RE: EU army vs. Russia???
March 9, 2015 at 2:35 pm
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2015 at 2:38 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
I think it's probably a good idea, from a military standpoint. As matters stand, fielding joint NATO forces looks to the uninformed like a suitable answer to any Russian aggression, but there are definitely problems with such an approach:
1) Linguistic barriers will impose friction upon military operations.
2) Doctrinal assumptions vary amongst not just the various national forces, but indeed within them at times.
3) IFF issues are more complicated when fighting as part of a coalition.
Fielding a homogeneous European force would address these issues: a common language requirement would not only have personnel speaking the same language, but words would carry the same connotations -- such is very important in battlefield communications. There would be a unified doctrine, given that leadership is unified. Equipment-issue would be standardized.
I think it would be a better military solution to the potential threat. Whether it could hold politically, with nations jostling for position inside such a unified force structure, well, that's another question. Coalition fighting is the most difficult form of warfare, because the members have varying aims, backgrounds, and risk assessments. This suggestion would seem to address those problems.
The reason the US doesn't intimidate Russia is because the projection of force is an expensive proposition requiring an immense logistical base. We don't have as many US troops in Europe any more, and that means that any conventional war will require a massive transport of troops across the Atlantic, if not from further afield. Such a logistical problem is not easily solved; it took five months to put 540,000 American troops into Saudi Arabia in anticipation of the 1991 Iraqi invasion.
If the Russians decided to invade Central and Western Europe, five months is a very tardy response.
Russia is not invincible, but it will take European blood to defeat any Russian aggression. The question at that point becomes, how can you most efficiently accomplish the mission, given other demands on the European economy?
1) Linguistic barriers will impose friction upon military operations.
2) Doctrinal assumptions vary amongst not just the various national forces, but indeed within them at times.
3) IFF issues are more complicated when fighting as part of a coalition.
Fielding a homogeneous European force would address these issues: a common language requirement would not only have personnel speaking the same language, but words would carry the same connotations -- such is very important in battlefield communications. There would be a unified doctrine, given that leadership is unified. Equipment-issue would be standardized.
I think it would be a better military solution to the potential threat. Whether it could hold politically, with nations jostling for position inside such a unified force structure, well, that's another question. Coalition fighting is the most difficult form of warfare, because the members have varying aims, backgrounds, and risk assessments. This suggestion would seem to address those problems.
(March 9, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Your first claim is a little silly - If there's something we should all understand is that Russia (1) Doesn't back down often (2) They are unafraid and fearless.
If the USA doesn't intimidate Russia I don't know why the EU will be capable of doing so - Our armies are not that strong excluding Germany, the UK and France. Even if we wanted to invest in an European army we have higher priorities such as the situation in Greece
The reason the US doesn't intimidate Russia is because the projection of force is an expensive proposition requiring an immense logistical base. We don't have as many US troops in Europe any more, and that means that any conventional war will require a massive transport of troops across the Atlantic, if not from further afield. Such a logistical problem is not easily solved; it took five months to put 540,000 American troops into Saudi Arabia in anticipation of the 1991 Iraqi invasion.
If the Russians decided to invade Central and Western Europe, five months is a very tardy response.
Russia is not invincible, but it will take European blood to defeat any Russian aggression. The question at that point becomes, how can you most efficiently accomplish the mission, given other demands on the European economy?
