The united army of Europe: myth or reality?




It seemed that five or ten years ago everything was clear: NATO, with the support of the USA, is good, the rest of the world is bad. However, everything in this world is changing. The current crisis in the territory of Ukraine and military operations in the south-east of the country have already openly made it clear to all of Europe that if you throw cans of kerosene into a blazing fire, the arsonist can also catch fire.

Only the lazy is not talking about the role of the United States in the Ukrainian crisis: some people recall help in preparing a coup, during which, according to various estimates, people died from 500 to 2,500, while others emphasize the participation of the US military in the territory of the Lviv region of Ukraine, in the midst of a fratricidal war.

Among the diversity of opinions, there is one more thing: the influence of the US armed forces on the overall military spirit of the armies of NATO countries.

The interlocutor of voenpolit.su Igor Felshman, now serving in the ranks of the Norwegian Armed Forces, shares a curious opinion as to whether the US forces are necessary for Europe: “I think not. But this is the opinion of a simple officer, not a cabinet general. that the USA had left Europe, the NATO forces would have begun to tremble like a poodle in the arms of a pomaged blonde. Fear of Russia remained, despite the fact that Russian boots did not trample Europe on 70 years. " - said in an interview with voenpolit.su officer.

The US military presence in Europe is a certain irritant, an indicator of absolute power. It is the presence of US forces in the territory of the same Germany that allows the German leadership to maintain a confident course in foreign policy and not to tremble before such mastodons of global confrontation as Russia. However, if the US forces stationed in Germany go home to drink soda, and all other bases are closed or transferred to the EU balance, then Europe will have a rather unpleasant scenario.

The first thing that the advanced army of a united Europe will have to face is the supply and logistics of its advanced troops. US military facilities located on the territory of the EU - this is why they exist on the balance sheet of the US Department of Defense. However, their transfer to the EU will “burden” the expenditure part of the budget of the Old World by about 4 billion dollars a year. Not a very bright prospect, given the current state of affairs in the EU, when even advanced economies like Germany have to tighten their belts.

Problem number 2 for the united army of Europe is arming. Here, if we don’t go into smaller details, there is one big problem: Europe currently has no weapons capable of long and effectively resisting the operational forces of the Russian Federation. And although the statements by the NATO Secretary General that any military power is not directed against Russia, everyone has long understood that this is a frank lie.

So why does Europe need a united army? One small comparison would be appropriate here. Europe is a balding old man, about 60 years old, who is still trying to run after women and convince himself that he can. With Europe, about the same: united forces are needed by the EU not to confront someone in an open war, but to simply show that they are. Another important point here is ordinary psychology - the ordinary European people, tired of constant US intervention in their affairs, are eager to throw off any shackles of the imperialists. The future French presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen, is openly talking about such plans. She calls on the country to withdraw from NATO and begin to behave as an independent and proud state.

Finally, the third problem of the united army of Europe will be the lack of trained and experienced personnel. To understand who is who in the army of Europe, voenpolit.su contacted an expert in the field of geopolitics and a lecturer in the world department stories MSU Andrei Nesterov: "It is necessary to recognize that the EU army will have a good number. Without Americans and Canadians, this is about 3 a million people, maybe a little less. of talented people broke down or simply refused to participate in hostilities. One cannot speak unequivocally about the moral character of a future army, if it does appear, because no matter how strange it may sound, everyone remembers how the campaign of the united Euro ended Py in 1941 year. "- The expert said.

Summing up the unpleasant facts, one simple thing can be traced: Europe needs its own army so that it again feels like an independent state entity. The longstanding US military expansion made the EU leadership think about the fact that all the crises in and around Europe are created not in the common interest, but in order to get one-sided benefits. And the recipient of this benefit is the USA. It is with the creation of a unified army, which will not be formed under the auspices of NATO, according to the ideas of European ideologists that the “liberation” of Europe and the new formation of the Old World will begin.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ImPerts 27 October 2015 05: 38 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    One small comparison would be appropriate here. Europe is a balding old man, about 60 years old, who is still trying to run after women and convinces himself that he can. It’s about the same with Europe

    Very good comparison. I would add that this 60 old man is very hindered by reverie and impressionability. Dreaming of a universal orgasm in group democracy and excessive sensibility inspired by global values.
    Two world wars led to perversions in the heads of Europeans and weaknesses in members ...
    1. viktorrymar 27 October 2015 07: 05 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Europe should understand that Russia doesn’t need them, and there’s no need to maintain an army to contain it, and one could say “Yankee go-home” for a long time, and to strengthen internal troops with the police in order to confront illegal immigrants.
      1. Eugene-Eugene 27 October 2015 10: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        - some conclusions, the only statistical data - 4 billion dollars, the amount of which in the opinion of the author will increase military spending.

