An EU Army to face Russia?

[GoranZ]

An EU Army to face Russia? Who do you think you're kidding, Mr Juncker?

[waauw]

Farage on a rant again. What a surprise. You had to comment on my wall for this?
The guy is easily one of the most despised and ill mannered figures in the EU parliament and for a good reason.

It would be a fun day if we see the UK leave the EU and have their economy crash.

[GoranZ]

Farage on a rant again. What a surprise. You had to comment on my wall for this?
The guy is easily one of the most despised and ill mannered figures in the EU parliament and for a good reason.

He is quite correct, on multiple occasions like with "EU is a project about power, not peace".

It would be a fun day if we see the UK leave the EU and have their economy crash.

You think that EU will be stronger without UK? I doubt

BTW have you ever asked your self who would fight if UK doesn't fight for EU? French
...or maybe these guys
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2j8s3 ... kpoint_fun

[persianempire]

Russia would crush Europe like the cockroaches they are. Without the U.S, they are as good as dead... Especially France..

[waauw]

He is quite correct, on multiple occasions like with "EU is a project about power, not peace".

He's talking about the army so yes of course it's about power. Armies are always about power. That's pretty much stating the obvious.
Don't really see the problem in that, you need power to achieve goals.

You think that EU will be stronger without UK? I doubt

BTW have you ever asked your self who would fight if UK doesn't fight for EU? French
...or maybe these guys
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2j8s3 ... kpoint_fun

I'm not saying the EU will be stronger, but the EU will have one less weight pulling them down every time they want to make progress. The UK infamously opposes the rest of europe on many points. The brittish are just not in the same line of thought as the rest.

Furthermore the UK will be shooting in its own foot if it decides to leave the EU.

ps: don't understand why you think the french army is laughable...

[waauw]

Russia would crush Europe like the cockroaches they are. Without the U.S, they are as good as dead... Especially France..

Sure... the russians would attack an enemy more than 3x their demographic size, a multitude of their economic output and military technology well able to rival the russians.
If europe were to destroy Moscow and Saint-petersburg alone, more than 10% of the Russian population would be annihilated. For the russians to take out 10% of the european population they would have to hit a hell of a lot more cities. The fact that the russians are so centered around cities makes them especially vulnerable and easy targets to hit.

[betiko]

sounds like some people here have only one obsession and one subject of discution. didn't this subject get old over a year ago yet you feel the urge to troll again goran?

[DaGip]

And this is how the AntiChrist comes to power.

[GoranZ]

ps: don't understand why you think the french army is laughable...

Because it is... I already posted multiple reasons previously, and usually betiko reacts badly when I point the weakness of the French Army

Russia would crush Europe like the cockroaches they are. Without the U.S, they are as good as dead... Especially France..

Sure... the russians would attack an enemy more than 3x their demographic size, a multitude of their economic output and military technology well able to rival the russians.
If europe were to destroy Moscow and Saint-petersburg alone, more than 10% of the Russian population would be annihilated. For the russians to take out 10% of the european population they would have to hit a hell of a lot more cities. The fact that the russians are so centered around cities makes them especially vulnerable and easy targets to hit.

Maybe numeric superiority was determining factor in the middle ages but we are 2015 now.
EU has better weapons technology, who do you think you're kidding
Russia has superior rocket defense technology compared to the west and abundance of nuclear rockets. EU alone doesn't stand a chance.

didn't this subject get old over a year ago

Check your calendar, Mr Juncker wasn't elected a year ago

yet you feel the urge to troll again goran?

Calling for murdering Russians in Ukraine is trolling? You really should reevaluate your blood thirsty opinions, after all France is not US, and it will never will be.
http://rt.com/usa/239633-scales-ukraine-kill-russians/

[waauw]

ps: don't understand why you think the french army is laughable...

Because it is... I already posted multiple reasons previously, and usually betiko reacts badly when I point the weakness of the French Army

Oh you mean the troll rationalizations?

Russia would crush Europe like the cockroaches they are. Without the U.S, they are as good as dead... Especially France..

Sure... the russians would attack an enemy more than 3x their demographic size, a multitude of their economic output and military technology well able to rival the russians.
If europe were to destroy Moscow and Saint-petersburg alone, more than 10% of the Russian population would be annihilated. For the russians to take out 10% of the european population they would have to hit a hell of a lot more cities. The fact that the russians are so centered around cities makes them especially vulnerable and easy targets to hit.

