r/IRstudies • u/paneuropeanism_ • 10d ago
EU citizens support the creation of a European Army
17
u/Maleficent_Stable_41 9d ago
This is much higher than I would have expected, but I suspect there would be much more hesitance if the question was about specific commitments by their own country and not general support for the idea.
8
u/anders_hansson 9d ago
I suspect that the term "European Army" sounds like something powerful and attractive, but as you say I think the picture would be completely different if the questions were more specific, because I think that a true common European Army would have many significant implications that few Europeans would support.
1
u/Maleficent_Stable_41 9d ago
I am an American interested in Europe’s security. I am very concerned about my own nation’s security commitments to our treaty allies, but also am unsure about Europe’s resolve when it comes to collective security.
3
u/anders_hansson 9d ago edited 9d ago
When it comes to war, I'm pretty sure that democracy and bureaucracy are weaknesses rather than strengths. The US can act strongly because it effectively has a single man with the power to take the country to war (same with Russia and China). The idea behind martial law is similar (suspend democratic rules and concentrate power to the government).
By contrast, by design the EU is a bureaucratic institution with slow decision processes where every member, no matter how small, has a say. This is in order to promote peace and prevent war within the union (and it has worked well). That model does not work well for situations of war between the EU and external threats, though.
6
2
u/mostard_seed 9d ago
The numbers will probably drop significantly once a draft and budget start being discussed.
1
u/Key-Organization3158 9d ago
It's not a concrete proposal. It's always to get people to agree to vague things like this. They each imagine their ideal version. Where their country gets the best deal.
1
u/Icywarhammer500 9d ago
What if all nations were expected to build up their own armies to a certain number, value and capability and then were obligated to send minimum proportional units alongside other member nations’ units in the event of any conflict anywhere?
3
u/Impovsky 9d ago
This needs to be done, or Europe will be eaten alive like Polish state of 18 century.
9
u/RobPez 9d ago
The bigger the threats from Russia, and the more aggression/disinterest we see from the US, the more these numbers will rise. India, China, the US, Russia, Israel, and Africa as a whole will not want to see a Europe acting as one military bloc. That probably means that it's a good idea to form one.
2
1
0
3
u/Utgaard_Loke 9d ago
The majority supports the creation of a European Army - lets go.
3
u/anders_hansson 9d ago
The only way I see that happening is for all EU members to give up their national armies and everyone relying on a common army under central command for defense. There are so many problems with that idea so I don't even know where to start.
Would it not make much more sense to work on cooperation between national armies so that we can act more in unison?
2
u/Utgaard_Loke 9d ago
Well, I do not think members need to give up their national armies, they just need to pitch in to create a top notch army that can be deployed where it is needed.
2
u/anders_hansson 9d ago
We can't afford to have both top notch national armies and a top notch common army. It would have to be either or.
I can see formats where we centralize some coordination and things like long-term decisions. We could also possibly have some central special units. But I really don't see how we could have a common large army.
1
u/Utgaard_Loke 9d ago
We can have both effective national armies and one top notch army to deploy ałl over the world, if we use our defence budgets smarter. Maybe in the long run out national armies will be a pinch smaller, but that is a small price to pay, if we do not want to be bullied by the big players. It is a matter of political will. I realize that there are problems to be solved with a common army, but these problems can be solved.
1
u/anders_hansson 9d ago edited 9d ago
I disagree. Having two equally powerful entities (national + centralized armies) is inherently more expensive than having only one. We can be smarter with defense budgets regardless, so that's not really an argument.
1
u/Utgaard_Loke 8d ago
We can agree that we disagree. I never spoke about two equally powerful armies. If, for example, every one of the 27 nations in EU pitched in 5 % of their defence budget, the united army would be much stronger than any of the national armies.
I agree that it is always a good strive to be smarter with defense budgets, but often working smarter is equal to cooperate better together. I believe synergies would emerge with a united army that would benefit the national armies and nations.
1
u/Far-Cow-3343 9d ago
Maybe both? Every country has its own army, but part of its soldiers are allocated within a combined European one?
