Thanks for the lesson in history.
However I do not like your non objective, highly offending way you are talking about turkey.
Until today Turkey is a NATO Member.
In addition, I know many people with Turkish roots and they all are normal people.

Stop accusing a whole nation for something that might better be discussed on diplomatic level with competent historians.

What I said and you didn't understand is, that you can't cope today's and tomorrow's threats and challenges with yesterday's solutions, even if they were successful in the past.

What I said and you didn't understand was that Europe needs to harmonise equipment, tactics, training and battle language to be interchangeable.

Example.
To assemble a platoon with EU members, regardless of their origin without additional training, because they had the same training, without additional equipment exchange, because every soldier has the same gear.

Where is your problem with such an idea.

Where do you see problems?

Regards

First of all, why do you need a platoon from different EU states? As in WWI and WWII you have army units (divisions for instance) from the SAME state. It's at the higher level that you have divisions or even armies from different states fighting together, as for instance in D-day. Omaha Beach did not involve US and british troops for instance. Once bullets etc are NATO-compliant, it does not matter if one country uses german guns and another uses US guns.

Second, regarding Turkey, is there ANYTHING stated above that is not true? Is it false that Erdogan was gleefully expecting Kobani to fall within days and had no problem with ISIS at his borders and has a problem with the only sane, secular and democratic force in the region that has not fired a single bullet into Turkey? Did he really need S-400 to defend against the syrian or iranian airforce? Turkey which openly supports jihadists, including FSA and Hamas terrorists is a disgrace to NATO. There is nothing I said against turkish people, although they do need to aknowledge the attrocities of the past. Why did we insist that Germany aknowledge the WWII crimes and Turkey should be exempt? EU should meet words with words and acts of aggression or piracy with acts.

Guys, you can't assemble platoon from EU members. Most important problem is language. Not everyone speaks a English, French or German. Units must be national, with one language and one base, where their familiar are living etc etc.

Even if you chose to make German - Austria platoon you have a problem. Will you move soldiers from Munich to Vienna? And soldiers and their families from Vienna to Munich? What for?

Units must be national. That's squads all the way to regiments. Formations (armies, divisions etc) must be European.

Example:

There's conflict on Cyprus.

EU leaders or president decides to send EU's 2nd army. An army is a formation composed of national units.

Army is led by a general from France. Who is directly under EU president.

The second army has multiple units from member states. Units must be national and each has national leadership. That's for example German regiment is led by German colonel.

That's rational and realistic way to organize EU army. Mixing units isn't possible.

Since existence of the NATO, NATO-Member Nations were all assembled of national units. If you look of the historical map of the NATO General Defence Plan for Germany during the cold war aera, you will recognize that the frontline was seperated into responsibilities of national units.
This means, between every national unit of one country to a national unit of another country, you had a splitting area that was more or less the ideal breaching line for attacking forces.
Out of my personal prospective, we were just lucky by this time, that the nuclear threat stopped the world powers to go into hot war.

Now I want you all to make a break and change the prospective. Go away from times, were national military armys were hundrets of thousand of soldiers.

Look at the numbers of soldiers today and look at the high complex portfolio of the technical solutions.

Until 2050 we have abouit 30 years to harmonize equipment, tactics, training and battle language.
Let us all do the first step. Now!!

Look at the numbers of soldiers today and look at the low number of the high complex portfolio of the technical solutions for the same purpose.

Example: Tanks.
A tank is only as good as it's crew.
Imagine the situation, that there is a French Leclerc Tank but the crew has been shot by sniper fire and you have a crew for a Leopard II Tank but the tank has been destroyed by partisan attack.
Now the situation forces the tank crew to use the french tank but they had no training on it at all.
How likely would it be, that the Leopard II Tank Crew could perform as good in a French Leclerc like the french tank crew?

This is, what I try to explain.

By harmonising equipment, tactics, training and Battle language of all EU-Nations at national level, you will have the conditions set to assemble EU-Units regardless of origin and regardless of preparation time.

