Won't happen, at least not in any meaningful form.
Baltics or Poland are existentially threatened by Russia, Spain or even Germany are not, even if Russia can do a limited damage to them. What is supposed to create "unity" in that regard? What would force Spain to contribute as much as, let's say, Finland? We can see even now, with all these US threats, not every NATO country was willing to increase its spending on military.
And even more importantly, who is going to command such EU army? Commission?
Baltics and Poland are only threatened by Russian TV commentators and sometimes Dugin, who depending on the mood of the day says that Poland and the Baltics are not part of the Eurasian project, and on other days says that Estonia is in the German influence sphere (!) but Latvia and Lithuania are in the Russian sphere. These people foam at the mouth and have little influence.
I have never heard any serious Russia politician claim that the Baltics or Poland should be invaded.
Ukraine and Georgia are fundamentally different (for them), which is why they always have been red lines as pointed out in the Burns diplomatic telegram.
Invasion is not necessary. It is sad that any discussion limits politics and rivalry between countries to full-scale invasion.
Poland and Russia have opposing interests. Period. Russia wants to be a part of Europe, Poland doesn't want Russia to be a part of Europe. Poland wants to be sovereign country that keeps growing economically, Russia doesn't want that.
Russia doesn't need to invade Poland, it is enough to "reshape the European Security Architecture", reduce Polish chances to develop and growth etc.
well until 2022 no serious Russian politician (is there such a thing among the sock puppets ?) said Ukraine needed a invasion . Dictatorships.. if the boss pops a hemoroid in the morning , you march according to plan in the evening .
Well, Macron is probably the only European leader that, declaratively at least, would like to push for more agency for Europe. Issue is that, for now, he offers only words. He already is trying to back down from the idea of sending troops to Ukraine (and number that was proposed was pathetic, considering intensity of this conflict).
Nukes are but a one thing, useful only in specific circumstances, but not sufficient. It is unrealistic to expect France using nukes if Russia attacks Lithuania, for example. Stakes are not justifying such escalation.
European countries lack conventional means: UAV, artillery, missiles. And soldiers.
At this moment, the Russian military is very weakened. Europe doesn't have overwhelming force but could easily kick Russia out of Ukraine. (Except it won't for political reasons.)
It is easy to talk about war, Europe would win the battle for Ukraine if they entered the war, no doubt about it. What that means for the EU politically makes an intervention in Ukraine a pipedream.
I lived when the defense industry got money during the cold war, of course they need more money to win and obviously they will do everything they can to get more funding.
I, on the other hand (as an EU citizen), would like to not be drafted to fight in a conflict by two random governments of countries I don't live in and share nothing ideologically with. Sure, we can all do taxes together, share the currency, etc. I know that NATO already is that way, but the EU is not a military alliance and should never be.
> I, on the other hand (as an EU citizen), would like to not be drafted to fight in a conflict by two random governments of countries I don't live in and share nothing ideologically with.
... because that worked out so well for Europe when Poland was invaded in 1939 and everyone looked the other way?
After the war, top German generals like Franz Halder, the Chief of the Army General Staff, revealed that their actual strength had been much smaller than the British and the French had feared. Anglo-French forces could have outnumbered them 1:5. The generals speculated that a well-coordinated allied attack from France could have defeated Germany in just a few weeks.
I would like to see unified command and control facilities, interoperability agreements, combined purchasing and a within EU military industrial plan. Most of this already exists in the form of NATO and can be repurposed for near $0.
There is no need for anything more, nor are the institutions really designed for a single president / general to direct everyone in a conflict. Putting in place all the capabilities to work together in a conflict should be done however.
Yes (I don't know why you were downvoted), and others, but unfortunately I find it highly unlikely to happen. Or at least, it'll only happen when it's already too late, and Russia starts steamrolling more of Europe while the US does nothing (or actively supports it - the current admin is highly pro Russia).
The US is no longer a reliable ally to the EU or NATO. The EU must be able to protect itself.
I could be wrong, but imo the EU is looking more rickety than the Russian Federation. It's not far fetched for the future to feature a militarised and experienced in war Russia starts breaking apart the EU and nibbling parts off.