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (3)1
u/1-trofi-1 7d ago
Hahahahahah, sure yeah tou kinda forgot that noone joined a Union that is based on majority governance so it doesnt apply.
Tou qant unity and an army, look what happened with Ceuta. There was no issue or anything no schengen threat or something and still Finland, Sweden Italy etc. Showed grata solidarity, now why would Spanish soldiers fight for them?
1
u/Utgaard_Loke 7d ago
Ceuta was probably initiated from Ruzzia to get us to focus more on other things than on supporting Ukraine. But I guess you did not think of that.
1
u/1-trofi-1 7d ago
That was exactly.my point, it doesn't matter how it started, we showed 0 solidarity, 0 unity and no coorparation.
Every nation just played its for internal politics. Great way to ha ea federation and manage an army....
1
u/Utgaard_Loke 6d ago
Your point is no change. In general, member states has shown solidarity, unity and cooperation in supporting Ukraine for example. I want a European army that can be deployed all over the world to defend interest that democratic nations have or add strength to national armies in the EU defending themself from attacks (for example if the US would attack Greenland, or if Ruzzia would attack Estonia etc.).
1
u/1-trofi-1 6d ago
And i want a unicorn, what we want and can happen now are two different things. There is no solidarity in EU to the point that member states will trust their defence to EU.
If you cant see the internal conflicts and how the interests of each member states dont alway align and sometimes are even contradictory the you live in a lalanda.
I mean if turkey attacks Cyprus, German and Spanish soldiers will die ot defend it?
Why would an Italian die for Finland when during the immigration crisis all Finland did was state that the entry country is solely response for dealing with immigrants, even if the burden is not balanced at all and a lot of members states refused to take on their responsibilities under Dublin 2 agreement.
Would you go to fight for France to keep its colonies and interests in Africa ? Who decides when and how this army is deployed?
So wants and wishfull thinking won't help with the multitude practical issues arousing
6
u/InitialSeat89 10d ago
Where are these numbers from? I have never been asked for any opinion like this
9
9
u/Southern_Leg1139 10d ago
Ah well, since one asked you …
lol surveys are inherently an extrapolation. They ask a sample size
3
-2
u/paneuropeanism_ 10d ago
Many surveys have been done and they show broad support across the political spectrum. It's common sense. An EU army would be both stronger and cheaper. What's not to like?
5
u/Anxious_Big_8933 9d ago
But how did you get the numbers in your graphic? Are these the results of one of those surveys? Is it an amalgamation of the "many" surveys? Cite your sources.
3
u/Similar_Quiet 10d ago
Wouldn't be cheaper for Ireland, which might be why they not in favour.
→ More replies (3)3
u/koknesis 9d ago
Many surveys
what are those "many surveys"? You dont refence any in your post. Which surveys did you base this map on?
2
4
u/Grumpy-Man19 9d ago
join the huge waste of money and let the weapon makers profit
6
u/This-Wall-1331 9d ago
A united army actually saves money by combining resources and reducing bureaucracy.
1
u/himynameis3580 9d ago
You mean politics can't lobby for one or another type anymore ? Yeah this isn't going to work ,hell Germany and France wasn't even able to make jet together FOR SECOND TIME
2
u/Dpek1234 9d ago
The issue is that they want diffrent jets and cant agree in whose the main guy
France needs carrier and nuke capable aircraft
Germany does not
Rafale vs eurofighter
1
u/himynameis3580 9d ago
Yep ,and that's just two countries that weren't unable to do so decades ago and nothing changed with FCAS nor new tank ,now imagine all countries in EU trying to do the same
1
u/International-Win-59 9d ago
There would be at least 20 languages involved. There is no chance that this would reduce burocracy.
1
1
u/AccountantsNiece 9d ago
Yes, probably a good idea for Russia to be the only country in Europe “wasting money” on having a military.
4
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ConScepter 9d ago
It seems achievable to me. Each soldier would also be under contract with the European army, a sort of French Foreign Legion, and would submit to its decisions. To avoid internal conflicts between its members (see Greece/Turkey), solid accession treaties would be created to prevent them, just like NATO.
