US foreign policy; it's one thing to promote your own interests, it's another thing to take a hammer and destroy what isn't useful to you. The EU should absolutely build up a convincing and autonomous military capability, France is an example here in that it integrates NATO but retains full sovereignty over its military, be it on industrial or strategic level. How many EU countries operate the F-35 now, the plane that supposedly buys you a premium US protection plan, but you're not allowed to lift the lid and see how it works?

[@ffarkasm]

USA to EU: spend more on military so I don't have to carry your ass, but also don't be that strong that you don't have to rely on me anymore.

[@blackhole3298]

cheap anti Americanism, there exist people that think that way, and others who encourage us to be united. George Washington once said Europe will form a United States also. We should engage in dumb generalization, instead prop up and foster relationships with those people in the US who share our vision

[@jean-philippebobin3732]

​@@blackhole3298but he is right

[@lenydrake1716]

10:10 Germany was forced by the U.S to buy F-35 to keep their nuclear shield. This raises the question, should europe also develop a joint nuclear deterrence capability or remain overdependent on the U.S? The US would be against it of course, and for obvious reasons. It would also be very difficult to develop consensus amongst EU countries to develop consesus on the subject but it seems obvious to me that European countries shouldn't rely on the U.S for such an important key factor in modern warfare.

[@stephanledford9792]

I am American, and while I like to think the US is a reliable partner (and has been in the past), today we are potentially one election cycle away from changes in foreign policy that may or may not be favorable to Europe. It makes sense for European nations to pick up the slack and handle their own defense, so if the US is available to help in a crisis, great, but if the administration wants to not involve the US in what is perceived to be a European military issue, that is not a problem for Europe. I would say the same thing for all nations currently relying on the US to protect them.

[@drscopeify]

It's not about Europe building a large army but about the issue of making sure Western Europe will be committed to defending Eastern Europe. It's one thing to build an army but a totally different thing to actually be able to declare war on Russia. NATO forces on Western Europe to defend Eastern Europe an the USA makes sure that is the case. Without the USA the risk is that Western Europe will sacrifice Eastern Europe to appease Russia.

[@Michaelcj-m2d]

Drag other countries in a illegal war in Iraq. War is a racket --read the book ☮️

[@pierman4858]

​@@drscopeifyI understand the fear. But isn't the purpose exactly to defend EU teritory. Meaning in practice a multinational defence force under an EU command. This is not the same as say France deciding to cut a deal with Putin and give Poland away. If the force was under EU command and obliged by law to defend the EU . Furthermore as a Dutch EU citizen I would rather be part of an EU army than a purely Dutch one. Simply because in practically any scenario we the Dutch would be heavily dependent on foreign support anyway.

[@Nowherenear-w1d]

Changes in foreign policy that may turn defence upside down means you are not a reliable partner. Because nobody guarantees the war can't emerge during that election term

[@jean-philippebobin3732]

​@@pierman4858The fck you say that France sell Poland to Puting, we didn't by Russian in huge quantitys before Ukraine War.

