Talk:Military of the European Union

I don't know how to do this, but in the "Membership" table, Ireland should link to Republic of Ireland not the Island of Ireland.

You really should remove the Ukraine from this list, for Putin will never let this happen (and EU ministers know this, that's why they've started up talk about not "overstretching" the EU). Turkey will be in the EU before Ukraine will be. The only nations on this table should be ACTUAL EU nations. Let the fantasies turn into realities before claiming them as facts.68.164.4.102 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is "Eurofor" also a member of EU military group ?

Siyac 83.87.19.95 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid the histogram of expenditures is completely wrong - I have checked the numbers, but when I add them I get a "timeline failure" or something. It should be: USA 533Bn, EU 293Bn, China 46Bn, Russia 32Bn. Can someone who knows the histogram markup make the change? To be honest, I question the validity of the histogram anyway... Regards, 195.137.96.79 05:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, worked it out - done. 195.137.96.79 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

An unregistered person keeps changing the first sentence by adding the word "yet" before "state". The EU is not a state and probably will not become a state. It might do, yes. Though it is unlikely. Anyhow, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is here to give factual information about the present world and its history.

Secondly this person, who remains anonymous, keeps adding that the new Reform Treaty has been approved. It hasn't. It will be signed by government heads/foreign ministers this December and then it will have to be ratified by all member states before it comes into effect.

What we have here is a pro-federalist-EU person adding POV points/inaccurate statements to this article. Why it is only me taking action I do not know.

If this carries on I will get a moderator to lock the article/take other action. David 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It depends on how one defines a state, surely? The EU has an executive, a parliament, a president, a diplomatic corps, its own embassies, the nuclei of its own armed forces and police force (EUROGENDFOR), and policies on everything from agriculture to a space programme. It makes the overwhelming majority of the laws which govern those within its borders. The major function of national assemblies is now not the making of policy but the implementation of policies from the EU. At what point does it slip over the line between "trade club" and "state"? If it carries out all the functions of a state, but refuses to call itself one, is it not a state? At the time of this writing the Constitution Treaty Of Lisbon has not yet been ratified but the EU is already proceeding as if it had been, and nobody doubts that it will be.

So "The EU is not a state and probably will not become a state" doesn't seem a very realistic statement. Effectively it already is one, even if it shies away from the word.82.71.30.178 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, sorry, it is not a state. It is a political and economic union of 27 sovereign states. It is not recognised as a state by anyone. The Treaty of Lisbon reaffirms that it is not a state. The EU is becoming a confederation at most. David (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

"The major function of national assemblies is now not the making of policy but the implementation of policies from the EU."

Not so. The majority of legislation that the individual EU states run on is legislation passed by the individual national legislative units--and many countries in the EU have "opt-out" clauses that give them exemptions to EU law. Additionally, the military forces of the individual EU states are solely controlled by those EU states, NOT from Brussels or Strasbourg. The nuclear weapons of the UK and France are the sole property of the UK and France and other EU nations have absolutely no say or control over them (and this situation is unlikely to change). On paper, the EU "may" be a nation, in practice it's nothing more than a Confederation.68.164.4.102 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

David, surely if it is recognised as a state by other states, then that makes it a state? The EU has diplomatic accreditation from all of the UN member states, including the 27 states within the EU. It also signs international treaties, protocols, and understandings as a separate state. What else does it have to do, in your eyes, to make it a state? Additionally, I don't see this as repeated vandalism, I see it as the correction of a repeated error.

If the EU is then a single state in the eyes of the UN, then why are each of its individual nations given a separate vote in the UN (or International Olympic Committee), while the EU itself has NO vote? Why does it have 2 votes on the Security Council? The EU can't have it both ways. Maybe the US should consider each of its 50 states as separate nations within one nation, so the US can get 50 extra votes in the General Assembly and the IOC, etc.68.164.4.102 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The EU is not a state and is not recognised as a state by any state! It signs treaties and agreements with other states sometimes when it has been given the competance to do so by the member states. David (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