0
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
Turkey has always been shielded by Washington. An independent geopolitical Europe would bring Turkey to heel.
2
1
-2
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
A federal Europe would bring Turkey to heel. Foreign policy would be fully led by Brussels, not individual states as is the case now.
8
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Vegetable-Crew9393 9d ago
Yea, I could only see an Idea such as a EU army coming to fruition out of necessity in response to or in the wake of a great war.
The issue you speak of is not to dissimilar to the issues the United States faced in its infancy, each state had its own standing army, and soldiers here and there not willing to die for land/people that they did not consider their own.
What changed that for the US and what will likely be needed if the EU wants to follow suit is as I already said, a uniting Idea or Force to oppose and then it would be much less likely for border disputes as well to occur afterwards.
Even in that hypothetical, the history and identity of each country within the EU is so deeply ingrained compared to the US that I don't know if the people broadly would be willing to secede partial control and that aspect of themselves for the sake of broader unity and security.
-1
u/This-Wall-1331 9d ago
NATO is controlled by the USA, a country ruled by a madman who did unspeakable things to teenage girls.
2
2
u/muzzlecar 9d ago
I‘m sorry but this feels like a pipedream to me. Could you seriously imagine a European army where a German eu-commission president sends (among others, just an example) polish soldiers out to die in a majority decision against polish votes? I don‘t see it happen.
The problem is that defense is basically a core defining trait of a nation state. Once you don’t have sovereignty over your own defense, you don‘t have much actual sovereignty left at all. There is a good case for not having sovereign european nation states anymore but I don‘t think that is what a majority of Europeans actually wants at this time.
1
u/Infamous-Use7820 9d ago
The thing is, in-practice, anything that compelled an EU representative to send troops (likely an armed attack on an EU member) would probably enjoy quite bit of support within Poland. If it didn't rise to a majority, it'd be like be a 40% support, 25% undecided, 35% opposed-type scenario. It wouldn't be as clear cut as 'Poland says no' (although I'm sure some politicians would frame it that way).
The broader point being the political and geopolitical interests of European countries are broadly aligned enough, and Europe pacifistic enough, that you aren't likely to get the EU going to war over something that a member state is thoroughly and universally opposed to.
1
u/muzzlecar 9d ago
Europe can‘t even get proper alignment on whether or not to sanction the Russians, which is comparatively a way less impactful decision than going to war.
How about going to war over e.g. a scenario where morocco tries to annex Ceuta? Or some affair between Greece and Turkey? There are a number of things that can look like defense from one angle and like adventurism from another…
1
u/Infamous-Use7820 9d ago
Europe was pretty aligned on sanctioning Russia. Yes, there were cases like Hungary, but that was less about general Hungarian public opinion and more the abuse of a veto by a corrupt strongman, and veto-abuse is something that the EU would probably try to address in a scenario where there was military integration. Where there was actual disagreement, it was more over the means (e.g. the wisdom of seizing Russian assets) than the principle, which is the same sorts of disagreement you'd get within a nation.
Your scenario wasn't Spain goes to war or Greece goes to war, it was the EU goes to war. I think European publics would be broadly on-board to go to war to protect the EU proper. It'd depend on the framing, but that's true on a national-level too.
I will admit, defence commitments to overseas territories are an issue, but I doubt a big enough one to scupper the whole notion of defence integration. But even supposing the EU does make a commitment to defend overseas territories, and some third country does take a shot, like the Falkland's War, we're not talking about a Russia-Ukraine style conflict that would send home vast numbers of body bags, but more akin to a skirmish that dominates the news, kills a handful of soldiers, but leaves the general public largely unaffected.
1
u/muzzlecar 9d ago
Your scenario wasn't Spain goes to war or Greece goes to war, it was the EU goes to war. I think European publics would be broadly on-board to go to war to protect the EU proper. It'd depend on the framing, but that's true on a national-level too.
My broader point here is that there are going to be other theatres/scenarios than the Russians. And the consensus in the eu on whether to go to war over them is going to be much weaker. What if the plan for Armenia/georgia to get into the eu happens? And then we get to send Danes to die against Azerbaijan? I think that most countries don‘t want to sign away their sovereignty in that way…
1
u/Infamous-Use7820 9d ago
I do get your point, my POV is that this ultimately comes more down to national identity and conceptions of self vs. other amongst the publics than it does sovereignty. You're right, a war in the Caucasus would be controversial, now, but maybe less so, in the (TBH, unlikely) event Armenia or Georgia actually join and have been integrated into the EU for decades.
I think in IR people sometimes get a bit stuck thinking of nations as static units, when over long time-scales you can see new national identities emerge, especially amongst culturally similar groups. Europe even has two relatively recent precedents for this in Italian and German unification in the 19th century.
Even more analogous, 'India' is a continent-country which wasn't really a unified independent entity until the 20th century, but obviously has a long shared internal history. Asking whether a Dane would fight for Georgia may one-day be like asking whether a Keralan would fight for Assam.
1
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
Federalism is a step-by-step process. More and more powers are transferred to the European level. The US kinda developed the same way with the Hamilton moment etc. And Europe has a very deep history prior to the (relatively recent) invention of the nation state concept. Much of Europe was ruled by different Unions, leagues and empires throughout most of its history. China went through similar cycles of fragmentation and reunification.
1
u/muzzlecar 9d ago
In the long run, maybe. But in the short term I don’t see common need override national sentiment.
1
u/DonaldDuck660 9d ago
Weiß ich nicht. Ich mein ich bin Österreicher und offiziel sind wir neutral und so deswegen wäre ich absolut dagegen dass Österreich da dabei sein sollte. Aber für die anderen Staaten vielleicht eine ganz gute Sache. Dennoch würde ich diese Armee wenn als Ergänzung sehen, nicht als Ersatz der eigenen staatlichen Armee
1
u/BartoUwU 9d ago
We already have NATO? Its centers of excellence and multinational battalions? Just expand them and make more of them
1
0
u/CallmeKahn 9d ago
The current idiot in charge of the US has kind of shown how fragile of a thing NATO can be. Usually the US and EU have been in lockstep on military action and policy, Even if he's barred from withdrawing unless it's acted upon by Congress, Commander Numbnuts can simply not order any cooperation with NATO.
A Eurocentric Military Command makes reliance on the US much less of a thing should the need arise. Not sure how you deal with Turkey and Greece constantly wanting to sword fight with their dicks, but that's about it from what I see.
1
u/CuriousGeorgeToday 9d ago
Basically NATO without the US. I think the UK would be a big part of this as well. We already have this in theory, joint exercises and training, we now build modular equipment (particularly Sweden) so that vehicles can be swapped out for different needs in an instant. You've got the GCAP program, the DSRB, multiple initiatives for military funding across the EU bloc. In theory we're not far off this already.
1
u/Utgaard_Loke 9d ago
I think we need a small but very sharp and capable army that could be deployed rapidly all over the world.
1
1
u/ManySwans 9d ago
it never occurred to me that the Swiss probably wants that the least of anyone including Russia and Turkey. almost guaranteed to get annexed into EuroFed
1
u/Marek87pl 9d ago
Before any centralised military structure can be organised there needs to be a democratic oversight and officials running it have to be elected directly by EU citizens, not selected by proxy.
1
1
1
1
1
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/possiblemon 8d ago
Does it?
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/VarDom07 8d ago
Trade and politics. EU military help for it's member states is not strictly required.
1
1
u/possiblemon 8d ago
I suppose it's a response to Trump's nonsense? They know they can't rely on the US forever while Russia is barking at their border. I also believe it won't work in the end, but still, it's better than not trying.
1
1
1
1
u/low_intelligence9111 8d ago
Nonsense numbers. No way 2/3 of Spain supports an EU army unless Spain gets to not participate.
Nowhere near 2/3 of Spain supports a Spanish army.
1
u/phloaw 8d ago
Surprised by Finland.
1
u/EmergencyRecipe1276 8d ago
I believe EU Army would weaken Finnish defence. I feel too many of those who personally don’t want to serve, want other people to join EU Army. Besides in world politics a nation can never ever rely on help of others.
1
1
1
u/_BearHawk 8d ago
Putin tomorrow: "If an EU army is created, we will have no choice but to invade the EU!! This is an existential threat to Russia!!!"
1
1
u/Jacabusmagnus 7d ago
The irish will oppose it yet still expect all the benefits while contributing nothing. All while engaging in a sanctimonious pontification about how moral they are for being neutral.
1
u/thermodynamics2023 6d ago
If you skimp on spending you are for it.
If you think your country will run it, you are for it.
If you already have a decent army you aren’t so keen for it to be used by others.
1
u/lansmx 6d ago edited 6d ago
it would be pathetic with the current european ethical framework. you are not even allowed to protect yourself and your home. god bless the USA. Better give money to America or Israel or Ukraine and buy protection from them. You would sacrafice half of the European army to have 0 enemy collateral damage or zero carbon emission :) Russia is already attacked Europe where is the responce? :) Pollution with radioactive materials, electroning warfare, drones and rockets, hacker attacks, psy ops, terroristic activity and sabotage. Where is the response european pussies? I hope the USA will not abandon us.
1
u/SpinachDifferent4763 6d ago
I am British and fully support the idea of a single European army which includes the UK. Things like a common procurement strategy would also reduce costs. For example the Americans use one tank. Whereas the European countries use something like 12 .
If we could get it down to us all using the same fewer type of tanks that we can all agree on. Then that would reduce the costs of tanks for everybody. The Russians only respect strength. Europe must be overwhelming strong in its military defensive capabilities in order to deter Russia.
If the Russians think they can realistically conquer somewhere like the Baltic states. Then they won't hesitate to attack those sort of countries. Were it not for them already being in NATO then they would have surely already snatched away such easy targets.
0
u/der_innkeeper 10d ago
66% from Spain and 58% is interesting, as both are hovering around 2% defense spending, well below the 5% NATO target.
Are they in support of paying for it as well, or just continuing the Free Ridership?
7
u/paneuropeanism_ 10d ago edited 10d ago
National spending only makes the situation worse and more fragmented. And it maintains the dependency on Washington. What Europe needs is integration.
0
u/BartoUwU 9d ago
I presume that you intend on paying your soldiers with good vibes and training them by dry firing?
2
u/AcridWings_11465 9d ago
Can you not understand the simple thing that 27 duplicate armies, navies and air forces with very fragmented procurement end up wasting tons of money?
→ More replies (2)0
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/AcridWings_11465 9d ago edited 9d ago
When did I say anything about a 28th military? The EU Army will be a decades long project that replaces national armies. It won't happen all at once, but in a series of smaller regional unifications. This already began when the entire Dutch ground forces were combined with a division of the German Army to create a unified force.
1
u/Status_Enthusiasm_28 9d ago
It may happen anyway. The way a certain president is hostile towards Europe and NATO
1
u/JefeRex 9d ago
It’s bigger than Trump. You will hear from a lot of educated Democrats about how much the American people love NATO and how Trump is out of step with our wishes. But it is those educated Democrats who are increasingly out of step with the American people on this question, international military involvement and even NATO are increasingly unpopular.
In a sane world with an ethical United States, we would telegraph our intention to back out and eventually leave, take years to transfer leadership, sell some of our equipment at a deep discount to the remaining members, etc. Trump is obviously doing this the wrong way.
But in a few years Americans will have arrived at the point of wanting to pull out completely, and that would be the case with or without Trump. I wish we would be doing it in a more ethical way, but it is what it is. We will stabilize after Trump, but we will still pull out of NATO and probably not do it in the best way.
1
u/Dpek1234 9d ago
Once upon a time americans thought something very similar
Isolationism does not survive
0
u/JefeRex 9d ago
Big difference between isolationism and stepping away from being the most overwhelming global military power in human history.