[@xeniasimola4096]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🌍 Overview of EU Military Capability* - Europe's military capabilities are fragmented, with 30 types of tanks, 20 types of aircraft, and 27 military headquarters compared to the U.S.'s more consolidated structure. - Despite potential strength through resource sharing, the U.S. has historically opposed EU efforts to create joint military setups, preferring increased spending on individual armies and NATO focus. 01:17 *🛡️ Evolution of European Defense* - Post-WWII, Europe aimed to integrate West Germany without resurrecting fears of its military power, leading to early proposals for a unified European army. - The rejection of the European Defense Community treaty in 1954 redirected focus towards economic integration, eventually evolving into political and defense integration within the European Union. 03:11 *🇺🇸🇪🇺 US Concerns and EU Defense Objectives* - U.S. concerns over EU defense integration intensified post-Cold War, fearing duplication of NATO efforts and diminished U.S. influence in Europe. - Despite opposition, the EU pursued defense objectives, facing hurdles like differing defense views among member states and pressure to align with NATO. 04:49 *💰 Military Spending and Transatlantic Relations* - European nations allocate significant resources to defense, but there's persistent tension over meeting NATO's 2% GDP spending target and reliance on U.S. military strength. - Debates arise over whether increased spending or structural changes are needed to strengthen European defense capabilities. 06:14 *🇩🇪 German Military Crisis and Structural Challenges* - Despite substantial military spending, structural issues like limited interoperability, duplication, and lack of economies of scale plague EU defense efforts. - The German military's crisis highlights broader challenges within European defense, pointing to the need for structural reforms beyond increased spending. 08:01 *🚚🔧 Structural Challenges and Potential Savings* - European militaries face challenges due to the variety of equipment, leading to higher costs and inefficiencies. - Standardization, joint procurement, and greater integration could yield significant cost savings and improve operational efficiency. 09:26 *⚔️ NATO's Role and EU Integration* - There are two paths for European defense: NATO-centric with increased defense spending and EU integration while avoiding duplication. - NATO's importance is recognized, but concerns arise over duplication of efforts and the need for more effective spending and coordination within the EU. 11:12 *🌐 EU's Role in Defense and NATO Collaboration* - The EU could play a more significant role in defense through initiatives like CSDP, PESCO, and the European Defense Fund, but challenges like slow decision-making and limited funding persist. - Suggestions for EU's role range from enabling military capabilities to developing a full EU army, with considerations for integration, interoperability, and alignment with NATO. 17:26 *🛡️ Strategic Autonomy and Future Directions* - Europe's strategic autonomy necessitates greater self-reliance in defense, given uncertainties in U.S. leadership and strategic shifts. - Options for EU defense range from increased collaboration within NATO to developing independent capabilities, with implications for transatlantic relations and global security. Made with HARPA AI

[@MariusKist-tl4wh]

Concerning the purchase of the F35 Germany thought that it needed a plane which can carry american tactical nuclear bombs, to enable Germanies "Nukleare Teilhabe". Eurofighters are not licenced to carry these. First they intended the F18 Super Hornet, but then switched to the more modern F35. So Germany thought quite sensibly.

[@michal2089]

Good job guys!

[@user48762]

As a French I think the EU can defend itself. We should not be dependent on America or any foreign power. I don't even think NATO is necessary. There should be the EU instead of NATO.

[@herptek]

Then we would be just dependent on it, which would represent none of our interests. As long as the Americans are against Russia or in security competition against it, we have common security interests with America. Because it is so gigantic a military power factor we are less dependent on each other, which is a good thing if you ask me. European nations would do well to have nuclear weapons like France however just in case America quits the team due to some political fluctuation.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

We can have both: Europeans defense and NATO

[@peterseybolt8672]

I fully agree. As a federation with a united foreign policy and defence the European nations would be more secure and in a much better position to to promote the fundamental principles of freedom. We must adjust to the new realities and be willing to hand over parts of each nations sovereignty to achieve this. We can never be effective if we maintain the principle of total consensus. It should be replaced by decisions taken by a qualified majority vote of 66% Interesting how the US "wants to eat and keep the cake at the same time" requesting all NATO members to spend their fair share while opposing the formation of a EU armed force. Best regards Peter Seybolt Sweden

[@jeffg3221]

As long as there is not a common European foreign policy, a European army is a dream, like it is said at the end of the video. We must be honest with ourselves, the European countries don't have lots of common interest in term of foreign policy. France, Germany, Poland... they are not seeing the world in the same way, and nobody wants to abandon their safety and foreign policy priorities, and their ambitions to meld in a continental system which, at this date, as very few common concern. Without speaking of the national identities and proud. Combining the resources and harmonizing the equipment are probably the easiest. But it does not create a military super power. It creates a central purchasing organization. It is better than nothing and it will help for sure. But going further will be very complicated.

[@progressisbeautiful1541]

Lets be more united in this year.

[@gazeuze]

Nice video! Can’t wait to see a European army! 🇪🇺

[@stevenjohns-savage7024]

Yeah 😊. Stay together like one big organisation

[@ocanica3184]

This video touches on but doesn't really address the real elephant in the room, a common foreign policy. To have this means a fundamental shift in how the EU currently operates which includes removing the veto which many EU members have a vested interest not to remove. Even then is a EU military a defensive one or can it project extraterritorially? French interests may not be the same as Polish. The video is great but it's an example of putting the horse before the cart.

