PESCO EU Defense Pact

[Furunculus]

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

[Fragony]

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

We are way under that here, 2.0 is the deal no, good. The cloaked money that goes to African dictators is more important I guess, for whatever reason. Certainly not Royal Dutch Shell of course

[Hooahguy]

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

Exactly. I dont expect any European country, even the UK, to have a force the size or capability of the US is totally unrealistic. My issue is mainly that to me it feels that the UK likes to bite off more than it can chew, like it did in Helmand.

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

[Beskar]

Defence Budget cuts threaten getting those shiny toys in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42382002

[Furunculus]

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

Under the auspices of nato is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

[spmetla]

Exactly. I dont expect any European country, even the UK, to have a force the size or capability of the US is totally unrealistic. My issue is mainly that to me it feels that the UK likes to bite off more than it can chew, like it did in Helmand.

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

For the ground units each nation (or at least language group) would need to maintain at least a nexus of the full complement of ground warfare. Can't expect coordination on the ground if german tanks are expected to work with french infantry, Italian artillery or dutch aviation. The record of Austro-hungary in WWI with the problems too many languages in one army created a testiment to the difficulty and thats with much slower and simpler battle plans than present day.
Each nation having at least a nucleus of capability in all the major branches means at least there is a supply of trainers if each branch needs to be expanded.
Also, the politics of who's boys blood is shed would require that all nations have a share of the ground combat arms so that the burdens seem more fair. The Czechs, and Poles would probably not be too happy if Paris/Berlin/Brussels decide where their countrymen die without French or German Soldiers sharing the same risk.

Under the auspices of natol is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

The will part is certainly the killer. Who wants the the leader of country X deciding if Soldiers from country Y need to be sent to defend country Z's interest.

[spmetla]

https://warisboring.com/every-german...out-of-action/
Every German Submarine Is Out of Action
Germany's undersea fleet couldn't sink a sailboat

...on paper, the Deutsche Marine has six Type 212A submarines equipped with advanced air-independent propulsion, allowing ultraquiet operations submerged for more than two weeks at a time.

In reality, the Deutsche Marine does not currently have a single submarine in operational condition.
U-31, the first submarine of the class, had been out of service since 2014. Although repairs should be completed in December 2017, it will take months of trials before she is ready for deployment.

U-32 had suffered damage to her batteries while on route to Norway in July 2017. So far, no berth is free to even begin repairs. Ahead in line for the next available spot in January 2018 is U-34, also in need of maintenance, with no estimated time of completion available.

U-33, meanwhile, is undergoing maintenance through February 2018. Then she will require three to four more months of trials. U-36, the sister ship of U-35, was commissioned on Oct. 10, 2017, but will not become operational until May 2018.

The culprit for the lengthy delays? Since the end of the Cold War, the Deutsche Marine ceased maintaining a comprehensive supply of spare parts as a cost-cutting measure, instead procuring parts on demand or looting them from non-operational boats. This has resulted in enormous delays and accumulated backlog.

Will this PESCO agreement spur Germany to actually invest in the military it currently has at all?

[Husar]

This has been an ongoing news story of sorts since 2014 or so when we couldn't use half our Eurofighters, none or three marine helicopters, were running out of transport planes and so on. Additionally the new army helicopters NH-90 (transport) and Tiger (attack) are both unfit for service to a large extent. The NH-90 lacks all kinds of features, such as sufficient ground clearance to land on anything that isn't concrete, the Tiger is purely built for anti-tank duty and completely useless for conflicts like Afghanistan (the french version with the independent gun is much better for that).

On the other hand, the budget does not appear to be the problem as the forces have repeatedly not been able to use the entire budget because there was simply nothing to buy. It sounds a lot like the manufacturers just cannot deliver the spare parts needed or so, but I have no idea why that is or what they could do other than nationalize the suppliers and produce more.
Yay for the private sector?