Maybe numeric superiority was determining factor in the middle ages but we are 2015 now.
EU has better weapons technology, who do you think you're kidding
Russia has superior rocket defense technology compared to the west and abundance of nuclear rockets. EU alone doesn't stand a chance.

If you think demography doesn't matter, you should really get yourself checked. Demography is and will always be important in war.
And I already coutnered your argument about nukes, and mentioned demographic centralization but apparently you conveniently happen to leave that out.

[GoranZ]

ps: don't understand why you think the french army is laughable...

Because it is... I already posted multiple reasons previously, and usually betiko reacts badly when I point the weakness of the French Army

Oh you mean the troll rationalizations?

Denying the truth is trolling? That must be some new Brussels definition of how Europe(not just EU) should behave.

Russia would crush Europe like the cockroaches they are. Without the U.S, they are as good as dead... Especially France..

Sure... the russians would attack an enemy more than 3x their demographic size, a multitude of their economic output and military technology well able to rival the russians.
If europe were to destroy Moscow and Saint-petersburg alone, more than 10% of the Russian population would be annihilated. For the russians to take out 10% of the european population they would have to hit a hell of a lot more cities. The fact that the russians are so centered around cities makes them especially vulnerable and easy targets to hit.

Maybe numeric superiority was determining factor in the middle ages but we are 2015 now.
EU has better weapons technology, who do you think you're kidding
Russia has superior rocket defense technology compared to the west and abundance of nuclear rockets. EU alone doesn't stand a chance.

If you think demography doesn't matter, you should really get yourself checked. Demography is and will always be important in war.
And I already coutnered your argument about nukes, and mentioned demographic centralization but apparently you conveniently happen to leave that out.

You countered nothing, you just fantasize... You think that EU countries will fight for the glory of Brussels but in reality Brussels can only hope for support from Berlin and Paris, others oppose it more or less. Take for example Budapest, Bratislava, Prague or even Athens.
Tho the main question I always point out is: "If EU such strong as you say(a.k.a. being able to defend it self from all potential enemies) why does it have so many US soldiers on its soil?"
Why EU has a need to tell others what they should do with their own countries?

[waauw]

Denying the truth is trolling? That must be some new Brussels definition of how Europe(not just EU) should behave.

Crappiest European country is France, that is quite obvious.
You guys are always compared to chickens, you know nothing about honor, you dream that you are big yet you are small(chicken size), you guys dont respect others yet you feel a need to be respected.

Right and I'm supposed to take the above mentioned quote seriously...

You countered nothing, you just fantasize... You think that EU countries will fight for the glory of Brussels but in reality Brussels can only hope for support from Berlin and Paris, others oppose it more or less. Take for example Budapest, Bratislava, Prague or even Athens.
Tho the main question I always point out is: "If EU such strong as you say(a.k.a. being able to defend it self from all potential enemies) why does it have so many US soldiers on its soil?"
Why EU has a need to tell others what they should do with their own countries?

You are gravely overestimating The US presence in europe. Following you have an image and a url referring you to american bases. Most of these bases are purely historical remnants from WWII and hold almost no function. In fact many of them are now NATO bases used by not just americans but nations from all over europe. They serve the following purposes:

• maintenance of american equipment
• logistical aid
• American navy and airports controlling mediterranean to control world sea trade routes
• enhancing military cooperation between nations
• depots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas

Click image to enlarge.

As for the Cold war missile defense system:

• Romania and Poland are just very anti-Russian and would do anything they can to antagonize Russia
• Turkey isn't EU
• UK has turned into a US puppydog, making them the subject of european mocking

Click image to enlarge.

As for the european need to tell other countries what they should do. This is very normal. The whole european project is about more european cooperation. This means transferring domestic powers to a supranational level. Nations knew what they were signing up for when they joined the EU and when they signed treaties. Nations like Greece are just whining about what they themselves agreed to.

And it's funny how you are so anti-EU when your own homecountry is a membership candidate.

[persianempire]

In terms of nuclear war, Russia and America hold 95% of the worlds nuclear arsenal.. so without the Americans its all over for Europe... Even in terms of sheer conventional warfare, planes , tanks and infantry I still don't see the E.U as even standing a chance, they'll put up a fight but they wont win. To reiterate, Europe is good as dead without the Americans in basically every form of warfare against the Russians. They better just look to appease Putin and do whatever he says with a smile on their faces..