David, on this you are just plainly incorrect. For example, the United States recognises the European Union as a state separate from the 27 member states. As another example, the European Union has signed the accord that we now know as the Kyoto Protocol as a state entity separate from the 27 member states. Once again, if the EU is seen by other states (e.g. the US) as a state, and if it does what states do (e.g. signs international accords as a state), then surely that makes it a state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.41.97 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, you are just plainly incorrect. You are confusing the term "state". The United States does not recognise the European Union as a state. It recognises it as what it is - a supranational union of 27 sovereign member states. The EU signs numerous international agreements on behalf of the 27 member states as it has been given the competence to do so by those member states. You are simply confused about the issue here. The EU is, at most, a confederation of sovereign member states, who grant some of their decision making powers to supranational institutions that make up the EU. It is not a state. David (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the United States does not recognise the European Union as a state, then why does it send an Ambassador to Brussels, and what is John Bruton doing in Washington as the EU Ambassador to the US. In order to exchange diplomatic credentials, those parties need to recognise each other as states. You refer us to the Wiki definition of a 'state', and on this definiton, the EU ticks the boxes to be defined as a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.240.26 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Once again you see "ambassador" and think "state". Which is wrong. You are trying to find anything which meets your idea that the EU is a state. Which it is not. The United Kingdom sends an ambassador to the United Nations. So by your warped reckoning the UN is a state too. David (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess this is why Wiki has such a reputation for unreliability and inaccuracy. You are taking an opinion (the EU is not a state) and positing as fact. Those who disagree with your opinion (what you call fact) are branded as 'vandals' (why not 'Wiki-terrorists'?). What is most interesting is that, without an objective standard as to whether an entity is (or is not) a 'state' there can be no appeal to an objective authority. I guess that you should go back to being a Town and Country Planning student and I should go back to being the Head of an EU Research Institute!

You do that, and while you're there ask yourself why the EU DOESN'T have a vote in either the General Assembly or Security Council. Only the separate, individual EU nations have these votes. Personally, I think the EU should be a single nation, and, thus, get only ONE vote in the UN, the IOC, etc. (or could it be that the EU nations want to have their cake and eat it too?).68.164.4.102 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There can be ambassadors for a wide range of organisations, from Universities to multi-national organisations, such as the UN, NATO and the EU. They are not nations. While I dont think anyone disagrees with the SIMPLE (as in GCSE level) premise that the EU is not a state, it cannot be ignored that the EU exhibits a wide range of aspects TRADITIONALLY liked to the nation state. You are getting to hung up on sermantics. If you have trouble with this simple context, I would recommend the work done by Ian Bache. 62.56.97.200 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

These figures are most certainly wrong. The number of ACTIVE troops for Switzerland is low. The number of reservists very high. So the figure of Active Troops per 1000 people show be lower - about 1.699 per 1000 (13000 per 7million) not the 47.90 given. I havent changed it. They should all be corrected not just this one.--129.169.154.81 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

BetacommandBot 09:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since most member states use euros (or, like Denmark and Sweden, keep in step with euros),surely it makes more sense for the table to be given in EUR rather than USD. It seems crazy to me to have to revise the values at regular intervals to compensate for the collapse of the dollar, especially as it makes it look as there has been an increase in military spending. --Red King (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what I was thinking about. It would more sense and add coherence to the text. What do you think? --Alfa989 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two year wait for a reply haha, I agree also though as it happens. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, though it would be informative to also update in USDs every now and then (couple of years) as Americans and other non-UK English speakers will be used to counting in USD. Also the USD is still reference currency. ArticunoWebon (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've added military equipment such as tanks and aircraft to the table for more detail. There are few sources about the member states' navies, so I've skipped that section, although you can feel free to contribute if you find the proper sources. -   Tourbillon ^A ? 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Slovakia" :
  • {{cite news|title=Slovakian Armed Forces |date=[[2006-07-25]]|url=http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Slovakia-ARMED-FORCES.html}}
  • {{cite news|title=Slovak Armed Forces |date=[[2006-07-25]]|url=http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Slovakia-ARMED-FORCES.html}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone already working on these articles might find this useful if they haven't already seen it: The ABC of EU peacekeeping abroad.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why have the number of warships (esp. aircraft carriers) been ignored on the table listing military capabilities, when these special vessels are the principal means for projecting power over long distances? Could someone add this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.204.144 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely agree with that -130.208.165.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC).Reply