[spmetla]

The spare parts thing is possibly a problem like we have in the Army National Guard. We no longer are able to stockpile items for weapons, vehicles, body armor etc.. which means when something breaks we have to order it and wait weeks to months for it come back down.
The change was supposed to reduce waste of over ordering but with rapidly worn parts it means increased down time. Imagine if you had to order individual pens when you'v used one up instead of having a stock of pens available already. It'd be nice if all my humvees with one working headlamp and no spare tires could get those fixed quickly but sadly the supply systems are no longer designed to be fast but cost cutting by reducing the waste of over-ordering.

When I said invest I also meant in people. The change to a volunteer army was a poor idea in a nation that abhors military service. Money alone doesn't man tanks or aircraft. Lack of use of the army also decreases morale, the many peacekeeping missions and other 'little' deployments create a purpose for professional soldiers in nations not at war. Spending 20-30 years in a military without ever doing anything other than training hurts morale and therefore retention which leads to decreased readiness.
The people that joined the German Navy to be submariners and now have to wait months before being able to sail again will probably have extremely low morale.

It reminds me actually of a quote one my Austrian cousins said during his draftee service period that summed up the attitude toward military "God Save Austria because we certainly can't"

[Greyblades]

They cant do as the russians and cannibalize the reserves they have rusting in nevada?

[Husar]

They cant do as the russians and cannibalize the reserves they have rusting in nevada?

If the Russians have reserves in Nevada, the Trump-Putin connection is confirmed?!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I know you mean the US reserves, but I had to...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They cant do as the russians and cannibalize the reserves they have rusting in nevada?

To the extent it is possible, we ARE doing that. The "boneyards" are the source for some of those out of production spare parts alluded to by spmetla. Most of the boneyards are for vehicles and equipment that is considered Obsolete or even obsolescent, not simply surplus to current need. Whether it is in a boneyard in Nevada or Die Neirderlands, refurb'ing an F-104 is neither cheap nor likely to yield a fighter truly useful in a modern air conflict.

I have read stories that the Russians, in the days just after the breakup of the Soviet regime, still had storage depots with reasonably well maintained vehicles sufficient to equip a motor rifle division.....of the 1945 pattern, featuring T-34/85's and 6X6 Lend Lease Trucks (While the Russians used pretty much every bit of the Lend Lease sent them, the only thing that made a huge difference to their army was the scads of reliable trucks we sent).

Boneyards are the place where you send something to rot in the open air because it is too expensive to do anything else with. I personally think that we could probably take care of America's love of canned beer [] for several years by reclaiming the aluminum in the oldest ones.

Depots are filled with the somewhat older but still useable equipment, but most of that needs to be refurb'd or otherwise brought up to useful levels for a modern battlefield. Big Ticket Item example. We can get the Wisconsin (BB-64) back into active mode with the fleet, but to do so with all the appropriate updates would require north of $1.5B.


Now the Russians have, at least since Soviet times, been more willing to toss their soldiers into a conflict with outdated equipment. None of the armies in the West can afford to be quite that cavalier with the lives of their soldiers (for political reasons if naught else).

[Pannonian]

The RN has the emergency option of sending Australian ships into war.

[Fragony]

The RN has the emergency option of sending Australian ships into war.

The exact opposite of the planet that's helpful

[Pannonian]

The exact opposite of the planet that's helpful

It's helped in the past. The Aussies paid money for the privilege too.

[Gilrandir]

The RN has the emergency option of sending Australian ships into war.

Once they already have:

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...er-it-vanished

[Hooahguy]

Under the auspices of nato is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

And as Libya in 2011 showed, sometimes a European country (like Germany) will elect to do nothing even when the cause is deemed just and the operation is given the green light by the UNSC. Germany is one of the classic cases of "decent capability, lack of will."