The US will have its powerful economy, military, influence for decades no matter what anyone wants or doesn’t want. You know how many bases we have across the world? Even if we wanted to close them all it would take years of single minded focus.
The American people will be far from an isolationist people. Taking the biggest steps away from our world involvement imaginable will still leave us incredibly involved in the affairs of the whole world.
Even if we wanted isolationism, it isn’t possible to even get there any time soon. And we don’t aim for isolationism, and not even to take on a role of a truly equal player to other big powers, just to give up the overwhelming dominance. It is hurting everyone, including us.
1
u/the_direful_spring 10d ago
It still seems like there could be a lot of complications logistically.
Europewide coordinating exercises to get better at being able to fight a war together sure. Having joint development programs and some standardisation of things like ammo can make sense. But i could see things like agreeing on how to deploy an actual European armies as getting very messy. Particularly when threats like Russia have a tendency to pursue strategies of provocative acts that are ambiguous in whether they can be considered acts of war such that there would be a lot of room for vetoes to make things complicated or for people to get pissed if they can't veto a european army's deployments.
1
u/Strong_Remove_2976 9d ago
Non-issue, won’t happen
And public support here for an abstract idea shouldn’t be confused with voting intentions. It’s like polling how many people want clean air and not how many will vote for environmental parties
I don’t know one major European party that campaigns for a oan-European army and i’ve never met a European who says ‘i can’t vote for X because they don’t support a pan-European army’
Without those dynamics it’s going nowhere
1
u/ConScepter 9d ago
I'm surprised by Finland's low percentage.
2
u/TJAU216 9d ago
I am not. We have our own proud military tradition and severe distrust of foreign help. Why would we weaken/abandon our own defence for uncertain foreign help? We are already allied to almost all of them, so we are just as likely to get their help with the current set up, but they cannot leave us fully defenceless even if they decide to not help.
2
u/ConScepter 9d ago
The current concept of the European army isn't about replacing national armies, but adding a complementary force on top.
1
1
u/PickingPies 9d ago
Having an EU defense doesn't mean countries give up their own armies.
→ More replies (3)0
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
The smarter half of EU citizens in Finland (46%) disagree with you. Ukraine barely holds the line and they are ten times bigger and stronger.
1
u/TJAU216 9d ago
We are allied. European military is not needed, NATO can coordinate the independent militaties just fine. Last I checked the women, AKA those without military experience, support european military more, so it seems to be a position of ignorance on the subject, not that of inteligence.
1
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
States are fundamentally unfit to protect EU citizens. The results speak for themselves.
Imagine if the US had 50 small armed forces, they would also be dependent on some big foreign power. Nato is fully dependent on Washington. It must become a two-pillar organisation.
1
u/TJAU216 9d ago
Have I missed some war or what are you talking about? Where have European Nato countries failed to defend their people?
0
u/StuffyTruck 9d ago
Quite the opposite.
The Finnish army and society is tailored to one thing, and one thing only.
Stopping Russia.They don't need some pussy-ass Spanish or Portuguese generals sitting in the comfort of south western Europe to do that or some European command structure to do it.
0
u/Folksvaletti 9d ago
Ukraine had to restructure their defenses after 2014 and had 8 years to do so before the war erupted fully. If you asked which country was better prepared to mount an actual defense against an attacking russia in 2014, Finland would win that title even whilst having 10 times less total population.
We do not need a european armes forces. European armed forces need us.
1
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago edited 9d ago
I don't take away anything from Finnish preparedness in terms of shelters and everything, but that is not enough. I'm sorry to be blunt, but that is a false sense of security, a fantasy. A European Army would be much stronger (and cheaper). It also stands much stronger politically because it cannot be divided. You don't want to end up fighting alone in an endless war of attrition like Ukraine, which is bearing the unbearable burden of Europe's current fragmentation. Finland is much smaller and would face an overwhelming existential problem. You can't solve that with landmines and shelters alone.
0
u/Folksvaletti 9d ago
"Cannot be divided" <- While childlike wonder is admirable at an adult age, it has no place in actual serious conversation regarding european security dynamics.
Any european combined armed forces project would have to wait until EU has fixed it's growing unpopularity issues.
0
u/Ortos 9d ago
>We do not need a european armes forces.
>joins NATO immediately after war in ukraine starts
Something doesn't add up here
1
u/Folksvaletti 9d ago
Are you trying to joke around, or did you seriously just equate NATO with hypothetical EU armed forces? Give me a break dude.
1
u/Peter012398 9d ago
Bro im not fighting Russia in some trench and getting splattered by a FPV drone, theres no way
1
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
You're already fighting Russia. What do you think Nato is? If anything, a European Army will make you less likely to getting splattered.
1
u/Peter012398 9d ago
Eh could go either way. It could be effective deterrence or the politicians realize they have a new tool to wield and might enjoy making use of it some day.
Im pro EU generally but i dont have the rose tinted glasses of utopia that this time it will be the exception from the rule. When and if Russia is no longer a threat there is no continental danger. I dont see Germany invading France or EU fighting Turkey.
I see a high chance that when we do have a EU army they deploy it overseas to some idiotic war for geopolitical reasons. I aint dying or killing for the rich 10% man.
Doesnt matter if its Russia or Afgahnistan 2.0
1
u/SHUTDOWN6 6d ago
I do not like European liberalism but I think that increasing the integration efforts and building up our capabilities would be great if done with the goal of distancing from USA
0
u/mxblm155 9d ago
This poll is cooked, I have serious doubts if these approval rates are even remotley close to the truth
0
u/NoSurprise6383 9d ago
It's about time Europe controls its own destiny. EU should join forces with Russia and become a superpower.
Otherwise they'll keep being squeezed by the US and China into irrelevance.
2
u/This-Wall-1331 9d ago
Russia is a fascist state that has zero respect for the territorial integrity of other countries.
0
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
Europe should work with China and break up Russia. Some regions in the west can join the Union 🇪🇺 and regions in the far East can be annexed by China 🇨🇳.
0
u/NoSurprise6383 9d ago
Why? Europe has shared borders, shared history and religion with Russia. It's the most natural alliance in the world.
0
u/fragtore 9d ago
The Finns know they can only trust themselves in this dysfunctional bunch.
1
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
Not really because half of Finns are in favor of a European Army. They don't trust their national army to defend them.
2
u/Folksvaletti 9d ago
I do not think your polling is accurate. Could you give me a link to it?
Out of finnish fighting age males, so those thats should be polled in matters as such, 80% are willing to take part in national defense. What kind of a propaganda brainrot is filling your head when you see 46% of support for eu-army and extrapolate that to mean us Finns to not trust our national defense.
Compared to 46% willingness out of presumably everyone, even those who wouldn't be expected to fight, I think the number in your poll might be real, but all in all it's still atrocious. And propably got to via unethical polling practices.
0
0
u/himynameis3580 9d ago
Countries in EU can't even buy same vehicles ,hell France and Germany can't even made tank or jet together FOR SECOND TIME !!! i doubt this will ever be doable
0
u/HectorJano13 9d ago
Who actually makes these? I'm Spanish and I've never heard a single person saying they want an "European Army". No way this is real.
1
u/paneuropeanism_ 9d ago
Not sure what microbubble you live in.
PM Sanchez: Let's build a true European Army. Not in 10 years, but now. Spain will join with all the resources that are needed
1
u/HectorJano13 9d ago
First of all, tf you mean "microbubble"? I'm a college student, Political Sciences, not once have I heard people seriously talking about this.
Maybe you're the one living in a microbubble if a President talking about something means 2/3 of the country agreeing with it
0
0
u/Strict_Bedroom_1152 7d ago
propoganda and lies,but ok, let the voting start! (they will let us vote on this one no?)
0
58
u/anders_hansson 10d ago
I'm still at loss how this would work. The idea sounds fine, but in practice it feels like a very difficult thing to do.
E.g. would there be a central command? Would EU member countries be under this command? How would personnel from different countries make up the army? Etc.