I have started work on an Aircraft Carrier section.G. R. Allison (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the EFTA member Iceland to the strength list on the page. Kinda weird to miss that country since EU has been very keen to make Iceland join during the last few months. - 130.208.165.5 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, until Iceland is actually, formally IN the EU, it should not be on this list, for it still may not join. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.4.102 (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now the Italian Defence have only 190.000 soldiers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.81.83 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone help me here, I have just removed the figure for Turkish combat aircraft, it was 900. I cannot find any source backing this and I can't find anything even supporting this. Does anyone know the figure? G. R. Allison (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, does the EU army use weapons and if so, is it possible to include a new table to state the weapons they use? (TheGreenwalker (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

Edit: can someone please reply to my question. Thank you (TheGreenwalker (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

The isn't as such a 'EU army', each of the Armed Forces of each of the Nations of the EU will use weapons, however attempting to create a table to list all weapons and weapon systems in use across the EU would create a large and difficult table. It would also repliacte the information avalible through pages such as Template:ModernUKInfWeaponsNav and Template:Current French infantry weapons.

Jakerin (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The bar chart near the bottom of the page shows the comparative spening on their militaries of the EU, US, China and Russia. The Chinese figure is twice the official figure according to the appropriate Wikipedia article , and the figure used represents the absolute highest estimate provided by the Defence Intelligence Agency ($90-$130 billion). It's as if we're deliberately trying to overstate Chinese capability, which is a depressingly common meme going round at the moment, particularly in the US media. The fact is that the US is by far the pre-eminent military superpower on Earth at this time. The combined EU budget puts it in the same region as the US - about half as much spending, but not ten times less, as China should actually be. The only bloc with any realistic chance of approaching US military spending anytime soon is the EU. China and Russia are tiddlers in comparison. (JulesVerne (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2009 (GMT))

http://www.huliq.com/8769/88851/italian-minister-proposes-european-army Should this be mentioned or held off until it swings one way or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.203.212 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

2 links.

1 for UK active regular forces http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=160.11&date=2009-11-26&type=html&PublishTime=09:30:02

total 197,500 troops

however UK operates a voulnteer force which is active and numbers 41,500 and FTRS ontop of regular man power. so Link 2 http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&thiscontent=70&pubType=1&date=2009-11-23&disText=01

then Click the "PDF 90 KB" to open the document. Its current from 1st of April 2009.

Note this gives the UK Active man power at 240,400 (aprox and rounded to nearest 100 for readability)

Also the same link gives personel numbers for the regular reserve man power at 176,500, and the Cadet forces at 153,000 (aprox numbers and rounded off)

this gives the total UK man power at around 570,000 Bro5990 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://www.difesa.it/NR/rdonlyres/5EF11493-59DD-4FB7-8485-F4258D9F5891/0/Nota_Aggiuntiva_2009.pdf