For the ground units each nation (or at least language group) would need to maintain at least a nexus of the full complement of ground warfare. Can't expect coordination on the ground if german tanks are expected to work with french infantry, Italian artillery or dutch aviation. The record of Austro-hungary in WWI with the problems too many languages in one army created a testiment to the difficulty and thats with much slower and simpler battle plans than present day.
Each nation having at least a nucleus of capability in all the major branches means at least there is a supply of trainers if each branch needs to be expanded.
Also, the politics of who's boys blood is shed would require that all nations have a share of the ground combat arms so that the burdens seem more fair. The Czechs, and Poles would probably not be too happy if Paris/Berlin/Brussels decide where their countrymen die without French or German Soldiers sharing the same risk.

The will part is certainly the killer. Who wants the the leader of country X deciding if Soldiers from country Y need to be sent to defend country Z's interest.

These are definitely very true points as to why my idea likely wouldnt work, and why I said it was a pipe dream at best. Ideally, since the command language of NATO is English anyways, everyone should just speak English, but thats just me being a haughty and self-centered American.

[Husar]

And as Libya in 2011 showed, sometimes a European country (like Germany) will elect to do nothing even when the cause is deemed just and the operation is given the green light by the UNSC. Germany is one of the classic cases of "decent capability, lack of will."

Too bad that one of the two countries that started the bombing campaign is now leaving the EU because too many economic migrants are coming through Libya now, while Germany is trying to process them all and gets blamed for it, too.

And besides, what "decent capability"? Did you miss the news about the state of our armed forces? Despite the fact half our Eurofighters can't fly, last time I checked they were not even ready for anti-ground duty yet. Not sure how many Tornados we have left. And even the very ready and capable French and British ran out of guided bombs after about a month. Then again with only one bomber ready to fly, our bombs might have lasted longer...

[Hooahguy]

Too bad that one of the two countries that started the bombing campaign is now leaving the EU because too many economic migrants are coming through Libya now, while Germany is trying to process them all and gets blamed for it, too.

And besides, what "decent capability"? Did you miss the news about the state of our armed forces? Despite the fact half our Eurofighters can't fly, last time I checked they were not even ready for anti-ground duty yet. Not sure how many Tornados we have left. And even the very ready and capable French and British ran out of guided bombs after about a month. Then again with only one bomber ready to fly, our bombs might have lasted longer...

Exactly, if the Germans had the political will to spend more on defense, then you wouldn't have those maintenance issues. As I recall, Germany actually has the largest land component of any European country, though Poland is catching up. I'd need to look up the figures again.

And my point about Libya wasn't that Germany was horrible for not participating, it was a real life example of EU/NATO members disagreeing about foreign policy, making my idea of one large European army useless. Kinda risky to have an army like that if a large chunk of it won't deploy in the first place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The 'each country will furnish the following contingent for service upon request' route is NATO-lite.

If they want integration, reduce the national militaries to a division or so apiece and institute an EU force using one language, force structure, etc. funded by a levy drawn from all members by whatever apportionment seems most apt.

Coupled with mandatory conscription, it could even be used as a cultural change tool shifting folks towards a common Euro identity even more so then at present.


Just a thought...

[ConjurerDragon]

And as Libya in 2011 showed, sometimes a European country (like Germany) will elect to do nothing even when the cause is deemed just and the operation is given the green light by the UNSC. Germany is one of the classic cases of "decent capability, lack of will."



These are definitely very true points as to why my idea likely wouldnt work, and why I said it was a pipe dream at best. Ideally, since the command language of NATO is English anyways, everyone should just speak English, but thats just me being a haughty and self-centered American.

Still remembering the visit of my relatives (who speak american english with a dialect from the palatinate) I wonder what has being american to do with speaking proper english...

...
And my point about Libya wasn't that Germany was horrible for not participating, it was a real life example of EU/NATO members disagreeing about foreign policy, making my idea of one large European army useless. Kinda risky to have an army like that if a large chunk of it won't deploy in the first place.

Defense Pact. Military action in Lybia was outside EU borders and every sovereign state could decide itself to stay on the side of right and justice and respect the sovereignity of Lybia (and protect the interestes of the EU as Ghadaffi had a deal with the EU to prevent refugees in the med) or ignore them and support the tribal rebels that noone wanted to realize as being a worse replacement for Ghadaffi. Now Lybia has 3 dictators and is barely able to control it’s own coast...

