Kallas: “Non abbiamo bisogno di un esercito europeo. Abbiamo bisogno di 27 eserciti europei capaci e capaci di lavorare insieme per scoraggiare i nostri rivali e difendere l’Europa”
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/01/22/eu-must-spend-more-than-1-of-gdp-on-defence-to-prepare-for-the-worst-kallas-says
di AvengerDr
46 commenti
I am more worried about what happens over the Atlantic right now than what happens in Russia. I am trying to follow what’s going on in the MAGA community on Truth Social and Trump supporters are speculating how Trump should bring world peace by attacking the world and create a world government in a Third Reich fashion with the US on the top and the worlds countries as independently managed subordinates for manufacturing and resource extraction. This is the mindset we will have to deal over the next years.
Or… just a suggestion: we, not the Japanese, start making giant robots.
27 armies working together are way more expensive than a single army. Europe really doesn’t need 27 different general staffs.
That is not effective even at a cost level. What is more easy built 1 or 27?
Disagree. 27 armies without coordination would be totally ineffective. There is a high need in the army for central command.
First it has to evolve into a Defense Union agreement to have like one command staff and centar. However this is duplication of NATO and not needed.
For 27 national armies to effectively and capably work together, you’re going to need an overarching command structure, to effectively coordinate those forces.
To do that you need to develop a doctrine that incorporates those assets into a single unified force.
Another thing you’d have to to is create a logistics and procurement system that is able to provide for those 27 armies, without doing things double, or having too many competing systems that are not compatible with eachother.
And that’s ignoring the possibility of countries not wanting to take part in a conflict for political reasons.
So, yeah…
If you want an effective fighting force, you’re going to have to create an army.
Strong disagree đź‘Ž
We need one army.
An EU army would mean a massive blow to every nation’s individual sovereignty and that just is never going to happen.
The Americans will happily take our money
Interoperability? You mean NATO, then?
Everybody thinks of “Article 5”; but really the interoperability, learning to work with other forces, sharing common tools and concepts, is one of the most important parts of NATO.
Kaja Kallas is fantastic and I think she understands convincing EU members to give command over their soldiers to a centralized EU command is unfortunately still a hard sell for many member states, even with the Russian threat. A European army is undoubtedly the best solution but I am afraid we are still many years off from this. So convincing members to beef up their individual defences is probably the only option right now
Her position makes sense. The EU’s response to the Russian invasion demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the bloc to move cohesively on defence matters. Maintaining national armies mean retaining strategic autonomy. If you have an army, there’s no need to wait on endless debate in Brussels when the enemy is at your door.
It is the only answer. You’ll never get a “European Army”, as the general staff would be unanswerable directly to the people, but you will get 27 armies cooperating closely.
A deeply realistic take. Good, I hope she can deliver.
This is a very unusual proposal in terms of unified command and planning.
But I think there was a discussion and consensus before the announcement, since she decided to announce it.
Even thou I support pan-euripean army of some sort, it sounds like more realistic approach right now.
Well, only western Europe would finally decide to do something with its armies!!!
I am not sure Europe is close-knit enough for this to be effective. This is not a dig at anyone, I like that our countries are very distinct, but the defence needs to be well coordinated for this to work. But I am not a military strategist. Whatever happens, I just hope it works.
NATO without the US and maybe Japan, Korea Canada as partners. Not a single army but well coordinated, well funded coalition.
Disagree. We need one army.
When have 27 of anything ever cooperated effectively?
Here is the problem with European army – who is going to give orders?
I see this as constant conflict of interests and also single point of failure (Imagine spinless and directionless guy like Scholz to be General of Armies, or worse -> someone who sold it to Ruzzia, like Orban did)
Similarly to EU government – the advantage is in diversity, otherwise the EU would be already as corrupted as Washington is. The Corpocunts would have much easier job bribing, influencing, lobbying, and penetrating centralized government.
