European Battle groups

Ivan

Anyone hear anything about this?

I just heard that there is to be a 12-13 of these so called battle groups created.
Consisting of 1,500 soldiers per group.
Quick response force for peace keeping missions etc. etc.
France & Britain have apparently pledged a full group each.
Norway (Non-EU), Sweden and one other, cant remember which, are creating their own.

These 3 countries, which are all neutral countries, are normally Irelands Allies but it would seem they have stiffed us and not invited or even discussed it with us. Even though we are apparently interested.

Was just on the 6o'clock news on RTE 1. If anyone sees it at 11 or finds a link, could you post it, I'm a little unsure about the exact details.

Sounds fantastic to me, bout time we started getting our shít together.
Cant believe Britain is going for it. Whats the story with Germany?

Memnoch

yay thank you bush... go go euro army!

lets just hope its used for actual peace keeping and not conquest.

DadaKopf

The new Battle Groups thingy was announced formally at Kofi Annan's speech in Dublin a few weeks ago, I think. The idea is that it ties in with the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, which, in conjunction with the EU's development co-operation with the developing world, is trying to push the idea of 'comprehensive security' or 'Human Security'. Human insecurity generally refers people being denied their universal rights and freedoms, so the Battle Groups, theoretically, will be in the business of backing up the good intentions of the international community in the protection of these rights. These are, apparently, the only reasons Battle Groups can respond to emergencies, but I don't know, human security encompasses an awful lot of stuff.

Dub13

Ireland could participate in new EU elite battle groups
22/11/2004 - 19:34:01

The EU is to set up 13 elite battle groups with the ability to respond quickly to international crises.

It is hoped the 1,500 strong units will give Europe a credible, rapidly-deployable force, whose main aim will be to intervene early in international troublespots before a full-blown crisis develops.

The units will also have a role in conventional peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.

Defence Minister Willie O'Dea has said Irish troops will participate only if the UN approves the intervention of the units.

He said: “My view is that participation in the battle groups means we are doing exactly the same thing as we did in the past. The only difference here is the speed of the deployment - you have to get the troops in quickly because of the conditions of modern warfare."

OfflerCrocGod

Oh please when will they EVER be used? Sounds great but will more then likely never be used, what a pity though.

Nuttzz

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Oh please when will they EVER be used? Sounds great but will more then likely never be used, what a pity though.

In a couple of months, they are taking over from NATO in Kosovo, kfor will become an EU operation

arcadegame2004

Those who call for a multipolar world in which Washington ceases to have an absolute 100% monopoly over international influence, actually help perpetuate that monopoly when they object to any sort of common EU foreign and security policy. I have no problems with this battlegroup. Ireland retains the right to opt out of missions we do not like, and so our neutrality is not in any danger, especially considering the change to the Irish Constitutioon added to the Nice Treaty referendum the second time around requires the Irish Govt to hold referendums on participation by Irish soldiers in common EU defence actions.. Hopefully these battlegroups will help stop and prevent future Screbrenica-style situations.

Sweden hasn't been to war in 200 years. Switzerland hasn't been at war with another country for 500 years. Are the opponents of this EU idea advocating that improvement in military capability automatically amounts to a disavowal of neutrality? If so then I think they are jumping to conclusions not unlike those jumped to by the No side in the various EU referendums of the past.

chill

Memnoch wrote:

yay thank you bush... go go euro army!

lets just hope it's used for actual peace keeping and not conquest.

I certainly hope not.

The UN is a perfectly good peace keeping organisation. What we need is a force that is capable of being used in a proactive manner like Yugoslavia where Europe did nothing and depended on the US completely. The UN has surely now been shown as a completely impotent organisation for proactive action - which never surprised me as it is NOT what it was designed for.
Congrats to Norway and Sweded who are waking up the reality of the modern world and the irrelevance and irrelevance of 'neutrality' against terrorism and it's threat.
I pray that we in ireland will drop this 'sham' sooner than later.

OfflerCrocGod

Nuttzz wrote:

In a couple of months, they are taking over from NATO in Kosovo, kfor will become an EU operation

I mean in actual aggresive operations, not cleaning up after something we were too useless to stop ourselves.

chill wrote:

I pray that we in ireland will drop this 'sham' sooner than later.