        For example, the Russian Federation with approximately 1 million. 70-80 Lard dollars per year for the 7 years for the army, with such rates 7 will be gone (not too much) to give the army a more or less tolerable appearance (unification, modernization of old models, supply of new equipment ). That is, for the Russian army you need in the overall standings about 1 trillion dollars.
        But Europe will pay much more:
        1) their military products are more expensive;
        2) will require additional huge costs to replace the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe, American junk in South;
        3) existing technical background - scanty. This is not the Russian Federation, which got the Soviet armada.
        It is easier for them to create a single armed forces on the basis of the armies of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy (England is unlikely to be included in the overall structure), gradually bringing their total number to about 1 million. And in other countries to eliminate the army, leaving the armed police. Judging by the cost of the Russian Federation, they will take 1,5 - 2 trillion from it. At the level of the PRC (216 billion in 2014), they are unlikely to be able to spend, so the formation of a single efficient army for 1 million people. will take in Europe years 15 - 20.
        1. asadov 27 October 2015 11: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          They will NOT create a single armed forces based on the armies of the FRG, France and Italy. For this, most likely, other countries of Geyropa will have to be removed from the political map of the world, and they won’t do it.
    2. Rezident007 27 October 2015 22: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Maybe it’s true, maybe not, but Hitler allegedly in his last interview with a Swiss journalist said that the future preservation of the European white race is connected only with Russia ... without Russia, it will disappear .. He also allegedly made a mistake and drew erroneous theses and conclusions about Russian nation, but it was too late, the death machine was launched from both sides ...
  2. Tra-ta-ta 27 October 2015 06: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    However, their transfer to the EU will “load” the expenditures of the Old World budget by approximately 4 billion dollars a year ...
    For freedom and to pay is not a sin ...
  3. Denis DV 27 October 2015 07: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The main attribute of a single army is a single language hi
  4. Egoza 27 October 2015 07: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Europe will need a united army to drive out migrants. Here let them show themselves. And without any help from Russia. Enough, already freed, now let's do it yourself.
    1. Karabanov 27 October 2015 11: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      NATO was created to confront the USSR. But for a long time there has been no USSR or ATS. And NATO is only expanding and incorporating new members. The number of military bases around Russia has only increased. For what and why? This only testifies to the fact that the image of the enemy in the person of Russia has not disappeared and is maintained with even greater tenacity.
      Regarding the combined army of Europe, it seems to me an unlikely prospect. Neither the army nor the government of these countries possess any independence, and such an initiative will meet with stiff opposition from their US hegemon.
      Artificially supported hysteria and imaginary danger from Russia, this is what modern Europe lives for, and the United States will not allow a revision of these positions, because in this case will lose influence on them. Therefore, it seems to me that Europe will continue to follow in the wake of American politics.
      To change the situation, determination and will are needed, but it is not there.
  5. Altona 27 October 2015 07: 52 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The army is not only boxes of walking soldiers, but primarily infrastructure - command posts, airfields, supply points, logistics points ... Something I doubt, $ 4 billion a year is a penny ... This pair of airfields will gobble up and not notice , or a command post with radars - fuel, electricity, personnel, special vehicles ... The EU budget will be 200 billion dollars and still have to spend the same amount to put guns instead of mops on BMP towers, replace aircraft with torpedo submarines and buy missiles ... One war with Libya, a "powerful" such an African army of 200 thousand people took the entire Tomahawks ammunition ... The war with two Libya for the EU will already be a war of attrition ...
    1. Siberian1965 27 October 2015 13: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I want to note not the war with Libya, but the destruction of Libya, with overwhelming superiority in the air and on the ground. The war is something else, when geyropeysky meat and iron will be torn in huge quantities, when the geyropeysky muter and geyropeysky veter suddenly sees how the geyropeysky army headquarters adjacent to their house will fly into the air, when geyropeysky electricity and geyropesky communication will be disconnected and there will be blood and d ... mo in the geyropeyskoy state, if they have enough "mind" once again rock the good neighbor of the east. This is war. So you need to multiply costs by at least 10.
  6. EvgNik 27 October 2015 08: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    US military facilities located in the EU - because of this, they exist, which is on the balance sheet of the US Department of Defense. However, their transfer to the EU will “load” the expenditures of the Old World budget by about $ 4 billion a year.
    And who calculated how many states suck from Europe? Plus losses on sanctions, which are also imposed by the state. The army, of course, is needed. But not a stranger but his own. To protect order, at least from the same emigrants. But without YaV. Then no one will aim their missiles at you. And it is better to trade with neighbors and not scandal for every reason.
  7. Asadullah 27 October 2015 09: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "load" the expenditure part of the budget of the Old World by about $ 4 billion a year.


