7 ms·
EU is indeed a military alliance. They are just no integrated command structures but this is common among most military alliances across the world. SAFE credit
by snowpid 18d ago
EU is indeed a military alliance. They are just no integrated command structures but this is common among most military alliances across the world.
SAFE credits are an EU military thing.
- broken-kebab 18d agoThe mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force even in case of aggression. A member can send blankets, food rations, or even just express diplomatic solidarity. Stretching definitions enough one can call it military alliance, but it is not in any practical form.
- snowpid 18d agoYou are wrong https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83aca60333593f753ccbbf/kollektiver-beistand-in-der-eu-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83ac...
- broken-kebab 18d agoLooks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response
- Supermancho 18d agoMoving the goalpost out to "automatic military response" is not compelling.
- broken-kebab 18d agoI literally started the discussion from the point that "the mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force" - quoting from the comment just 2 levels above. So which goalpost is being moved here?
- snowpid 18d agoI started the discussion with the EU is infact a military alliance. You shifted the goal post by your counter argument. Talking about EU politics you have to use non English sources sometimes. Why not auto translate them?
- broken-kebab 17d agoI shifted nothing, and as we are on the nets, everybody can verify it above. I said you can stretch the notion of military alliance to cover the EU, but because nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. Like if Russia lands on IS, there's no agreement to defend it even if it joined the union. >Why not auto translate them? I did, and I clearly mentioned it. And it supports what I said, isn't it? Can we please agree to read those letters in full, and not run to accuse me after finishing just the first sentence?
- snowpid 16d ago" nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. " 1.) My source claims the opposite. 2.) This is the same for NATO and Mecca Pact practically. 3.) Actually a lot of lawyers see the EU article is more stricter than the NATO article. I trust them more than a goal shifting HN poster.
- broken-kebab 16d ago1. You are welcome to cite exact wording. 2. That's literally the first normal argument you expressed in the thread. I'm so delighted! NATO is practically very much different, cause it has tried-and-proven structures, drills, and more importantly American military behind it. Given the current state of affairs we of course can have our doubts, but during its existence there always has been a wide consensus, that the USA considers NATO members its area of responsibility, and are ready to act. And the alliance's Article 5 is way more obliging. Once agreed it forces members to regard themselves to be in conflict. 3. Good ones, bad ones, imagined ones? Care to show them? Ad hominem doesn't make anybody look smart. Dishonest ad hominem, I guess, even worse?
- 1718627440 18d agoThe relevant quote in the document is actually in English though. So it does say required by all that is in their power. Whether that is enforceable is another measure, but that is true for a lot of rights.
- mytailorisrich 18d agoOK, the Treaty of the EU does have a mutual defence clause but the military is specifically out of scope. Considering the huge ramifications of EU membership in all areas it still does seem ridiculously onerous if you are "just" after security and NATO-like alliances.