Pleeeaaaase I beg youuu, make videos on Latin American history, on the region's wars and important events. You keep doing European and US history that has been done over and over again by countless channels. Latin American history is barely discussed and is full of interesting and epic events that aren't told by any English media.
I have to admit, since leaving the EU it is rather fascinating to see how the EU will change and evolve from the sidelines. I’m still glad we’re out but hope for good relations.
Have to say the title of this video is quite misleading. I was expecting a video exploring the political and regulatory influence the EU has in the world, not a theorizing video about potential Federal EU. Still enjoyed it even though I got a different video than I was expecting :D
A lot of the video can be quite misleading. To take an obvious example, the point about how the EU hasn't yet 'enforced' its currency in certain member states... what's with that phrasing? Edit: watched the entire video now and it ends on a call for further integration. The phrasing seems like you're deliberately obfuscating the issues with EU integration. EU's great and all but now it just feels like political propaganda. At least handle current issues in a fair way. I'd expected better.
I was expecting something else also. I would have loved to see how a centralized European defense budget would invest in the security of the EU. What would be its most important sector of the defense. What some numbers would look like. Also which areas of the defense would be streamlined and made more efficient. The impact on EUs neighbors and areas of influence. Things like that. But I liked this video too
my main issue is that the question "can X be a superpower" is never followed by "what is a superpower". Citing Lebovic (2008), and Brooks & Wohlfort (2014) would have been a start, since power projection is commonly seen as a basic requirement. Not easy, mind you, as I'm trying to do just that in a paper. But you can't simply sum elements of national power and call it a day - nor can you disregard hard power.
Superpower is defined as country what can influence wole world and has strength to back it up. Great Powers have own zones of influences (so called Multi-Polar World), regional powers can impact own direct neighbours. And United States is conventional Superpower with all traits of it. Only two forces what can challenge US, are China and in fact EU. Though neither of them have expeditionary major forces to challenge US on the sea. Still US also can't invade them and they also have lot of soft power. There is also few Great Powers like UK (including Canada and Australia), France, Japan, South Korea or India. Who can push they influence outside near neighborhood. The case of Russia is unclear. Russia only have reputation of Superpower from time of Cold War. But that is it. They do not have strength to actually back it up. U would still say that they are Great Power. But declining. Currently Russia struggle to even hold local influence. After they disintegrate own military, they may not be even that.
There is several ways of determining what is a super power. I must admit the video lacks this information and evaluation. It is just a list of national elements of power for the EU. But I must admit that evaluating the aptitude of the EU to fullfill this prerequisites is quite hard because of it's internal structure. And the video makes a good job sumarizing thoose issues. Now on the topic of hard power, I'll use France for example because I know quite well military issues of my own country. A EU defense force is completely impossible in the current situation for the french parliament because absolutely NO country in Europe wants to abandon to another country any elements of military sovereignty (there is a strong morale obstacle for that : how would the french population accept, for exemple, that we send our comando-marine special force to death in a foreign country to protect polish, swedish, or hungarian citizens and no french ones ? Doing so would be very generous, very human, very chivalrous and stuff, but would the family and relatives of the soldiers sent there doing so accept it the same way ? And if so, for how long ?). For exemple, France is the only EU country able to project power over the globe (it's among the world top 3 with the US (which are three galaxies ahead) and the british). And even if you imagine building this power from scratch, France is the country in Europe that would contribute to it way more than any other : it's the only EU country that have meaningfull aircraft carriers (not talking of springboard boats here) and the means to build new ones. It's the only country in Europe that has meaningfull naval industry, a military tradition centered around projecting power, and military bases abroad to support thoose deployments. It's also the only EU power to have the atomic bomb. Yet, the French does not want to federalize the military with other EU country because that would mean that sending their boys abroad would be under the sovereignty of the EU parliament. And the political scene in France is not ready at all to abandon this key element of sovereignty to other countries that has no tradition in the matter. On the other hand, the EU has already shown that they can't cope with the french defense policy. Perun made a great video about french military doctrine in terms of strategy and defense budget, and notably the National Armament Agency (the DGA) in France, which is a structure that does not exist in any other democracy in europe. The DGA has no links with the political world, and the political world cannot study the armament budget in France. They can just vote it and say "Hay" or "Ney". It's not something that happens in other european countries. And yet, it is one of the reason why in France, despite a small military budget, the military is so competent. It always has what it requires, and the politics have nearly no words in that spendings. This is not acceptable for many democracies, but acceptable for the french ... And France is (if not the first, because we must take care of the poles, the greeks or the swedish for exemple, in terms of territorial defense, which are much stronger than France) among the top 3 military power in the EU. But there is also the atomic bomb which is an issue. France is the only EU military power with atomic power. Yet, the stockpiles of atomic bombs in France are enough to defend France sovereignty, but not European sovereignty. This means that the EU is a dwarf in terms of atomic armament, and many european countries know this very well. This is why they rather rely on US support and alliance than rely on a united european defense alliance or structure. In case of a stand-off between the EU and any other country that has atomic power in the world, the US will always be a better protection than the EU. For thoose reason, the EU is not, cannot, and never will be a military power on it's own, as long as it has not solved them (and I don't see any desirable or satisfying way of solving them in the near future. But that's personnal judgement). The EU has NO real hard power in any other continent than it's own. This is why it rely so heavily on it's soft power, which is way more powerful in terms of cultural and economic influence. Moreover, the creation or emergence of a EU centered hard power also require to study the views and interests of the United States in present days european defense system. But that's another debate :).
@@tedcrilly46 A coalition is always temporary. It's unity is always built around similar tactical and operational objectives. It can't handle long term theater scale strategical objectives. Coalitions are already a thing on thoose matters. But they are built by the addition of the military might of their members. They don't solve any of the previously mentioned issues.
0:50 You're wrong. The Schuman Declaration called for a single country as a federal union to be formed: "The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, ...". The first line proper of the Treaty of Rome calls for 'ever closer union', which refers to a single federal union.