[waauw]

In terms of nuclear war, Russia and America hold 95% of the worlds nuclear arsenal.. so without the Americans its all over for Europe... Even in terms of sheer conventional warfare, planes , tanks and infantry I still don't see the E.U as even standing a chance, they'll put up a fight but they wont win. To reiterate, Europe is good as dead without the Americans in basically every form of warfare against the Russians. They better just look to appease Putin and do whatever he says with a smile on their faces..

Everything you just said is completely wrong:

• 95% of the worlds nuclear arsenal is not in Russo-American hands. China for instance has never signed a deal to limit their nuclear arsenal and it is largely unknown how many nukes China holds. However according to some reports, the chinese have thousands of miles of underground tunnels hiding missiles.
• Europe is in no disadvantage at all when it comes to conventional warfare. In fact europe if only considering conventional warfare, europe is more powerful than Russia. Russia has 845000 soldiers, europe has 1.55 million. Russia spends 90.7 billion USD annually on the military, europe spends 192.5 billion EUR annually. Russia has 2562 main battle tanks, europe has 7695 main battle tanks. Russia has 2876 armoured vehicles, europe has 18819 armoured vehicles. Russia has 1907 fighter, training and bomber planes; europe has 2025.
• The only military advantage Russia has are its submarines and nuclear weapon capabilities. But considering the EU holds 525 warheads. This is more than enough to wipe out every single major russian city. Especially as I have already pointed out the russian population is centred more around cities(easier targets) than those in european countries. If any of the two use a warhead, both sides would be practically wiped out.

[persianempire]

In terms of nuclear war, Russia and America hold 95% of the worlds nuclear arsenal.. so without the Americans its all over for Europe... Even in terms of sheer conventional warfare, planes , tanks and infantry I still don't see the E.U as even standing a chance, they'll put up a fight but they wont win. To reiterate, Europe is good as dead without the Americans in basically every form of warfare against the Russians. They better just look to appease Putin and do whatever he says with a smile on their faces..

Everything you just said is completely wrong:

• 95% of the worlds nuclear arsenal is not in Russo-American hands. China for instance has never signed a deal to limit their nuclear arsenal and it is largely unknown how many nukes China holds. However according to some reports, the chinese have thousands of miles of underground tunnels hiding missiles.
• Europe is in no disadvantage at all when it comes to conventional warfare. In fact europe if only considering conventional warfare, europe is more powerful than Russia. Russia has 845000 soldiers, europe has 1.55 million. Russia spends 90.7 billion USD annually on the military, europe spends 192.5 billion EUR annually. Russia has 2562 main battle tanks, europe has 7695 main battle tanks. Russia has 2876 armoured vehicles, europe has 18819 armoured vehicles. Russia has 1907 fighter, training and bomber planes; europe has 2025.
• The only military advantage Russia has are its submarines and nuclear weapon capabilities. But considering the EU holds 525 warheads. This is more than enough to wipe out every single major russian city. Especially as I have already pointed out the russian population is centred more around cities(easier targets) than those in european countries. If any of the two use a warhead, both sides would be practically wiped out.

Wrong hmm, suppose I should rephrase that for you. 95% of the worlds KNOWN nuclear arsenal is in Russian and American hands, the Chinese hold however much that they hold which no one knows about, what you do know about is 95% Russian and American. That leaves a piddly 5% for Europe and all the other world countrys. Also if china ever did decide to use their unknown amount of nukes im guessing they would side with the Russians so that's more trouble for Europe.

Again the bulk of the "European force" is American troops stationed in various European countrys. If the U.S simply did not want to fight or pulled out or whatever ,Europe would be crushed very fast, I understand you don't want to believe this and that's fine. but of course the Americans would never pull out, they simply are not in the habit of giving up military bases on foreign soil.

Right and the European populations are not centered around cities? there just a bunch of farmers living in the countryside right? There's more countryside in Russia then in Europe hate to break that to you friend.

[Oneyed]

it is wrong to confort the army power based only on numbers of soldiers/weapons.
EU has no common command and without US leading role in NATO is EU countries not able to agree. EU (alone) can not beat Russia, but when EU accepts war with Russia this will means end of EU. war between EU and Russia will helps just to USA.

Oneyed

[waauw]

it is wrong to confort the army power based only on numbers of soldiers/weapons.
EU has no common command and without US leading role in NATO is EU countries not able to agree. EU (alone) can not beat Russia, but when EU accepts war with Russia this will means end of EU. war between EU and Russia will helps just to USA.

