thats why you got my +1.

Is that it?

That it what?

Is this the end of discussion?

I hope not. I would like to hear more. Obviously, this doesn't affect me, as an American, as much as yassem or steephie. But I am still interested.

I agree with KC again I am not affected beyond possibly losing a job (although thats not of high concern) I just think it would be very hard to pull off, I support the idea but implemented correctly. If it is done wrong it could just become a security compromise to NATO which then makes it a concern to me.

Well, the main thing to take into account is that the project is not planned to be finished in a year or two. It is not a direct response to the situation in Ukraine and will not help in this case, but rather provide a solution for future conflicts like this. And having that in mind, I honestly believe that with the political will there is very little that Europe (with or without UK) couldn't achieve. The best thing is of course the rise in efficiency - small countries like the Baltic states, Slovakia or Slovenia are just unable to create effective armies on their own, and if you simply joined their armies you'd still get a pretty shitty one (like 10 tanks altogether and almost no air force). But when you create a joint army, using the manpower, technology and the resources of the whole (or most of) Europe you can create a pretty sweet, strong and modern military.

Well Bryon
NATO is at it's weakest right now an looking at Obamas record
He Problably won't care

Fighting for peace? Please. The Russians aren't stupid. They want to conquer, not massacre. If I were a Ukrainian, I'd be completely cool with becoming a Russian.

As I hinted at before, you guys make the typical mistake of assuming being conquered is losing your freedom. It's just a different government you live under. What I oppose is wasting lives for a futile defence of a bit of ground, a flag and some political system.

Even if we can beat the Russians head on, hell, even if we can without losing a single life on our side, I don't want to kill all those Russians.

It's different if ISIS asks us to surrender only to cut off all our heads when we do.

For me, one of few things worthy of war is peace, and in the case of Russia, if they attack that's because they'll win anyway, so the fastest way to peace would be surrender.

I'm sure yassem thinks they'll take all our Jews and Poles to concentration camps, I don't and that's why I won't fight for a bunch of silly idea's, against a bunch of idea's which may or may not be sillier.

Fighting a war is for people who like to pretend to die for an important cause, for people who like the money you get from it and for people who just love the adrenaline kick.

@Stephanie, so how about Germany conquer the Netherlands? Hell, I would be much more "cool" being German than dutch, why not? Even people in Russia don't have freedom, let alone people they will conquer. How the fuck do you think Ukrainian people can make peace with letting go of Europe and surrendering to Putin's regime, especially after all they have been through.

The type of things you're saying, I don't know if this is trolling or not - I surely hope so, because if it isn't then I despise your views so freaking much I think you might be actually a worse person than Krellin : D

And of course they won't do anything bad, the Russians, when they come. Just look at Berlin 1945, Russian soldiers are peaceful, they were giving away money and chocolates, and helping old ladies cross the streets and so on, right? Not to mention they killed every man, raped every woman and burned every city on their way, including the cities of their allies, just for the thrill of it I suppose.

@yassem: Germany is a lovely example of my point, actually.
For me, nothing changes if the Netherlands become Germany, but I'm sure you think we should fight to the last man before becoming Germany. Because surely Germany is the land of the oppressed?

There's a difference between supporting a cause and killing/dying for a cause. It rarely actually helps your cause.

Times changed. If I don't want to live under someone's rule, I move somewhere else. Big deal.

Your idea's will live somewhere else so you can follow them, die or adapt. Whatever you do, just don't pretend it's noble or heroic. It's a choice, and what you choose matters little to the world.

@Stephanie22, so in second world war, when Nazi Germany invaded you'd be like, oh shoot, gotta move now.
I do not know English language good enough to express just how much I despise you. So when Russia, which is a totalitarian country, that oppresses minorities and kills leaders of the democratic opposition invade Ukraine, all the people who want to live in a democratic country, in their homes, without being oppressed, let alone killed should just move out? 80 mln people, you tell them: hey guys, you know, you don't like it - go somewhere else. It doesn't matter you've been living here your whole life, not to mention all your ancestors as you have no say whatsoever, you can only try to flee (if you're lucky). That's just sick what you're saying.

What's the point of a United European Army? Is that so, collectively, you can use but a single voice to tell the world you are pussies and ask the United Sates to fight your wars for you, instead of making us listen to each pathetic, whiny individual nation fail to act in their own interests?