Italian officials give a total of 190,000 active duty troops in the italian militaryBro5990 (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The defence expenditure table needs deletion as it is totally wrong. Also the Strength table needs deletion as its figures are totally misleading and have become a joke. This is the result of too many edits and too much bias make belive information. I will remove these tables after 3 days if I do not hear from any one. I will just assume no one cares. In fact the whole page needs deletion Recon.Army (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no current Military of the EU only a Common Security and Defence Policy as out-lined in the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore any article suggesting there is an actual military of the EU is simply wrong and misleading. It is also highly political as many nations oppose an EU military. Wikipedia should try and stick to actual truth and not include articles on a EU military that don’t even exist. Recon.Army (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added it to W:AFD Recon.Army (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Recon, your edit added the text "making the EU the worlds 2nd largest military force" yet you stated here "Therefore any article suggesting there is an actual military of the EU is simply wrong and misleading". Sorry for the lack of response sooner. The best course of action in my opinion and I believe the opinion of fellow project editors is that the table should be included but updated to reflect more accurate recent information. I'll get right to it. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The data for Greece are mostly wrong. Some (like the 890 figure for tanks) are completely baseless, other (manpower) are simply old. The reference uses data of 1999-2000. Greece today has about 137,000 active personnel, about 150,000 reservists to complete active units' establishment, and provisions for about 800,000 total personnel (maximum if even the militia battalions get mobilised).
Greece has a theoretical ~1,250 tanks in active service, namely 353 Leopard 2, 500 Leopard 1A5 and 390 M48A5. A small additional number are used in training. A couple hundred M60A3 (out of an original of 312) are in storage, with some still in service (being retired). Older tanks have been either destroyed or turned into specialised vehicles. The CFE treaty allowed Greece 1,735 tanks.
Cyprus also has more than 41 tanks. There are 5 tank battalions in Cyprus, although 2 are equipped with M48s from Greece (counted in the Greek number of tanks). There are 41 (with another 41 being delivered now) T-80U tanks, and 113 AMX-30 tanks that belong to the Cypriot government. Active personnel is also probably slightly more, about 11,000-12,000 men.--Xristar (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The total is for Greek equipment, not Greek and Cypriot. I don't see the problem here... get reliable sources for that and it can be changed. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that the number of combat aircraft is measured differently for different countries. For some it includes pretty much all aircraft used by the military (from jet planes to transport helicopters), while for others it includes only the number of jet fighters (not even attack helicopters or training jets). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xristar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is true; at its current state, the section comparing strengths is of no use because every number is counted differently. Perhaps it should be something like "active modern fighter airplanes" so that historical WW2 planes, helicopters, transports, etc are not counted. 109.246.1.175 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Due to the removal of a table of force numbers from the article and ist replacement with this "Active Military Forces The EU's combined active troop total in 2008 was 1,800,707,[16] making the EU the worlds 2nd largest military force after the 2,300,000 strong People's Liberation Army. As of 2008, the European Union has an average of 80,177 Land Force troops deployed around the world. During a military surge the European Union can deploy 464,574 Land Force troops, of those 464,574 troops, 125,237 can be sustained in a large scale long term conflict.[17]" I have performed a large scale revert to the 25th of July edit," As I'm sure most editors will agree this is unacceptable. This is misleading "making the EU the worlds 2nd largest military force" as the EU members have not combined their military forces into one. Simply Recon.Army discuss your large scale edits here in future please. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am here for this also. If the forces table is to be removed I would want to hear some discussion as to why first. The table contains a large amount of information not found elsewhere. Blue Rasberry 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Forces table needs sorting before its incuded in the article Recon.Army (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll start working on it, leave the current table in though.

This heading in the side panel should be removed. There is no such position, as the 'military', as such, is not one body. Certainly, one could describe the c-in-c as being the 27 member states heads of state in a metaphorical sense, but not in fact.--jrl 04:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1,8 million active soldiers in the ground forces without naval and air force personnel means that the EU are number 1 in total active troops. China has something like 1,7 million groundtroops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.210.22 (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no EU military!, plus, the sources used for manpower are outdated and inaccurate. As of 2011, there are only the Common Security and Defence Policy, European Defence Initiative, Synchronised Armed Forces Europe, and the European Rapid Reaction Force. This article should be removed and is ignorant toward the EU member states sovereign military forces. 194.46.174.44 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree - I do wonder why this article exists. Perhaps for those who wish there were an EU military? But this is meant to be an encyclopaedia not a wish list for European federalists. David (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ready Treaties of Brussels and Lisbon before than writing anti EU things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.94.54 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have read those treaties - I did that whilst studying law. As for "anti EU"... how is it "anti EU" to point out the FACT that it doesn't have a military? David (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a little crazy to say that the EU has a military. It's a bit like saying that NATO has a military. It doesn't. NATO has member states who contribute to an overall military force. It has a framework for cooperation between national militaries, however if the president of the EU council call a UK General and told him to invade Crimea you can bet the General's next call would be to the UK Prime Minister's office for approval. The Troops in the EU do not share a chain of command, uniforms, or ID cards. Intelligence is shared not as a military shares but as allies share. --Drewder (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unlike NATO, the EU is not a military alliance. It is an economic and political alliance. Ezza1995 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mainly, EU is an economic and political entity but with elements a military alliance. The beginnings joint forces (for example EU Battlegroups), peacekeeping missions with its own army (for example European Union Force) etc. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the European military expenditure section I find the following sentence: second only to the €392 ($533.8) billion military expenditure of the United States. I can't find a source stating the US spending to be '$533.8'. In the nearest reference (currently [12])[1] it states the US spent '$689 billion' in 2010. Should this be corrected (together with the weirdly inserted chart)? AgamemnonZ (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This country has 113 F16 and not only 86 as written.Around 30 are in reserve.All datas are dated for all EU members.Vandalic act is also not changing old and wrong datas.Wiki is doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.94.54 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

