Support NeoGAF

[Funky Papa]

itishappening.jif

”The development of a new generation of many major defence systems is today beyond the reach of a single EU member state ... ‘More Europe' in defence and security is clearly needed", the draft proposals, seen by Bloomberg, a US news agency, said.

The reflection paper adds that the ”nature of the trans-Atlantic relationship is evolving" and that ”more than ever, Europeans need to take greater responsibility for their own security".

Reuters: Trump and Brexit give momentum to EU defense push

With Britain, one of EU's leading military powers, leaving the bloc, ideas for common EU defense are gathering pace in the wake of Islamic attacks in Western Europe. Europeans are also worried about U.S. commitment to NATO under President Donald Trump.

Under the proposal unveiled on Wednesday, at least three firms and two member states would have to submit a joint project to be eligible for financing from the EU budget.

If agreed by governments and the European Parliament, the EU budget would put up 20 percent of the costs of developing prototypes, Bienkowska said.

...

Europe has 37 types of armored personal carriers and 12 types of tanker aircraft compared to nine and four respectively in the United States, according to EU analysis.

"Up until now, member states were doing things completely separately, without any cooperation. I want to appeal to the member states to think about common projects, because the money will be there," Bienkowska said.

For the future, Bienkowska is mulling a common European defense bond for joint purchases from 2021, though she said no decisions had yet been taken.

The new joint defence funding strategy is part of the Future of Europe whitepaper and it's not meant to create a unified EU army but to fix the absurd amount of different weapon systems within the Union through the creation of unified materiel/technology. There's also going to be a push for deeper interoperability and it may provide proper, common funding for the Battlegroups, which so far have not been properly deployed due to disputes over who has to pay for what.

Juncker approved PDF.

Membership is voluntary and it will exist in coordination with NATO, but there's no question that the latest developments have given some extra impetus to an initiative that is meant to reduce the Union's dependance on NATO and certain American hardware (which is why the UK was fighting against it). It's expected that Germany, France, Spain and Italy will push towards more integration.

It's still pretty early to infer anything solid, but there's a lot of talk about interest in drones and cyberoperations along funding towards joint projects. There's been rumblings about a new main battle tank being developed by Germany and France, plus there are other initiatives that could use that extra coordination/funding such as the Dassault nEUROn unmanned combat aerial vehicle. Germany and France are also interested in a common battle rifle for their armies.

Edit: The three potential scenarios

 

[Ghost]

Hmmm well it's a first step I guess but it's nothing like an actual EU army, it's just the EU offering 20% discounts on EU branded weaponry to try to reduce the massive range of weapon systems members are using.

 

[Frankfurter]

Trumps BS backfiring. I'm loving it.

 

[Funky Papa]

Hmmm well it's a first step I guess but it's nothing like an actual EU army, it's just the EU offering 20% discounts on EU branded weaponry to try to reduce the massive range of weapon systems members are using.

Well, a common army was never in the cards. We are still very far from that point.

Juncker is going to make a speech this Friday outlining more details. Common funding for R&D and standarisation is just the very basis of the new defence strategy. The EU getting its own proper defence budget is kind of novel by itself.

 

[nubbe]

EU will be a federation in 10 years
Thanks Trump

 

[grimmiq]

So are Republicans now going to say "OMG they're expanding their army to threaten us! Quick! Cut more funding to health/education/environment and funnel it to the military!"?

 

[Carn82]

I'm gonna laugh if this will result into the F35 being phased out in favor of a different aircraft.

 

[Zeknurn]

This is positive news for everyone. Thanks Trump.

 

[Amory]

Trumps BS backfiring. I'm loving it.

This is a backfire? He wants the EU nations to step up their defense spending, which it looks like this initiative encourages.

I'm for it, personally. It's one of the only Trump positions I think he's got right.

 

[Tadaima]

I wonder what impact this news will have on the UK Election tomorrow.

 

[Kabouter]

Long overdue, hopefully most member states will go for this at least.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

This will give the EU amazing purchasing power, this is a really good idea.

It's a shame we fought it for so long and are now leaving the EU.

 

[Funky Papa]

I'm gonna laugh if this will result into the F35 being phased out in favor of a different aircraft.

Sadly, I don't think there's going to be a suitable competitor by the time some countries have to renew their aircraft. Airbus's Tornado replacement is aiming towards 2030-2040.