Oneyed

That is the only problem. Insufficient cohesion at the moment, which is why I'm pro building a common grand EU army. But that is too much of a stretch for Russia to ever rely upon. The consequences for Russia if being wrong, and the EU does unite when faced with war on its own soil, would be catastrophic. Mutual destruction would be assured if both sides went in fully.

However in this topic people have been claiming Russia could have a walk-over europe in its entirity, meaning Russia would have to face every single army in europe. So eventually those numeric advantages will matter greatly. If there were just small skirmishes with border nations, I agree there might be disagreement from within. But if Russia ever made it west-poland for instance, all of europe would start seeing Russia as a danger and it would function as a strong stimulus for joint forces.

[waauw]

Wrong hmm, suppose I should rephrase that for you. 95% of the worlds KNOWN nuclear arsenal is in Russian and American hands, the Chinese hold however much that they hold which no one knows about, what you do know about is 95% Russian and American. That leaves a piddly 5% for Europe and all the other world countrys. Also if china ever did decide to use their unknown amount of nukes im guessing they would side with the Russians so that's more trouble for Europe.

Again, your numbers are wrong even when considering the KNOWN nuclear arsenals. Russia + USA = 91,5% not 95%
And I'm not saying europe holds the advantage when it comes to nukes, I've admitted to that a long time ago. I just hate it when people get their numbers wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Again the bulk of the "European force" is American troops stationed in various European countrys. If the U.S simply did not want to fight or pulled out or whatever ,Europe would be crushed very fast, I understand you don't want to believe this and that's fine. but of course the Americans would never pull out, they simply are not in the habit of giving up military bases on foreign soil.

The bulk??? Are you freaking serious? Don't bullshit me. The EU outnumers american troops and equipment in every single possible way on its own continent. It has been revealed the US only holds a couple of hundred nukes in europe, but most certainly less than 800. So europe's 550 will probably be able to rival that number.
And the USA has already given up many of its military bases on foreign soil because they became useless after the fall of the Soviet Union. Do your research before you start bullshitting any more.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/us-nuclear-weapons-in-europe-critical-for-transatlantic-security#_ftn35

Right and the European populations are not centered around cities? there just a bunch of farmers living in the countryside right? There's more countryside in Russia then in Europe hate to break that to you friend.

European demographics are much less centralized yes. It doesn't matter that Russia has a bigger countryside when barely anything of it is inhabited. Demographic centralization matters when considering air strikes of whatever type. Not to mention the fact that if nukes are used, you can't exclude biological, chemical and radiological warfare anymore either. Technologies that are more ubiquitous and more easily reproduced due to availability of resources.

Lastly, as I have mentioned several times before. Europe has more factories, making it easier for europe to suddenly start producing large amounts of weapons of any type. This is what gave the US the advantage in WWII and in any prolonged conflict it would give europe the advantage too.

[waauw]

I wonder, with so many people here thinking europe can't even touch or scratch Russia(because you seem to think it would be an easy walk-over). Are you suggesting europe should restart a nuclear arms race? And recommonce cold war conditions?

[Dukasaur]

I wonder, with so many people here thinking europe can't even touch or scratch Russia(because you seem to think it would be an easy walk-over). Are you suggesting europe should restart a nuclear arms race? And recommence cold war conditions?

Not necessarily. I think it is possible for Europe to be friendly with Russia. A good friendship, however, is based on mutual respect.

Europe at the very least needs to:

