https://preview.redd.it/qzu80nqlm5e61.jpg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c98b6c1aaad8b2036578a8c8a47261f71b315de

All coloured countries are the 28 member states of the EU.

Among them, France (CFP #7), UK (CFP #8), Italy (CFP #12), Germany (CFP #15), Spain (CFP #18), Poland (CFP #23), Greece (CFP #29), Czech Republic (CFP #34), Sweden (CFP #31) and Netherlands (CFP #37) are the 10 most militarily powerful countries in the EU according to the CFP ranking (Source:https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp)

2 of these countries (UK & FR) are considered a nuclear power. A good 30% of the world's defence equipment comes from EU countries. Technologies from firearms to tanks, submarines, ships, helicopters to airfighters to missiles and various other defence systems are already part of the repertoire of the EU states.

Given these circumstances, an EU army would probably be in the top 3 of the CFP. Russia, at least, would not be a rigorous military threat even without US involvement.

​

But what is the strategic value of an EU army?

​

An independent policy requires both economic, military and technological strength. To remain largely independent of external elements, all three must be adequately developed. At present, the EU's economy and technology make it a diplomatic force, but it is still too passive for defence.

Although the CSDP (Common Security and Defense Policy) and EUMS (EU Military Staff) exist, it is currently not the EU but US-led NATO that is seen as the integral part of EU defence. For the EU to have its own policy independent of the US and its interests, this must be reversed. For this, an EU defence must be put in the foreground and NATO in the background. An EU army within NATO is a good way to achieve this.

​

Wouldn't an EU army endanger the sovereignty of the member states?

​

The first steps towards an EU army have already been taken. For example, there are EU peacekeeping forces that currently carry out UN missions under French leadership. In addition, there are corps from a cooperation of various EU countries. These exist in addition to the national armies, so that sovereignty is not restricted.

However, replacing the national armies with an EU army has a significant advantage over the expansion of an EU army alongside the national armies. This would make warfare between EU states practically impossible.

However, it is then important that EU states have some control over EU troops operating within their own borders, so that the sovereignty of the member state is not endangered. In addition, the army must be under the control of the European Council (not to be confused with the Council of Europe) and the EU Parliament. The presidents of both bodies must not have a leading role, but only a representative one, whereby a member state should always be able to veto the stationing of EU units on its soil in peacetime.

This would not really endanger the sovereignty of the member state.

​

What does this mean for the balance of power in the world?

​

At present, there is hardly any balance between the world powers. The US is by far the largest military faction with rigorous influence across Europe and the Middle East. Together with the US-led NATO, the West is the strongest faction, against which Russia and China or other states do not stand a chance.

This strength is not least abused. The operation in Iraq could be seen as a prominent example of this. In order to prevent this, it would be important and right for NATO to slowly assume a subordinate role exclusively as a defence union and for an EU army to emerge to safeguard EU interests. In this way, the US would gradually lose influence in the EMEA and the balance of power would be somewhat more balanced. An EU with an independent army would motivate the US to stop its partly aggressive foreign policy.