EU Battlegroups

[Yxan]

When and where do you expect the first EU Battlegroup to be deployed?
Will the EU use the battlegroups in the near future?

I myself don´t have a clue what the ministers and leaders of EU are discussing and planing to do with the BG´s at this time. But i am sooo curius...

[Ordie]

When and where do you expect the first EU Battlegroup to be deployed?
Will the EU use the battlegroups in the near future?

I myself don´t have a clue what the ministers and leaders of EU are discussing and planing to do with the BG´s at this time. But i am sooo curius...

NATO has naval task forces.

I assume that Europe has an interest as a means to keep shipping lanes open, and to provide humanitarian assistance more specifically in the Eastern Med, and Africa.

The resources are there, it's a question of priority and the political will of each member state. Don't forget there is a dual commitment with NATO.

[Briggs]

NATO has naval task forces.

I assume that Europe has an interest as a means to keep shipping lanes open, and to provide humanitarian assistance more specifically in the Eastern Med, and Africa.

The resources are there, it's a question of priority and the political will of each member state. Don't forget there is a dual commitment with NATO.

EU Battlegroup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups) isn't a Naval task force. Its more of an Expeditionary Unit (MEU but then not Marines).

[Mastermind]

Will they carry weapons or baby bottles and emergency rations? Are they an actual "Battle Group" or a kind of social re-engineering welfare group? Or perhaps a kind of search and rescue organization...rather like the U.S. Coast guard..armed, just in case, but primarily equipped to save lives and cean-up environmental disasters.

I just hate it when military terms are used to describe social welfare departments.

[Jaeger07]

Will they carry weapons or baby bottles and emergency rations? Are they an actual "Battle Group" or a kind of social re-engineering welfare group? Or perhaps a kind of search and rescue organization...rather like the U.S. Coast guard..armed, just in case, but primarily equipped to save lives and cean-up environmental disasters.

I just hate it when military terms are used to describe social welfare departments.

Are you ignorant or just plain stupid? Either way get lost troll!

[Cpl.K]

Will they carry weapons or baby bottles and emergency rations? Are they an actual "Battle Group" or a kind of social re-engineering welfare group? Or perhaps a kind of search and rescue organization...rather like the U.S. Coast guard..armed, just in case, but primarily equipped to save lives and cean-up environmental disasters.

I just hate it when military terms are used to describe social welfare departments.

Nice attitude. How pathetic and funny it would be if humanity fielded humanitarian units instead of militaries, right? To answer your garbage "question", yes they are real battle groups.

[kosse]

Nice attitude. How pathetic and funny it would be if humanity fielded humanitarian units instead of militaries, right? To answer your garbage "question", yes they are real battle groups.

He's just bitter that he wasted his best years in a pointless war in Asia. A kind of war we Europeans have had brains to avoid after WW2 and thus our armies for large part are not even geared for it but for defense of our countries.

[muck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroups

[Vorian]

Guys relax, it's common for Americans to joke about European armies...no need to get so angry

[Laworkerbee]

He's just bitter that he wasted his best years in a pointless war in Asia. A kind of war we Europeans have had brains to avoid after WW2 and thus our armies for large part are not even geared for it but for defense of our countries.

Thats Funny since we picked up where the French left off in Indochina, last time I checked France is a European country.

Don't get me started on European interventions in Africa.

[Zarolho]

Guys relax, it's common for Americans to be ignorant about anything outside the US...no need to get so angry

I thought your statement needed some clarification. Hope you don't mind.

[Briggs]

Thats Funny since we picked up where the French left off in Indochina, last time I checked France is a European country.

Don't get me started on European interventions in Africa.

So, are we going to have a pissing contest between the US, a FEDERAL STATE, and the European Union (Multilevel governance system)?

Looks to me like the US has only been a tad little more 'succesfull' than EU nations. Succes mostly coupled with European help.

[Jag_är_ inte_svenska]

Which battlegroup will be deployed 1st? And will they head to Bosnia or Darfur or the mission set for Chad?

[Cpl.K]

Guys relax, it's common for Americans to joke about European armies...no need to get so angry
I've heard an American Major light-heartedly joke about this in person. It was met with stunned silence. It's more than a joke, it's grounded in a very real, sick and ****ing horrible way of thinking that's responsible for a large part of human suffering in the world.
Nobody should be so arrogant to think that this way of thinking is limited to the US.

By the way, if it's just a joke you should find the nearest threads about a US military unit and say a few choice 'jokes' about their foreign policy using European stereotypes about Americans, see how far you get, go ahead.

If an EUBG is deployed and can distribute water bottles and teddy bears without having to fire a shot in anger, then thank God, it's another small victory for humanity. The alternative is of course that they are pussies because they didn't have the balls to "kick" some haji/skinnie/gook/Jap "ass".


So, are we going to have a pissing contest between the US, a FEDERAL STATE, and the European Union (Multilevel governance system)?It was actually kosse who mistakenly started talking about Europe as one entity.


Which battlegroup will be deployed 1st? And will they head to Bosnia or Darfur or the mission set for Chad?

Unknown.

[Yxan]

I would like to thank you all for pissing all over my thread here. =(
Americans shouldn´t even bother to write anymore in this thread since you don´t care about anything other then USA or your wars.

I would like to hear what Europeans have to say about the future of our Battlegroups (that has the capability to fight and wage war aswell as doing humanitarian missions).

I would very much appreciate if a mod. could clean up this thread so it can stay on topic.
/Yxan

[perdurabo]

GO EU BG's! one step further into closer EU :)

[Sato]

I thought that the Nordic Batlle group would contribute to the EU mission in Tchad.
Anyone knows what the role of the NBG will be in Tchad?

Some info about NBG (http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/9133)

[Vorian]

I am hoping the Balkan battlegroup will be completed soon. A nice chance for my country.

[Cpl.K]

I am hoping the Balkan battlegroup will be completed soon. A nice chance for my country.

Then you're a bit late, the Balkan battlegroup was in training the first half of 2007 and in readiness the second half of 2007. Ie. it doesn't exist anymore and it will probably take a long time before another Balkan battlegroup is formed.


I thought that the Nordic Batlle group would contribute to the EU mission in Tchad. Source? No such decision has been made, as far as I know. Note: EUFOR is not the same as an EU BG.

[Sato]

Source? No such decision has been made, as far as I know. Note: EUFOR is not the same as an EU BG.

I searched around and at some point the NBG was asked to participate in the Tchad mission, as I thought.