Although there is no line in the Schuman Declaration that forbids federation as a solution, there was no intent for the federalization of Europe . The Schuman Declaration talks about economic cooperation AND a creation of a political entity that unites Europe. Not a sovereign entity, a political entity! Huge difference
European federation as mentioned in the Schuman Declaration should be understood as an organization that binds France-Germany and other states (actual line from the Declaration) in the co-production of Coal and Steel.
@@engelleip9625 The Declaration makes clear that the Coal & Steel Union is only a first step towards federalisation. This commitment was embedded into international law with the Treaty of Rome.
@@paulwood6729 you are repeating something that i have already explained so i am gonna repeat myself as well. The term federation as explained by Schuman in the Declaration which later was embedded in the Treaty of Rome as you have correctly said, was a High Authority-Organization where Germany, France and other european nations cooperate closely in economic affairs AND later it could become a political entity where european nations can cooperate closely in other issues such as security. There is NOT A SINGLE reference to the following words : sovereign state, one country. I mean before writing something let’s use common sense ok? 1950. 5 years after the end of the WW2. Germany was not even denazified. The Schuman Declaration was a radical idea that we as Europeans are thanking him for. But it was NOT THAT radical as you mention.
Just because it doesn't say it doesn't mean it doesn't imply it (and quite obviously it does, as a federation does mean sovereign state, one country). Does the Second Amendment in the US mention AR 15's or Colt's? No but it does iinclude that by saying "arms".
From an insiders perspective, the EU is a lot less the United States of Europe and more of a confederation of European nation states. The system requires a lot of compromises for it to work and not fall apart. France wants the EU to be a military geopolitical power that can rival both the US and China but other countries like Denmark, which didn’t have an imperialistic legacy, don’t share France’s militaristic vision.
Don't think the EU can depend on the USA to defend them if they're ever attacked in perpetuity. They're going to need some type of military because the US isn't always going to be there like a big brother.
I would argue that Eastern Europe even without imperialistic heritage is very much in favor of this because of their experiences living next to imperial legacies. It's true there is no unified vision on the future of the EU but to paint the desire to have a European army as just the dream of former imperial powers is completely detached from reality.
@@mormacil The problem is that while eastern EU countries are in favour of a strong defense policy, they are currently against an EU army because they fear it would disrupt NATO or even cause it to disband, which I personally don't find very logical.
@@mormacil It is highly unlikely that Eastern Europeans will accept any "One country" model. It's not only about Russia, we got NATO for that, but also the experiences of those who worked abroard then came back with terrible stories of how Western Europe looks like from a cultural perspective. Those who came back have the view that the West is good to make money and then come back to the safer East.
@@dalirfarzan1694 USA is part of NATO, so they have obligation to come and help as they have obligation to help the USA. NATO have 31 members now and 29 of them are in Europe. Finland alone has a wartime military strength of 280,000. With 700 howitzers, 700 heavy mortars, 100 MLS. It also have 64 F35's on order. Poland has 122,500 active personnel at this time and that number set to go up. Just in partnership with south Korea the Polish are getting 1000 new tanks, 648 self propelled howitzer and the list go on. They are also building 1400 IFV's themselves. With out the USA NATO still has 2million active and 1million reservist. 8,000 tanks, 8,000 artillery, 2,000 combat aircraft, 250 warships. Yes that has Canada counted in it as well, but still huge numbers.
Also, be aware that the EU is now looking to abolish the national veto, so that a majority vote by members will then be sufficient to change their policies, rather than an unanimous vote at present.
No it isn't, this is Euroskeptic disinformation. Some member states (Germany in particular) have suggested abolishing the national veto; the EU has made no moves towards any such decision, and is unlikely to ever do so, for the simple reason that any proposal to abolish the national veto... would need to get through the national veto.
The funny contradiction that we have in Europe is that people quickly get spooked by 'European Federation/superpower' or 'giving up sovereignty'. But pretty much everybody wants more cooperation > more integration between European countries.
Europe should unite to become it's own superpower or cease to become relevant or exist. The fact is no single European state or country can hope to match the economical, political or military power of nations like the US, China or worst yet, Russia. It's really just a matter of time before another superpower comes along and force their own authority upon any one or all EU members.
Well, well, well. This was the research question of my 12th grade school project, which was on the EU. And our project group came to the conclusion that EU is more like a 'civilian power' than a 'military power', and hence can't really be called a superpower in a conventional sense. It is really influential in economic matters and soft power in general, but lacking behind in military matters which can be resolved if the EU functioned more like a proper state than a regional organisation. Man, this is bringing back memories of late night discussions on our project file.
@@aayushdasgupta That project must've either failed or whatever backwards caveman land you originate from have no understanding of geopolitics or the instruments that a state apparatus possesses
It mostly depends on the will of the politicians. If national leaders would have taken responsibility and kept European armies in a proper state, the EU would have had the military power. Economically it isn't as strong as it seems as it completely depends on imports in crucial areas and it keeps depending on some countries instead of diversifying. The EU is a giant on extremely shaky foundations. the only strong point of the EU is its Soft power.
It's interesting you say that the existence of the EU too was unimaginable. This seems to be the biggest recurring theme when it comes to the formation of states: Germany a united state? Preposterous! All the different Greek states coming together as 1 nation? Impossible! They're so culturally different, they hate eachother etc etc. Based on the pattern all a European (Con)Federation would need is an external enemy, and a Bismarck/Phillip/Cavour,Mazzini,Garibaldi figure (or Aethelstan to go really far back). Obviously European countries are more similar to eachother than to say China and by stressing that rather than differences is how these nations came to be. But probably requires a high pressure situation / war to forget the obstacles and inconveniences and push them together (starting with a loose confederation etc)
I couldnt have said it better myself. You realised this is the case when you move to countries like China or Japan and you see how similar you are to you European bretheren.
@@kennethadler7380debatable at best. The German language wasn't unified for a long time and some dialects weren't understandable for most German speakers. Same with Greek, we know there were multiple vastly different dialects.