Amen Brother!

chewy

Those who call for a multipolar world in which Washington ceases to have an absolute 100% monopoly over international influence, actually help perpetuate that monopoly when they object to any sort of common EU foreign and security policy.

yeah I reckon we should point all our(the EU) nukes at the USA

I have no problems with this battlegroup. Ireland retains the right to opt out of missions we do not like, and so our neutrality is not in any danger, especially considering the change to the Irish Constitutioon added to the Nice Treaty referendum the second time around requires the Irish Govt to hold referendums on participation by Irish soldiers in common EU defence actions.. Hopefully these battlegroups will help stop and prevent future Screbrenica-style situations.

what does mean in practice
eh does that mean if a situation was to flare up within weeks, we gotta rush to the polls?

Sweden hasn't been to war in 200 years. Switzerland hasn't been at war with another country for 500 years. Are the opponents of this EU idea advocating that improvement in military capability automatically amounts to a disavowal of neutrality? If so then I think they are jumping to conclusions not unlike those jumped to by the No side in the various EU referendums of the past.I have no problems with this battlegroup. Ireland retains the right to opt out of missions we do not like, and so our neutrality is not in any danger, especially considering the change to the Irish Constitutioon added to the Nice Treaty referendum the second time around requires the Irish Govt to hold referendums on participation by Irish soldiers in common EU defence actions.. Hopefully these battlegroups will help stop and prevent future Screbrenica-style situations.

surely within this sentence you given the very reason it was wise for certain groups to advocate a no to the eu referenda on this basis...

thejollyrodger

These 3 countries, which are all neutral countries, are normally Irelands Allies but it would seem they have stiffed us and not invited or even discussed it with us. Even though we are apparently interested.

Thats becase Ireland wont get off the fence about Defence. Were suppossed to be neutral but dont act like it. Certainly not like the other neutrals. They have plenty of experience of us to know how infurating it must be so why hang around ?

some news stories about the battle groups can be found at

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=4848

you can see the amount of stalling there is already :rolleyes:

Victor

Ivan wrote:

Norway (Non-EU), Sweden and one other, cant remember which, are creating their own.

Norway isn't a neutral country. It is a member of NATO.

sovtek

Memnoch wrote:

yay thank you bush... go go euro army!

lets just hope its used for actual peace keeping and not conquest.

I was reading an interesting theory the other day that the Bush regime is keeping the dollar weak so as to weaken the EU so much that they will have to make cuts in social spending (not that I believe it necessarily).
If that's the case then you might need that EU military build up soon enough.

Victor

sovtek wrote:

I was reading an interesting theory the other day that the Bush regime is keeping the dollar weak so as to weaken the EU so much that they will have to make cuts in social spending (not that I believe it necessarily). If that's the case then you might need that EU military build up soon enough.

Eh, that a bit tangental, conspiratorial and well loony to be honest. But read these.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1122/euro.html
http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1122/germany.html
http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1122/eurozone.html

sovtek

Victor wrote:

Eh, that a bit tangental, conspiratorial and well loony to be honest. But read these.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1122/euro.html
http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1122/germany.html
http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1122/eurozone.html

Hence

sovtek wrote:

(not that I believe it necessarily)

I found the comment about "structural barriers" at the G20 meeting by the American delegate interesting though.

Sand

In a couple of months, they are taking over from NATO in Kosovo, kfor will become an EU operation

Well, for me that totally devalues them - how will they be able to rapidly deploy into hotspots when theyre tied down to garrison duty? Their whole reason for being should mean they should be kept free from long term duties.

Mind you, thats probably the point of deploying them into Kosovo - a worthy task that ensures the EU can shrug and say, "God Id love to be able to help you out with security in Darfur, but were tied up in Kosovo:( - cant you find some Pakistani and Bangladeshi peacekeepers to go in instead?" whenever the UN goes round looking for troops to be deployed into some hellhole with no exit strategy beyond the inevitable retreat after a year or two.

Ivan

Sand wrote:

Well, for me that totally devalues them - how will they be able to rapidly deploy into hotspots when theyre tied down to garrison duty? Their whole reason for being should mean they should be kept free from long term duties.