But I haven't heard anything about it since so I guess the NBG won't be part of the EU force in Tchad?


Helsingin Sanomat has learned that France was asking Sweden in early July about the possibility to use resources of the Nordic battle group in Chad in EU operations led by France.
The total strength of the Nordic Battle Group (NBG) is 2,434 soldiers, of whom 221 are Finns.
The countries in the battle group - Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia, and Ireland - have discussed the matter, but no decision have been made, say civil servants.
Source (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finnish+rapid+deployment+forces+could+go+to+Chad+under+Swedish+command/1135229489525)


France is reported to have proposed using the Nordic battle group, which is commanded by a Swede and includes 2,400 personnel from Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Ireland and non-EU member Norway.
Source (http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/article.asp?id=28652)

[Vorian]

Then you're a bit late, the Balkan battlegroup was in training the first half of 2007 and in readiness the second half of 2007. Ie. it doesn't exist anymore and it will probably take a long time before another Balkan battlegroup is formed.
.


Damn. 2007 was a busy year for me and i didn't really watched military related news.....oh well.

[mas-36]

Thats Funny since we picked up where the French left off in Indochina, last time I checked France is a European country.

Don't get me started on European interventions in Africa.


Well, to be fair, the French DID warn us about getting involved over there. They basically pointed on the map and said it was one large steaming pile of merde, don't step into it! Naturally, we had to go bury our faces in it. Our invovlment in Vietnam had nothing whatsoever to do with the French and they certainly didn't "give it to us".

[mas-36]

Guys relax, it's common for Americans to joke about European armies...no need to get so angry

...but it gets very old very quickly. One thing I've noticed in my travels in Europe is that they don't like it very much when we Americans denigrate the sacrifices of their troops, past or present. We certainly wouldn't like it if they did the same to us. It's just something that doesn't seem to be encouraged too much Europe. Of course, I stand to be corrected, but I rarely hear such "jokes" being said about the US armed forces. Our politicians and foreign policy is a different story, but our armed forces?

I'm not sure if anyone would want (or dare) begin a thread on jokes on the US forces by other countries (I can think of one or two I heard which were actually quite funny), but I doubt it would be well recieved in the US. Point being, I would appreciate it if some of my fellow Americans could simply shut their fat mouths once and a while. Joking about those who fought and died on the line for a common good is no laughing mater.

[Bohemoth]

The European Union is just an artifical conglomerate of sovereign states created for mainly economical reasons by Politicians and not by the people.

There is no common values, freedom and unity fought for with blood that unites a group of people or nations not just in mind but in heart.

[mas-36]

The European Union is just an artifical conglomerate of sovereign states created for mainly economical reasons by Politicians and not by the people.

There is no common values, freedom and unity fought for with blood that unites a group of people or nations not just in mind but in heart.


They also share the collective memory of all having their lands ravaged, citied destroyed and their peoples suffer terribly in 2 world wars. Thats a good enough incentive to join a larger union of countries dedictaed to bettering themselves through peaceful economic means rather than through warfare.

[Cpl.K]

They also share the collective memory of all having suffered terribly in 2 world wars.

Too broad generalisation, a significant amount of EU or European nations weren't even involved in those wars, and not all those involved suffered 'terribly' (depending on definition of course).

[Wall]

GO EU BG's! one step further into closer EU :)
What positive you see in "closer EU"?

[Jag_är_ inte_svenska]

I would like to thank you all for pissing all over my thread here. =(
Americans shouldn´t even bother to write anymore in this thread since you don´t care about anything other then USA or your wars.

I would like to hear what Europeans have to say about the future of our Battlegroups (that has the capability to fight and wage war aswell as doing humanitarian missions).

I would very much appreciate if a mod. could clean up this thread so it can stay on topic.
/Yxan

I'm American and i support the EU BGs. It's just not alot is known about them in the US, only info i have ever seen on them is on wikipedia and its few sources/links. I know the EU has had missions in Bosnia and Congo. But will they be increasing their numbers for the mission in Darfur or Chad? and will they just be humanitarian troops or will they be peacekeepers?

[Mat_fr]

What positive you see in "closer EU"?

bigger power, bigger influence, better and more efficient politicals actions around the world, etc..

mat.

[Wall]

bigger power, bigger influence, better and more efficient politicals actions around the world, etc..
mat.
What some countries even do with "power"? Example, i dont think that finland needs any power, when we can secure our borders that enough...

[Mat_fr]

IMO every country in the world want to have a "right to speak" and a right to be heard. (that's why UN assembly exists, i think)

If you're a member of a group like UE, it can help..

mat.

[kosse]

What some countries even do with "power"? Example, i dont think that finland needs any power, when we can secure our borders that enough...
Maybe he means more power for large countries. EU in inexpensive way to get new vassals without wars or resorting to other nasty means. Big countries will get to set the pace anyway. Let's see where this leads, I bet that the veterans will be turning in their graves in a few decades :lol:

[Kaapeli]

Will they carry weapons or baby bottles and emergency rations? Are they an actual "Battle Group" or a kind of social re-engineering welfare group? Or perhaps a kind of search and rescue organization...rather like the U.S. Coast guard..armed, just in case, but primarily equipped to save lives and cean-up environmental disasters.

I just hate it when military terms are used to describe social welfare departments.

Nope. They are serious BATTLEgroups designed for actual combat operations and heavy fighting unlike UN troops or other dedicated peacekeeping forces that have only light self defence capabilities.

... BUT what you described is what they will most likely be used for.

[Mat_fr]

there is no idea of "vassals" !
the country which preside over the UE at the moment for 6 month is Slovenia..


mat.

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

The Czech Army is getting ready for its biggest foreign mission ever by establishing a Czech-Slovak battlegroup consisting of 1,500 soldiers, Slovak part will be about one fifth. Those soldiers have to be ready for deployment anywhere in the world in 6 days. They will be ready for eventual deployment in q2 2009.
Czechs are planning to create another BG with Germany and Austria as soon as 2011.

European battlegroups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups

[mas-36]

Too broad generalisation, a significant amount of EU or European nations weren't even involved in those wars, and not all those involved suffered 'terribly' (depending on definition of course).


When you say "significant amount of EU or European nations weren't even involved in those wars", which countries are you talking about and how little did they suffer??? I'd really like to know.

[Vorian]

Only Spain and Portugal comes to mind....almost everybody else was involved in both World Wars.

[Kaapeli]

And even Spain had a nasty civil war between the World Wars.