Interestingly, the German Empire would serve as an almost ideal template for European integration. All that really would need to change are three things: 1. There would need to be majority rule (as opposed to unanimity) in the Council of the EU and hey, we're almost there already 2. There would need to be a common command structure and leader *during war time.* Something that should be doable, considering NATO is most of the way there already. 3. A slight prevalence for EU foreign policy over national one. Probably the most difficult, but certainly achieveable. Other than that, we're basically already there. Legally speaking at least. The only current caveat being the ability of member states to leave; which would mostly not impact decision making.
"members of a theoretical federal state could leave the organization, or change their relationship at anytime" United States: "that's actually against the rules"
EU was never meant to expand towards the east as it was primarily a western economic alliance. And here we are EU expanding towards the eastern part in subpar speeds until it reaches Russia.
Big thinkers have been mistaken before. A lot of people could see, and are seeing, the benefits of interrogation right now. The Scandinavians can align their defense policies, the Southern's can continue to excel at launching strategic assets. France is finding its new role while Germany is rearming, finally. In a proper union, a federation, these efforts would automatically align.
@@Siranoxz You make it sound like the EU is marching towards Russia, even though it's the countries bordering Russia pretty much begging on their knees to be allowed in.
There already exists a pan-european party with some succes in many counties. They have an MEP (from Germany), MPs in the Dutch parliament and the Bulgarian one, and many other members in local and municipal councils, the name of the party is Volt and considering that the video was about European Federalization, one of their key policies, I think it is relevant to mention them
A better question is: would the EU want to be a superpower? Being a superpower is a massive pain in the ass and it means being drawn into endless conflicts and crises the world over and it means constantly dealing with all the events of the entire world. I think a much better idea for the EU is to focus on strategic and economic autonomy, building up its own military strength to the point where it can credibly defend all its borders, its own economy to the point where it's mostly self sufficient in key respects and its own navy to the point where it can control its own marginal seas chiefly Mediterranean. An EU that's wealthy, independent, secure, federal and at the forefront of technological development is what I want to see, not necessarily an EU that has its fingers in every pie in the world.
Agree with you mostly. A militarily superpower? No! Our past is full of conflict and our present shows "better together" is enriching us on all levels. I disagree on defense. Even without NATO, no nation except the USA or nuclear strikes could bring the EU down. USA is so heavily interdependant with Europe, any conflict would be economical suicide for both sides. Russia is loosing against Ukraine. Now imagine an invasion of Poland, who really have no desire to become russian subjects. Polish citizens would "welcome" russian troops same way as the ukranian citizens. Meanwhile Poland getting troops from all its european allies and Russia getting counterattacked on a boarder of thousands of thousands kilometres. And in contrary to Ukraine, the EU nations are heavily invested in air power.
The European Union already has its fingers in every pie in the world. Every power, great and small, is constantly dealing with events all over the world to maintain and increase that power. More power just means that you have a greater ability to actively shape those events. It sounds like you assume being a "superpower" implies doing what the US does. They are not "drawn into endless conflicts." They invaded Grenada because their banana exports competed with Chiquita, for f-'s sake. It's completely avoidable.
@@AkselGAL europe can become the greatest millitary in the world if we wanted to. we hold the most experience when it comes to that. and this time no attacking eachother for it though
EU as a superpower is inevitable, at least as an attempt. In terms of longterm planning, it makes sense; why else would they form it in the first place?
As an Armenian I would say the majority of our country wants to join the EU right now. We have done a lot for that. Corruption is low, democracy and free speech level is high, even higher than in some EU countries.
I would welcome you. Just get your house in order and your country will have a future as European nation. I think you'd do fine. And it would stabilize your country.
As a U.S. citizen, I would love to see the E.U. emerge as a true third superpower with respect for human rights front and center in its constitution. The United States, in my opinion, has grown too used to being *the* democratic superpower of the world. It would do us some good to have an equal partner who could double-check our decisions and restrain our unilateral tendencies. In addition, our 2016-2020 adventure proved that the U.S. is not infallible. Authoritarianism can happen here, too. Europe should be able to set its own course and priorities should that happen, if it is to maintain its tradition of human rights and democracy. A future European Federation would need to rethink its military, though. Its ability to project force would need a particularly large upgrade, for at least two reasons: 1). Europe remains a net resource importer. While rich in certain crucial mineral resources, the European continent is, by geological luck, remarkably poor in others. Oil, gas, rare earths, cobalt, and many other energy-critical resources come to mind. Maintaining the flow of those resources is thus a national security issue. European sovereignty requires that Europe be able to protect those flows, and that may require force projection into regions which do produce those resources. 2). In a hypothetical WWIII (pray that it never happens), any power with the ability to project force will have an enormous advantage over a power which does not. It is always better and cheaper to fight a war on someone else’s territory than on your own. If you need proof, just look at Ukraine today. Without an ability to project force beyond its immediate neighborhood, Europe will always be in the position of receiving strikes rather than making them. That’s an unenviable position to be in.
Well before the US was a democracy, it already existed in Europe (where it was born) so democracy has always been at core of European values and has always been a European thing. Greece, Iceland, the Cortes, the Carta Magna, the French Revolution, the Hansa, the Venetian Republic, etc... It was imported by Europeans to the American continent and it was them who created US after the values they had from Europe. So Europe was already projecting democratic values all the way across the planet since the very beginning. On the other hand, thinking the US is an actual democracy is a bit overstated since the presidents are always wealthy and always choosen from a duality party, this means that the lobbies and big corporations have A LOT of power in state affairs (Money is King in the US).. so much so they influence who is going to win and no matter who wins, little changes. US is an oligarchy of the wealthy desguised as a democracy. Triuth be told, a lot of countries are heading there too, including some of Europe. I do agree that Europe needs first, to distance itself a bit from the US an have deals of its own that benefit Europe but might not benefit the US. For example the US blocked EU-Iran negotiations because US and Iran hate each other but Europe and Iran were settling energy treaties already that benefited Europe but not the US. So this type of mingling from the Americans must be stopped while still keeping close ties with them. This leds to the second point. Europe needs to get it's own army to project it's power in case of attack on its interests. Our net resource importer was Russia, and Europe and Russia could have good relations if it wasnt controlled under Putin. But since it's not the case, Europe is currently (and has been for years) shifting to Electric cars, Solar pannel energy, wind energy and all sort of renewable energy source in order to become selfsufficient one day, anulling the power other countries might exerce in here. It's a mistake to think Europe is poor in natural resources. Scortland and specially Norway have oil and Gas, Sweden has the largest iron deposits in the world, etc... But millenia of exploitation has eroded a lot of them. Specially things like silver or gold.