[@ROTTERDXM]

Great video, refreshing take without any of the BS. As a Dutchie who HATES war etc I still find myself agreeing.

[@aquilamxp6267]

Just a little sidenote: The Netherlands may appear small in surface area, but it has the 12th biggest population of European countries (also including Russia and Turkey) and is the 7th most populous country of the EU. In terms of GDP, it is the eigth biggest economy of all European countries. So, in terms of both population as well as economy, the Netherlands is a rather big country.

[@captaingreek]

Without an army though...

[@1justme]

​@captaingreek ? The Netherlands has an army.

[@captaingreek]

@@1justme Yes it does. Well it was a matter of speech, because the Dutch army is very small.

[@jedimindtrix2142]

I think a hybrid approach could work. Maybe have regions of neighbor countries come together make a force like like for example they could have the "East Eurpoean Army" "South European Army" and so on. That way the respurces are compartmentalized in a way they can be shared to more effect without having to try and put 30 some countries all on the same page with regards to a singular force. There can be a central EU command of the 3 or 4 different armies like an EU Pentagon. NATO can be the main form of collective defenae still and everyone walks away happy maintaining some level of regional control where they can make decisions that make sense for their part of europe. Just my 2 cents.

[@andrasadam8256]

Incredible video, I can't believe how in-depth you always go on these topics. Also, the graphics and visuals are super helpful. Keep up the good work!

[@AnthonyHermo-w9k]

Thanks for independent press and information

[@oditeomnes]

I have been on several NATO excercises with NATO troops from various countries and I know that as Norwegian I could go to battle with Swedes, Danes, Americans and Brits. The other soldiers have a language barrier, not a barrier in peace time, but too inadequate for battlefield communication under high stress. There is a lot of things that can be shared: ammunition, airspace, refuel and repair facilities, ports and other logistics. Even if there will be "one military", it will still have to segregate combined arms units by language.

[@alganis3339]

I'm not military but doesn't people in the "légion étrangère" in France learn french "basics" in like just a few months ? I understand that it would be difficult right now but if we had "one military" maybe we can teach soldiers a common language for battlefield communication ? It would take maybe a few months/year but couldn't we do it ? (on a military pov)

[@oditeomnes]

@@alganis3339 Yes, of course we have elite branches of military that are very motivated: French Legion and Gurkhas are examples of people seeking a better life willing to learn language and have military service for the privilige of living in that country. We have pilots, operators of high tech equipment that are expected to know lingua franca. We got special forces and intelligence apparatus that will probably know more than one foregn language. Then we have the large bulk of the military that has no motivation to learn foreign language. If it is conscription as in m y case, why would I give a damn? If it's voluntary, let's just say that Russian cannon fodder are from remote uneducated villages, USA recruiters make rounds in poor neigbouirhoods to give "opportunities" and many other countries do something similar. You see the challenges there. Then we got patriotic volunteers that are ready to bleed for their country. Yes their country, not some supranational state that forces you to cooperate with "those foreigners". And now with UK leaving EU, we already got sentiments from countries like France saying "why should English be lingua franca in EU?". Try sorting that political and cultural mess. We in Scandinavia know English pretty much from young age, so we can easily communicate with english speaking world. Germany and France generally less apt in English, some Eastern European countries are more likely fluent in Russian, but know little English. Basically I am somewhat pessimistic about this.

[@alganis3339]

@@oditeomnes Thank you for your answer. I didnt see this point before so i understand the pessimism. Just for France our level in english is truly improving with the new generation (and with the old one dying). We are catching up with belgium and behind germany (still far from the Scandinavian or Netherlands but give us some time)

[@aljehine]

Maybe everyone should give the Esperanto language a chance to revive in European areas. Having one universal language so that we can all understand each other while respecting the native language where we come from is a logical choice for all of us. In any case, we learn 2-3 languages in schools, why not learn one that would cover everything.

[@Life_Architects_00]

We definitely need that!