First of all, a single army would be exactly a way that we wouldn't have to rely on foreign help, and secondly, isn't Europe that has to fight American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? : D

The European Union is not a sovereign state, nor is the NATO. Neither is likely to have an army. Both are merely organizations in which several nations cooperate.

However, let's suppose there will be a single European army, only for the sake of argument. Then who is in charge? Who should decide when and if the army should be deployed? The European Commission? The European Parliament? The Council of Europe? Another European institution? Will they vote? Or has their Chairman/Speaker/President a final say? If they vote, should it be unanimous, full majority (>2/3), simple majority (>1/2), or only the majority of those present? Do all members have equal votes, or are votes weighted? Does anybody has a veto? How fast or slow could and should decisions be made? What should happen in case of an emergency, or invasion?
I highly doubt any nation would want to give up their sovereignity on something as important as their military.

I'm not opposed to military cooperation. European states already work together on military matters, both inside and outside the NATO. However, a pan-European army does not only seem undesirable, it is completely unrealistic.

Could you just stop trying to pull strawmans and actually react to what I say?
Nazi Germany killed in peace as well, that kind of thing needs to be stopped, although I think I'd be of more use behind the frontline but that's a different concern. I'd die to stop massacres, for sure.

Russia is not Nazi-Germany. Even as the west tries hard to make Russia look bad through 'free press', a good observer will notice that it does many things the same as, say, the USA, except it isn't as deceptive as, say, the US.

Example: I'm sure for many years we thought: poor Chinese, being watched by their government, afraid to say whatever they feel like..
Their governments said they are watching, after all.
Luckily, USA wasn't spying on its citizens!

Oh, wait..

So the difference between China and USA is, wait for it..
USA lies and pretends to not be tyrannical, while China just admits that state bussiness can be messy.

So yeah Russia may be messy on occasion, but who knows what my government is doing?

I assure you: I don't have a clue. I'm sure you 'know' your government wouldn't infringe your rights though..

yassem....ever heard of NATO? That's your fucking single army, dumbass. And by "single army" I mean 95% US, and then shit squirt contributions from our "allies".

And your Unified European Army would be the same....i.e. it would take "contributions" from the various countries, meaning England, Germany, France would contribute the overwhelming bulk of the forces...and then whenever the shit REALLY hit the fan, they would still turn to the US and ask us to bail them out.

steephie, you are missing the point! If Germany did decide to invade the Netherlands, they would cease to be a country which you would like to be a part of. The very fact that they become radicalized enough to invade your country means that they have become tyrannical (barring some sort of humanitarian crisis etc.) At least, tyrannical enough to be willing to murder thousands to further their own political purposes. Would you vote for someone who would butcher others? I'm guessing not. But why would you support them if they invaded you then?

@KC: The problem there is that it's far from realistic. I can't help it that yassem uses such an unrealistic example..

The most realistic event I could think of is that my country goes out of its way to provoke Germany. Even then Germany wouldn't invade, but if they did, I'm not dying and definitely not killing just because my country decided to provoke.

If Germany would do so right now though, yeah I'd be pissed at the Germans. Just like I'd be pissed at Elvis Presley if he decided to blow up the planet.

@Nescio, as I understand it would be a new institution that would respond to European Commission. And you are mistaken - European Union is closer to being a state than an organization like NATO. It already has all the needed institutions, the Central Bank, parliament, president, government (commissions) - and of course, they don't have the same amount of power as corresponding institutions in regular states, yet despite the sovereignty of each individual country EU can quite well impose many policies, even against some country's will. The other part - that's just brass tacks. It doesn't matter what the exact procedure is - you have all kinds of procedures in the world and they all seem to work. I suppose it would be decided much further in the future, the important thing now is accepting the idea

@Stephanie, I honestly don't know what I can possibly actually react to. I don't remember the last time an opposition leader was gunned down in European Union or put in jail and in Russian Federation that happens all the time, not to mention the numerous murders of journalists. And I would be just as opposed to the US invading Ukraine, the same way I am opposed to war in Iraq. But while Iraq was a really screwed up place even before the invasion Ukraine was just heading towards EU and had a real chance to finally achieving democracy, something she really didn't experience much throughout the history. And you say that this doesn't concern us? That this doesn't really concern them - they should just accept it or leave? Shameful.

@Krellin, nice, I'm gonna get down to your level now. Are you retarded? NATO isn't even an army, it's a fucking treaty that works based on contribution of forces. And since you apparently have not been reading any of this - united European army would be exactly that, what NATO isn't - a single, unified army. There wouldn't be German, French or Italian HQ, national armies wouldn't contribute to the unified army because there would be no national armies. And I presume the newly formed army would be a part of NATO.