 

[Carn82]

This is a backfire? He wants the EU nations to step up their defense spending, which it looks like this initiative encourages.

I'm for it, personally. It's one of the only Trump positions I think he's got right.

Actually, (i skimmed it so correct me if i'm wrong), this proposal would result into not necessarily increasing defense budgets (maybe only for a few years to get this going) but getting more results by streamlining material, protocol and personel.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

What in the world is this even saying after the first segment?

An image of an APC in the Tank section,
Long retired F14 in the fighters.

 

[itsbenoclock]

UK stay winning 😩

 

[patapuf]

Isn't there potential for conflict as most countries will want their own weapon systems to be "standart"?

 

[darkinstinct]

This will give the EU amazing purchasing power, this is a really good idea.

It's a shame we fought it for so long and are now leaving the EU.

Haha, no it won't. They will never be able to decide which weapon system to buy because one side wants to have the jobs attached to that in their country and the other in theirs.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

Finally.
Been waiting for this since 20 years now.

Spoiler

Thanks Trump!

 

[Dynasty]

Step in the right direction for the EU.

 

[Carn82]

What in the world is this even saying after the first segment?

Shit is fragmented as hell. Imagine US states creating their own military, buying whatever they think if right for their state, etc. That's a bit how it is in Europe; each country makes their own deals.

-edit: didnt see your edit. I guess someone had a hard time finding the correct icons for this report

 

[nubbe]

UK stay winning 😩

It was good the UK left
Finally the breaking wheel is gone

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Isn't there potential for conflict as most countries will want their own weapon systems to be "standart"?

The only 2 that are extremely comparable would be UK industries and German industries

 

[numble]

This is a backfire? He wants the EU nations to step up their defense spending, which it looks like this initiative encourages.

I'm for it, personally. It's one of the only Trump positions I think he's got right.

He wants the NATO nations to buy more American military hardware. There are NATO countries not in the EU (such as Turkey) and vice versa.

This proposal does not necessarily increase defense spending, but is intended to make spending more efficient. It could actually lead to decreases in defense spending because it is aimed at getting rid of redundancies and inefficiencies. The immediate effect would be that for these projects, some NATO countries would be spending at least 20% less than they otherwise would have spent (they may be even spending less if it results in more efficient spending due to collaborative effects).

 

[Carn82]

Haha, no it won't. They will never be able to decide which weapon system to buy because one side wants to have the jobs attached to that in their country and the other in theirs.

Yeah I'm afraid that this will happen. But on the other hand, jobs/personal can be trained for other purposes. But streamlining everything will probably result into some layoffs in the end I guess

 

[Sunster]

sounds cool to me but i don't know much about anything.

 

[Burai]

This is a backfire? He wants the EU nations to step up their defense spending, which it looks like this initiative encourages.

I'm for it, personally. It's one of the only Trump positions I think he's got right.

He doesn't want them to increase spending. He wants to use their current spending level as a stick to beat them with to rally his US-first base.

A fully independent EU military with no need for US protection is absolutely the worst case scenario for the US. They need to be needed. They need to have defence to hold over the EU.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Isn't there potential for conflict as most countries will want their own weapon systems to be "standart"?

NATO members already have baked in compatibility between weapon systems and munitions. Even if everyone buys their own equipment, it will work together.

 

[lastplayed]

"Up until now, member states were doing things completely separately, without any cooperation.

Do things like the Eurofighter and Tornado not count?

 

[Tugatrix]

I'm not seeing this happening without most of the armament companies closing, almost every country has his own and they produce different guns and weapon systems for their own country or for other in the UE. One gun for multiple countries will lead to someone getting out of the market.

 

[massoluk]

Heading toward some weird Front Mission universe

 

[KingSnake]

This is a good first step.

Isn't there potential for conflict as most countries will want their own weapon systems to be "standart"?

Haha, no it won't. They will never be able to decide which weapon system to buy because one side wants to have the jobs attached to that in their country and the other in theirs.

Or it can be done jointly instead of fighting over it. There are so many example of country developing tech together in Europe in the past decades. Aerospatiale and BAC, Eurofighter. The whole European space program. Germany and France are working on a new battle tank. And so on. If there is will there is a way.

 

[Carn82]

I'm not seeing this happening without most of the armament companies closing, almost every country has his own and they produce different guns and weapon systems for their own country or for other in the UE. One gun for multiple countries will lead to someone getting out of the market.