[@bicker31]

American perspective - The current state of affairs is not a result of carefully weighed pros and cons; it's a result of the chaos of WW2 and exists due to political inertia. Many Americans, including myself, are already skeptical that this juice is worth the squeeze. With that said, I see three sales pitches to the US about being involved in NATO: 1 - the original sales pitch is that NATO counters the USSR. This pitch died with the USSR. 2 - NATO will supposedly result in a "cooperation dividend," i.e. by sharing the responsibility of military affairs, all members can save money. This is already on life support due to the behavior of EU states, and could be further compromised by an EU military: if EU countries have their funds split between both a "federal" and "state" military, they'll be even less effective and this pitch will die. I see this as the primary foundation of the birth of the "three D's" mentioned in the video, and Trump's comments - trying to cling on to this argument. 3 - NATO is supposedly a cornerstone of global stability, and by keeping great powers in a military alliance, great wars are prevented. An EU federal military creates a risk of toppling this house of cards. This pitch is maybe not on life support, but certainly at risk, with the far left claiming NATO causes an unjust world order to persist, and the far right claiming NATO is against US national interests. The sales pitches to support a federal EU military as I see them are - 1 - Maybe NATO's historical role is to be training wheels until Europe learns to ride the federal bike. Maybe EU becomes a great power and this is how US claims its cooperation dividend. This assumes Europeans can get along with each other, and would act responsibly with power. Lot of risky assumptions. 2 - Maybe an EU military can replace the national militaries, and make EU effective as a military partner for the reasons outlined in the video. This also assumes Europeans can get along with each other, and would act responsibly with power. If Europe continues to be isolationist in their foreign policy and keeps NATO within just the North Atlantic, I think NATO would wither and die, risking global stability. If this included a reform of NATO to include nations outside of Europe and North America, namely Japan, South Korea, and maybe Taiwan, then maybe NATO could actually become a long term cornerstone of global stability. An optimistic and trusting person might support an EU federal military. A realist or pessimist should not support an EU federal military.

[@derekwildstar85]

Personally, as a European, I believe that in our diversity together we will survive, otherwise our survival will be delegated to the inability of the United States and we will end up crushed by countries with greater numbers.

[@bjrnhjortshjandersen1286]

Get EU military standards like we have in so many civilian areas.

[@lenydrake1716]

This channel has been cooking lately. Keep it up guys! Great work!

[@bobjohnson3940]

As a simple American who pays attention to geopolitics and history probably more than the average person I personally trust Europe and Japan for that matter to manage their own zone militarily. It would have to entail a slowish transfer. It would lighten the burden on the US and increase Euro autonomy and personally I believe the world needs a Europe and a Japan with a little more teeth and a little more strength. Like I feel the years of a war torn Europe feel over. I say that with a reluctant hope that this is the case and maybe even a USE or United States of Europe is on the horizon because I would love, love to have that partner across the Atlantic. Could you imagine these political and military tacticians from history into the present working together as one cohesive item? As a brother with the US? Yes. I agree the US should always be a partner but I do think Europe should work toward being one full item that works together without one single nation vying to dominate which will be hard to resist, sort of like the states here. Cheers.

[@beasley1232]

Japans problem is very complicated. Due to ww2 Japan isn’t actually allowed to have a military, ESPECIALLY a navy, a law that was put in place by China 🇨🇳, the USA 🇺🇸, the Soviet Union and the UN after ww2. Therefore Japan has a national guard force that acts as their military instead, while Japans navy cannot take action without the green light from the USA.

[@PMFL1983]

🤝

[@jb920]

Something similar to an American setup may work. Have an EU level military and let each member state have their state level military. In the US there’s the federal level military and each state has a National Guard that is under the State’s Governor when not deployed abroad.

[@circleofsorrow4583]

Europe should choose a common secondary language. It is ridiculous to expect effective cooperation without effective communication.

[@IFRYRCE]

English is already the defacto common language of the world, the EU should just acknowledge that. Good luck getting the French to accept anything but French.

[@a5cent]

Ehm.. defacto they have. Almost everyone can speak English. Almost everyone is bilingual. Many are trilingual.

[@circleofsorrow4583]

@@a5cent that is not my experience.

[@lenydrake1716]

@@circleofsorrow4583 English has practically become a mandatory subject in school. It is also a megatrend that more and more people know how to speak english, so while it may not be the case now that everyone knows a good level of english, I believe in 20 years ith shoud be the case

[@a5cent]

@@circleofsorrow4583 I'm in Europe right now. Don't think I've met anyone who couldn't speak English.