Until 2050 we have abouit 30 years to harmonize equipment, tactics, training and battle language.

Let us all do the first step.
Now!!

I understand that and I agree with it. Except the language harmonization.

You can do all of that without mixed units. Units can be national and they can still have and should have common equipment and training and procedures.

But we don't need to learn different languages. Foreign language will never be as good as mother tongue. We're very diverse Union. Let's embrace it instead of trying to change it. Second common language can be something we use, but it shouldn't be requirement. If Portugese soldier wants to fight and live in Portugese units that's only natural and good for morale, discipline etc. And his Portugese unit can perfectly be part of EU army or division. Or other formation.

When we manage to harmonise equipment, tactics and training, than we achieved allready a lot and if the common battle language (English) would be trained as second language in parallel to the national language, fine with me. Happy

We must act fast, not after two summits and two months talks.

I don't agree. In very obvious cases (like someone attacking the EU), we must act fast. But I think this is already possible without having someone in the EU in control of the army. In non-obvious cases, I believe the “two months talks” are actually important before we go into warfare. After all, warfare is a very serious and must not be taken lightly. Why should we have higher barriers for regulations in economy than for going into warfare? Also note that the “two months talks” might also help mitigate our contribution to the global arms race.

I think embracing joint trainings as the new normal would already solve most issues. Such training also provides insight into where we need unification in equipment and organization. I think unification on its own should not be an objective since I believe flexibility is important to be efficient.

Dear Mr Spangenberg, I suppose that your answer is by citation addressed to mwd "Ackreti Unknown" in your first part of your answer and more likely addressed to the matter of common equipment in the other part.
Personally the capability of fast action / reaction does not necessarily contradict a phase of "long talks".
So "long talks" shall be necessary in description of a EU common Vision how we as EU want to get the ability to be fast in action and reaction under the condition

Such talks

Mr Spangenberg, apologies, my previous answer to you was not finished due to my clumsy fingers, pushing the "send" button before finishing.

...

Such talks have been started in more or less intensity and effectiveness since the existence of the NATO and / or the existence in the EU or it's growing previous forms.

Up to today the way of looking at such question has not changed.

I agree that common trainings are useful to harmonise "the doing".

I do not agree in keeping up the variety of different technical solutions that is designed to be the answer to a threat.
Obvious example are e. g. 5 different Main Battle Tank designs with many different subdesigns of each of the MBT designs.

Using common trainings for e. g. assessing whether a tank crew of a leopard tank can emmidiately perform as could with a leclerc or with an Abrams is to be honest a waste of time and money.

Your proposal has been superseded.

We must now look at the real objective .

Common equipment.

Regards

"Two months talks" isn't ment literally. It could also be one or six months.

What I mean is immediate threat to the EU. Like for example recent skirmishes between Greece and Turkey in which the EU acted slowly and Macron alone had to interfere to show solidarity.

The point is we shouldn't rely on Macron (or someone else) to save our faces and butts. We should be able to provide instant defense as entire EU.

NATO has Articles 5 to announce a situation that gives NATO parliaments the legal baseline to mandate own troops or other support for a nation that declared Article 5.
Up to today the amount of support is in the nation's own sovereignty of decision.
Therefore, such support could be between nothing and total support.

The EU has Artikel 42 that is more or less similar to Article 5 NATO Contract.

So in this case, I would think, that Greece neither declared Article 5 NATO nor Article 42 EU.

So everything that comes from individual EU Nations is individual and not a EU common approach.

For me, recognizing EU as a common Union needs approval by UN Nations, that EU representatives have diplomatic status.

In addition France needs to deliver the steady seat within the UN Security Council into the hands of the EU Council.

So it is not France with 65 Mio people sitting there but the EU with 450 Mio people.

The FR atomic weapons must come under EU control as well.

A good start.

I forgot to mention the big challenge. Which is the envy. Or the fear of missing something that other gets. When we have to shop the next equipment this challenge really shows up. How it is dealt with and who is responsible for dealing with it? I do not know - except maybe I do. Maybe it is inside of me.