[limbic]

Thanks for starting this thread Yxan, I had not even heard of an EU Battlegroup before I read this thread.

Perhaps I could venture a few questions too:

How do these groupings come about? For example are the UK and Dutch forces combined in the UK-Dutch batttlegroup? Are there a military reasons, or is it a matter of tradition and historical links, political?

I see Ireland is in the Nordic battlegroup. Does this mean that traditional Irish neutrality is now a thing of the past (or was this already understood to be the case once the EU Common Defense Policy was ratified)?

Why are the Operational Headquarters for some battlegroups not located in the countries of constituent members? The Nordic battlegroup for example has its Operational HQ in London (according to Wikipedia)?

Finally, regarding Mastermind's comments, he should note that he appears to be describing the First Earth Battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion) only ever seriously considered by the US Army in its post Vietnam funk. That said, there is a grain of seriousness in the comment. The post Cold War conception of soldiers as armed social workers damaged armed forces across the world and continues to hamper military operations today.

As for Americans have a bad attitude towards non-US armed forces, I have noticed that reciprocal antipathy is extremely common, with the US military regularly bearing the brunt of general anti-American sentiments.

There are persistent myths/cliches/stereotypes about the US military that seem to be impervious to reality: That US soldiers are soft, that they cannot fight without every home comfort, that they are arrogant, that without technological superiority they would be nothing.

Highly experienced professional soldiers who I have spoken to - British, Irish, Croatian, Danish, South African - all paint a VERY different and highly complimentary picture of the 21st Century US military.

The conscript army that fought in Vietnam - the source of most of the the pervasive myths - has been transformed into the battle hardened highly professional and superbly effective military machine that is the US armed forces today. The hundreds of hours of footage I have watched of US soldiers at war in Iraq and Afghanistan reveal brave, serious, professional, highly trained, humble and committed soldiers.

I think you will find that if you asked those US soldiers what they thought of their European comrades in arms in Afghanistan and Iraq, they would report their deep admiration and respect they have for their European allies, the same respect and admiration those European fighting men and women have for them.

[NavyTimes]

The European Union is just an artifical conglomerate of sovereign states created for mainly economical reasons by Politicians and not by the people.

There is no common values, freedom and unity fought for with blood that unites a group of people or nations not just in mind but in heart.

Excuse me, but what a lot of horsecrap.

EU was formed from the notion that countries that trade a lot with each other and work together are less inclined to go to war against each other. I can travel anywhere I want in Europe, work anywhere I want in Europe, and live anywhere I want here. If i get sick in europe, i will get health care in europe. Thats liberty.

More than ever, we are seeing people here feel a common european heritage.



Will they carry weapons or baby bottles and emergency rations? Are they an actual "Battle Group" or a kind of social re-engineering welfare group? Or perhaps a kind of search and rescue organization...rather like the U.S. Coast guard..armed, just in case, but primarily equipped to save lives and cean-up environmental disasters.

I just hate it when military terms are used to describe social welfare departments.

A battle group that helps the people that they are there to help, is much more likely to win the war its fighting. I can't understand that you haven't grasped that concept by now. From a european standpoint it seems that thousands of US soldiers are dead because you have ignored that simple fact. I truly believe that Petraeus is the man that can finally get things right.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/54322/page/2


Nobody seems neutral. Petraeus' fans believe he's a new-style officer for a new type of warfare, where battles can be won with superior technology and firepower, but true victories can be secured only by good peacemaking and politics. They say he proved himself--and his methods--in the aftermath of the war last year. (It's widely accepted that no force worked harder to win Iraqi hearts and minds than the 101st Air Assault Division led by Petraeus.) These boosters include many in the White House. "People's body language shifts" when they talk about Petraeus there, says one official.

[Kaapeli]

How do these groupings come about? For example are the UK and Dutch forces combined in the UK-Dutch batttlegroup? Are there a military reasons, or is it a matter of tradition and historical links, political?

The UK and Netherlands are a team because they have a common interest and history in amphibious warfare. So that area is their strength and they decided to work together. Each battlegroup kinda has their own area of expertise and orientation towards certain types of operations.


I see Ireland is in the Nordic battlegroup. Does this mean that traditional Irish neutrality is now a thing of the past (or was this already understood to be the case once the EU Common Defense Policy was ratified)?

The same situation with Sweden and Finland, both officially very neutral and not members of NATO.
But apparently this position of neutrality is being quietly forgotten and these nations are slowly preparing for an official European defence/miltary union. This is just one step towards it without committing too seriously yet.

[little icebear]

Too broad generalisation, a significant amount of EU or European nations weren't even involved in those wars, and not all those involved suffered 'terribly' (depending on definition of course).

Which one was not involved? Iceland maybe?

Seriously - I´m not into this "superstate" idea and surely there´s a lot to be critizized, when it comes to how our buerocratic Overlords in Brussels work and tend to regulate everone and everything... but I welcome that that the European nations come closer together and amongst young educated Europeans, I definitly see a certain European indentity developing.
A good thing, imho.

[Cpl.K]

Only Spain and Portugal comes to mind....almost everybody else was involved in both World Wars.

WW1: Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway off the top of my head, with others that were only nominally involved but may have had their own separate conflicts (like present-day Finland). WW2: Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland....


which countries are you talking about and how little did they suffer??? I'd really like to know.I don't know if you're "calling me out" on that or not but it's a pretty obvious and elementary school-level uncontroversial statement that's way too broad to adress here. Not to mention that it would be insensitive to start rattling off how little some specific nations suffered in the grand scope of things since somebody's grandpa here will still have lost a limb or two.


And even Spain had a nasty civil war between the World Wars. Of course there were a lot of smaller wars between the world wars.


Nope. They are serious BATTLEgroups designed for actual combat operations and heavy fighting unlike UN troops or other dedicated peacekeeping forces that have only light self defence capabilities.

... BUT what you described is what they will most likely be used for. I hope they never have to be deployed.


How do these groupings come about? For example are the UK and Dutch forces combined in the UK-Dutch batttlegroup?For example, in the Nordic Battlegroup the "framework nation" is Sweden, which provides the bulk of the forces. This particular battlegroup is really Swedish-dominated so the rest of the nations (Finland, Norway, Estonia, Ireland) have relatively small contributions. For example, one of the Finnish contributions is a mortar company, which is part of the Swedish-dominated and commanded core mechanized infantry battalion. If you are asking if the nationalities are routinely mixed down to squad level, no. On the other hand, Finland also has a single squad in the Swedish ISTAR company, for example, so there is a lot of willingness to observe partner nations' operating procedures etc.