[@timkey_4542]

In my (German) opinion, Europe should definetly be able to take care of its own military issues regarding russia or challenges in north africa. We should however also work closely with the Americans who are the only other western superpower with a EU (which has to fix its issues first to earn that name) This would allow the americans to focus on the Pacific and western hemisphere while cooperating with Europe in africa or the middle east. We have somewhat the same geopolitical interests (Free navigation as an example) and can definetly compromise on others.

[@beasley1232]

Historically, US foreign policy decisions always closely mirrored what the American public desired. Like the US decision to not help its European allies in both world wars was a decision that the American public stayed solid on which is why the US joined in so late. It wasn’t until the US was directly threaten until the Americans demanded war with Germany or Japan. 9/11 marked a turning point for the USA and its foreign policy towards its allies, it was the very first time since ww2 where Americans felt unsafe and the deviating consequences foreign powers can have on US soil. The terrorist attacks planned large scale attacks across all major urban areas in the USA a plan which never succeeded but inspired 9/11. 9/11 marked the first time the USA showed distrust in its European and middle eastern allies since the Suez Crisis during the Cold War. This can also be evidence of the consciousness for undermining US security aid/interests or alienating the USA. The USA historically acts off emotions which is our main weakness, if the USA feels like it is being threatened, gained up against or its hegemony feels undermined the USA WILL take action, which could also explain US economic hostility towards Europe in the tech sector, the USA feels that it’s tech sector is being threatened by European regulations.

[@timkey_4542]

@@beasley1232 yeah, I think that is the case in a democracy. As another example, the german people being plain stupid as always nowadays are definetly not in favor of military rearmarment which is the reason the Bundeswehr after almost two years of "Zeitenwende" is worse off than before

[@marcel84marcel]

​@@beasley1232 Even after the Japanese acted Pearl Harbor the American public did not demand to go to war with Germany. Germany declared war on America. If the USA leaves the EU to it's own devices how long will it take for a large war to breakout and beg the US to help them. But won't understand the American public reluctance to join in.

[@ChristianPolish]

Moim (polskim ) zdaniem .Umiesz liczyć licz na siebie. Broń Boże liczyć na niemcy.

[@NoName-hg6cc]

I agree with you, Tim

[@ffarkasm]

2:38 what a player... sands on the first step for the handshake to look much taller than his counterpart.

[@novajeli]

Divide et impera (Split and rule), that's the reason behind US' unwillingness for Europe to create its own army.

[@Qnexus7]

now imagine russia and china in this game.

​@@Qnexus7I bet china is waiting for their right moment. They have issues with 16 countries. If the western resources become too low (mainly the US) they will come into action.

[@maninredhelm]

Certainly puts Norway in an awkward position. It's not impossible that NATO and the EU could continue to be integrated, but it probably wouldn't. France for example has been dying to take the leadership role from the US since forever, they don't want the status quo. Another big thing to consider: NATO is only triggered upon being attacked, whereas a unified EU military probably would not limit itself to acting only in pure self-defense. The relationship is destined to unravel. What remaining benefit does the US gain from all this if it loses its leadership role? Influence was the only payment it received all these years. Nobody was required to buy US weapons.

[@jean-philippebobin3732]

Can't say your wrong has a French

[@m.a.118]

I think an EU military would be an excellent idea. Mainly because it would first time since WWII a western power would be seen as an equal partner to the US. Geostrategically, it could serve as a sober second look at any possible ventures the west (NATO) wants to embark on instead of always following the US' lead. Which has not always been the smartest or in the best of faiths... For things like how to deal with Russia, having Europe be an equal voice on these matters might keep the US from dragging Europe into some confrontation that the Pentagon sees as an ocean away but the people of Poland or the Baltics very much experience it as so much more closer to home. Although at the end of the day, the US will be opposed to this because allowing a EU military means ultimately relinquishing defacto military control over Europe, a continent hard won by the US in the Cold War. Instead the US will push for status quo on power while expanding its influence which tooooootally hasn't resulted in any backlash in recent times... *Coughs in Ukrainian*

[@tomverheijden712]

Very good points i think and i agree with most. Though i think it doesn't have to be through the EU, or an EU military. I would suggest to keep the militaries national. Build them up again, because they are in a rough state. And then just work together. I could imagine that cooperation between certain countries is difficult because of communication barriers. So work together with countries close to your own. And call upon the other European countries that are working together when the need would ever be there. Then you still have a lot more influence as an individual country on the decisions that are being made. It would also be easier to make those decisions because surrounding countries are probably more aligned with each other (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany for example).