It certainly will help if some of the more succesful and bigger countries accept a larger helping hand to some of our eastern countries.

Actually we should incorporate eastern EU into our defense industry.

Russia produces a lot of military equipment with relatively low budget. EU out-spends Russia more than 4 times. But Russia relies on their cheaper work costs to build cheaper but competitive military equipment.

We should do the same. Our tanks could be designed in Germany, but built in Bulgaria or Poland.

I hope the EU will increase its spending on Eastern Europe. The sooner they reach a higher level, the sooner they contribute to a collective strong Europe. Further more, the potential of Eastern Europe is enormous. They just need funding and the will from us all. Look at Estonia, Poland etc.

I am confident this will happen and benefit us all.

A common equipment at national level for all EU - Nations Force needs a 2 step approach.

1 Step is to lift and action common requirements at supranational level:

Research and Development,
Threatanalysis,
Capability Analysis,
Capability requirements,
Tendering
Competition

To quote a company must sign upfront, that they share there technology with all the nations.

Example why Research and Development (R&D) at EU level

Currently 27 EU Nations are undertaking national R&D to answer the question e. g. "How long is a peace of string?"
This meansthat every of the 27 EU- Nations payed e. g. 1 Million Euros each for the same answer.
In summary 27 Million EU Taxpayers money.
This nonsense must stop.

The EU shall pull all their "answers" together share everything with all the other EU Nations and by doing this mitigating R&D costs in best case to 1/27.

We are EU Nations and will not hide anything anymore among the other EU Nations.

R&D must be centralized at supranational level.

Between Step 1 and Step 2 there will be a supranational procurement agency at EU level that will be the System Matter lead for the national procurement agencies.

This is necessary to harmonise the procurement and life cycle process. (One common process)

The EU level does the Requirements based on the outcome of a EU common Capability analysis in comparison to given and future threats.

After having the requirements together the solution is tendered and companies can deliver their quotes.

They must sign upfront that they share their technology and know how with the EU.
This is necessary to allow every nation's economy to qualify their own companies to produce and maintain the approved technical design of the equipment that shall be mandatory to take, if such a need has been identified within a national Force.

There shall be only one Main Battle Tank design but the design is open to be produced by every EU Nation.

This is to neutralize lobbyist's and politician's concerns.

The supranational procurement agency shall take the parts program management, requirements, tendering, competition, qualification, certification.

The winning design will be inserted into a mandatory EU common database of goods and services for law-enforcement and military forces of EU Nations (EU-GSVP-Katalog)

The national procurement agencies will appear as buyers, tasked by their parliaments or responsible ministrie's, e. g. Ministry of Defense. They will do the business case and funding for their order and they will support with services e. g. Quality assurance and testing during qualification and certification of designs and /or companies.
Any many other things that need to be done at national level with national system matter experts.

Many other things to consider.

Main objective is to achieve common equipment AND allowing EU Nations to produce with their own economy the whole system, subsystems or components or just order via Katalog and pay.

Step 2 would be the life cycle management.
Design changes and obsolescence management would be done at EU level.
Maintenance and execution of design change and decisions due to obsolescence would also be done at national level.

At national level the storaging would be done as well.

The database with the mandatory solutions and services (EU-GSVP-Katalog) will also be the database to keep and action the technical documentation, training and logistics.

Benefit:
Example.
EU has a mandated Mission under EU command and the troops are suffering casualties and need also material reinforcements.
The logistical component can then go via the EU-GSVP-Katalog and "order" their needs with urgency.
Supranational procurement agency looks into all the storages of all the EU and orders via EU storage supply chain. If the storages can't deliver everything, all the qualified companies get an order to produce and deliver.
Many companies mean short delivery time and less bottleneck.

To Morton Lund. You wrote
"Military does not generate wealth or development - or does it"

We all know that the fiction of peace in the world that does not need the capability to defend a nation against threats will remain a fiction.

