Vocal Voices

Norway and Sweden applied today.

Let the games begin. Biggest loser here stands to be Turkey so far.

An historic moment but I am still not convinced that it is the wisest move at the present time.

Turkey could yet be the fly in the ointment.

It may not be the wisest move but these countries have watched Russia move into sovereign territory and alarm bells have started to ring. Perhaps if Putin had not invaded other lands, countries who have always been neutral may have stayed that way.

It is not commonly spoken about but both Sweden and Finland had to remove their Neutrality on signing the Maastricht treaty and bound themselves into the European Army when signing the Lisbon Treaty.

They haven't been Neutral for a while. They just haven't been in NATO.

Globally their neutrality has remained intact as they have not been in any military alliance. However.......

“If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power,” Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union.

So, yes, traditional neutrality was eroded, but only within the EU and remember six EU nations - Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden - are not in NATO. However, they could be called up on the second tier level. Imagine if Russia attacks France then 30 NATO members would pile in, but so would the above six because of the TEU.

When it comes to the European Army nobody can be called up because there is no such thing. One does not exist any more than an EU navy or air force. There is approval for the creation of a rapid reaction military force of up to 5,000 soldiers. It does not yet exist and might take till 2030 to establish. It is only the size of a brigade or maybe a small division - couple of regiments or four or five battalions - so nothing like an army.

Workingman wrote:When it comes to the European Army nobody can be called up because there is no such thing. One does not exist any more than an EU navy or air force. There is approval for the creation of a rapid reaction military force of up to 5,000 soldiers. It does not yet exist and might take till 2030 to establish. It is only the size of a brigade or maybe a small division - couple of regiments or four or five battalions - so nothing like an army.

Oh I know it doesn't exist in fact. But the action of creating the EU "military" on paper and then binding the member states into feeding the "military" with food for the meat grinder does reduce their neutrality even more. Even though the physical mechanisms have not yet come to pass, the commitment has been made. Much as NATO is a commitment rather than a functional "force" unless on a joint exercise.

Suff wrote:Oh I know it doesn't exist in fact.

Then why did you make out that it actually exists and that Finland and Sweden will have to join? Where is its HQ, command structure. Who is the commander? What hardware does it have - munitions, tanks, APCs, aircraft, ships, subs, missiles, bases? It has none. ATM it is a paperwork exercise and another myth to beat the EU with, which is what you intended.

The rapid response force is 5,000 troops shared between current EU members is about 200 from each one - even tiny Malta can chip in. It is not an army. At present the "army" is nothing more than a Chimera but a useful tool to use against the EU. Desperate!

Finland and Sweden will be members of NATO in maybe a few months, but I remain unconvinced that it is the right move as things stand.

Workingman wrote:

Suff wrote:Oh I know it doesn't exist in fact.

Then why did you make out that it actually exists and that Finland and Sweden will have to join? Where is its HQ, command structure.

Structure of the Common Security and Defence Policy

Permanent Structured Cooperation Under potential you can see Forces and command centres with a few.

Do keep up.

This is an executive function of the European Union. Where do you think it's headquarters is and who do you think is at the top of it? Read the documents, commitments were made, the structure is there, it is actual in structure but not actual in force, yet.

These "neutral" countries signed up to this force. Essentially they gave up their neutrality. It just hasn't been obvious.

I have kept up...

Thanks for the links confirming that there is no such thing as a European Army and that by not existing it does not have a permanent HQ, a military command structure, no troops or any of the hardware I mentioned earlier.

The organisations in the links are not an army.

They are a command and control structure with air and land forces.

The difference between a corps with 1,000 people and limited equipment and 1,000,000 people and attendant equipment is simply logistical scale.

Just ask the Ukrainians. Their defence force is several times the size of the attacking Russian force. Command and control structures for the larger force are the same with more people. The only reason Russia is not out on its arse is a lack of heavy equipment for Ukraine to make it so.