France would never fully get on board with a Federal EU, of course unless they were in the driver's seat, then maybe. More or less the same for Germany. Those two would be vying for the emperor's seat, if it were to even be a consideration.
There were times in which any cooperation with Germany would have called treason... Time and people change. Yea, we have this 15-30% of nationalistic idiots all arround. But at the end, people in Europe are very similiar in attitudes, goals, view of the world.
@@AkselGAL not really. French and Germans still view things very differently. The English viewed things so differently they left the EU entirely. There's no guarantee the EU even survives the coming transition. The EU put all of their eggs into Russia's basket, and it is now apparent that decision was a fatal flaw of EU policy making for past two decades at least. The question of how the German and wider European industrial base will cope without *necessary* raw materials and energy from Russia is left completely unanswered. As it's becoming apparent China is supplying arms to Russia, China will also face trade bans. How will the EU cope with losing raw materials and energy from Russia, while simultaneously losing Chinese consumption and cheap manufacturing is a near existential crisis for the EU. The US being energy independent, and not relying much on exports to China, doesn't face the challenges Europe is now facing down. We are currently decentralizing manufacturing out of China as well, much of it likely going to Mexico in the next decade or so (as Mexican labor is 30% the cost of Chinese labor, and is of higher quality). Europe doesn't have nearly as good options in comparison. We will see how the EU weathers the coming crisis, to see if a stronger union is even possible within the European landscape.
@@the11382 the British smartly saw that the EU in it's current form is a crisis away from dissolution. Serious reforms are now necessary for the EU to even survive the coming decades. Putting all of the EU's eggs in Russia's basket of energy and raw materials was a fatal flaw in their policy making over the past decades. The English saw the nonsense and decided to hitch their wagon to the US economy, rather than a EU economy that was destined to tank after the Russian system was cut off from the world trade system.
because it is not entirely illegal. Cyprus was leased to British empire by the Ottomans and the island was invaded by Britain when the two got in war so there was a big hustle when the time for decolonization came. Turks wanted it partitioned and Greeks demanded union with Greece which gave the British the genius idea of creating a multiethnic state in the island that would be guaranteed by Turkey, Greece and Britain. Greek nationalists on the island were not happy since they thought the deal gave too much power to Turkish minority(aprox %20 of the population) and they organized a coup installing religious fanatics and starting the process for union with Greece. Turkey invaded later due to interethnic violence in the island which disproportionately affected the Turkish minority and here we are today. I mean Turks already wanted to partition the island but they did not have a casus belli until ultra religious nationalist ogres gave them one with massacring Turkish civilians. Britain could have stopped it all but did not do so and Cyprus would not even be a country today if Turkey did not invade since it would have become a province of Greece. It is not like your main stream news outlets give proper information and background when they tell a story you know...
@@majesticfool is not something against the US, the US would always remain allies and friends, but certainly European and American interests in the 21st century aren't always aligned. A strong independent EU would serve as an ally to the US while also allowing Europeans to take their interests deeper into consideration first (as Americans already do). Is about creating an entity that can work and collaborate with the US as equals, which is not currently the case.
I really hope to see a Federal European Union, at least to see European countries cooperating in a more coordinated way when it comes to foreign policy and dealing with superpowers like the US and China.
I prefer the EU to stay as the way it was intended. An economic union. Not really fond of the idea to hand over the reigns of my nation to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
@@zjeee European commissioners are designated by member states and voted into power by the European Parliament, just like national governments are formed. The parliament is fully and directly elected. The council is formed of the heads of state, which are either elected or voted for by the national parliaments, which are themselves elected. What exactly do you mean by unelected bureaucrats? Do you consider your national government to be unelected bureaucrats? All EU officials which are in a position of authority are either directly elected or as accountable in front of directly elected representatives as your own government, and are not at all career bureaucrats, like a clerk of an administrative institution, hired, not voted for, either directly by the people or by another elected body, such as a national parliament. Unelected bureaucrats is a myth propagated by anti-EU actors, be they nationalistic parties in Europe or anti-democratic forces such as Russia or China. The EU is indeed a huge bureaucracy, and that's inevitable, very specifically because it has to carefully navigate a tight and narrow path between conflicting interests of member states, but it's not at all led by bureaucrats.
As a Dane i would sign up for the European Fedaration immediatly Working together is not the same as sharing homes and the only way our small irrelevant state can handle the big challenges of the world of tomorrow is to be part of something larger.
Maybe you need the same treatment as Britain to see what is means to be isolated in Europe. Completely only Denmark. Just think about, how you feel to go against Germany or France or even Netherlands. That is what you are doing to europeans against China and Russia and soon India
@@blackhole3298just to clarify this dude is in the minority when it comes to support for our EU memebership, most danes are very supportive especcialy after the brexit disaster.
@@alexanderrose1556 I believe I must clarifiy my statement, as it seems to have been misunderstood twice in a row, based on your responses. I am not against working together with the other EU countries. Heck, if it was up to me, I would unite all of Scandinavia into one country (if not all the Nordic countries if possible). I am just not in favor of going all in, as it seems like the most extreme solution, to a problem, which I believe can be handled with much less. And while you are right, that the majority of the Danes are positive in their attitude towards the EU. That does not mean, that they are willing to go all-in. Just like the majority wants animals to give good lives. But the majority is not about to go so far, as to become vegans.