[@Roger_Mexico]

Thank you, so true

[@jacobbullock6886]

EU Stronger Together!

[@Marxist-Nixonist-Bidenist]

Depending on a country an ocean away really isn't an ideal way to go about national defense in my opinion.

[@tim_peaky]

The USA is keeping Europe small on purpose. Its crazy what we can achieve when working together 🇪🇺

[@FINNSTIGAT0R]

And how exactly is the US doing that?

[@everypitchcounts4875]

US is actually tired of Europe freeloading off US military. Only 7 NATO members meet the 2% requirement. Europe will cry when it has to choose between funding a military or having social programs.

[@FINNSTIGAT0R]

@@everypitchcounts4875 The 2% target is about each member country's own defense expenditure, not a collective fund. Members not meeting this target doesn't mean others, like the US, are obligated to compensate. A vital point to stress: NATO treaties do not, and cannot, strong-arm the US or any member to bear a disproportionate share of defense responsibilities. The US, despite its substantial contributions, is not treaty-bound to act as Europe's sole defender. Each member, including the US, is obligated to the same extent, no more, no less. Europe's overreliance on US military strength is an assumption, not an obligation imposed by NATO. That being said I'd really like to see the whole of European NATO growing a spine and a pair of balls and actually meeting that target as it's kinda embarrassing to not meet the targets that everyone agreed on, and just rely on the good will of others (yes, mainly the US, but also the other members) to act as they ndeed have the obligation to handle your security needs from to to bottom. I hope my country, Finland, keeps spending the 2% and doesn't in the future start slacking off and being too reliant on the collective defence.

[@tim_peaky]

@@FINNSTIGAT0R is you hear in the video they hate the idea of a unified European army. It’s bad for business. USA can buy a submarine with 2% GDP. But a country like Belgium or so never will. To small on its own

[@FINNSTIGAT0R]

@@tim_peaky Belgium for sure isn't too small for it's own defence. Belgium has a large GDP, some military home manufacturing abilities, has a compact landmass to defend, so the military doesn't need to thinly spread out. Belgium doesn't necessarily need a submarine for anything, there are substitute weapons systems for that, in case Belgium needs to operate the seas and keep them clear of enemies, and they probably want to do that. There is lots and lots countries like Belgium and the Netherlands can do to be militarily self sufficient. Compare to us here in Finland. We have about the same per capita GDP but have half the population and 11 times the land area. But we've still kept a military which is aimed for total self sufficiency in defending the whole border and the entire land in case of a direct large scale invasion. And while we cannot match Russian numbers, we still have a military which can give them a good fight one on one, as long as we use our military to what it's been designed for - for defending and for defensive operations. Offensive weapons systems and doctrines are highly expensive, there you can spend billions upon billions and it can seem it's never enough, like the US, who's military is designed to be operating anywhere in the world. Each first world country who's population is of certain size should try to make it's army self suffient in defending their own populations. Belgium could do it, but the individual Baltic countries cannot at the moment for example. These are the countries that in my opinion deserve to be more reliant on the collective defence and the protection of others. This is the same with European style welfare states. Everyone is expected to manage without benefits, but if you're unfortunate to not being totally able to do so, then others can compensate for you. Right now NATO is treated like it's a magic button that makes your problems on defence spending go away. That is not the purpose of NATO. There can be specialisation between the different countries of NATO, for example if someone handles more of the naval poeer and some more army power and others maybe air power, but in my opinion it's unforgivable to not have a baseline defence plan for your country and to totally depend on others.

[@sirusjohnsepar4248]

Wonderful 😂❤ thanks so much 🙏 💓 ☺ 💗 very informative London

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

The simple first step could be united border defense (not border patrol, military defense against military threats). It would be under unified command and it would use standardized equipment. The main goal of such force would be augmenting weak spots of national armies in border regions of the EU. Small nations usually lack manpower due to low population and air force and air defense due to how expensive these are.