Hm, how about this. Imagine yourself as an Estonian, where the threat of being invaded by Russian expansionists is very real. How about now? Take yourself away from the Netherlands for a second. If Russia is willing to murder thousands to invade Estonia (which they haven't, but this isn't a completely improbable hypothetical) do you really want that government ruling you? Isn't it worth fighting for a more just government?

And Stephanie, no government is "pure", but throughout the last year I've seen manifestations from communist-left to neo-fascist right roll through my city (I leave in the capital), I've heard journalists talking about our government in ways that would deserve a ban on this forum, politicians accusing each other for the worst things and yet not a single person was shot, not one car was bombed and not one member of the opposition was imprisoned.

@Steephie- its not unrealistic for a tyrannical leader to take over a country and then invade its neighbors. Its been happening throughout history and while today the chances are "unlikely" they aren't "unrealistic". All it takes is one person to unite a panicked or desperate nation around a common ideology with nationalistic fervor and strong rhetoric, then that person can mercilessly slaughter whomever they want for the "National defense and the righting of wrongs imposed on our people for generations!". Examples of this happening to different degrees include: Nazi Germany, Putin's Russia, ISIS (if it succeeds in establishing a caliphate), Mussolini, Stalin, Imperial Japan..... Now you ask any Polish Jew who survived the holocaust if they feel the same way you do. Ask a Chinese national who's family was slaughtered by invading Japanese forces if they feel the same way you do. Ask Yazidis if they feel the way you do about ISIS. Ask the Independent Ukrainian's, who's decision to govern themselves was opposed by Russia and enforced with Russian military power if they agree with you. Ask any people ever invaded, conquered, slaughtered, enslaved, and disenfranchised if they agree with you...... Then you tell me how unrealistic it is that a tyrant can come to power and invade a neighbor.

I am sorry steephie I don't care if you hate your government or if you hate what it stands for, but I do care when you suggest that fighting to defend oneself from atrocities is worthless and those who are fighting should just give in.

Honestly, yassem, do you really want a single, unified European army, instead of 28 national armies, and instead of NATO?

@yassem: Well there's drones and everything blowing people off the face of the earth for little more than hate speech sometimes, sometimes Americans even.. But that's just for terrorists, right? If you're a normal citizen, you'll be allowed a fair trial, if you haven't been shot by a trigger-happy cop first..
Yeah, except anyone can be branded a terrorist, anytime. And then you can forget about a trial or, you know, your life.. You won't be buried even, since that drone will make sure there's nothing left to bury..

Ah yes, they almost had democracy in Ukraine. What a shame. Because democracy is so amazing..
Iraq isn't such a big deal, they were so uncivilized anyway.. Why can't we all look at the amazing civilized west, who know what's best for everyone?

This was my original point: you just like your political ideas better and you'll wage war for them. They are just opinions though. You're cool with tyranny as long as it gets a majority vote, I'm cool with tyranny if it's the only viable way to keep a nation divided by factionalism from decimating it's own population in civil strife (yup, that's Iraq).

The thing you have to hold in mind that it's easy to say 'look at how well democracy works for everyone!' when it's built on the wealth stolen from other nations. Newsflash: it's harder to run a country without wealth. Democracies fall apart when the country is simply a poor shithole, which, let's be honest, can always be blamed on western emperialism. More drastic matters are neccessary in such cases. Utopia is always lovely, it's just not always possible, thanks to our ancestors.

@KingCyrus: I would have left Estonia way before that, most likely.. I admit that I might be a little too pragmatic there, but I wouldn't stay anyway. If there's a war going on, all the more reason to leave.. In such a case, I wouldn't blame people for fighting though :-)

Let me put it this way: Is it so bad for Crimea to be under Russian rule?
We might just disagree there, and that's still the point: it's a matter of opinion. I try not to die or kill based on a difference of opinion.

Just a brief note on sovereignty: that concept is a very recent invention, and it's losing relevance quite rapidly. The notion that this mysterious idea of sovereignty is lacking in Europe is missing the point: Europe already has policy, polity, and politics. It even has democratic legitimacy (to a point). It's just that decision-making is still terribly decentralised, and *that* is certainly not conducive for an army.

In fact, politically, we should read this thing the other way around. People arguing for a European army are actually arguing for Federalism.