Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Commission candidates clash over EU army proposal" video.

No, it would put the EU on the path to a war it cannot win. It will cost significantly more than it is worth and will require the EU to acquire nuclear weapons, failure to do so will put the French in the driving seat as the only EU member with such weapons.
4
@joeking1019 no the most likely aggressor is Russia followed by China. Had the EU already acquired its own army, it would most likely be in conflict with Russia over the Ukraine and Crimea. There was a period when the EU would have committed ground forces had they had them. Russia appears to have the intention of regaining the sphere of influence it had as the USSR. Conflict with China will most likely break out over access to natural resources in Africa, though expansion in the South China sea might result in a conflict with the EU acting within a coalition. The Chinese have no respect for the natural environment, so a war over resources is possible. NATO can take credit for keeping the peace in Europe since WWII, nothing to do with the EU. The main reason it was so successful was because the US wanted to fight a limited nuclear war with the USSR in Europe, or any place other than the mainland USA. It was this determination that made the NATO deterrent so credible. Had Russian tanks trundled across Europe, Germany would have been turned into a nuclear desert to stop them.
4
@joeking1019 it the same old line because it is true, sorry if you find the truth to be inconvenient.
4
@joeking1019 the EU member states have profited from not being required to provide their own defence post WWII. It will be decades before the EU can provide a credible defence and this will only be possible at a very high cost and the completion of federalisation. At the moment the EU is dependent on NATO or the French nuclear deterrent. I know which is most likely to be taken seriously by an aggressor, and it isn't the french. If the EU attempts to acquire its own military under the control of a federal government, it will be seen as a threat and targeted accordingly. EU politicians will not be able to resist the temptation to use military force if it is available, this will lead to war.
3
@slimburg1 had the EU already established its own army, they would most likely already be in conflict with Russia over the Crimea. No one play these wars,they result for misunderstanding and escalation. I am sure France (macron) wants a symbolic EU army however he also wants a force he can use to fight police actions in Africa in defence of French interests there. Such actions could bring he EU in conflict with China. They EU might have decided to get involved in Syria, but who knows which side they would be on. In this case the involvement would be on idealistic humanitarian grounds, but they could have ended up fighting Iran or Russia or both. They might even found a way to start a fight with Turkey, who's side changes with the wind. At the moment the EU does not have its own military, so they have avoided such conflicts, but that will change if a federal EU comes to possess its own military.
3
@slimburg1 the French have nuclear weapons, that is not the same as the EU having nuclear weapons. As far as I know the UK and France are the only nuclear powers in the EU. Once the UK leaves, the EU will dependent on France alone.
3
@slimburg1 do you really think an EU army would be a deterrent to the Russians. This is a country that can match US fire power and controls the energy gas tap to the EU. It can be argued that EU activity in the Ukraine destabilised the border between Russia and the EU by encouraging the Ukraine buffer to apply for EU membership. It is equally possible that Putin has an agenda to recover the sphere of influence of the old USSR, either way it puts the EU in conflict with Russia.
2