If deletes this article Wikipedia is anti EU.EU people will ban Wikipedia from their researches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.94.54 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wow. How childish. David (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the Invincible-class technically a carrier and not an amphibious assault ship ? I think the Naval table should be edited to 6 active carriers instead of 5, seeing that the HMS Illustrious is still in service. [2] 94.212.59.244 (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Subtropical-man, I don't understand some of the changes you've made, for example, both the UK and Germany have 100 Eurofighters in service, plus you haven't put explanations of the changes in the edit summary. Kookiethebird (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

My changes are update data in a table and based on the source: World Air Forces 2013, this is reliable and independent source. If there are other sources (reliable and current: 2012-2013), you can improve the number of Eurofighters. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's quite reliable, if you read it carefully, but it says "Others which are pending purchase approval or contract signature are marked with an asterisk. This category includes current planned order totals, which may be subject to future revision." So all "F-35 orders" are actually intention to buy, not the orders. Also types such as Eurofighters used for operational conversion listed in training aircraft section are still combat capable.--SojerPL (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the referece from where the writer has picked up the information about a green water or blue water navy. Can someone give me light about it?' Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.33.2.101 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Federica Mogherini has followed Catherine Ashton .Why did somebody delete EU Coat of Arms with a vandalic act?151.40.48.207 (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The military of the EU is that part of the national militaries which are allocated to the EU. It is simply not correct that the "military of the European Union comprises the several national armed forces of the Union's 28 member states". That is like saying that the armed forces of the UN are the national armed forces all UN members.125.237.105.102 (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes; agreed. bobrayner (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, not agreed. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Have you got any sources to support this remarkable stance? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article does not make the assertion there is a single EU military force. It does however, give a detailed overview of the many defence organisations and policy led initiatives set up within the EU, which naturally consist of the many sovereign military forces. Unlike the United Nations, the EU is a close political and economic union with a 'common security and defence policy', as well as a foreign policy. They are distinctly different. Antiochus the Great (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article does, however, have a military infobox complete with coat of arms, links to a "staff", and so on - just like any other unitary military force. In reality, these are not appropriate for the EU's various national armed forces. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have to say that I agree that this article does give the misleading impression that there is such a thing as an EU military. It seems that some (somewhat deluded, frankly) pro-EU editors have over the years maintained this page (and resisted numerous calls over the years to 'tone down' - see previous Talk page discussion) to give such an impression, which is extraordinary considering that the EU is far from having anything like a military of its own or a system that combines its members' militaries. The infobox is one obvious area of concern, for sure.

That's not to say that there isn't a place for this article: the EU does have some (and it is VERY limited) scope in the area of common defence/operations, and it is perhaps handy to view the various EU members' militaries together in order to compare them - though again the article in places gives the impression that these various militaries somehow "combine" to form one uber force, which is utterly wrong.

Please can rational minded editors (and I make this plea particularly to Antiochus, who I have high regard for in his maintenance and expansion of military-related matters on Wikipedia) re-consider what this page is for and how to re-role it so that it fairly and accurately represents the truth about the EU in this regard. Thanks. Argovian (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words Argovian, likewise I have high regard for your contributions too. I also appreciate you coming here and expressing your opinion so eloquently. I must say, I do share some of the sentiments expressed here. Particularly regarding the infobox and the need to 'tone down' some parts of the article. In fact, I have been pondering for quite sometime about starting a thread on renaming the article to Military cooperation in the European Union, as I think this is a far better representation of what is actually being discussed in the article. I think now is a good a time as any to do so, considering we are all here. Any thoughts? Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good edits so far. The sentence "...as well as the creation of separate international forces revolving around the EU's defence" might need addressing - these international forces are not really to do with the defence of the EU itself, rather they tend to be involved in protecting/enforcing the Union's (or its member states') interests beyond the EU's borders.