Nah; most militaries use existing models from 'big' manufactures like H&K or Glock or Colt; maybe with customisations here and there. Also, most branches have their own preferences; so there is still quite some variation and requirements. It's not that that they trade 70 guns for just 1 model.

 

[Tadaima]

What in the world is this even saying after the first segment?

An image of an APC in the Tank section,
Long retired F14 in the fighters.

It's probably just the mistake of the graphic designer using outdated sources.

 

[Funky Papa]

This is a backfire? He wants the EU nations to step up their defense spending, which it looks like this initiative encourages.

I'm for it, personally. It's one of the only Trump positions I think he's got right.

The EU finally taking the initiative when it comes to European operations means that NATO's role is diminished. This is very far from America's interests. America would like stronger but separate European armies under NATO's command. Stronger but more united European armies with common goals undermines America's influence through NATO. It also means that the chances of selling American hardware to European nations will reduce. The Heritage Foundation, which basically ran much of Trump's strategy during the campaign, was deeply aware of this.

End its support of “ever closer union” in the EU. It is no longer in the interests of the U.S. for Europe to continue down its path of political and economic integration. The excessive drive by European political elites to integrate deeper has led to many of the political and economic problems faced today in Europe. The U.S. should stop calling for further EU integration and instead pursue policies toward Europe that place a premium on national sovereignty, economic freedom, transparency, and democratic accountability.

Ensure that NATO retains its primacy over, and the right of first refusal for, all Europe-related defense matters. NATO has been the cornerstone of transatlantic security for 64 years. Now is not the time to replace NATO with new security structures that will only compete with, not complement, the alliance. Ensuring that NATO maintains its lead role in European defense policy will also ensure that America has the amount of influence relevant to the level of resources the U.S. has committed to Europe.

Make clear that the U.S. does not back deeper EU defense integration. U.S. policymakers must see the CSDP for what it is: a paper tiger that has not delivered increased military capability for the U.S. or for NATO. Although the U.S. has supported deeper EU defense integration, it has not resulted in any greater military capability in Europe. Instead, the U.S. must focus on re-energizing NATO as Europe’s premier defense alliance.

Regularly demonstrate American dissatisfaction with Europe’s military spending. Since the end of the Cold War, defense spending in Europe has drastically decreased. Only four of the 28 members of NATO meet the required defense spending requirement of 2 percent of GDP. While there is nothing American leaders can say that will compel Europeans to spend more on defense, saying nothing at all offers implicit approval.

Work with pro-NATO EU members, such as the U.K. and Czech Republic, to advance a pro-NATO agenda in Europe. There are members of the EU who are skeptical regarding the EU’s defense policy ambitions. The U.S. should work with these NATO allies to advance a “NATO first” agenda.

Voice opposition to the creation of an EU Army. Although there is not currently an EU Army, the creation of one is clearly the goal of many in Europe. It is not in the interest of the U.S. or NATO to have a European Army under the control of unelected European bureaucrats.

...

Conclusion

American support for deeper EU defense integration will not only be a disappointment for those who believe it will lead to greater military capability; it will prove to be dangerous to the NATO alliance. As the EU develops a more integrated defense capability, America’s influence in European defense matters that it currently has through NATO will be reduced.

Some folks at Heritage may be having a DJ Khaled moment.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I'm glad the EU is moving towards forming a unified military. That can only be a good thing. I don't think it would have worked with the UK forces mixed in even if there had been a will to go that way but I'm sure the two will support each other.

 

[Nabbis]

Seems like a rather low investment per soldier. Though i assume it's not about wages?

 

[PJV3]

This is a good first step.





Or it can be done jointly instead of fighting over it. There are so many example of country developing tech together in Europe in the past decades. Aerospatiale and BAC, The whole European space program. Germany and France are working on a new battle tank. And so on. If there is will there is a way.

Yeah, I don't see a problem, companies can just produce parts of a weapon on a larger scale. It's hopefully the start of more cooperation, the more the merrier.

 

[Tugatrix]

Nah; most militaries use existing models from 'big' manufactures like H&K or Glock or Colt; maybe with customisations here and there. Also, most branches have their own preferences; so there is still quite some variation and requirements. It's not that that they trade 70 guns for just 1 model.

Or Steyr, or Beretta, or Sig or FN or .....

Dozens of them many will have to go down when you have a single supplier

 

[Palette Swap]

About time!