Mind you, thats probably the point of deploying them into Kosovo - a worthy task that ensures the EU can shrug and say, "God Id love to be able to help you out with security in Darfur, but were tied up in Kosovo:( - cant you find some Pakistani and Bangladeshi peacekeepers to go in instead?" whenever the UN goes round looking for troops to be deployed into some hellhole with no exit strategy beyond the inevitable retreat after a year or two.

Firstly there are 13 groups of 1500 soldiers. How many do you need for peace keeping missions?

Secondly, they apparently have a maximum mission length of 4 months.

Horeb

Dub13 wrote:

Ireland could participate in new EU elite battle groups
22/11/2004 - 19:34:01

The EU is to set up 13 elite battle groups with the ability to respond quickly to international crises.

It is hoped the 1,500 strong units will give Europe a credible, rapidly-deployable force, whose main aim will be to intervene early in international troublespots before a full-blown crisis develops.

The units will also have a role in conventional peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.

Defence Minister Willie O'Dea has said Irish troops will participate only if the UN approves the intervention of the units.

He said: “My view is that participation in the battle groups means we are doing exactly the same thing as we did in the past. The only difference here is the speed of the deployment - you have to get the troops in quickly because of the conditions of modern warfare."

How is it that we are going to contribute to this task force, when we are going to reduce the PDF by 2000 next year and we can't even get enough man power to go on cash escorts and also very little men are volunteering.

Methinks the Dept.of Defence has it's head up it's arse.

Recruits here in Dublin are actually getting second hand uniforms as there is no budget for them.

We are trying to play with the big boys, yet we have no toys...I am all for us being in an EU type force but we have to rejig the Army before it is done.

The Corinthian

Ivan wrote:

These 3 countries, which are all neutral countries, are normally Irelands Allies but it would seem they have stiffed us and not invited or even discussed it with us. Even though we are apparently interested.

Apparently we were only interested enough to offer to contribute three officers, acting as advisors, at the start so it’s not surprising we’re not exactly at the forefront on this one.

m1ke

Definitely a good idea and badly needed. With European countries collectively spending about 2/3rds of what the US spends on the military/defence its a collective farce that Europe wasn't able to mobilise its forces to response to ethic cleansing and violations of human rights in the Balkans, our own back garden. I hope Ireland contributes its share relative to our size and we stop kidding ourselves with this neutrality bs.

sovtek

m1ke wrote:

Definitely a good idea and badly needed. With European countries collectively spending about 2/3rds of what the US spends on the military/defence its a collective farce that Europe wasn't able to mobilise its forces to response to ethic cleansing and violations of human rights in the Balkans, our own back garden.

Spending heaps on money on pork projects for politician's favor had very little to do with the Balkans.

Sand

Firstly there are 13 groups of 1500 soldiers. How many do you need for peace keeping missions?

Kosovos a fairly tense place as the riots not so long ago showed. 13 battlegroups of 1500 troops is about 19,500 troops which Id imagine would be the least required to keep a lid on the situation in Kosovo.

Secondly, they apparently have a maximum mission length of 4 months.

Im sure that is more an exscuse to pull them out if for whatever reason they cant get out of being deployed into some hell hole rather than as a bar to being tied up in Kosovo.

arcadegame2004

surely within this sentence you given the very reason it was wise for certain groups to advocate a no to the eu referenda on this basis...

What do your mean? That the EU should turn a blind eye to genocide on its own doorsteps? What has that got to commend it? :mad:

The Corinthian

arcadegame2004 wrote:

What do your mean? That the EU should turn a blind eye to genocide on its own doorsteps? What has that got to commend it? :mad:

Why don’t you just cry out - “will someone please think of the children!!??” - it would probably be more intellectually honest. Marginally.

chill

m1ke wrote:

Definitely a good idea and badly needed. With European countries collectively spending about 2/3rds of what the US spends on the military/defence

Agreed.
Europe has sat around since WWII and outsourced it's security to the US because it was convenient and cheap. The problem is it was short sighted and the payback is now being felt. Now the EU has no military voice and no political voice around the world, because the two go together.
Although I cannot stick France's attitudes and policies... they have been consistently the only one's that have appreciated the need for independent capability and a need for an EU military capability independent of the US.

its a collective farce that Europe wasn't able to mobilise its forces to response to ethic cleansing and violations of human rights in the Balkans, our own back garden.