@@sfp2290 Well, you had an opt out against an EU army as well as the euro (probably have). Your minister not so long ago vowed to do everything against an EU army that was proposed by Macron. The Danish population directly went against the foreign policy of 60 million French people. You had an opt out from the beginning and everything that would have been decided would have not applied to you anyways. You see the problem of the big countries? These were always the countries that made Europe powerful and we continue to live of our old empires status that is diminishing everyday. There is currently the believe that every European people deserves a good life and peace, but that will quickly change if it would require the old European powers to be completely destroyed. Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain had to give in to alot of the demands of the smaller nations who are in my opinion, in part completely unfit to have any say in Europe because they never had to defend Europe and just give a shit about its bigger brothers. You can only achieve solidarity between the big nations if, the big nations sponsor and leverage the power of the smaller states, but in return the smaller states must back at least foreign policy of Europe. Otherwise the big states will end the single market rather quickly. If you are a big nationality you might as well call it the period of humiliation after the last empires got dissolved. You know the answer to that if you know history, or watch China today
I am a massive supporter of the EU, despite its many flaws, and I'd endorse progressing the union into a Federation. Specially if we take into consideration what happened to the Holy Roman Empire, which stood "half way through" for too long and eventually collapsed, which is exactly what the EU has been doing since the Treaty of Lisbon. However, I don't think we Europeans understand one basic element of this equation: Germany, the UK, France, Spain, Poland... Some of us haven't been relevant superpowers for centuries. None of us are anymore. Our flags, our economies, our military... they're just a weak heirloom from the past and we don't stand a chance if we want a seat at the modern table, on our own. Alas, we don't get it, the same way the Hellenic city states failed to do so as well.
It makes the most sense for Europe to unify as a single federation super nation like the USA. This will put it into the category of super powers like USA and China, and can thus compete on a level playing field of economic and (eventually soon enough) military might. UK logically should join this large new superpower, adding it's might and benefiting from the weight of the new federation
I think UK will come back in a close future when they will change their minds, be more open and less focussed on themselves, I think this is just a matter of time, even if being aside with the US, the EU is closer and probably more profitable on the long term.
Kings and generals is overall pretty objective id say. Tries to cover a lot of things from neutral point of view. Caspian report is informative but listen with a pinch of salt as it is sometimes highly biased.
While the video is well-made, I really don't understand the confidence of the narrator at some points. Especially towards the end, it felt a lot like pro-EU propaganda about how the EU will be a pillar of stability for all states etc. As a Greek, the EU has been the main reason behind my people's economic misfortunes and most Greeks (in fact the people of most "smaller" countries) do not feel as if their needs and priorities are addressed by the EU.
@@arnold3768 You clearly have no idea of what happened (and continues to happen) in Greece. I would not make such a claim if there wasn't substantial evidence of this. In fact, I am not the only one making this claim, it is backed by the majority of the academic community in economics. It is futile to try and debate with you over UA-cam comments, but I will just state that I actually teach economics in the US, with a focus on the financial crisis of 2008, so I will warmly encourage you to try and educate yourself on this matter via reading some textbooks and/or watching some videos. If you want any recommendations, just let me know. :)
No one forced Greeks to spend more money then they have had. Greeks did this to themselves taking a lot of loans (state and private) which they couldn't pay back.
@@lukaszwojtowicz1981 Before the crisis Greece was in deep financial trouble that was partly the previous governments' fault, yes. However, after the crisis, the memoranda that were put in place were not aiming to bring sustainability back to Greece but instead to maximize profit for the bankers of the UK and Switzerland who saw this situation as an opportunity instead of a crisis. It is very short sighted to only blame Greece for what happened, as it only explains the situation up to 2009 and not afterwards, and not even the full story there.
@@Istorian After crysis Greece had too options. Bankruptcy or paying off debts. The only way to pay debts was to get money from somewhere. Money came from the EU. The only condition was to bring back responsible economic policies. It means no more spending money like crazy and taking loans whenever it was possible. That's all. I know that they would love to get money and live like nothing happened. But in that case no-one would borrow them money. 🤷
@@lukaszwojtowicz1981 Unfortunately you seem to be highly mistaken on the matter. Nobody wanted to keep living like nothing happened, and keep in mind that when the Greek government lied about its finances it also lied to the people as well, not just the EU. The part where you're mistaken though is where you say that the only conditions set out by the EU were to have responsible financial policies. That's flat out wrong. If you read the memoranda (I have, it's part of my job), and have any basic education in macroeconomics, you will quickly realize that the policies required to be implemented were not there to guarantee sustainability but to ensure that Greece remains financially dependent on the EU for political leverage, while maximizing the profit of the loaners, and the plan worked to perfection for those who drafted it. In fact, perhaps the most striking thing is that policies like the ones required by the memoranda were previously considered unimaginable and too ludicrous to be implemented in any country, by the academic community. If such policies were implemented for example in Germany or France in a similar situation, the EU would be a shell of what it is now.
As long as Turkey is ruled by a dictator and enforces islamic extremism, it has no chance in joining. A secular, progressive Turkey, which respects the autonomy of the Kurds and Armenians, and has democracy and respects human rights, then we can talk.
4:43 small eu-nerd-fix: "The Head of State *and* Government" i.e. The King of the Netherlands is the Head of State of the Netherlands but has no seat in the European Council. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, as the Head of Government, does. The Member States actually decide themselves who they send. In theory nothing would stop them to send their actual Head of State for Symbolic gatherings. But that has not happened as of yet. I for myself would really love the actual Heads of State to be meeting for symbolic events. For example when the Council choses the Commission President (defacto Prime Minister of the EU) or when welcoming a new Memberstate.
Yes, but in a less conventional manner. Economically, technologically, diplomatically and culturally, the EU is a powerhouse. What I wish we did was cooperate more on a military level so we could defend ourselves instead of depending on the US to do it for us. It tethers us to them and their policies, which more often than not, contradict with the overal EU stance on a lot of issues. And it also makes us heavily dependent on who has the president hat overseas; something that also does not sit well with me.