Reacting to a threat to the borders of an EU-member would look quite different and trigger a more united response, I think.

[rory_20_uk]

The 'each country will furnish the following contingent for service upon request' route is NATO-lite.

If they want integration, reduce the national militaries to a division or so apiece and institute an EU force using one language, force structure, etc. funded by a levy drawn from all members by whatever apportionment seems most apt.

Coupled with mandatory conscription, it could even be used as a cultural change tool shifting folks towards a common Euro identity even more so then at present.


Just a thought...

That would work...but no one is ready for that yet. Just like with the economic approach, you impliment the system you can get political buy in for - knowing it doesn't work. When (not if) it breaks you are then forced to make changes to fix it you really wanted in the first place - the EU central bank has far more power than initially and is also started telling countries what they can and can not spend. This was unthinkable at the outset.

So we have the proposal for a disaster and await everyone demanding that things are properly integrated with a proper General Staff etc etc and then - obeying the will of the many - this will then be instigated.

What will be the catalyst is difficult to know. But it could be Russia, Turkey, Syria or even the USA. The timescale is less set and the cause less clear than Bismark unifying Germany under Prussia, but the use of external threats for political realignment is a pretty common device.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That would work...but no one is ready for that yet. Just like with the economic approach, you impliment the system you can get political buy in for - knowing it doesn't work. When (not if) it breaks you are then forced to make changes to fix it you really wanted in the first place....

That never happens in the USA [cough --- Affordable Care Act --- /cough], so I wouldn't know what kind of a shady tactic to which you are referring.

[Beskar]

That never happens in the USA [cough --- Affordable Care Act --- /cough], so I wouldn't know what kind of a shady tactic to which you are referring.

Then sometimes they can be funded, but cronyism and corruption [cough ---- Tax breaks for the Rich ---- /cough] is embedded in the system.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Then sometimes they can be funded, but cronyism and corruption [cough ---- Tax breaks for the Rich ---- /cough] is embedded in the system.

Preaching to the choir on that one. All the loopholes and tax gaming really suck on a whole range of moral and ethical levels.

[Husar]

Moral and ethics are for the arts, they have no place in business unless they increase dividends!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... I wonder what has being american to do with speaking proper english... .

Fairly little at this point. American English is what English becomes when it rummages around in the pockets of passed-out drunkards looking for loose grammar and a wad of nouns.

[HopAlongBunny]

It looks indeed like NATO-lite.
Not a replacement for NATO, but a supplement to it.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/03/...mbushing-nato/

It strike me as a "half of the above"; an EU initiative as opposed to American with the added benefit that if the Euro project ever gets full commitment from its members, the framework for an EU military is at least "in being".
It may get more buy-in; the problem being it's much an act of faith until broad based capacity and will is demonstrated...the same thing NATO has been waiting for for years.
Is PESCO a better motivational vehicle than NATO?

[Furunculus]

It looks indeed like NATO-lite.
Not a replacement for NATO, but a supplement to it.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/03/...mbushing-nato/

It strike me as a "half of the above"; an EU initiative as opposed to American with the added benefit that if the Euro project ever gets full commitment from its members, the framework for an EU military is at least "in being".
It may get more buy-in; the problem being it's much an act of faith until broad based capacity and will is demonstrated...the same thing NATO has been waiting for for years.
Is PESCO a better motivational vehicle than NATO?

To Germans, who retain an collective distrust of America and American ambition, yes, pesco may be a better motivator

[rory_20_uk]

As long as it continues to be an additional structure (God knows why another additional structure is required in addition to the existing ones) then sure.

Whilst it is not "fair" that Europe relies so much on the USA for defense at least as things stand Europe is not seen as a competitor / threat (more as a mooch), better that than it starts to become a buffed-up military entity and adds to the complexities in the world. Already Turkey is pushing things to their absolute limits in Syria.