Are there a military reasons, or is it a matter of tradition and historical links, political?Of course all those reasons play a part, at the very least for ease of organising exercises with geographically close nations. See: Nordic Battlegroup, HELBROC (Balkan) battle group. There are also single-nation battle groups.


I see Ireland is in the Nordic battlegroup. Does this mean that traditional Irish neutrality is now a thing of the past Ireland has contributed large amounts of troops to peacekeeping and crisis management operations for a long time. EU BGs are not designed for invading sovereign countries or fighting oil wars.


Why are the Operational Headquarters for some battlegroups not located in the countries of constituent members? The Nordic battlegroup for example has its Operational HQ in London (according to Wikipedia)?Britain has the resources and experience, the HQ is run in cooperation with the British military.


Highly experienced professional soldiers who I have spoken to - British, Irish, Croatian, Danish, South African - all paint a VERY different and highly complimentary picture of the 21st Century US military.The highly experienced professional soldiers that I've spoken to don't, at all. Nice anecdotal evidence overall, I especially liked the one about watching footage.rofl I didn't see anyone claiming any of the stereotypes you mentioned and this thread really isn't about the US military, believe it or not, so...


I'm American and i support the EU BGs. How?


and will they just be humanitarian troops or will they be peacekeepers? 1) What would you say is the difference 2) "just"?


The post Cold War conception of soldiers as armed social workers damaged armed forces across the world and continues to hamper military operations today.Something has damaged armed forces and military operations across the world? What a ****ing tragedy.

edit:


Which one was not involved? Iceland maybe?No, Iceland was invaded by the United Kingdom in WW2. I don't remember if they were involved in WW1 or not.


Each battlegroup kinda has their own area of expertise and orientation towards certain types of operations. Can you say more about this? I haven't heard of it before. What kind of operations would BG 107 or NBG (the ones Finland is involved in) be specialised in compared to other BGs?


Finally, regarding Mastermind's comments, he should note that he appears to be describing the First Earth Battalion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Earth_Battalion) only ever seriously considered by the US Army in its post Vietnam funk.

Yeah, or this other "joke" organisation called the Salvation Army. Funny but useless people, right?

[limbic]

The UK and Netherlands are a team because they have a common interest and history in amphibious warfare. So that area is their strength and they decided to work together. Each battlegroup kinda has their own area of expertise and orientation towards certain types of operations...

Thanks for the explanation.

[Briggs]

Well EUBG' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups)s as a concept is ok, as in intergovernmental military cooperation (basically like NATO) or multi-national forces.

But I'm not happy that the EUBG is designed for Peterberg tasks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petersberg_tasks) only, which goes up to level of LIC- Peace Enforcing. On top of that EUBG fall under EU control, meaning you need to get EU clearance before deployment and your forces are tied to it, so (should mean, unless otherwise stated in EU reglementation) that's less troops under your own sovereign control to deploy at will (yourself of NATO). Additionally, you depent on EU decision making, either EU Commission for external affairs and the Secretary General of the EU Council (Solana) - Unlike EUROCORPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps). EUROCORPS is an independant military organisation that doesn't fall under EU control but of the memberstates (European, sounds more like a European Defense Community - instead of a European Union controlled force), and should cope with High intensity conflict situations (unlike Peterberg).

Both originating from the Helsinki summit (1999).

EUBG also means further loss of sovereignty it also means strengthening the EU Federalist path instead of the intergovernmental one. If EUBG's work the idea will be to create a EU army under EU control, after controlling the monetary assets, all it takes is foreign policy and you have a defacto Federal State...The United States of Europe. I totally dislike that idea. Additionally I don't really like Belgium being part of French-Belgian battlegroup (if it exists?), the FR-German BG (sounds like eurocorps). (Wiki, BG Contributions list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Battlegroups#Contributions)). The latter is more of a communautarian problem, I rather would have belonged to the Dutch-British BG with the 1ste Brigade and parts of the Para Commando brgd (Belgian army is defacto split in 2 language groups, 1 Brdg Dutch speaking- 7th French speaking, Para commando is bilingual)).
[U]
I rather have EUROCORPS divided in EUBG's in a European Defense Community (NATO-style) on equal footing with NATO (expanding NATO with Australia, Japan, ...) .

[tsuri]

I should refer you to this thread, linking to an excellent one stop shop reading on the EUBGs
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118725


But I'm not happy that the EUBG is designed for Peterberg tasks only
That is the only thing that even our neutral members in the EU can agree upon. Even though one could credibly argue that EU membership alone makes any neutrality pointless.


EUBG also means further loss of sovereignty it also means strengthening the EU Federalist path instead of the intergovernmental one. If EUBG's work the idea will be to create a EU army under EU control,
1) CFSP is entirely intergovernmental and will remain so for a very long time.
2) I rather have an army under EU control than an European army under US control.

[Briggs]

I should refer you to this thread, linking to an excellent one stop shop reading on the EUBGs
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118725


That is the only thing that even our neutral members in the EU can agree upon. Even though one could credibly argue that EU membership alone makes any neutrality pointless.


1) CFSP is entirely intergovernmental and will remain so for a very long time.
2) I rather have an army under EU control than an European army under US control.

1) The way I see it, EU Battle Groups are deployed under European Union command is at least supranational if it falls under control of one EU-representative (hence the remark towards the Sec Gen EU Council & EU commissioner external affairs to be united, provided under EU Constitutional Treaty - and under the Lisboa Treaty). Thus making this the case. I've quickly gone through the document, if I'm not mistaken deployment will fall under control of the High Representative (currenct Sec Gen EU Council), EU President (Lisboa Treaty, abt to be ratified) and EU Commission. All indicates Supranational command rather than intergovernmental. Contributing units & forming EUBG's remains more intergovernmental. CFSP is intergovernmental as in devising the policy, for now. How long will it take to usurp that sovereignty, 20 yrs?

2) I rather have European states combining their armed forces in Expeditionary Units, under full intergovernmental control of European States rather than EU control. Hence, sort of a EU version of NATO.

[joka]

Maybe he means more power for large countries. EU in inexpensive way to get new vassals without wars or resorting to other nasty means. Big countries will get to set the pace anyway. Let's see where this leads, I bet that the veterans will be turning in their graves in a few decades :lol:

70% of the war generation voted for EU membership in 1995. Maybe it has something to do with them witnessing firsthand what blind nationalism leads to. Suppose you're going to have to find another historical event to distort for your agenda.

