Will the EU battlegroups work?

[TravelingHomeless]

In the near future will the EU battlegroups be the effective solution to conflicts similar to the Congo or Darfur or will they just become an undeployable force due to bureacratic redtape and nonsense? Should the battlegroups have been expanded to a larger force or would their relative size give them a more rapid type deployment? Is the image of a European answer to UN conflicts more preferable to say US or NATO action, and does that explain the rather large support they have throughout Europe especially when it comes to say Finland/Sweden? Are the BGs ready to deploy now, and will they?

[Trenk]

no it can work just on the paper by my opinion, I see everyday that EU countries are not able to make almost any quick decision

[Walter Sobchak]

no it can work just on the paper by my opinion, I see everyday that EU countries are not able to make almost any quick decision

Remember the Belgian paratroopers in Rwanda who were ordered not to stop the genocide? When the UN pulled them out, they were seen cutting up their blue berets in disgust.

[jetsetter]

Remember the Belgian paratroopers in Rwanda who were ordered not to stop the genocide? When the UN pulled them out, they were seen cutting up their blue berets in disgust.

The EU and UN are both inefficient organizations, the EU more so.

[pekka elo]

I don't think any European politician or bureaucrat has seriously considered sending the battlegroups to battle or even peacekeeping. There just wouldn't be a consent. Every one of them knows that but they can still brag about having achieved something and have a feeling of EU STR0NG !!!1

It's a shame because I think the battlegroups could be used to great effect in different hotspots, in a very similar manner the 24th MEU was deployed in Afghanistan. To me they seem like very battle-ready organisations.

[TheBelgian]

The EU and UN are both inefficient organizations, the EU more so.

The EU more so!? Where on earth did you get that from!? The EU gives huuuge benefits to the citizens of Europe, with a bureaucratic cost roughly equivalent to that of a city like Cologne. The UN is inefficient as hell though.

As for the battlegroups, I'm sure they could do the job if they ever got deployed, but ever finding enough of a consensus and a will to deploy them will be a tall order.

[Macs.]

The EU more so!? Where on earth did you get that from!? The EU gives huuuge benefits to the citizens of Europe, with a bureaucratic cost roughly equivalent to that of a city like Cologne.

Don't let the facts get in the way for the EU-Bashing.

[sp2c]

no it can work just on the paper by my opinion, I see everyday that EU countries are not able to make almost any quick decision

most EU countries can decide things pretty damned fast!
the different countries just can't agree on anything together ... ever

the EU battlegroups can work on a few conditions, for one there can not be any kind of veto (majority rules) can't think of anything else atm so that's it

but that's not how it works now so right now, no the Battlegroups do not work
waste of resources, same goes for NATO's NRF if you ask me

[dfk]

I wonder how they communicate with each other on actual battle ground, in 20-ish different languages or english with 20-ish different accents?

[sp2c]

like NATO?

no the EU battlegroups aren't made up of all 20 members, just one or two lead nations and I believe up to 5 smaller ones, usually they can all more or less understand eachother

[TravelingHomeless]

like NATO?

no the EU battlegroups aren't made up of all 20 members, just one or two lead nations and I believe up to 5 smaller ones, usually they can all more or less understand eachother


I'd imagine English is the primary language on operations but perhaps French or German is as well.

[TravelingHomeless]

The EU more so!? Where on earth did you get that from!? The EU gives huuuge benefits to the citizens of Europe, with a bureaucratic cost roughly equivalent to that of a city like Cologne. The UN is inefficient as hell though.

As for the battlegroups, I'm sure they could do the job if they ever got deployed, but ever finding enough of a consensus and a will to deploy them will be a tall order.


Perfect chance for them to prove themselves. Darfur, Congo, hell even East Timor could work as a deployment could stabilize that place. Aren't the big nations France, Germany, Spain quite pro-deployment of the battlegroups?

[signatory]

Sending in EUBG's to African hotspots without a follow up deployment of long endurance peace keepers/enforcers is dumb as fvck. Got 10-20,000 peacekeepers to spare?

The EUBG is a firebrigade. They go in - flex some muscle - Then leave. (Or support a existing force for a short period) If there's no one coming in after them such as a UN force it's all fairly unconstructive.

Besides, the EUBG can't just go in as they wish just to prove some point to you. It's a UN decision with S.C resolutions before anything could happen and what says western (mainly white non-muslims) soldiers would even be accepted by the locals..

[tsuri]

In the near future will the EU battlegroups be the effective solution to conflicts similar to the Congo or Darfur
EU RRF is for the Congos and Darfurs out there. The Battlegroups have other use cases.


or will they just become an undeployable force due to bureacratic redtape and nonsense?
We have to wait and see. Since each member state retains control over their forces, certain BGs will surely be deployed more often than others


Should the battlegroups have been expanded to a larger force or would their relative size give them a more rapid type deployment?

Their size stems from three reasons. a) How many troops can member nations spare, b) how many troops can be airlifted and c) how many troops can be supported for the mission time.
It is of course a compromise in many ways but they are not meant to do more than establish a bridge head for a larger force.


Is the image of a European answer to UN conflicts more preferable to say US or NATO action, and does that explain the rather large support they have throughout Europe especially when it comes to say Finland/Sweden? Are the BGs ready to deploy now, and will they?

See the posters above. Only with a UN mandate or with an invitation will you probably ever see them deployed. But the treaty is very specifically worded and one can imagine that actions could be done NATO style, without any legal right to conduct them.

[TheBelgian]

Perfect chance for them to prove themselves. Darfur, Congo, hell even East Timor could work as a deployment could stabilize that place. Aren't the big nations France, Germany, Spain quite pro-deployment of the battlegroups?

Hey, i'm with you 100%, I think the EU missed a dream opportunity to prove its mettle by sending a battlegroup into eastern Congo. The thing that really surprised me is that for once the big supporter of an EU intervention in Congo was Belgium, which tried hard to convince other nations to join, but the big nations weren't going for it. The EU really missed a good chance to prove the use of the battlegroups.

[Trenk]

Who would like to have a unit, in which every member has to ask his mom if he can go with others on operation? And we have some very scared mothers...

[sp2c]

not just that, the moms of other kids in the class have to give permission too, wether they are going or not!!!