2015: Germany’s army is so under-equipped that it used broomsticks instead of machine guns in an exercise
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19...
That broomstick example gets paraded around a lot, but this was on a vehicle that wasn't supposed to have a gun in the first place.
There is a lot of valid criticism on the readiness of Germany's armed forces, this isn't one.
They got the message. IIRC, Germany's going to throw something like the equivalent of two years worth of extra defense spending at addressing its military under-funding problems, plus actually meeting its NATO obligation of 2% GDP in defense spending in the future. IIRC, there was even talk about making that a constitutional requirement as well.
The UK has consistently opposed the creation of the EU army, as well as opposed unified foreign policy etc.
Many in France and Germany could understand it very well. The UK generally resisted EU integration, including currency and foriegn policy, and of course the UK eventually left.
Poland and Germany, for example have very differing views on what priorities are for security policy in Europe. France and Germany have very different ideas on what priorities are for dealing with China.
A true EU-wide army would be a standing organization with pre-approved funding and means that could move much quicker than the current system. Investing in armed forces is also important, but adding up the funding of the individual member states already brings you quite far compared to basically any country except the US and China.
My own personal view is a smaller EU:
- France
- Spain
- Italy (too tied to NATO due to WWII past, but less than Germany)
- Portugal
- then Germany (too tied to NATO due to WWII past)
That form a new core EU in fiscal terms (even if all those countries are different real differences are limited), then in political terms with "cross-border parties", then in military terms like a small scale NATO lead by France. The the rest, smaller western countries can only follow, northern part who now talk out loud but in real terms can't live alone would have no choice but follow. UK can't do much now, with "the Commonwealth crisis" and the domestic intra-UK crisis there isn't much room to maneuver. Russia would not like that, of course, but between China (a historic enemy and still not really friendly and much interested in Russian eastern land) and a really united EU they'll jump the ship quickly: most of their infra, the tech they need is in the west and EU mutually need Russian resources instead of just tapping them giving back only industrial mass production.
It's really unlikely but our best interest.
Oh, how much Russia would love that. A smaller EU? Are you kidding? Any day of the week, twice on Sunday.
We still have the most advanced tech and the biggest hi quality industrial complex both USA and China can't really rival except on scale.
I'm not saying social spending is bad, just that if playing a lead role in a pan-EU army is Germany's interest then it needs to spend more.
https://www.newsweek.com/germany-cant-explain-use-broomstick...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys...
https://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jet...
It's going to take a while to rebuild into an organization capable of actually fighting.
That broomstick example gets paraded around a lot, but this was on a vehicle, that wasn't supposed to have a gun in the first place.
There is a lot of valid criticism on the readiness of Germany's armed forces, this isn't one.
I think that's backward: European defense independence was limited by funding; they talked about it but didn't invest in it. The Russian attack on Ukraine spurred Germany especially to fund defense; to think of the possibilities, Germany's GDP is about $4.2 trillion, Russia's is only $1.6 trillion [0]. Germany's military alone could easily far oustrip Russia's[1]. Germany's economy is 4th largest in the world, meaning they could build the 4th largest military - beyond a doubt they have the political, technological, and industrial capability. Add to that France, Italy, etc: The EU's total GDP is around $17 trillion.
Autonomy doesn't mean having no external dependencies. Only North Korea tries that intentionally, and you can see the results. Forcing countries like Russia and Iran to have no external dependencies is considered a severe punishment. Dependencies on allies is not only fine, it makes things far more efficient, which means you can afford far more military power and economic influence. Nobody can compete without friends.
[0] To consider the enormous impact of GDP on defense, the US spends the equivalent of 50% of Russia's entire GDP on defense. For comparison, the target number for NATO is 2% of GDP.
[1] Not an idle curiosity: Germany's enormous economy, relative even to Western European countries (the UK's and France's are about $3 trillion), makes Germany an eternal potential geopolitical threat, and is part of the reason for two world wars. That's one of the main original reasons for the EU and NATO - to keep Germany in the fold.
That means that's unlikely but not that unlikely that a big EU State (France, for instance) elect a new government that decide it's about time to exit NATO and propose a strategic partnership to Russia. It was about to happen and it was stopped by Eastern European countries just few months ago, it can came back quickly.
Actually both USA and Russia prefer a not-really-united EU but EU Citizens are already united enough and since crisis bite things can change rapidly. At that point classic repression will fail and tentative to ride the unrest in different directions might not succeed. Italy and Germany are well subjugated by NATO, France is not, few other EU countries are middle-ground since they can't simply act alone.
Re-orienting energy dependency is just an economic move: it's impossible to live on GNL shipping, it's impossible to complete the Green New Deal quick enough, the sole answer is keep and expand nuclear and only States have resources to do so, that means cutting out neoliberals who rule the energy. Even pushing renewable at maximum speed can't really work: it can work with new single-family homes, well placed, EU population density and actual civil structures are incompatible, dense cities can't have buildings re-made to be A-class quickly, electricity grid can't be re-made quickly etc hydro power can be added quickly but States who can orographically already have a significant slice of hydro and can't add much more, similarly we can't all change vehicles quickly. GNLs can't arrive quickly and being properly integrated in actual networks. That's why the EU without much advertisement continue to purchase Russian gas as usual. A change can happen in 7-8 years, perhaps hardly in 5-6 years, not quicker than that. And that's not just energy, too many EU countries depend on other natural resources from Russia and can't substitute them on-the-spot.
That's the goulash. We can just wait and see. Personally I expect a new global war for resources and economic reasons and I expect hi tech gears will be of no help to win it, witch is unfortunate for us westerners because while we have hi tech gears and also nukes we largely miss a mass of young, loyal and desperate army that having nothing to loose just fight with the maximum effort to the death...