Regarding renaming the article - I'd leave that alone, though if it were to change I'd prefer "Defence.." rather than "Military.." (eg possibly Defence cooperation in the European Union). Argovian (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've been racking my brain around how to sort out the first sentence. The problem is how to sum up what the article is about in a concise and clear way. The article involves: 1. defence policy/framework of the European Union (ie the Treaties, EU initiatives, etc), 2. the various multinational units and cooperations formed by the members' armed forces, and 3. an overview of the members' armed forces. Argovian (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

As for the name of the article - I've changed my mind... it does need changing! Would make more sense, be more relevant and make forming a coherent lede sentence a lot easier if it were "Military cooperation..." or "Defence cooperation..."! Argovian (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes it would make it easier to form a more coherent lead. I also prefer your suggestion of "Defence" over "Military", so Defence cooperation in the European Union is what we are leaning towards I presume? Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Current name (Military of the European Union) is good, no need to change. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Even though there is no such thing? *sigh* Instead of being so stubborn, please think about the issues raised and alternative naming ideas given by myself, Antiochus et al. Argovian (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Defence/military cooperation (or policy/initiatives/frameworks etc) is exactly what this article is about. It is not about a military (largely - and this should not be novel revelation - because there is no such thing as the military of the EU). The article, as I recapped above, is about three things: 1. defence policy/framework of the European Union (ie the Treaties, EU initiatives, etc), 2. the various multinational units and cooperations formed by the members' armed forces, and 3. an overview of the members' armed forces. Argovian (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

If necessary, European Union may take various military units (soldiers, ships, aircrafts) of member states and may lead them. Also European Union has its own agencies for the army and protect the EU. In addition, created a number of units specially for European Union' military actions, for example EU battlegroups and even EUFOR and more. At any time, the EU can send thousands of troops to any corner of the world and the troops have designation/flag of EU on the uniforms and military equipments. The title of article is entirely right and correct. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Like Subtropical, I don't see how the current title is inaccurate. A military is simply a military force, or group of military forces. That said, a more precise title may be appropriate. Rob984 (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ridiclous complaint. That's like saying that the National Guard of the United States is wrongly named because each of the 50 states have their own force not controlled by a central authority, exact same case as the one given here. The article title is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

What's ridiculous is your comparison of the National Guard with the armed forces of the European nations. If you can't see the obvious differences between the United States and the European Union in this matter... well, I give up. Argovian (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I support what Subtropical said. The title of the Article is correct. Barjimoa (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The preamble states that "This article is about the totality of military cooperation between member states of the European Union, as well as national capabilities". In other words, it's about military matters within the EU. The article also mentions US and other forces that are in Europe, but are obviously not of Europe or the EU. Shouldn't the title therefore be "Military Within the European Union" (or something more grammatically correct), instead of the current "Military of the European Union"? EddieHugh (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Previous discussion here #EU military, which gives an explanation for the current title. In summary, the problem with narrowing the title is that it wouldnt cover the whole topic (national militaries, cooperation, etc.), and there's nothing actually wrong with the current title. "Military" is just a group of forces. Its no less correct then saying the "geography of the EU", "cities of the EU", "people of the EU", "national governments of the EU", etc.. The EU is actual place, and it contains military forces. Military of Iceland discusses NATO missions, and the history of US forces stationed there. Rob984 (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

My proposal would widen the title, not narrow it. This is necessary to reflect the current contents, which include things which are not EU. 'A of B' can indicate that 'A is a property of B', e.g. 'the price of oil', or that 'A is a part of B', as in some of the examples you gave. This difference creates the confusion that leads me and others to question if the title could be more accurate (you yourself stated that it could be). My proposal would remove the ambiguity. EddieHugh (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429211047/http://www.diis.dk/sw87465.asp?csref=RSS to http://www.diis.dk/sw87465.asp?csref=RSS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515003055/http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720160258/http://espace-finabel.eu/public/images/stories/Finabel/Finabel_UK-midres.pdf to http://espace-finabel.eu/public/images/stories/Finabel/Finabel_UK-midres.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.euromarfor.org/images/stories/EUROMARFOR_arte_final.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.euromarfor.org/images/stories/pdfs/retrospectiva_29ago11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118182921/http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/Organisation/The-Royal-Swedish-Navy/ to http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/Organisation/The-Royal-Swedish-Navy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180212/http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r00003.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r00003.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213180054/http://www.forumoneurope.ie/eng/index.asp?docID=567 to http://www.forumoneurope.ie/eng/index.asp?docID=567
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.navy.ro/en/index1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply