EU Defence Force

#1
For a long time the UK has vetoed the prospect of having a centralised EU Defence/Military force. However, having now voted to leave the EU, combined with some key figures (Macron & Merkel), it is somewhat more likely to be something we will see in the future.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter?

How will this effect the RN & NATO? Do you think the UK will have a part to play?
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#3
There is already an EU Naval Force. I don't think we currently have any surface ships attached but the boss is CGRM.

There is - if I recall correctly - no requirement to be EU to operate with EUNavFor. Navies tend to 'get on' strategically and operationally as well as socially.
 
#4
Interesting @Seadog. So do you think if this single EU Defence Force were to become a reality, the EUNAVFOR would remain separate? Or do you think it would be sucked into the single and centrally commanded EU Force?

Am I right that Op SOPHIA is an EUNAVFOR operation? How do EUNAVFOR and NATO integrate with one another? I'd be interested to know who would take the lead, if for example, there was a need to defend the baltic region from Russian aggression etc (in a non article 5 context)? I assume NATO, given the fact that they are regularly exercising in the region and the instability that could be caused by mishandling the situation?!

Forgive me if I am talking utter nonsense. I am just trying to increase by knowledge base and understanding pre AIB.
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#5
Forgive me if I am talking utter nonsense. I am just trying to increase by knowledge base and understanding pre AIB.
You're preparing for the AIB, you're not being interviewed for a DS slot at Staff College. Knowing the big picture and is to be encouraged - some in the Service seem to think it's for the grown ups only-but I'm not convinced the kind of detail you're after will serve you well at AIB.

IIRC, on a recent occasion the Royal Norwegian Navy put its NATO contribution under EUNavFor Command.
 

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#6
There is already an EU Naval Force. I don't think we currently have any surface ships attached but the boss is CGRM.

There is - if I recall correctly - no requirement to be EU to operate with EUNavFor. Navies tend to 'get on' strategically and operationally as well as socially.

There is - if I recall correctly - no requirement to be EU to operate with EUNavFor. Navies tend to 'get on' strategically and operationally as well as socially.[/QUOTE]



Mod edit @ratsroden sort the attributions out. Use the helpful quote function.
 
Last edited:
#7
Be aware of the big difference.

NATO ( and other co-operations) are about sovreign nations lending assets to a multi-national force. As in "Voila, M. Le Admiral Francais, vous avez HMS Floaty pour votre use." EUNAVFOR uses this basis.

What the EU want, in the long run, is specific EU forces, as in "You ain't a British Sailor now, Jack, you are a Eurosailor. And you are serving on the EU Flotable, regardless of where you where born, and that's an EU passport, not a national one."

The costs of such investment, both in equipment and personnel is huge, and will do nothing to support NATO. Its about the EU Federation having its own forces for its own use. We want no part of it.
 
#8
There is - if I recall correctly - no requirement to be EU to operate with EUNavFor. Navies tend to 'get on' strategically and operationally as well as socially.
ABOARD HNLMS ABRAHAM CRIJNSSEN — Standing on the deck of this sleek Dutch frigate knifing through the harbour ice of Den Helder, one might see a British Admiral whistling in admiration as it glided toward the North Sea.

If the admiral came aboard the 3,400-ton warship and looked around, he might turn purple with rage or white with shock.

There he would find unionized sailors with long hair and gold earrings drinking at one of three bars on board, the engine room deserted while the frigate was underway, and only three of the 180 crew members standing watch on the bridge at night cavorting with the lady sailors.

They're part of this EU Naval Force you speak of.[/QUOTE]
Still.They gave us a good shoeing on the Medway 1667....;)

@SARKING
Mod edit:
that's not ratsroden's quote at the top but Seadog's. Ratsroden has managed to set a misquoting domino effect through the thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#9
ABOARD HNLMS ABRAHAM CRIJNSSEN — Standing on the deck of this sleek Dutch frigate knifing through the harbour ice of Den Helder, one might see a British Admiral whistling in admiration as it glided toward the North Sea.

If the admiral came aboard the 3,400-ton warship and looked around, he might turn purple with rage or white with shock.