It was a farce and a pathetic embarrassment. I hope that current events will result in some kind of realisation that this must end.

I hope Ireland contributes its share relative to our size and we stop kidding ourselves with this neutrality bs.

Absolutely right !

chill

Sand wrote:

Well, for me that totally devalues them - how will they be able to rapidly deploy into hotspots when theyre tied down to garrison duty?

I don't agree. It's an excelent first step in the development of this force, giving them an opportunity to develop their communications and co-ordination capabilities in a fairly soft environment to start with. Different languages, different equipment, different traditions, different systems.

Their whole reason for being should mean they should be kept free from long term duties.

Why ? I don't believe any unit that expects to tackle combat situations should ever be held back sitting around on their arses waiting to be called. They need to be involved constantly in activities where they can practice, train, test and evaluate their capabilities.

mycroft

chill wrote:

Agreed.
Europe has sat around since WWII and outsourced it's security to the US because it was convenient and cheap. The problem is it was short sighted and the payback is now being felt. Now the EU has no military voice and no political voice around the world,

One of the great myths propogated by the pro US side is that europe is filled with a bunch sissy's who run from a fight and don't even have the weapons to fight with.

Europe has two of the worlds nuclear powers, two of the worlds nuclear powered navy's and some of the best trained troops in the world. Just because we don't see fit to have a massive army and like to occasionally throw money in social spending, we're perceived as "weak"

Personally, I'm looking at this as being the first steps towards the EU becoming a superpower. This creation of a military force, that doesn't rely on US support is the first step towards Europe being for Europe, rather than Europe being the US's lapdog.

chill

mycroft wrote:

One of the great myths propogated by the pro US side is that europe is filled with a bunch sissy's who run from a fight and don't even have the weapons to fight with.

You must be kidding. The Pro US side WANTS Europe to stay as we are... to stay impotent and on the sidelines.

Europe has two of the worlds nuclear powers,....

Yes. But what use are they ? Are you seriously sugesting that we threaten their use ?

....two of the worlds nuclear powered navy's ...

ditto above

...and some of the best trained troops in the world.

So what ? What's the point in havinga few thousand well trained troops ? The vast majority of Europe's armies are non combatants. The rest add up to a shadow of the UK's or the US's.

Just because we don't see fit to have a massive army and like to occasionally throw money in social spending, we're perceived as "weak"

There is abaolutely no need to have a 'massive' army. And we are not only perceived as weak... we ARE pitifully weak and have no ability to back up any position we hold in any location in the world. Not even in our own backyard (Yugoslavia) could we do anything.

chill

Deleted User wrote:

Personally, I'm looking at this as being the first steps towards the EU becoming a superpower. This creation of a military force, that doesn't rely on US support is the first step towards Europe being for Europe, rather than Europe being the US's lapdog.

Yes and no. Yes it is hopefully the first step to being for Europe and not subserviant to the US.
But no we are not and have no need to become a superpower. We just need to be able to apply some military clout corresponding to our position in the world, as a balancing weight against the US domincation in World events.

mycroft

chill wrote:

There is abaolutely no need to have a 'massive' army. And we are not only perceived as weak... we ARE pitifully weak and have no ability to back up any position we hold in any location in the world. Not even in our own backyard (Yugoslavia) could we do anything.

snip....oh ffs you muppet, I was merely pointing out that having two nuclear powers does not make for the perception of a weak superpower,

Now I'm getting fed up with this. Every time you post something like this

we are not only perceived as weak...

I'm going to ask you for a link to support this, where are we precieved, says who, when, and ask for supporting allegations. And if you fail to do so, I'll report the post to a mod, I'm bloody sick of you posting unsupported claims.

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

Yes and no. Yes it is hopefully the first step to being for Europe and not subserviant to the US.
But no we are not and have no need to become a superpower. We just need to be able to apply some military clout corresponding to our position in the world, as a balancing weight against the US domincation in World events.