Good. I like all this momentum.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Haha, no it won't. They will never be able to decide which weapon system to buy because one side wants to have the jobs attached to that in their country and the other in theirs.

Perhaps, but I would imagine this has been thought of or else the plan wouldn't be moving forward whatsoever.

I get the cynicism though, especially as there's precedent for it.

 

[lastplayed]

What in the world is this even saying after the first segment?

An image of an APC in the Tank section,
Long retired F14 in the fighters.

The US also uses the Concord as a fighter too apparently.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

He doesn't want them to increase spending. He wants to use their current spending level as a stick to beat them with to rally his US-first base.

A fully independent EU military with no need for US protection is absolutely the worst case scenario for the US. They need to be needed. They need to have defence to hold over the EU.

Trump fundamentally does not understand how NATO works. It's hard to even parse logic out of his desire to meet spending on an arbitrary number.

As far as independence, EU standing on it's own is good for the US. Strategically America is trying to focus out in SEA to combat China's rise and subsequent annexation of waters for trade/industry. Remember when Russia invaded Ukraine, Obama had to work hard to get EU members on board with sanctions and to behave in a unified way against an immediate threat. Also the EU complete lack of competence in preparing for Syria as it happened for 5 years, the massive gulf in effectiveness in Libya etc etc. US cannot solely defend Europe forever, so a shift in policy is welcome. Problem is that this not on the terms it should be.

 

[Funky Papa]

Or Steyr, or Beretta, or Sig or FN or .....

Dozens of them many will have to go down when you have a single supplier

It's not exactly like that.

Spain purchases Leopard 2 tanks from Germany, but those tanks are manufactured locally in order to keep strategic manufacturing capabilities and technology at home. Extra R&D work is also done locally since those tanks need to be suited for a vastly different orography.

This will push towards the creation of more Airbus-like defence companies, with common engineering but manufacturing being done all over Europe.

 

[patapuf]

This is a good first step.





Or it can be done jointly instead of fighting over it. There are so many example of country developing tech together in Europe in the past decades. Aerospatiale and BAC, The whole European space program. Germany and France are working on a new battle tank. And so on. If there is will there is a way.

I don't doubt that it's feasible if everyone is comitted to do it and that it would be a good thing.

It's just that usually the weapon industry is closely tied with national interests and jobs and i guess i'm sceptical that everyone will just agree to this.

THough i guess if there's big savings to be had it's an easier pill to swallow.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I think this is a good example of why the UK leaving the EU can have upsides.

The UK has consistently voted against increased integration. I think the UK has been right do this because it is not in the interests of the UK to be subsumed into a wider authority. The UK is geographically, politically and culturally on the periphery of Europe. Subsumption by the EU would see her interests, which often diverge from those of the continental powers, being marginalised in favour of the interests of the majority. Now the EU is free to move forward and this is better for both parties (in this respect at least, it's still a disaster economically).

 

[Visualante2]

Seems like a rather low investment per soldier. Though i assume it's not about wages?

Just guessing here but the US probably outspends EU on research and hardware and the EU has a lot of overlapping in personnel driving down that figure.

I think this is a good example of why the UK leaving the EU can have upsides.

The UK has consistently voted against increased integration. I think the UK has been right do this because it is not in the interests of the UK to be subsumed into a wider authority. The UK is geographically, politically and culturally on the periphery of Europe. Subsumption by the EU would see her interests, which often diverge from those of the continental powers, being marginalised in favour of the interests of the majority. Now the EU is free to move forward and this is better for both parties (in this respect at least, it's still a disaster economically).

Could be terrible for UK arms industry if the EU decides to purchase military hardware from within the EU. Could create a greater reliance on the UK to sell to questionable buyers like Saudi Arabia or worse.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Just guessing here but the US probably outspends EU on research and hardware and the EU has a lot of overlapping in personnel driving down that figure.

Could be terrible for UK arms industry if the EU decides to purchase military hardware from within the EU. Could create a greater reliance on the UK to sell to questionable buyers like Saudi Arabia or worse.

Aye, but it wasn't really a point about trade. I'm not sure we sell that much to the EU anyway.

 

[Frankfurter]

This is a backfire? He wants the EU nations to step up their defense spending, which it looks like this initiative encourages.

I'm for it, personally. It's one of the only Trump positions I think he's got right.

This will a) not necessarily increase funding and b) probably result in EU countries buying more EU-built/researched military stuff, i.e. the complete opposite of what Trump wants.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Thanks Trump.