    Actually a lot more. Instead of fastening Russia to the European torus cart, they sculpt the enemy out of it. .
  8. akudr48 27 October 2015 09: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is in Russia's interests to create a united European army with a NATO army.

    Since there will be insurmountable difficulties in the creation and support of the full-fledged armed forces of Europe, as well as their management.
    Sorry Bob, Bolivar can't stand twoas the hero of the film said.

    And here are similar comparisons that Europe is a balding old man, about 60 years old, who is still trying to run after women and convinces himself that he can these funny comparisons are akin to “throwing hats” about the Japanese before 1904.

    In addition, it should be clarified that Europe is still a woman, not an old man, and if she is still running after women, then she is a lesbian or, in a fit of European sexual freedom, she underwent sex reassignment surgery, having lost gender differences.
  9. Vadim237 27 October 2015 09: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In principle, nothing prevents in the event of war the unification of the armies of the EU countries.
    1. Kazakh 27 October 2015 10: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Vadim237
      In principle, nothing prevents in the event of war the unification of the armies of the EU countries.

      In peacetime, yes. And in the war let the losses begin. From the very beginning, there will be a showdown who does more and that, for example, the General Staff consisting of Germans (French) (English) choose what you like, it doesn’t protect the Romanian Hungarian further, according to the list of soldiers, such a confusion will begin. Well, we remember 44 years . That the occupying forces from the country of allies should be entered.
  10. goblin xnumx 27 October 2015 10: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    except the Germans - who else can fight there? Yes, and the Germans, do they need it?
  11. cniza 27 October 2015 10: 18 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Summarizing the unpleasant facts, one simple thing can be traced: Europe needs its own army so that it again feels itself to be an independent state formation. The long-term military expansion of the United States made the EU leadership think that all crises in and around Europe are not created in the common interest, but with the goal of obtaining unilateral benefits. And the recipient of this benefit is the United States. It is with the creation of a united army that will not be formed under the auspices of NATO that, according to the ideas of European ideologists, the "liberation" of Europe and the new formation of the Old World will begin.

    Will they be preparing for another 70 years?
  12. Nyrobsky 27 October 2015 11: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Perhaps only the creation of a united Euroarmy can be the only way to gradually reduce the presence of the American military contingent in Europe.
    In another way, they cannot squeeze out mattresses and thereby reduce pressure on the political Euro-elite, and they understand this.
    The fact that the Americans insist that European countries spend up to 2% of GDP on the maintenance of the contingent means that the Americans want to minimize their costs.
    The fact that the transfer of US objects to the balance of Europe will load the latter by 4 billion. Europe is not scary anymore))), since the direct losses from the economic embargo against Russia for the year amounted to more than 100 billion !!! They are much more profitable to lose 4 billion than 100 billion)))
    In my opinion, the submission by Europeans of a voice in the style of “And we will go the other way” suggests that American domination has seriously weakened them and it is not interesting for them to move by inertia.
    In addition, the Caspian launch of the Calibers really demonstrated that the idea of ​​a unified missile defense system in Europe under the patronage of the United States is no longer relevant and it is better to coexist with Russia in the world than to support the image of the enemy if you want to feed him.
    It is clear that this process is not fast, but the very fact of the emergence and voicing of plans to create their own army is an alarming bell for the United States.
  13. sharp-lad 28 October 2015 00: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The idea is certainly good! But its embodiment raises very big doubts. Rapid Response Troops? The size of the composition is not defined, the response time is about 3 days. In three days Latvia will be turned by the Russian army into a deeply layered area and saturated with various equipment and defense forces, in the event of the appearance of at least some, little substantiated, benefits for Russia, which any sane person doubts strongly. What, after this, speak of a more numerous and wealthy army ?!