O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[Elite_Pie]

I didn?t mention contributions I don?t where you made that up from?

You appear to have missed the first word of my post, which said "If".

[forwardmagpie]

You appear to have missed the first word of my post, which said "If".

I saw the if Elite but where did the if come from as I hadn?t in any way thought that but thanks for clearing up that it was just a figment of your imagination.

[drillerpie]

I would like to agree with your first sentence but there would be some much internation bickering as to be unworkable (I served with all Western European armed forces and know of the resistance between nations regarding own forces deployments, a while ago mind but I don't think things would have change, probably got worse?). As for the remainder of your post, military strength will always make a potential aggressor think before taking any action and should never be regarded as a poor use of resources. Putin will be smelling the sickly sweet whiff of weakness thanks to Trump and we have some serious realignment to do pretty quick to make him (Putin) think a little longer.
Some guy on the radio said that Trump has changed the course of history and I think a lot of people agree, let's hope Trump hasn't sold us all down the river for lower petrol costs for his rednecks!

I agree with Smiffy here. An EU army is a utopian idea. It would be impossible to get that many countries with governments from across the spectrum to agree on deploying troops. Orban vetoes pretty much everything anyway (apart from giving Hungary EU money) as a default position, but even among like minded countries there would be disagreements.

[BigFatPie]

There will be disagreements with any project that requires international cooperation, but to me (a non expert) a European army has many more things going for it than against it.

In fact I’d say it is pretty much inevitable now that the US is at best an unreliable ally.

[drillerpie]

There will be disagreements with any project that requires international cooperation, but to me (a non expert) a European army has many more things going for it than against it.

In fact I’d say it is pretty much inevitable now that the US is at best an unreliable ally.

Sending people to die is the most ethically complex and controversial project imaginable. Plus Orban will just veto everything involving action against Putin. And you can't not have a veto on military action. I just can't see it personally.

If it gets to the point where pretty much everyone agrees, as they do now, then the main countries will come together to act anyway, as they have done now. To be honest, this European response is a few years too late but looks pretty good. Starmer in the middle of it doing pretty decent work as well.

[BigFatPie]

Sending people to die is the most ethically complex and controversial project imaginable. Plus Orban will just veto everything involving action against Putin. And you can't not have a veto on military action. I just can't see it personally.

If it gets to the point where pretty much everyone agrees, as they do now, then the main countries will come together to act anyway, as they have done now. To be honest, this European response is a few years too late but looks pretty good. Starmer in the middle of it doing pretty decent work as well.

But if the UK was involved wouldnt it require a whole new set of treaties/agreements outside of the EU framework? So possibly no need for either a veto or Hungarian cooperation at all?

[drillerpie]

But if the UK was involved wouldnt it require a whole new set of treaties/agreements outside of the EU framework? So possibly no need for either a veto or Hungarian cooperation at all?

If UK were involved it wouldn't be an EU army, but if Hungary and Slovakia weren't involved it wouldn't be an EU army either. It would be the main military powers coming together when they agree, which is what you have now.

How are you defining EU army here? Who would decide whether it goes to war? We already have Article 5 in case of an attack, so for less than that (let's say peacekeeping in a volatile area like Ukraine) who has the final decision to send the EU army in?

Who decides which country's troops go where and do which jobs? Do individual parliaments get to ratify the decisions? It's obviously going to be unpopular for any government to go to a war zone via a Brussels decision if the ruling party doesn't agree to it. Imagine Brexit level anger x1000. It could be seen as massive Brussels overreach and kill the European project off for good.

I don't think it's possible and I don't see the benefit in trying.

[BigFatPie]

If UK were involved it wouldn't be an EU army, but if Hungary and Slovakia weren't involved it wouldn't be an EU army either. It would be the main military powers coming together when they agree, which is what you have now.

How are you defining EU army here? Who would decide whether it goes to war? We already have Article 5 in case of an attack, so for less than that (let's say peacekeeping in a volatile area like Ukraine) who has the final decision to send the EU army in?

Who decides which country's troops go where and do which jobs? Do individual parliaments get to ratify the decisions? It's obviously going to be unpopular for any government to go to a war zone via a Brussels decision if the ruling party doesn't agree to it. Imagine Brexit level anger x1000. It could be seen as massive Brussels overreach and kill the European project off for good.

I don't think it's possible and I don't see the benefit in trying.

Yes I described it as a *European* army rather than EU deliberately. I would see it involving the major Western European countries and anyone else in the vicinity who wished to be part of it. Hungary probably not.

Those questions you rightly bring up are practicalities that would hopefully be ironed out in the discussions and agreements that would establish the framework. I cant say Ive thought about it any further than that, but it seems daft that countries that have many common interests, objectives, and adversaries are duplicating resources to the extent they are.

[SmiffyPie]

I cant say Ive thought about it any further than that, but it seems daft that countries that have many common interests, objectives, and adversaries are duplicating resources to the extent they are.

I think we are being a little jumpy with regard to defence treaties and the like. Trump is in his last term (unless he pulls a political rabbit out off his hat, or gets his place men into power?) and we need to see what is rolled back with the next PoUS but until then I can see a european fit NATO being formed very quickly to deal with the current political scene (Starmer has already kicked that off I think). As for duplication of resources that is starting to be resolved with the UK standardising tank ammuntion to match european smooth bore instead of rifled that we currently use. Small Arms ammunition is generally standard across NATO and artillery munitions are being looked at as we speak and I would think that process will be accelerated rapidly. If anything NATO (at least our part of it!) has had a much needed wake up call.

[drillerpie]

Yes I described it as a *European* army rather than EU deliberately. I would see it involving the major Western European countries and anyone else in the vicinity who wished to be part of it. Hungary probably not.

Those questions you rightly bring up are practicalities that would hopefully be ironed out in the discussions and agreements that would establish the framework. I cant say Ive thought about it any further than that, but it seems daft that countries that have many common interests, objectives, and adversaries are duplicating resources to the extent they are.

Ok fair enough but unless I'm missing something that would mean EU + UK and Ukraine effectively. Good luck selling that to the electorate! (I was / am a remainer, as you know, and even I don't see the benefit of it.)

Not sure what you mean by duplicating resources.