Therefore we must look at military forces like a firebrigade that needs to train 24/7 for a situation or a moment that should not materialize.
So out of the first view, military seems pretty costly pending the philosophy of organizing and equipping the military.

For the economy there will be a value of money, if the military is accepted among the people and if the military manages to train there staff with skills that are also of high value and use for the economy, e. g. when the contract of a military member expired.

Looking at the many soft and hard skills military needs. This is a opportunity to encrease wealth and knowledge.

Also for the defense industry.

Also for Research and Development.

It can be a burden but also an opportunity.

Fortunately, small steps have already been taken by EU-based firms to licence, assemble and manufacture advanced armored vehicles in the newer member states.

For example, Poland has manufactured nearly 1,000 Patria AMVs for its Army and operations in Afganistan under license at Rosomak S.A, marked as KTO Rosomak (Kołowy Transporter Opancerzony Rosomak, transl. wheeled armored personnel carrier "Wolverine").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV

Guten Abend Juha, vielen Dank für Deine Nachricht.
Angenommen, eine supranationale Beschaffungsbehörde würde ein geschütztes Infanteriefahrzeug beschaffen wollen.
Alle Firmen, die am Wettbewerb teilnehmen, haben unterschrieben, dass sämtliche Technologie und Fertigungs-Knowhow offengelegt, im Falle des Sieges. In diesem Beispiel eines Wettbewerbs würde bspw. dieser Patria AMV gewinnen.
Dann würde automatisch jede EU Nation, die einen Bedarf an ein geschütztes Infanteriefahrzeug hat, das Design nehmen müssen, was die supranationale Beschaffungsbehörde vorgeschrieben hat.
Das wäre dann in diesem Beispiel das Design vom Patria AMV.
Nun müssen sich die nationalen Firmen als Hersteller für die Herstellung des ganzen Designs, für Subsysteme oder für Komponenten qualifizieren bei der Beschaffungsbehörde.
Dann wird das ganze eine Win Win Situation, besonders für europäische Interoperabilität und Austauschbarkeit bei Personal und Material. Resilienz wird gesteigert, Komplexität sinkt.

Iltaa vaan Francis! Ja kiitos kommentistasi. Idea on mainio. Ylikansallinen osto-organisaatio tehostaisi toimintaa.

Kaksi kysymystä: 1) Jos osto-organisaatio olisi jo olemassa, mihin EU-hävittäjään se päätyisi? (Eurofighter, F-18 Super Hornet, F-35, JAS Gripen, Rafale)? 2) Miten idea eroaa NATOn standardoinnista, yhteishankinnoista, koordinoinnista, jne.?

Guten Abend Juha,
vielen Dank für Deine Rückmeldung.
Zu 1.)
Beispiel:
Um eine oder mehrere Risiken in der Verteidigung zu minimieren, entscheidet sich die EU ein Flugzeug zu beschaffen.
a.) Wenn es bereits ein europäisches Flugzeug gibt, daß die Anforderungen erfüllt, dann muss der Hersteller des Flugzeugs seine Erlaubnis geben, dass andere Flugzeughersteller das Design bauen dürfen.
Dazu muss auch die Technologie und das know how geteilt werden.
Ziel ist es, dass jede EU Nation das gleiche Design mit ihrer eigenen Volkswirtschaft herstellen darf.
Dazu müssen diese Firmen von der supranationalen Beschaffungsbehörde akkreditiert werden.
Somit gibt es nur ein Design als Flugzeug aber dafür mehrere Hersteller in der Lieferkette, die baugleiche Teile herstellen können, die untereinander austauschbar sind.
Zu 2.)
Nato Standard sind Richtlinien und geben zuviel Freiraum für Individualität.
Jede Variation ist Gift und erhöht Komplexität.
Hoffe ich habe die Frage richtig verstanden?