Either we have little influence in a union that has a lot of influence or we have no influence what so ever, the latter choice is imprinted in the English language as Finlandization. Either we decide on mobile phone standards in Europe like GSM and allow European companies like Nokia to grow on the worlds largest single market, or others will sell their standards and phones to us. It basically boils down to Europeans deciding together in Brussels or others deciding for us.

[phoebus]

If an EUBG is deployed and can distribute water bottles and teddy bears without having to fire a shot in anger, then thank God, it's another small victory for humanity. The alternative is of course that they are pussies because they didn't have the balls to "kick" some haji/skinnie/gook/Jap "ass".

Partially agreed, but we need those battlegroups stationed on the EU borders to protect EU from the danger of illegal immigration, which is taking huge proportions, such that threaten all nation's stability in the long term. Money better spent anyway.

[phoebus]

I am hoping the Balkan battlegroup will be completed soon. A nice chance for my country.

Two already exist with our country being member:
HELBROC (HELLAS: leading nation – BULGARIA – ROMANIA – CYPRUS)
EUABG (HELLAS - SPAIN - PORTUGAL - ITALY)
aka as spanish-italian ABG


On 14 November 2005, Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal signed a Technical Agreement on mutual cooperation on the E.U. Amphibious Battle group (EUABG) concept. Greece provided one tank carrier ship and one Marine Company which will constitute a component of the Battle group which has been in readiness since the first semester 2006.

Additionally, at the same time, the establishment of another battle group (HELBROC) with Greece as a framework nation (FN) with the participation of Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus was announced.

http://www.geetha.mil.gr/index.asp?a_id=2011


http://www.army.gr/html/GR_Army/dieuthinseis/71am/page_fotos/BGemblem.gif

[peterli]

EU is mostly an economical orginization ,totally different from north Atlantic orginization, the reason why eu form it's own collective military force is they think they lack of the ability to deal with affairs happen in europe ,they just want to enlarge their influence in europe rather than follow behind their America ally, through the series of affairs happened in europe , the arrogant europeans always can find the figures of the American which made them relatively less important in dealing with crucial international affairs, i think they can not bear it, you know some of them are members of North Atlantic orginization ,so they just get rid of US , and do something by themselves.

[joka]

EU is mostly an economical orginization ,
EFTA is an economical organization, The EU is something else, something that does not fit into any one category.

[Sniffit]

Well, it'll be intresting to see what happens now that the Swedish armed forces have a budget deficit of about 2,6-3,9% for 2008. It ought to affect the NBG no matter how holy a cow it is.

[Briggs]

The EU was at first an economical union, creating a macro-economic enviroment and a common market ('free trade'). Since 93 or so its also a political union, meaning it decides on other political issues aside from economics...justice/internal affairs/external affairs/enviroment/...

[Sharp]

EU is mostly an economical orginization ,totally different from north Atlantic orginization, the reason why eu form it's own collective military force is they think they lack of the ability to deal with affairs happen in europe ,they just want to enlarge their influence in europe rather than follow behind their America ally, through the series of affairs happened in europe , the arrogant europeans always can find the figures of the American which made them relatively less important in dealing with crucial international affairs, i think they can not bear it, you know some of them are members of North Atlantic orginization ,so they just get rid of US , and do something by themselves.

what do you know of Europe ? According to your post, it's pretty close of nothing.

[Wall]

Either we decide on mobile phone standards in Europe like GSM and allow European companies like Nokia to grow on the worlds largest single market,
So markets cannot do this? It is EU job?

[RSone]

@ Briggs, The UK/NL BG is more than likely "just" the UK/NL landing force. This would explain why Belgium wasn't partnered with us and the brits. You lack significant amphibious capabilities, and AFAIK only the Paracommandos receive a small amount of amphib training. you would have "trouble" integrating with the Royal marines(of both nations, yes we have a queen)
This is also evidence that the BG aren't just a bunch of goody two shoes, with flowers sticking out of their guns. The Royal Marines and the Korps Mariniers aren't guys you send in to make sure some ugandan gets his mail on time.

[kosse]

70% of the war generation voted for EU membership in 1995. Maybe it has something to do with them witnessing firsthand what blind nationalism leads to.

Uh, where did you pull this blind nationalism crap from? How is this connected to EU membership in any way? As for the war generations..they voted for EU in different political and economical situation and it was 13 years ago..EU is not same it was back then. And you are full of bull**** if you're saying that it was some kind of choice between blind nationalism and EU.


Suppose you're going to have to find another historical event to distort for your agenda.That agenda being? What historical event did I distort?! I'm not interested in revisionist history, it's you who is talking nonsense about blind nationalism.


Either we have little influence in a union that has a lot of influence or we have no influence what so ever, the latter choice is imprinted in the English language as Finlandization. Either we decide on mobile phone standards in Europe like GSM and allow European companies like Nokia to grow on the worlds largest single market, or others will sell their standards and phones to us. It basically boils down to Europeans deciding together in Brussels or others deciding for us.I don't see how this is related to me being critical/careful towards EU. In addition, as far as I know I've never said we should get out of EU. I just don't like where it's heading, that's all. We should be careful not to give Bruessels too much power over our national matters.



So markets cannot do this? It is EU job?

Hey, his ideology apparently calls for creation of some kind of neo-USSR in Europe. In a communist ideology it's the state that decides things like this, not the evil capitalists. In addition, he seems bitter that the "blind nationalism" of the war generation prevented Finland from joining the glorious league of socialist workers' paradises. It postponed his dream so many decades..p-)

[tsuri]

CFSP is intergovernmental as in devising the policy, for now. How long will it take to usurp that sovereignty, 20 yrs?
EU Battlegroup deployment needs a council vote which is per definition an intergouvernmental decision.
So do not expect to see that power forfeited that quickly.


Partially agreed, but we need those battlegroups stationed on the EU borders to protect EU from the danger of illegal immigration, which is taking huge proportions, such that threaten all nation's stability in the long term. Money better spent anyway.

http://www.frontex.europa.eu
Currently not very well equipped but that will certainly change.

[Mat_fr]

@ kosse

:roll:

can you imagine things that are not black or white ? it doesn't exist

here an exemple cause you don't seem to understand the real world:

i want a controled capitalism but i'm not a communist.
i don't want gulags and a one-party system, but i'm not a convinced capitalist.
etc...

IMO you should learn words like consensus and moderation, and manicheism..

mat.

[Wall]

can you imagine things that are not black or white ? i

Either you are with us, or you are with socialist!

[Mat_fr]

what is "us", what is "socialist" ?

unique thought is dictatorship

mat.

edit: by the way it's off topic
i won't reply to any other post like these ones

[kosse]

...

My last line had a "p-)" in the end..and it was there for a reason. You'd be pissed too if your view was painted as "blind nationalism" without any sensible reason.

[Mat_fr]

sorry for misunderstanding

mat.

[Lancero]

The European Union is just an artifical conglomerate of sovereign states created for mainly economical reasons by Politicians and not by the people.

There is no common values, freedom and unity fought for with blood that unites a group of people or nations not just in mind but in heart.

Alliances between countrys or nations in the, now, EU date back almost 1000 years. And believe me when I tell you there's been much blood in keeping them. I give as example the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, from 1373 and yet to be broken.



Too broad generalisation, a significant amount of EU or European nations weren't even involved in those wars, and not all those involved suffered 'terribly' (depending on definition of course).

When you say "significant amount of EU or European nations weren't even involved in those wars", which countries are you talking about and how little did they suffer??? I'd really like to know.

Only Spain and Portugal comes to mind....almost everybody else was involved in both World Wars.

Portugal fought in WWI (both in Europe and Africa) and remained neutral for WWII. We had our share of suffering later during 13 years of war in Africa.



And even Spain had a nasty civil war between the World Wars.

Of course there were a lot of smaller wars between the world wars.

I wouldnt call a 3 year fraticide conflict with half a million dead (from a total population of 24,6 million in 1936) a "smaller war".

[Cpl.K]

I wouldnt call a 3 year fraticide conflict with half a million dead (from a total population of 24,6 million in 1936) a "smaller war".

Compared to the world wars, which was specifically the context here, it definitely is.

Semantics semantics, whatever, the original statement I took issue with is patently false and that's all there is to it, let's get back on track.

[Briggs]

@ Briggs, The UK/NL BG is more than likely "just" the UK/NL landing force. This would explain why Belgium wasn't partnered with us and the brits. You lack significant amphibious capabilities, and AFAIK only the Paracommandos receive a small amount of amphib training. you would have "trouble" integrating with the Royal marines(of both nations, yes we have a queen)
This is also evidence that the BG aren't just a bunch of goody two shoes, with flowers sticking out of their guns. The Royal Marines and the Korps Mariniers aren't guys you send in to make sure some ugandan gets his mail on time.

Ofcourse, but an amphibious force does more than just landing parties. BG's are to be deployed in other fashions rather than only amphibious operations.

So, I'd say the lak of amphibious capabilities is no reason.
Second, we bought your frigates...you telling me they're useless? :)

[RSone]

Ofcourse, but an amphibious force does more than just landing parties. BG's are to be deployed in other fashions rather than only amphibious operations.

So, I'd say the lak of amphibious capabilities is no reason.
Second, we bought your frigates...you telling me they're useless? :)

Never implied the M-class is useless, although the Admiralty seems to think that way.
Allow to elaborate some more: If im correct, BG's have "specializations" and are capable of cross-operating with each other i.e. a armour BG, amphib BG etc. Now, the Korps is mainly a amphib organisation, but more precisely, a raiding force, meant to get in quickly, hit where it hurts and get the hell out. AFAIK the brits ascribe to this strategy too, and they work with us on a regular base. To integrate infantry that operates in a different role into this battlegroup would result in reduced efficiency. Most likely integration with the Franco/ German Bg would result in a homogenous force, which is most likely what the partner nation were looking for.

You have to take politics and size of the armed forces into account too. For the largest part, the Belgian Military apparently favours working with the french over working with the Dutch.(possibly a product of Flahauts reign?) so a Belgian/French/German BG was pretty much inevitable.
We also cross operate with the Germans in the Dutch/German army corp, which is possible because the Dutch defense apparatus is bigger,therefore we are able to conduct OPS that would be difficult for Belgium(See for example BG 107, we are the framework nation, in addition to the UK/NL LF and the NL/GE army corps) advantages of scale.

[Briggs]

Never implied the M-class is useless, although the Admiralty seems to think that way.
Allow to elaborate some more: If im correct, BG's have "specializations" and are capable of cross-operating with each other i.e. a armour BG, amphib BG etc. Now, the Korps is mainly a amphib organisation, but more precisely, a raiding force, meant to get in quickly, hit where it hurts and get the hell out. AFAIK the brits ascribe to this strategy too, and they work with us on a regular base. To integrate infantry that operates in a different role into this battlegroup would result in reduced efficiency. Most likely integration with the Franco/ German Bg would result in a homogenous force, which is most likely what the partner nation were looking for.

You have to take politics and size of the armed forces into account too. For the largest part, the Belgian Military apparently favours working with the french over working with the Dutch.(possibly a product of Flahauts reign?) so a Belgian/French/German BG was pretty much inevitable.
We also cross operate with the Germans in the Dutch/German army corp, which is possible because the Dutch defense apparatus is bigger,therefore we are able to conduct OPS that would be difficult for Belgium(See for example BG 107, we are the framework nation, in addition to the UK/NL LF and the NL/GE army corps) advantages of scale.

Well Amphibious Force requires Frigates, hence M Class :).
As to 'favoring' co-operation is partialy due to the Praline Top (2003) and due to the 8,5 yrs reign of Flahaut and a strong federal Pro-EU course (now should be balanced between EU & NATO). Politically, I'd rather split our army...let some go with the Dutchies, others with the Frenchies...but such a communautarian divide is a big no no.

[Litti]

This sort of co-operation is essential in order to prepare our continent for future challenges.

I believe we will witness an European army in the future evethough at this point it is still light years away. Distancing ourselves from NATO would mean a more independent approach towards the international community. And good means to build a better relationship with the likes of Russia and China as well.

[femaleMP]

EU "battlegroups" would be nice if they do something. I have few suggestions. Since we are busy with a world war right now could you drop in on Darfur and settle that? When you finish let me know I have some more suggestions.....I for one look forward to the day when Europe can defend itself and we won't have to do it.

[xav]

About the Chad/Darfur mission...



The European Union has finally agreed on Friday morning in Brussels to send a military force in Chad and the Central African Republic. This force will in fact very French. "This is prime the pump" says on the defence ministry, where the mine is to believe that other countries will take over. Neither Germany nor the United Kingdom have wanted to participate in this operation.

France will provide more than 2000 men out of a total of 3600. Other major contributors come from Poland (400), Ireland (400), Sweden (200) and Romania (approx 100). A dozen other countries provide staffing at doses more or less homeopathic.

During the fifth meeting consécrée in this operation, Paris has agreed to unblock the situation, providing tactical transport aircraft and helicopters. This was the main sticking point. Russia and Ukraine should also provide air assets.

France will also lead nation for logistics. It will therefore be projected that force in the very heart of Africa, which is in itself a logistical challenge. The "intitiale" will be deployed in late February and the whole of Eufor "at the end of May."
http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/ (in french)

This is why IMHO (see bold) EU operations or Battlegroups sucks... Too much politics and parties involved = no way to get everybody to agree.
If UK or German do not want to send in troops, they could have at least provided their C130 (and C17 for UK) to deploy all the troops and do logistics.
But on the other hand, they are sovereign nations... nobody can force them to send troops somewhere or to use their transports.

The mission should have started a couple month ago but troops and transports were still laking up until last week. French C160 are getting very old and I am sure it is going to be a pain to deploy all these troops.


From the same author: posted December 19 2007... pretty much sums up EU operations...


Eufor Chad / centrafrique: new failure in Brussels

The force that the European Union wants to deploy in Chad and the Central African Republic is still mired. The fourth conference of "force generation", held today in Brussels, has resulted in another failure. The Staff requested helicopters and transport aircraft. With the exception of Portugal, which has proposed a single C130 Hercules, none of the 27 member states had wanted to make a renewed effort. The Italians have confirmed that they promised a military hospital, and Slovenes few troops ... Even failure in connection with the financing of the transaction (even though the issue was not on the agenda of the meeting ). The French diplomacy was waiting for a British or German contribution. Alas! European defence is referred to better days. "EUFOR is not yet able to leave" provides a diplomat, quoted by the AFP. According to the promises of the summer, it should already be there. The next meeting could be held on or around 10 January.

"It is time that all those who swear by the Europeanization of our defence recognize the reality…"

[MajorTom]

EU "battlegroups" would be nice if they do something.

You seem to be a one trick pony. Majority of your first posts seem to concentrate on uninformed anti-European drivel.
Just stop it already! :)

Ill promise that those EU battle groups ll be in action soon in Africa.
But only after multilateral agreement.

[corran.pl]

Sorry but EU battle groups are just another ridiculous idea of EU .



Are there a military reasons, or is it a matter of tradition and historical links, political?


Of course it is pure political decision, idea of creating a battle group using five different languages (like Polish-German-Slovakian-Latvian-Lithuanian battle group) is just dumb. The multinational groups will never be as effective like groups based on soldiers using same language. Look at multi language countries like Canada – it have English and French units, why? Because it is more effective.


Another ridiculous thing is making a six day fast respond – a fast respond units should have „light” logistics – same gear, weapons, vehicles, everything – why? Less things to transport to the destination area, and when we talk about transport. EU countries have just not enough transport planes for the job. What? A-400? A-400 is on straight way to cost same money as two times bigger C-17. Airbus strong!


And helicopters, I see a lot of cool pictures of Tiger and NH-90 but when it comes to real life both types are not capable to be send into combat. I saw jokes on polish, crappy Mi-8 and Mi-24 on this forum, but we are deploying them to Iraq, Afghanistan and Chad and most of the polish helicopter pilots has been at leas twice in Iraq. I hope that when we will buy new copters it will be Agusta (EH-101) or something from US. Eurocopter Strong!



Guys relax, it's common for Americans to joke about European armies...no need to get so angry


And they are right about this.

[RSone]

There are proposals in my country(The Netherlands) to send a force to darfur/chad, when the mission in uruzghan ends. It isn't really a matter of personnel, but of funding. But anywayz, if that ever happens, expect a battlegroup sized force, maybe slightly larger and fairly heavy too.

[tsuri]

This is why IMHO (see bold) EU operations or Battlegroups sucks... Too much politics and parties involved = no way to get everybody to agree.

See and that is why we have created the Battlegroups in the first place. There is an EU decision to send troops somewhere, but nobody wants to give their troops. With that system a BG gets deployed which has its own transport and logistics capabilities.
Of course problems exist which stems from the fact that we have to please to extremes.


Another ridiculous thing is making a six day fast respond – a fast respond units should have „light” logistics – same gear, weapons, vehicles, everything – why? Less things to transport to the destination area, and when we talk about transport.
That is indeed a valid point, the cooperations are made so that these battlegroups are not percieved as an aggressive threat to other states. Same reason why Germany does not have their own BG, it would cause a lot of fear in eastern Europe.

In the end, EDA's competences have to be enlarged so that we may have common weapons for common troops. It cannot be a solution to solely buy American gear because it is cheaper (because you do not have to pay for R&D) since in the end you depend on the Americans to give you second rate gear without having the ability to produce your own arms.

[corran.pl]

That is indeed a valid point, the cooperations are made so that these battlegroups are not percieved as an aggressive threat to other states. Same reason why Germany does not have their own BG, it would cause a lot of fear in eastern Europe.

I thought that Germany have their own armed forces with tanks, ifv, copters, jets and everything - and I can't understand how creation of battalion size, light, fast respond unit can be identified as a thereat? Maybe I've got something wrong?


In the end, EDA's competences have to be enlarged so that we may have common weapons for common troops. It cannot be a solution to solely buy American gear because it is cheaper (because you do not have to pay for R&D) since in the end you depend on the Americans to give you second rate gear without having the ability to produce your own arms.


True, but it works exactly same when it comes to European staff, and only few countries can made everything on their own.

[Bohemoth]

Excuse me, but what a lot of horsecrap.

EU was formed from the notion that countries that trade a lot with each other and work together are less inclined to go to war against each other. I can travel anywhere I want in Europe, work anywhere I want in Europe, and live anywhere I want here. If i get sick in europe, i will get health care in europe. Thats liberty.

More than ever, we are seeing people here feel a common european heritage.

Wow, how naive, then WW1 and WW2 should never have happened or is international trading an invention of the European Union or the 21st century Globalisation?

I also have yet to see "Europeans" getting emotional or even break out in tears when the "European Hymn" is played. Let's talk again when all European Union member states give up their national anthems.rofl

[RSone]

Wow, how naive, then WW1 and WW2 should never have happened or is international trading an invention of the European Union or the 21st century Globalisation?

I also have yet to see "Europeans" getting emotional or even break out in tears when the "European Hymn" is played. Let's talk again when all European Union member states give up their national anthems.rofl

Don't know where you're from, but over here we don't cry when any anthem is played, EU or our own. It's considered inapropriate.
And let's not forget that during WW1 & 2 the world was a lot less globalized than it is now.

[Dispatcher]

Don't know where you're from, but over here we don't cry when any anthem is played, EU or our own. It's considered inapropriate.
And let's not forget that during WW1 & 2 the world was a lot less globalized than it is now.

Inappropriate to get emotional when the national anthem is played? Thats something i havent heard before.

[Jµµso]

Don't know where you're from, but over here we don't cry when any anthem is played, EU or our own. It's considered inapropriate.


What!?? where are you living?

[Dispatcher]

What!?? where are you living?

He's supposed to be dutch. You know, those guys that consider it inappropriate to get emotional during the national anthem.

Dont hold him against the rest of us.

[Scourge]

He said "cry" - you can be emotional without crying, can you?

[RSone]

He said I also have yet to see "Europeans" getting emotional or even BREAK OUT IN TEARS That means cry. Didn't say you can't get emotional.
Be honest, have you ever seen a dutch guy crying when the wilhelmus is played?

"Dont hold him against the rest of us." Real nice, really.........

[Dispatcher]

He said "cry" - you can be emotional without crying, can you?


Semantics. I meant crying when i said emotional.

[Dispatcher]

He said break out in tears. That means cry. Didn't say you can't get emotional. Be honest, have you ever seen a dutch guy crying when the wilhelmus is played?

"Dont hold him against the rest of us." Real nice, really.........


Yes, i have. And i was damn emotional at the time too.

[Bohemoth]

Thanks guys for defending my point of view.

Of course normally you wouldn't cry, but in certain meaningful situations it could happen. Athletes at the award ceremony often cry when their anthem is played.

If you don't feel anything about your anthem, then something is wrong.
I am dang sure the vast, very vast majority of Europeans don't feel a thing about Beethoven's "Ode an die Freude".rofl

[tsuri]

Wow, how naive, then WW1 and WW2 should never have happened or is international trading an invention of the European Union or the 21st century Globalisation?

The point was rather simplified. It comes from two perspectives basically. The original intention behind the EGKS was to control military industry in Germany without imposing severe sanctions on Germany. Therefore all matters belonging to coal and steel were moved to a supranational government for Germany, Italy, France and the Benelux States. Back then these two sectors were THE industry when it came to war production.

Coming from another point entirely and surely not an intended consequence is this: There are no national markets in europe anymore. We only have one single market. Any attempt to close this market and to go to war with another member would be impossible due to extreme costs involved with this problem. But the reason behind the Common Market was different: European countries are small, their businesses would be much more competetive if they had access to bigger markets. And that is the sole reasoning here.



I also have yet to see "Europeans" getting emotional or even break out in tears when the "European Hymn" is played. Let's talk again when all European Union member states give up their national anthems
That is a very different thing. European identity is just as constructed as French, British, German or whatever identities are. So far nobody wants to replace the latter with the former and in essence, nobody really wants to.

The EU is about unity in diversity after all. Lastly, nationalist theories all fail when trying to understand the EU because they can only think in states. The EU is more than an international organisation and less than a state. There will not be a national anthem of the EU because there will not be a nation of Europeans but a Union.

And a last thing: The anthem you are referring to is not the anthem of the European Union but of all Europe. It is confusing but the Council of Europe is behind this issue, not the EU or her precedessors.

[Subsonic]

The original intention behind the EGKS was to control military industry in Germany without imposing severe sanctions on Germany.

Rubbish. It was because the French couldn't trust the Germans not to kick off again. And after being invaded three times in 70 years, who can blame them.

[joka]

Uh, where did you pull this blind nationalism crap from?

Somehow WW2 doesn't seem like the apex of rational thought and bright ideas to me. In fact, I think it's more likely that blind nationalism had something to do with it. But what do I know.



How is this connected to EU membership in any way? As for the war generations..they voted for EU in different political and economical situation and it was 13 years ago..EU is not same it was back then. And you are full of bull**** if you're saying that it was some kind of choice between blind nationalism and EU.

Funnily enough I didn't claim it was a choice between blind nationalism and EU membership. I speculated on the motives of the war generation to vote for EU membership in such numbers. But perhaps there was another major event besides WW2 that influenced the opinions of an entire generation. Nice straw man you managed to put together though.



That agenda being? What historical event did I distort?! I'm not interested in revisionist history, it's you who is talking nonsense about blind nationalism.

I can guarantee you that not a single person fought in WW2 so that you could exploit their efforts some 60 years later to fit your own political views. Perussuomalaiset (nationalist paerty for those who doesn't know) does the same during elections and it's downright disgusting. That is the historical event you are distorting by implying that veterans are turning in their graves because of the EU. What makes it disingenuous at that is that the war generation in Finland voted for EU membership in overwhelming numbers. Oh, but it's not the same thing? The goal was a an "ever closer union" back then as it had been from the beginning, and where are we now? Somewhere totally different?



Hey, his ideology apparently calls for creation of some kind of neo-USSR in Europe. In a communist ideology it's the state that decides things like this, not the evil capitalists. In addition, he seems bitter that the "blind nationalism" of the war generation prevented Finland from joining the glorious league of socialist workers' paradises. It postponed his dream so many decades..p-)
At first I thought you were just quoting me out of context and misconstruing everything that I write out of spite but now I realize you just don't have a clue.

[Atlantic Friend]

I also have yet to see "Europeans" getting emotional or even break out in tears when the "European Hymn" is played. Let's talk again when all European Union member states give up their national anthems.rofl

1) I an tell you I got pretty emotional when it was played on September the 12th, 2001, throughout France.

2) As someone has already pointed out, being European doesn't replace being British, French, Portuguese, German, Austrian, etc. So there's little point in demanding Europeans to renounce their nation so you can consider them true Europeans.

3) You may have not planned it to be just that, but using ROFL emoticons is a poor substitute for arguments.

[tsuri]

Rubbish. It was because the French couldn't trust the Germans not to kick off again. And after being invaded three times in 70 years, who can blame them.

That is exactly what I said. We could not be trusted not to start a war again but it was also not desireable to control our war industry the way it was done in 1918 because back then the whole thing backfired totally.
So all of these countries turned over control of their coal and steel industry to a supranational body. Good compromise and it worked pretty well so far.