Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Could the EU Form its Own Army? - TLDR News" video.

@First Last The US wouldn't pay less into its military if all NATO members spend 2% of GDP, they just want to give a reason for that high spending. If NATO members all spend 2%, they'll just come with a new one (increased threat, global power, ...). The main reason btw why the US wants European nations to spend 2% is because European nations tend to buy a lot from the US defence industry.
10
@alexanderlipowsky6055 (FYI, this is partially a response to you and partially also going broader) I'd say that an EU army should be defensive in nature and only can be deployed outside of EU/allies borders with express permission of the EU parliament (2/3rd permission or so, not easy to get). However I'd have 'national guard' units that are directly under the command of the national memberstates and payed for by them (for example everyone has to give 2% of GDP to the EU army, but can get 0,2-5% or so back for the national guard units). The goal of these units could be two fold: 1) it can be easily deployed by that nation/memberstate within their own country for example against terrorist activities, natural disaster relief , ... 2) it can be used as expeditionary forces. For example if France wants to still do something in Africa, they can send these units. Why give that option? Because otherwise resentment can build up and nations might want to leave this common EU defence army to reclaim more independence. Now memberstate can obviously call in help from the EU army for internal matters like terrorism and disaster relief, though nations with national guard units would be expected to use these first. So nations wouldn't necessarily need national guard units, for example a memberstate like Luxembourg is too small for a usefull guard unit and a memberstate like Germany might not want one because it doesn't wishes to deploy troops outside EU borders without a clear EU mandate. FYI a defensive focus shouldn't mean the EU army isn't focused on doing offensive operations either, rather just that it won't do these unless with clear permission or for defensive reasons. Any effective army should be capable to do both offense and defense and have the means for it. For example a few aircraft carriers might be usefull in that regard, but not too many, 2-4 could be a good number.
2
@QuantumAscension1 Actually studies have shown that European healthcare systems are significantly cheaper than that of the US (averagely twice as cheap). The US costs are just more hidden since people have to pay for it themselves, rather than the government. Why is the US model so expensive? Well, for one the US government has much less power in setting the price of medication and procedures compared to other nations (by choice). Secondly a lot of money in the US is lost in the complex bureaucracy of the system.
2
I'd argue in favor of a structure where you have an overarching army focused on defending EU borders and like national guard units that are under the command of the national governments. these national guard units would be used to help out in their respective country when needed (for example as the case with the anti-terrorism deployment of troops in the street) or be used for military operations outside the EU (like France's actions in Africa). And a nation should then also be able to essentially refuse to form a national guard unit, rather rely on the EU army to help them out when needed (for example in case of a natural disaster or the pre-aformentioned anti terror deployment). This would especially make sense for nations that 1. are smaller, like Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus, ... 2. aren't interested in foreign missions, like Germany for example. Ofcourse EU troops should still be capable of operating outside EU borders, but only with express permission of all memberstates, which would be very rare. Common language definitely would be English. The language of our allies, most spoken language in the world and with brexit a language not used by any major country in the EU.
2
@inteallsviktigt Aircraftcarriers always can be usefull to protect overseas regions that can't provide for many planes. Not to mention that it might at some point be needed to help out allies. It is better to have it on hand in case you need it, than not have it when you do. That is also why there isn't a need for many, just a few. It also don't need to be the largest, like the US, just large enough to do what it might need to do.
1
@answerman9933 Well, in terms of larger systems/arms, it indeed is mostly limited to air assets, though remember, this still goes about tens of billions. Looking into the smaller arms systems (or parts of it) would be quite some work considering it depends from country to country. Overall Europe makes up around 15% of US export (so low mostly due to middle eastern nations being such a large buyer, which is no surprise with SA and Israel being their main costumers and Iraq also after the occupation), but the US obviously hopes to increase this by getting nations to spend more. For example Germany now seems to be looking into buying F35 with the increase in their military budget, something that before was never really a consideration. And remember, a fighter plane for example isn't just the sale price, but also income later on from spare parts, advice, changes, ...
1