Zusätzlich zu Punkt 2 möchte ich noch auf die Frage eingehen, worin der Unterschied meines Vorschlages zu Gemeinsamer Beschaffung und Koordination ist.
Gemeinsame Beschaffung von heute passiert mit Partnern, die sich freiwillig zusammengefunden haben und ein gemeinsames Ziel verfolgen.
Dabei wird auch individuell vereinbart, wie Ziele erreicht und koordiniert werden sollen.
Mit der supranationalen Beschaffungsbehörde wird jedes Ziel verbindlich für alle 27 EU Nationen. Die Koordination erfolgt auch zentral.
Keine "coalition of the willing" sondern "all in" und verbindlich.
Dann gibt es nur noch ein Panzerdesign oder ein Flugzeugdesign als Antwort auf eine Bedrohung. Dieses Design darf nicht variiert werden, außer durch die supranationale Beschaffungsbehörde selbst.
Die supranationale Beschaffungsbehörde verfügt über ein 24/7 Steering committee aus Vertretern aller 27 EU-Nationen. Jede Nation hat genau eine Stimme. Es gilt 2/3 Mehrheit und es gibt kein Veto.

Conceptually, the plan is clear. However, the devil is in details. Continuing with the EU-Fighter example:

1) A number of EU/NATO countries have already selected a fighter jet for the next 30 years, choosing from around 5 candidates, or are in the process of doing so. Diversity in the EU/NATO Air Forces is locked for decades.
2) Some EU/NATO countries may decide that they do not need EU-Fighters or Air Forces at all. Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus come to mind.
3) Some EU/NATO countries may not have adequate industrial base for any meaningful manufacturing, subcontracting, or even assembling.

For the time being, it appears that France will always choose Dassault ”Rafales” and Sweden Saab ”Gripens”, while other EU/NATO member states select either ”Eurofighters” or US-made fighters.

Harmonising, syncronising or integrating the EU/NATO air forces may take some time.

You are fully right on this.
It will certainly take decades to get the synchronisation and harmonization done but only if we decide already today to do so.
My concept allows every Nation to manufacture a mandatory design with their own economy.
So if a Eurofighter would be the mandatory design, then France could order their Eurofighter fleet at the supranational procurement agency with the conditions that Dassault shall be the manufacturer of the system and that the supply chain shall contain a maximum of french suppliers.
Same with Sweden and Saab.
The design would be a Eurofighter but the manufacturer would be national.
Those who do not need a plane in their portfolio do not need to order but can try to get parts of their economy qualify as manufacturer for subsystems and components for the Eurofighter in order to e. g. be on stand by as additional suppliers, if this makes sense?

Thank you again for explaining the details.

It does make sense, if the purpose is to keep manufacturing each weapon (system) separately in each EU member state, based on a common design.

However, as mentioned earlier, smaller countries may find it difficult to manufacture more complicated weapon systems with their inadequate industrial bases. Or they may not even afford to buy or make expensive weapons in the first place.

Even the largest countries may struggle to build nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc. The EU cannot compete with US, China and Russia in manufacturing the most advanced and expensive weapon systems if its defense industry is fragmented.

In addition to small and medium size national manufacturers, EU needs global giants or multinational defense companies to compete in the world markets.

Good evening Juha, thanks for your feedback.
You wrote
"However, as mentioned earlier, smaller countries may find it difficult to manufacture more complicated weapon systems with their inadequate industrial bases."

This might be write but this could also be a good opportunity to enable their industry, e. g. with education of staff, etc.
This is a marathon over decades..

You wrote
"Or they may not even afford to buy or make expensive weapons in the first place."

This can be fixed by supporting via EU funding. Maybe they can do something in return.

You wrote:
"In addition to small and medium size national manufacturers, EU needs global giants or multinational defense companies to compete in the world markets."

I fully disagree.
A EU company for security and defence shall not look for export. Better smaller size but many over all EU.

Too big companies have too much power and influence to the government.

This is not productive.

Export EU matter only, not more national.

Good morning Francis!

My solution to this problem is a two-tier EU, or federal structure:

1) The EU member states are responsible for the territorial defense, mainly within their own borders.