[@kkrolik2106]

Not gona happens due differences in Politics , simply France and Germany will be happy to sold Baltic state to Russia for Cheap Gas and Oil.

[@Tortuex_]

i feel like "europe of defense" would need a leader, and the problem in these scenarios is always the same : if one country leads the other countries, it'll be deemed as unfair and therefore won't happen. this is why NATO works : the USA lead the other countries, and they're not part of Europe. also it's just impossible to have all countries agree on a certain topic, so imo it would never work (sadly)

[@DerDoMeN]

Not often that I fully agree with anyone but this time seems to be an exception :) Great short analysis and really sensible conclusion. I really hope that EU will head in this direction.

[@embreis2257]

10:50 or to put it another way: with this budget Latvia could not afford _to maintain_ a US aircraft carrier (just the carrier, not to mention the rest of the group) for the entire year!

[@Hainstille]

While a european army sounds like it would get rid of a lot of redundancies, it would also be hard to pull off as many member states would probably fear a loss of sovereignity. So an army of europeans might just be right for the time being, as it would be detached from that and under EU control. This in turn could also help in situations and crysis seen in the past where single member states had to shoulder a lot of evacuations and rescue missions.

[@madden12]

Then it should be called Europeam Defence Force. All cointries would contribute with funds and soldiers. But all equipment should be interoperable. Pretty much what he said at 14:40, I wrote this b4 I reached that part of the video

[@marvelio9891]

In my opinion, Europe should become one united country.

[@jh5kl]

🙂👍🇪🇺❤️💪

[@Ea-pb2tu]

I hate when some Americans and Europeans seek less dependance on each other rather then closer cooperation. The EU is a project that creates interdependence and we’ve seen how that leads to prosperity, peace and a kind of brotherhood. Why not extend it across the Atlantic?

[@BolphesarusMaximusWardius]

Because that interdependence needs to be there for both sides-and Europeans have their rules that the USA will never accept. This includes workers rights, environmental legislation etc. It's simply unprofitable and illogical for the USA to follow those rules. Therefore they can't be a part of a wider community with the EU. If they were, they would just exploit it as they have no obligations but have all the privileges.

[@Qnexus7]

because we are no peers to americans. with our current status, they have leverage against each one of the member states at the negotiating tables. one needs to be self sufficient and have some aces up the sleeve before negotiating with anybody over anything. texas alone has a bigger economy than many of the member states, so does california and others. while we negotiate things with US and not the single states.

[@MyPrideFlag]

@@Qnexus7We Poles are no peers to French/German who abuse their power inside the EU. I prefer loose trans-atlantic alliences like NATO over Franco-German empire.

[@trthib]

@@MyPrideFlag The only ones who abuse their powers are those who take but don't give anything..... French and German are the biggest contributors on all counts (not just money) and Poland and Hungary are just dead weight ! They bring NOTHING to the table !!! That might change with Tusk but I doubt it considering their mindset....parasite mindset !

[@Qnexus7]

@@MyPrideFlag i prefer poland out of EU if it doesn't benefit both parties. you preferring US over the rest of EU is not in EU's interest. you've lost you're humility poland and again on the delusional path of grandeur. at the same time i acknowledge that the franco german axis is also not a in the interest of the rest of the continent as a whole.

[@DomqE]

Sorry to desillusionise you, but there are not only non-NATO countries as members of the EU , who definitively do not want more Europe (Austria especially), but also there is no general pro-EU sentiment in the majority of EU-citizens, in fact the opposite is the case in varying degrees. Most of the citizens are pragmatic: can I travel there easily for holidays, can I work there visafree, do I need to change the currency? So why should they support to maintain common forces in addition to NATO, or to have double the costs? I am afraid, that the next European Parliament (which btw its only role is to be a „fig leaf of democracy“) will have many more right-wing nationalists on its seats - this will make unified forces even more utopist than already the case.

[@munichrich1008]

The first steps in this process should be an alinement to procure basic equipment forget Headline items for the moment sort out basic kit etc first, trucks, personal kit, basic ammunition, medical etc. If the smaller EU nations were to start this joint procurement they would benefit most as in many cases these nations have little or no defence industry themselves, they could jointly precure these basic items from the best source without the inevitable national bickering that involving larger nations (with nation interests) muddying the water and inevitably pushing up the price.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

End the eu empire! Free Britannia! Free Poland, free Czechia, free Slovakia, free Hungary, free Italia!

