Omissions.

This is coolbert:

Euro Army. Euro Corps. Euro Force.

Pie-in-the-sky?

From an article as seen at the Internet web site "As I Please" of Martin van Creveld the topic of which is an European Army.

"From NATO to EUA (European Union Army)?"

Macron of France and Merkel of Germany having both proposed and endorsed a transnational European army independent of NATO and capable of totally independent military action.

"The idea of a united Europe, complete with a united European army, goes back at least as far as Napoleon. Not to mention Charlemagne a thousand years previously. In a certain way, Napoleon did in fact adopt the concept."

Read the whole thing.

At least from my perspective Van Creveld fails to list two serious impediments for the EUA to exist as a viable and serious military force. Impediments of a much more profound nature not easily to be overcome if at all.

1. Financing.

Those nations part and parcel of the EUA will need to markedly increase their defense spending beyond what already is the case. CONVENTIONAL WAR-MAKING IS EXPENSIVE AND THOSE NATIONS OF NATO ALREADY UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO MEET SPENDING GOALS.

2. Nuclear weaponry.

France and England [assuming the British become part of the EUA] at the present have a very small strategic atomic force. And at least to my knowledge little if ANY tactical nuclear weapons as that term "tactical" understood. An EUA will require a ROBUST nuclear potential way beyond what already exists. Politically again from my perspective the European Union any decision to go atomic in a much bigger manner is dead-on-arrival as they say.

Am I wrong about all this? Devoted readers to the blog let me hear from you. Thanks in advance.

coolbert.