2) The EU military force is responsible for the common and credible deterrent (overseas).

The political process to create “federal armed forces” obviously takes decades. But as far as their mandate would be sharply focused and constrained, with a clear objective and strict legal restrictions, it might be created to serve for a specific policy area, like the European Central Bank.

In this way, even Airbus, BAE Systems and other European defense contractors could serve the EU market (deterrent for federal forces), while expanding globally in the world defense markets, competing with US giants like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon Company.

Good afternoon Ruha,
thank you for explaining your vision about the matter.
I agree if you say that the defence of Europeans'sintegrity on land, water and air shall be in the hands of the EU - Nations which are in the relevant region.
Maybe division in North, east, south west and Central

.. .. Continue of previous comment. .

.. .Central.

About 2.) I assume that you suggest a standing EU - Army that is on standby to do the job outside of the EU, when diplomacy fails.
I can't agree to it.

This is like the existing Frontex.
Forces out of parliamentary control.

Not good at all.

@ Francis Martinek

Quote: "Forces out of parliamentary control."

I understand your concern. The EU is very gouverned, civilized etc. The best in the world maybe. But we are in a transforming world. If we do not move, change, develop ourselves, others will do it to us. The first is much to prefer. Frontex is a first of something new, federal like and extremely interesting. Frontex need leeway. It is not a time to be picky.

Good morning Morten,

looking into the history books show me, that the idea of something like the Frontex is not really new.
The Frontex is currently nothing else than an organization that is tasked to do the dirty job of finding ways of keeping migrants out of Europe without tracing the activities back to particular politicians who would otherwise need to step back from their posts.
The Frontex without direct national parliamentary control is therefore like a foreign legion.

Every EU Nation can do the job without the Frontex.
They all only need:
1.) Common equipment
2.) Common tactics
3.) Common training
4.) Common language of command (English)

I would agree, if Frontex would be a frame to develop common tactics, trainings, processes and would make proposals about common equipment (together with a supranational procurement agency as leading organization).

Giving Frontex own Forces with the right to enforce law is under the current situation the wrong way. Everybody knows

That is right. The territorial defense should be in the hands of the EU member states, or in regions like North, East, South and West where it naturally (geographically) makes sense.

The Central (or “federal force”) should support territorial defense: an industrial base for logistics and central arms depot(s), central control of satellite information, AWACS, UCAVs and heavy airlift for urgent supplies, medical care, etc.

But more importantly, the Central would be responsible for the common and credible deterrent of the EU – whatever form it takes when evolving over time. Initially, it could be EU diplomacy and external relations. But it might later become Strategic communication, Military intelligence, Cyber-attacks, European Legion (tripwire troops as a rapid reaction force), Aircraft carrier (gun-boat diplomacy), Strategic bomber, or Nuclear sharing arrangement, etc. This obviously requires that the EU transforms from a confederation to a federation.

Good evening Morten!

The EU is still far away from being a federal state. However, it already has some federal institutions: European Parliament (lower house), Council of the EU (upper house), European Commission (civil service), etc.

The European Parliament seems to have approved laws for transforming Frontex into the European Border and Coast Guard. It appears that around 1/3 of its staff will be European civil servants, while 2/3 will be seconded from national border and coast guards.

The European Central Bank (ECB) is another example of a federal institution or agency. Like national Central Banks, it is an independent institution. The government(s) cannot dictate how it should run monetary policy.

In principle, the “federal force” could be modelled as the ECB or Frontex.

With all due respect, I'm a little speechless.
Merely to associate the historically very negative expression of "cannon boat diplomacy" with a future solution in order to be able to defend peace and freedom in Europe resiliently, that borders on an insult to the values of Europe.
If this is to be the goal, i.e. to blackmail other nations with armed force, then I don't want to have anything to do with it.
Then Europe has learned nothing from history and deserves to go under. I might puke reading this.
In addition to compare a ECB with a Frontex makes me wondering about the lack of logic or I am stupid to see the connection.