Military cooperation in the EU risks blurring the lines that separate it from NATO. Besides, an european army wouldn't answer to elected national oficials but to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I don't like that one bit.
I am not sure man France is the nation that has been signaling its willingness to lead a united European army. Honestly I trust the US a lot more than I trust France. Besides our US alliance is a defensive alliance only and we have no obligation to follow them into a war unless we want to.
I have big trust that Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Andorra and Switzerland are incapable of conquering us! Russia? European Union + UK have enough nukes to put 8x nukes on every capital russian city. Conventional war? The Ukranian war would be a russian army summer holiday camp special in comparision to the military arsenal, monetary might, industrial capacity, population size thrown on them by the EU nations. And the polish and baltic people will not "welcome" the russians with flowers, only if the flower is glued to an ATGM. And a few days later all hell would break loose on the russians. Ukraine had neither nukes, nor significant airpower, big fleets, thousands of cruise missiles. China as an ally to Russia or keeping its economy intact? No brainer. Yea, we are not the USA as europeans.... but together, we are the most heavily armed region after them.
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py These bureaucrats are answering to elected national officials, who elected them. So yes, they would and do answer to the people, maybe more indirectly, altough i do think we should have a more direct system, with a people elected parliament and a people elected commission.
What you are saying is impossible since Germany is being held hostage by a clique of politicians who are sold to the Russians. There is no "German independent state" as of now. All decisions are run by Russia and occasionally the US, as has been since WW2. The German people have no intention to change this status quo out of existential dread - Germans consider that any gesture to elevate military independence will bring back Nazi sentiment. They prefer to be openly racist against for example Eastern Europeans and to dominate Europe economically. Until that changes, there will be no federated EU. We in the East do not wish to become subjects of this traitorous clique of German politicians. They will sell us out the first chance they get, while still claiming that they need to be the absolute leaders of EU policy in all domains.
An example in history could be an example. The German confederation: The rules of the Confederation provided for three different types of military interventions: -the federal war (Bundeskrieg) against an external enemy who attacks federal territory, -the federal execution (Bundesexekution) against the government of a member state that violates federal law, -the federal intervention (Bundesintervention) supporting a government that is under pressure of a popular uprising. The German Federal Army (Deutsches Bundesheer) was supposed to collectively defend the German Confederation from external enemies, primarily France. Successive laws passed by the Confederate Diet set the form and function of the army, as well as contribution limits of the member states
The EU is a mess and not very democratic. There are too few voices for their competencies. I hope that the EU will never continue to suffocate the member states
@@chrisd997 then the video maker should include the French and Dutch parts of the eu in South America and the Caribbean, gets a little silly now doesn’t it. After all EU is in the title.
As good as this channel is at explanation this video demonstrates the problem with the EU. It is a complex and Byzantine organization. As a demonstration of I leave a challenge to the readers: Find what the European people need to change if they don't like an EU law that had a purpose but no longer well serves Europe. My contention is that this is hard to the point of being impossible. That makes a system that grows and gains power but can never be corrected. This will, eventually, lead to member states becoming so disenfranchised by the system that they will be willing to rebel or wage war to leave it.
Only 2 things: 1 vote for the parties that want that change in the European parliament elections. 2 vote for the partjes that want that change in the national elections.
And as option 3, write to your national politician, European councilor, or evem write to the Eiropean commision to see if the law can still be effectively enforced (if a bad one). Its not THAT complex.
@@BarringtonDrive You don't understand the question. How does the EU remove or overwrite a law? If it practically can't then no amount of people voting will help. So, answer that question.
Unlike the Russian the EU does not wage wars under the guise of obsolete casus bellis like imperialism. Let the people of Kalinigrad choose their own destiny, but we will make sure the Russian government does not stop other peoples from doing the same.
But why would anyone want this? Like how do the individuals in these countries benefit from a more centralized government, making more and more decisions further and further away from them?
EU is not a government that is further away, if anything it's in many cases more actively engaged with regions and municipalities than the states are. Furthermore the EU have so far been able to reduce the damage that retarded memberstates like Hungary can cause.
Do you like the US calling the shots? Because in practice that's how it currently works. Sanctions, trade deals, military cooperation, all of that an more needs a US seal of aproval first. A strong European Union would help return power back to Europe and achieve geopolitical independence from the US and other countries.
As a Frenchman, let me give you a contradictory inner view on the EU on the points you developed in your video. - I understand that from a North American point of view, a European federation must seem like a great idea but it is really not to many of us: we do not share the same history, culture, economical system, foreign interest, diplomatic relations with non-EU states with any other country in Europe. Only a very small minority of Europeans feel part of it rather than part of their own country. We just do not want to be part of the same state. - You stated that a united Europe should and would have to maintain amicable relations with the us because we share the same democratic values... Well I think we really do not. Once again, what interest do we share with the US? Some countries might need the American umbrella to protect them but here again, others do not. The French want to part from American foreign policy and we do not want to share our chair at the UN security council with other states. - The EU forces us to destroy our social state, give up our border and monetary sovereignty and makes us de facto vassals of the US. What good is there to keep it? My hope is that this European nightmare ends soon, hopefully with a Frexit. Now you might say that this is just a personal point of view but on the few occasions that the people were consulted on the EU matter like in 2005, we voted "no" to a further integration of UE states. (Oh! and by the way, what did the champion of democracy that is EU do? they just passed the same bill 3 years later without a vote).
70% of all EU citizens feel that they are European citizens opposed to just national citizens. That's not a small group but admittedly from 2020 so maybe things went even higher since then. France is part of a particularly Eurosceptic part of the memberstates. Not at the bottom of course but certainly lower than most. Only 27% say they don't want to be a European and would prefer only a national identity. Is there Euroscepticism? Sure but you got a solid ~20% of the average Western population that will always be nationalistic and thus always reject any form of unification. That's a stable percentage that remained constant as far back as the 50's. So having 27% rejecting it is entirely in the line of expectation as it's unrealistic to believe that everyone not nationalistic would be pro-EU. It just sounds like you're stuck in your echo chamber instead of looking at the actual statistics.