1. Bring back mandatory military service
2. Develop a unified command structure independent of the U.S.
3. Build loyalty to the unified command structure by engaging in frequent and intensive war games and simulations where soldiers from different countries and speaking different languages get to serve together under difficult conditions.
4. There needs to be an all-Europe staff academy, where future European generals spend their college years not just studying together but living together and partying together, forming the bonds that will eventually make the unified command something natural and not artificially forced.
5. Develop a complete set of military hardware, not just a few showcase tanks and planes, but every type of military hardware, from encrypted-channel phones to medium-range ballistic missiles, that is made in Europe and isn't vulnerable to the U.S. being able to shut off the supply of spare parts.
6. Have a nuclear option. It isn't necessary to seek equality with Russia or the U.S. in nukes. Really, the nukes that are already present in Europe are sufficient to keep Russia at bay, but they need to be controlled by Europeans not by Americans. As America's economic power wanes, it should be possible to buy existing American nukes in Europe, and then only gradually replace them with new-generation made-in-Europe model. This should keep the cost down.
   In addition, half a dozen new ballistic-missile subs and a new-generation SLBM are needed to have an option to frighten potential opponents further away.
7. Europe needs to have a real navy. At the very least, it needs to ensure the safety of the Baltic and the Mediterranean. At present, American or Russian subs could slide right into Toulon or La Spezia without a challenge. The Baltic and the Mediterranean need to be seen as inland waters that belong to Europe, and as a bare minimum Europe needs to have sufficient new-generation nuclear-powered attack subs at sea to be able to cordon off and close the Bosporus, the Straits of Gibraltar, and the Kattegat on short notice, as well as to patrol the Irish Sea, the Norwegian Sea, etc. Not enough to challenge the Americans and the Russians in every waterway on earth, but enough to guarantee that nothing floats in European home waters without Europe's permission.
   Needless to say, there needs to be enough strategic air power in the south to bring to heel any of the North African shitholes that might want to interfere. Really, it would be nice to re-take Suez and Aden, but at this point it's probably too late.
8. Europe needs to have strategic underground reserves of oil and other materials as the American and Russians do. There's no point having great tanks and planes if the enemy can deny you the use of them just by sinking a few vulnerable tankers far off your coast.

[patches70]

I wonder, with so many people here thinking europe can't even touch or scratch Russia(because you seem to think it would be an easy walk-over). Are you suggesting europe should restart a nuclear arms race? And recommonce cold war conditions?

Russia and Europe were getting along just fine until the US started with all it's Ukraine business. Its in Europe's interest to get along with Russia, the US not so much. Which is no big deal except that it is Europe under the hammer, not the US, so when the US stokes up problems and because of the subservient relationship Europe has with the US puts Europe in a sticky situation.

Bring back mandatory military service

I think quite a few European nations already have mandatory military service and that's why Europe can't project power very well.
If Europe were to ever gain the will to build a truly professional army again, it should be with a volunteer force. History has shown that forcing men into service makes a substandard army. The US learned her lesson in Vietnam.

When you have people freely signing the dotted line knowing full well that they will be called on to go anywhere, do anything that their country tells them, they can't very well make much of a fuss when their country sends them to some middle east hell hole, can they?
On the other hand, if you got some guy who by law has to join the military for a two, three or four year stretch and their country tries to send them to some middle east hell hole, then people rise up and start saying "Hey! Wait a minute! I'm only here because I was forced to. I'll defend my country from invasion but damn if I'm going to some shithole to fight for some ill defined objective!"

It makes a difference and its part of the reason why Europe can't really project force all over the world like the US can. The US wouldn't be able to do what she does with a drafted army of conscripts. Machiavelli said the same as well, make sure your army is made up of your own countrymen who are there of their own free will if at all possible.

Develop a unified command structure independent of the U.S.

I think the perfect solution is for the US to just give NATO to Europe. Then the US won't be on the hook for the cost of NATO or supplying all the manpower. NATO has long outlived what it was created for, time to close the page on that book. Europe taking control of NATO has the advantage that all the leg work has been done already, command structures, force level modeling, tactics and everything else has already been worked out. All Europe has to do is take over the cost and replace all the US personnel that would have been in place when used.


The problem with an EU army is that European politicians will have to convince their citizens to give up on national sovereignty and be willing to fight and die for other nations. Such as convincing the French to fight and die for the Germans. Or God forbid, convince the Germans to fight and die for the Greeks and such.
Everyone likes to bad mouth nationalism and patriotism as old relics of the past, but people identify with their countrymen, French like to be French, Germans like to be Germans etc etc. Given the recent rise in nationalistic political parties in many European nations of late because of Europe's recent economic malaise, such cooperation is tenuous at best and impossible in the worst conditions.
Counter that to the US where we bicker and argue among each other but when you put an existential threat in front of our faces we band together and turn our anger outward to crush that threat and then pat each other on the back afterward and we forget about our petty bickering for a little while. Its that nationalistic pride, that belief in American exceptionalism that makes the US so dangerous in a fight because when we go into a fight we go in mean and dirty willing to fight and die for anyone we perceive to be protecting or fighting with.

I don't see this type of thought process in Europeans, I my be wrong I dunno. Its always the US that is the glue that holds Europe together to get them to fight effectively along side each other.