One for that proposed Anti-american tinfoil hat forum. :mad:

Victor

m1ke wrote:

Europe wasn't able to mobilise its forces to response to ethic cleansing and violations of human rights in the Balkans

The thing is, the EU's back garden bordered against Russia back Garden....

Ivan wrote:

Secondly, they apparently have a maximum mission length of 4 months.

The idea being that a permanent (if necessary) mission would be set up in that time.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

snip....oh ffs you muppet,

One week ban.

jc

chill

mycroft wrote:

snip....oh ffs you muppet, I was merely pointing out that having two nuclear powers does not make for the perception of a weak superpower,

Then say so more clearly.

I'm going to ask you for a link to support this, where are we precieved, says who, when, and ask for supporting allegations. And if you fail to do so, I'll report the post to a mod, I'm bloody sick of you posting unsupported claims.

It may seem hard to grasp but some of us are capable of having our 'own' opinions. I believe Europe is perceived as weak all across the world, including in the middle east, africa, asia etc. People there have a very positive view of the EU but have no confidence that anything we say or do carries any weight if the US takes an alternative view.
I don't need to find some half baked journalist to write a column in some newspaper or some web site to cite as a reference. I have business contacts, personal family contacts and on line correspondees as well as a life time of experience on which to base my opinions.

gandalf

chill wrote:

I don't need to find some half baked journalist to write a column in some newspaper or some web site to cite as a reference. I have business contacts, personal family contacts and on line correspondees as well as a life time of experience on which to base my opinions.

Well unfortunately for you we need more than your hearsay as proof. I believe you have been warned in the past about backing up your facts and it is plainly clear that you have ignored this.

1 week ban to clarify your position.

Sand

I don't agree. It's an excelent first step in the development of this force, giving them an opportunity to develop their communications and co-ordination capabilities in a fairly soft environment to start with. Different languages, different equipment, different traditions, different systems.

NATO and that Partnership for Peace should have got most (western )European forces integrated by now in terms of communications, equipment and training by now. I assumethey covered those basics when theyve been spending the past 50 odd years preparing to hold the Red Army at the fulda gap.

If anything the major stumbling block will be political integration - with 25 or so voices around the table it will be very hard to get anything approaching a common position as the Iraq war showed. Add on that the deal for these battlegroups envisages a certain sort of pre-emptive operation, and add to the fact many of these situations could get bogged down if one side views the battlegroups as assisting their enemies.

Why ? I don't believe any unit that expects to tackle combat situations should ever be held back sitting around on their arses waiting to be called. They need to be involved constantly in activities where they can practice, train, test and evaluate their capabilities.

If theyre assigned duties in Kosovo, and a situation brews up in say Darfur, theyre supposed to deploy inside a week or so. They cant just drop everything in Kosovo and run off leaving the place to fall apart. Someone has to cover for them - and military forces arent renowned for the speed with which they can deploy, which is why such a big deal is made about these battlegroups.

So yes, to fufill their supposed misson, they have to be held back, sitting on their arses waiting to be called.

And all miltiary forces worthy of the name are constantly engaged in activities where they can practice, train, test, and evaluate their capabilities. Having a responsibility to police a tense situation like Kosovo will not leave a lot of time for that training. So again, it would be best for them to be sitting on their arses waiting to be called.

In an ideal world these battlegroups would be used to cool down a situation before it gets hot, and then be relieved by UN peacekeepers, freeing them up to be deployed again elsewhere. If theyre being given garrison duty in Kosovo then its a clear ploy to ensure the EU has an exscuse not to support the UN when it doesnt want to.

HaVoC

European may have nuclear powers but that’s just, you have your so we have ours situation in the modern world nukes aren’t that useful especially for the task envisaged for these battle groups.

Logistically I can't see this force being very rapid. The cog of Modern warfare is the aircraft carrier I’m not sure about France but Britain has a grand total of 3. Though there getting more new carriers
But that’s nothing to Americas 13 to 14 can't remember how many. Basically you need a large aircraft carrier fleet for a mobile base and the right planes and choppers to deploy you troops for a rapid response role and Europe hast got this yet anyway.
Look at the Falklands, Britain barely won that war their fleet was like a week away from collapse when it ended.