@@mormacil hey there! You're absolutely right, my comment is not based on any statistics. My point was not that a majority of Europeans want to see it end. I was expressing an opinion shared by a significant part of French citizen. Would you mind sharing these data with me? I would be really interested in reading them. pS: Is that from the eurobarometer? Can we consider it an independent source? Not that I want to discuss the figure itself but the way the question is asked is of prime importance, especially when talking about a feeling.
Although the heads of state have to unanimously agree to the transfer of sovereignty, these heads of states often don't have the support of the majority of the electorate for such transfers of power. These heads of states often fail to ask permission to do so via referendum, because they know what the outcome will be.
I think the idea of whether or not one is comfortable with a European federation depends on how comfortable one is with giving away power to foreign politicians and bureaucrats that one didn't vote for, and thus can't hold accountable. A federalized and more centralized EU would be a democratic disaster for Europe.
People also give power away to politicians in different regions of their country without being able to vote for them, that isn't really different to giving it away to politicians from another country/region in the (con)federation imo.
MDP, I disagree. It’s not the same, politicians in different regions and counties can only make regional/local decisions so it doesn’t matter to people in other regions. You cannot compare that to bodies of government that makes national decisions. Totally different.
@@noodlyappendage6729 Why do you have allegiance to your country? They are as much a construct as the EU, just an older. In the past everyone had allegiance to a smaller region than the countries now. Personally I have just as much allegiance to the EU as my country/region. I see no really reason why I shouldn't.
Ithink the 3 tier version of Europe given by the french president,quite a good idea.I would love to see a bigger and stronger Europe,but it will take time and obviously our enemies won't like it. Europe knows that divided will not achieve nothing,we must unite,so we can be stronger.GOD BLESS EUROPE,AND THE EUROPEANS.
EU states have demographic problems that will become unignorable in the coming decades. Demographics is everything and is way more important than some hypothetical federation.
The problem you have is you have states with compete different outlooks on things. You have France that highly active in Africa with it military and then you have people like Germany, who hates spending money on their military and never want to use it. So who going to win out there? You have EU finding it almost impossible to agree on anything and handle everything bad because of it. If you are going to have one country, what national health care system will it have? Because France can't keep what they have now when people in Greece get a lot different. Is Finland, Germany and so on willing to eat Spain, Italy and Greece debt. That not even the tip of the problems they have to deal with. Also if EU forms a country then they only have one vote at the UN not 27. Texas in the USA don't get it own vote. Countries in Africa, Asia or America's will not be dealing with a country they might like and know, they will be dealing with a new country made up from people like and dislike with a lot of inner troubles going on in it.
Very lovely stuff by Kings and Generals!! Europeans have to wake up and appreciate that no single national state will ever be stronger alone as opposed to when being within the EU. The older I become the more I am being appalled with all these pseudo nationalist groups in different European states. Being part of the EU does not mean at all having to give up on your cultural heritage. This high number of sovereign states makes hardly any sense when all countries have a similar legal, political and economical setup. What are these nationalists afraid of? Well, it's probably not fear but the desire to cut oneself a larger slice of the piece.
It could be and it should be. Europe should be able to protect itself and handle it's own business without American aid. The EU should be able to guarantee security and grant nuclear status to all member countries.
EU most certainly can protect itself. without the Americans. who is the threat? Russia can't beat Ukraine. Go check some stats. As for business, €17 trillion economy.
It is difficult enough to get the local mayor to do what the people want. Why are so many people this enamored with ever larger and less accountable governments? "The common good " and "increased security" are always the justification for more power. The EU as it stands is already too much of an overreach.
It would be so cool if the EU's militaries agreed to contribute one bot each that could combine into a giant mech robot; like in Power Rangers. And you wouldn't need all 27 pieces for the mech, like different bots could combine together for different missions. Just putting it out there.
Theoretically yes on paper it is, but Russia was also the Worlds 2nd Strongest Military on paper just a few short years ago. I would be inclined to say yes if Great Britain was still a part of the EU. The EU's problem is the fractious nature of it's Political body, while the EU is supposed to be a Governing body that unites Europe, underneath that layer there's a complex web of Political Entities. While the USA is pretty divided atm, really it's Political System is a 2 Party system with a few other options such as Independents. Within a single EU Nation, they sometimes comprise of well over 100 Political Parties. Simple answer.. if the EU can be on the same page, yes they are Superpower, but if they are not.. well then it's pretty much a loose Alliance of Nations.. some strong.. some not so strong..
Germany, France, and Spain joined together on a 6th Generation Fighter Project and can’t agree on it being Carrier capable, whose making what parts, etc… to the point 2035 is the optimistic goal for deployment. While the US is looking at 2030 projections for 2 6th Gen Fighters, and they’ve already recently revealed the B-21 a 6th Gen Bomber. The UK meanwhile pulled Italy, Japan, and Sweden into their own 6th Gen project as well. Never mind Poland’s goals of being the most militarized state in Europe with the goal of grinding Russian soldiers into dust for just looking at them funny. My point is the EU isn’t a super bloc, it can influence but as we’ve seen once nations feel threatened or have their own interests that unity goes out the door real quick. The recent Ukraine war has reminded Eastern Europe that relations with America will always match if not exceed relations with France or Germany. Especially when America is always up to fight where Germany’s lack luster approach to Ukraine hasn’t built anyone confidence in an EU super state.
Europe lacks alot of natural resources needed to compete long term. So as a super power they'd lose to any other power like China because China has 1. a larger population. 2. Somewhat reliable channels to get raw resources to manufacture.
@@RRRRR15 Your Source? Cause if you can’t give anything accurate your just pulling this out of your ass. Poland is buying everything to be militarily self sufficient it’s not relying on the US to fight for them, it’s strategy is to be strong enough to deter conflict but if it comes kick ass and be ready to join in a greater NATO effort. China’s threat isn’t so great the US can’t project power in multiple fronts.