There he would find unionized sailors with long hair and gold earrings drinking at one of three bars on board, the engine room deserted while the frigate was underway, and only three of the 180 crew members standing watch on the bridge at night cavorting with the lady sailors.



They're part of this EU Naval Force you speak of.
Still.They gave us a good shoeing on the Medway 1667....;)[/QUOTE
 
Last edited:

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#11
Mod notice; @ratsroden
sort out your use of the quote function. You are making a Horlicks of this already failing thread.
Sorry. Sought a solution:-
Completely agreed with the official recommendation :). I also don't see any way to prevent the process crash. What puzzles me is the current VS runner experience - the run completes successfully when there's a runaway exception. So apparently somebody is swallowing these exceptions (or mitigating their side effects) somehow. Not sure how.

Today, some tests might pass in VS (ex., BackgroundThreadShouldThrowUnhandledException_WhenBadStuffHappens) and crash under another runner. Ideally for parity, the VS runner would crash rather than swallow these exceptions.

Is there anything xUnit.net is doing in terms of AppDomains/threads that could be swallowing background exceptions, or any VS behaviour that could be change? Or perhaps the underlying VS test runner infrastructure is just doing something bad one can't change.
 
#12
Don't forget if it does not suit France, they will pull out as they did in 1966 under Charles De Gaulle who also kept us out of the E.E.C.
 
#13
Sorry. Sought a solution:-
Completely agreed with the official recommendation :). I also don't see any way to prevent the process crash. What puzzles me is the current VS runner experience - the run completes successfully when there's a runaway exception. So apparently somebody is swallowing these exceptions (or mitigating their side effects) somehow. Not sure how.

Today, some tests might pass in VS (ex., BackgroundThreadShouldThrowUnhandledException_WhenBadStuffHappens) and crash under another runner. Ideally for parity, the VS runner would crash rather than swallow these exceptions.

Is there anything xUnit.net is doing in terms of AppDomains/threads that could be swallowing background exceptions, or any VS behaviour that could be change? Or perhaps the underlying VS test runner infrastructure is just doing something bad one can't change.
Hands up all who understood that/\ ?
No, I thought not.....
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#16
This is really about the EU intention, since Monnet in the 1940s, to become a Superstate with its own armed forces controlled from Brussels. Come on lads, enlist to fight for the blue and gold! I think not.
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
#17
Be aware of the big difference.

NATO ( and other co-operations) are about sovreign nations lending assets to a multi-national force. As in "Voila, M. Le Admiral Francais, vous avez HMS Floaty pour votre use." EUNAVFOR uses this basis.

What the EU want, in the long run, is specific EU forces, as in "You ain't a British Sailor now, Jack, you are a Eurosailor. And you are serving on the EU Flotable, regardless of where you where born, and that's an EU passport, not a national one."

The costs of such investment, both in equipment and personnel is huge, and will do nothing to support NATO. Its about the EU Federation having its own forces for its own use. We want no part of it.
Je ne comprends pas.

Whereas a multinational Corps / Division / Flag Staff can already operate in one language -for example - English, at unit level in an EU Army there would be no lingua franca. Creating the linguistic capability and flexibility across all ranks to create and appoint the "Euro Sailor" is a big ask.
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#18
I 1964 JFK set up USS Biddle as the NATO mixed-manned destroyer. It was run, of course, in English. One of her RN officers was later my shipmate. He told me how he helped the Turkish officer with his language learning curve by telling him that the appropriate way to greet the CO in the morning was with 'Good Morning, Fuckface.'
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#20
The UK having left the EU will stick with the tried and tested NATO. No point trying to ride two horses.
We won't. We will work with both as there are significant merits.

The EDA is not entirely the same as NATO but it allows us access to European procurement projects and programmes and will also help UK defence manufacturers especially SMES.

Operationally having a foot in both camps has worked for us, just Google the number of past and present EU led operations. It's especially useful when NATO can't or won't commit and national resources aren't sufficient.

We work with both at the moment, simply varying the levels of commitment as we see fit or find necessary. I can't see it altering.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top