To show how effective diversity is, just look at Trumps idiotic attempts to force EU to buy gas from US, or pressurizing Denmark and blackmailing of economic consequences. The arch-moron doesn’t understand that these treats are missed completely, I will use here a quote from ‘Taxi Driver’ to illustrate it: ‘Are you talking to me?’.
EDIT: Allied Forces during WWII proved that armies can work together, without merging into one unmanageable mega-army. Besides, do you really are that naive, to think that Polish troops would just go and die, because German General gave an order? Not yet my friends, not yet. A lot of beer must be drunk between these two, to change this, but that is a reality.
If every EU country has nuke stocks, no one dares to touch us, or treat us like Ukraine..they will instead kiss our ass, like Dontard kiss Kim’
I disagree. We need a collective army, it’s easier to command, control, train. It’s cheaper. Europe should be getting closer not regressing back to different small countries
but its way more expensive
L take
A unified central command structure like NATO could work, maybe.
Completely disagree with Kallas on this one. I hope she doesn’t get support for this opinion.
The EU has 27 armies. You know what would happen if there was an EU army? The EU would have 28 armies.
The problem is rather to have several completely different MBTs, aircraft etc. Streamline the design, procurement and industrial capacities, and it goes a long way. Whether the brigade fielded and equipped is a national one or an international one is secondary, if they are trained to collaborate internationally.
Reading the article, that seems to be the approach, which is good.
Kallas shines as always.
Military matters should be a thing of the EU, we already have NATO for that. Further coordination of NATO allies is what is necessary.
I’d take the extra step of booting out all states that don’t meet the 2% goal within a year or two.
# …European armies that are capable and can effectively work together to deter our rivals and defend Europe…
So…. a European army?
EU needs to go all in on Ukraine now, or else it will be crushed by fascist russia in the next ten years. Time is running short
This Mentality is why Europe will never truly be able to compete with the US and China in the coming decades
I think Germany, France and Italy should make the common EU army, with a common command structure. Allow citizens from all other smaller European economies to join this force if desired. Let other European countries maintain their own militaries if desired. Italy’s Meloni could be La Duce of the combined force since she has good relations with Trump.
That’s weird way of saying “we need a European army.”
Why not just have 28 armies? 1 EU strike/rapid force of 100 000 soldiers.Â
Having. 1 european army makes it feel a little too close to rebuilding the holy roman empire.
Would the language of communication be English?
The individual armies should be at least as integrated as NATO. Better even more.
In addition to the basics, making different armies/nations specialise in specific advanced capabilities instead of a multitude of redundancies can make it more (cost) efficient.
And on the other side, creating more multinational units at least on division level can make the contributions of smaller countries more effective. Not everyone can afford, for example, an entire active armoured division.
Going straight for an European army would of course address all these topics.
We need zero armies and world peace. Also, intensive financing of neuropsychiatry so that we may diagnoses children who are prone to having dictator-like personalities and reeducate them or forbid them from entering politics.
I don’t think that’s correct for many reasons: inefficient, difficult communication, costs much higher, much more difficult steering and management, different interests/strategies/tactics …etc.
This is definitely not good and proper way – no one single benefit
Look I’m no expert in military logistics, so I’ll leave that consideration to experts.
But that we need some sort of European defense policy and capability that can stand on its own separate from the US, that we do.
What can go wrong?
27 different equipment rosters, 27 different commands, 27 different commanders in chief.
We need to be united.
We can’t expect smaller countries to have an army capable of collaboration with the bigger countries on the same level. Chypre, Malta and Luxembourg just can’t have any credible defense on their own in the modern world. The baltic countries could maybe start to have a semblance of a real army if they banded together but that’s not an easy thing. And then there are countries that really have neglected their defense for years and would need decades to catch up, mostly thinking of Ireland there but there are others.
That speech just sound as an excuse to not start working on a European army because what she is proposing is surely not happening even with the best efforts.