So you'll end up with the European politicians having to do the impossible. One the one hand convincing their voters to stop viewing their own nation as a single, sovereign nation but as a province in a bigger whole. Then on the other hand convincing voters that the politicians are looking out for the interests of their country. Its a contradiction and the voters will see that clearly. Especially in tough economic times (like now) where politicians thrive by stoking the flames of nationalism and national pride. The Greeks for instance have surrendered their economic freedom to Brussels, does anyone think a politician would be able to convince the Greeks to surrender their bodily freedom by pressing them into a Grand European Army to fight in the interests of other EU member states?
The voters will split to one side and the other and then argue, bicker and fight among themselves anyway.

I don't think so. The European politicians have to convince the citizens to stop viewing themselves as "German" or "French" and view themselves as ??????, and that is the problem.

Dukasaur, when you talk to someone from the US, how often do you hear them refer to themselves as "Virginian" or "Carolinian"? Or do Americans most often refer to themselves as "American"?
Now when you talk to a European, how do they refer themselves as most often? Do they say "European"? Or do they say "I'm French" or "I'm Italian" or "I'm German"?
In the US there was a time when people referred to themselves by the State of which they lived or where born, pre-civil war days. Its not like that anymore, and it wasn't until the US went through the civil war that we changed. Before that time the US was States that viewed themselves as sovereign and to those States was how they identified and related themselves as. Europe is as the US saw herself a hundred sixty years ago. How Europe moves forward to the point of being able to stop referring to themselves based on their nationality I have no idea nor how that change would come about. It took a bloody, dirty and horrible civil war that left 600K dead for the US to change her perception of herself.

Ignoring ethnonationalism, tribalism, nationalism is a mistake. That's the reality of the human species and just because someone says "well it shouldn't be that way" doesn't mean that it isn't a reality. These ties that bind are also fragile as the identity the US citizens have as "Americans" is being eroded now as well.
This same cycle has repeated time and time again throughout human history and it will keep playing out the same. Because human beings tend to divide themselves along ethnic, national and tribal lines. All the past multicultural civilizations degrade and destroy themselves and end up dividing along ethnic lines. If the sword is the only thing holding a civilization together then that civilization is doomed to fail eventually. And forcing free men into military service against their will is the same as putting a bayonet against their back and ordering them to "march!". That never ends well.

If the European Union formed a Grand European Army tomorrow, its first task would be to smash resistance in all the European countries that were opposed to the idea. In other words, the Grand European Army's first task would be to fight Europeans, not Russians or any other external enemies. It would be focused inward first and foremost. And that should give people some pause.

[waauw]

The problem with an EU army is that European politicians will have to convince their citizens to give up on national sovereignty and be willing to fight and die for other nations. Such as convincing the French to fight and die for the Germans. Or God forbid, convince the Germans to fight and die for the Greeks and such.

Actually that is not entirely correct. A lot of european nations do agree to a grand EU army, the big problem is a common vision. After decades of NATO, europeans are used to stand along each other. Europeans just don't agree on what their military should look like, how much funds they should receive, military foreign policy, etc. These are the big chokepoints, the nationalist issue has faded a lot already.

The voters will split to one side and the other and then argue, bicker and fight among themselves anyway.

Unfortunately, it seems to have become some sort of a habit to surrender powers to the supranational level without any referendum. So this voters bickering is not really the issue. And most europeans just let the politicians do as they want. Why? No real rational reason, people just prefer to focus on their own lives rather than the grand scheme of things.

Now when you talk to a European, how do they refer themselves as most often? Do they say "European"? Or do they say "I'm French" or "I'm Italian" or "I'm German"?

Well that depends on the country. I'm fairly certain many people will still say "I'm european", because most non-europeans won't even be able to find their country on the map. According to one study for instance, most americans don't know Belgium, let alone its location on the map. Though they do seem to know Brussels. But all that aside, yeah you do still have a point.

If the European Union formed a Grand European Army tomorrow, its first task would be to smash resistance in all the European countries that were opposed to the idea. In other words, the Grand European Army's first task would be to fight Europeans, not Russians or any other external enemies. It would be focused inward first and foremost. And that should give people some pause.

Actually if a grand european army would ever be raised, it would probably only comprise of its biggest proponents. Similar to the Eurozone, not every nation would take part in it. And it would have to expand very gradually over time.

[Oneyed]

A lot of european nations do agree to a grand EU army, the big problem is a common vision.

not true. only lot of european politicans do agree with EU army. and if there will be any EU army this would be for saving european countries. for example against US occupation of european countries, becasue this is what happen now in Czech republic, Slovakia, baltics countries and so on...

to patches70, very rational opinion and you have thumb up from me. even more that you are from USA.

Oneyed

[Falkomagno]