[@WoodHughes]

The biggest problem I see is the political issue of creating a common military force that pledges it’s loyalty to the EU and not its constituent country. If that is overcome, then a political model based on the US National Guard would be a good jumping off point. The experience of the US during the start of the Civil War is a good predictor. While US Army troops split upon State lines and seized bases in seceding states, the US Navy experienced secessionist sailors and officers peacefully turning over ships under their control to the Union and only then resigning to form a Secessionist Navy. This is one of the reasons the South had such a struggle with the Union Anaconda strategy. Maybe a formalized cross training program like that portrayed in Star Trek with Star Fleet officers serving on Klingon vessels and vice versa would be a good plan to follow (if it’s not already in progress).

[@MrToradragon]

As European I am saying almost the exact thing, that we should to some extend copy the logic the USA have, having one "federal" army and then national armies, but since we are still 27 different countries we would have to add plenty of provisions regarding draft, conscription service etc. And then common airforce, navy, but coastguard should, IMHO, remain as responsibility of each country. (I really do not know whether they are part of army or police in each country and it perhaps differ country to country).

[@jascrandom9855]

I think that what the idea of an "Army of Europeans" is meant to address. A small-ish army made up of volunteer soldiers from member states who want to defend Europe as a whole.

[@kkrolik2106]

Not gona happens due differences in Politics , simply France and Germany will be happy to sold Baltic state to Russia for Cheap Gas and Oil.

[@Schroinx]

Fully agree!!

[@Cptnbond]

It's ridiculous to believe 27 countries can agree, with few disagreeing, and use a veto, paralyzing the complete operation. The EU is way too much talk and administration. Russia would have wiped out Ukraine without the USA and the UK's early support with weapons-just my 2c.

[@BolphesarusMaximusWardius]

Some parts of the EU don't require all states to agree. This could be the case with a European army. Of course it wouldn't be able to take offensive action against other states without all states agreeing. However, for defensive actions, which this would be used for, it could-and should- work like any other army, with it's own command chain so it's fighting capability is not hampered.

[@Cptnbond]

@@BolphesarusMaximusWardius I agree, and it may work for a short period. Many European countries are democratic and volatile; others drag their feet or have their national agenda in every European project. I'm tired of talking about NATO and Donald Trump - look around in the EU and find many questionable leaders and political parties that would hug the Kremlin despite its war crimes.

[@SKgeostrat]

Excellent video and fully justified. I agree. Europe must be able to,act alone and develop a foreign policu that does not depend on the US. Furthermore, it should unify military spending, in Europe, and with the European industry. Command structures have to be established that reflect this reality. Europe must be independant, of the US and of Russia. It has the people and the finances to do it.

[@connorcrowley1]

If the F-35 is the best multirole airplane available for the mission requirements (it is) then you buy the F35. Yes we should not rely on the USA for our military equipment, we should be interoperable with the USA, and long term be competitive with the USA in production. But nothing in the EU can come close the the value an F35 provides in this decade. The mission capabilities were clearly needed this decade.

[@jascrandom9855]

A united EU military could have created a plane just as capable as the F-35. Though that being said, the F-35 was supposedly a collaborative effort and theoretically, they could've had F-35 factories within the EU.

[@connorcrowley1]

@@jascrandom9855 yes and that is great for when it is available, but the F35 was purchased in response to a Russian invasion. Buying eurofighters or Rafales would have been idiotic considering the current short term risks outweigh the mid or long term benefits of domestic production.

[@Qnexus7]

@@connorcrowley1 doing things mostly in response to emergencies is a failure of its own.

[@MDP1702]

Agreed. Currently no European fighter can match the F35 and they are often even more or equally expensive. Thus buying the F35 is logical. However the EU needs to ensure that they have a competitive 6th gen fighter ready in the future to not rely on the US at that moment.

[@angeleyes564]

Gut Analyse

[@heressomestuffifound]

:55 It’s not surprising. The U.S. inherited the role of the British Empire after WW2 and prefers to keep it that way. The U.S. wants a Europe that is dependent on it and that can’t challenge its power now or in the future. It’s a strategic manipulation.