@@RRRRR15 Because China is a far larger adversary which can threaten the world's critical trade routes. The US wants to pull out of Europe but couldn't because most NATO countries skimped-out on army funding for decades. The invasion of Ukraine demonstrated to the US that Russia wasn't the Soviet Union, and that what it inherited from it could be grinded down to irrelevancy, along European countries finally waking up to grease their military industry again. This is good for both the US and Europe, as the former will soon be able to fully concentrate on the largest threat while us European will hopefully not need a babysitter anymore.
Well done for the great work and the very informative video. It was really refreshing (and somehow a bit hopeful) to watch a video of your channel that is not focused on war. I hope you'll make more similar ones in the future.
For the EU to start being a superpower first they have to start spending on their own defense. The fact that the EU spends so little on defense depending mostly on the US is going to negatively affect the EU at some point.
Never going to happen. Most Europe country are struggling to get people in uniform as it is. So an EU army would most likely be a horde of conscripts who don't want to be there and can't even talk to their commanding officers.
It's not about money perse: defence per capita in Denmark for example is much more expensive than in Bulgaria: Bulgaria gets more buck for its money. European NATO countries also have a significant higher amount of ships, tanks, other armoured vehicles and people in uniform than the US. The main problems are a) the armies are separated per country, rather than being united as one army like the USA and b) there's a massive difference between the quality of equipment between the different armies, with a lot of former Communist countries still using equipment from that era.
@@zaros1781 that's becouse in USA everyone is in the same line and have the same interests. In EU, that's not the case. The EU'S interests are nothing alike with the interests of my country for example ( greece) , especially as far as defence is concerned. Most of the EU cares to defend against russia, but my country cares to defend against turkey. So you see there, that our interests are just not the same. Therefore it will be impossible for my country to send men into an EU agenda ( which is mainly russia), when we have problems of our own.
Indeed. Although putins vicious war of aggression against Ukraine has prompted the european countries to really strengthen their armies and increase defense budgets.
The EU is kind of like the Holy Roman Empire, in theory it could really kick ass, but all the tarded internal divisions and silly ways of doing things meant it never lived up to its potential.
Freedom to leave EU might become more of a big question mark after EU gets it's own military, their Norman Bates-esque approach to whom has the right to membership and even sovereignty, by which I'm mainly meaning Scotland and Catalonia doesn't bring any peace of mind. On one hand they sing the freedom of Scots to join back to EU after separation but the other they threaten Catalonia of repercussions if they do so instead of membership, now what would such a sociopathic organization manage to do with a full military, who knows.
We have a very long way to go for this to happen, and one of the most basic mentalities that have to change concern issues that in every other sovereign country are of the absolutely basic level. When Turkey occupies half of Cyprus for 50 years, and never for a single day stops making threats and irrational demands against Greece for 202 years, but countries with interests tied to Turkey, like Germany, act in a neutral manner, instead of a resolute supportive stance in favour of, well, part of their state's future self, then what kind of European State without an ounce of European solidarity are we talking about? Same goes with when most countries leave Greece to deal with the immigrant problem on our own, when Europe treats Greece worse for owing millions, than Europe treated Germany for killing millions! Just imagine USA, being invaded by Russia in Alaska or Japan in Hawaii, and Washington DC saying "I don't know, Alaska straighten your relations with Russia, I don't care, I'm neutral, Oahu, you bear some responsibility for being bombed by the Japanese, sort it out!" Just imagine Illinois saying "don't concern me with migration policies and budget, it's all Texas' and California's problem! Let then Burn!" Just imagine California saying "You know what? MY economy is threatened by the bad economy of Missouri, so in order to save myself, I'm going to force Missouri to implement such policies that anyone living in that state is condemned to poverty for the next 100 years!" No mentality of Europe as a "We", no Europe as a state.
As an EU citizen, I wouldn't support a fully unified federal EU, I would stop unification just before that. Not because of national sovereignty, but because the constant search of consensus between different actors/countries is one of the things that give the EU a great deal of healthy stability.
EU should be a federation like the Swiss one, that leaves most power to the various states. The EU should deal only with Foreign policy, Defence, Monetary policy and at best some major infrastructure projects. Things like ethical issues (abortion, gay rights, etc...), justice system, healthcare, etc ... should be left to the member states
You are suggesting giving over control over foreign policy and defense decisions to a body consisted of people not elected by the people they are meant to make decisions for? No thanks I prefer to have the power to vote out politicians making defense and foreign policy changes that I don’t agree with. If you can’t keep your political leaders responsible for their decisions then what’s the e point of having a democracy at all.
No, as it can't project military power in any way, and is utterly dependent on the nuclear protection of two non-EU states; the US and UK. Its future will depend on how it handles the migrant crisis, as the natives are not going to accept mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East continuing, as it being proven quite clearly. Yet a humane way of solving it is not yet obvious.
Ah yes, the EU has always had the choice to have a nuclear arsenal. The only reason why most countries didn't is because nobody wanted more nuclear proliferation, as that increases the risk of nuclear war. Also, even right now as others pointed out France has a nuclear arsenal.
Mass migration will still be a thing as long as climate change isn't contrasted and as long as corrupt leaders are held in position in those poor countries in order to preserve the interests of foreign companies. I guess that "natives" includes Europeans migrants living in other European countries and European citizens of non-European heritage.
@@katieee4915 France had to rely on British air support for it's recent jaunt in Mali. It is not remotely capable of projecting power or defending Europe, nor does it have the global delivery system the US and UK have for their nuclear weapons.
"The founding fathers of the EU proved that the common good of the people of Europe is more important than any national interest." - The issue is whose common interest? Because making Greek suffer for say the Netherlands is not a fair deal. The common good only matters when it is good for all, which is rarely the case.
@@staC-wh6ik The EU helped a lot.. don't worry. it's easy to blame the country and miss the whole picture here. it's obvious that the EU's interest lies North... The south will suffer for the north to flourish.
I think it would have been helpful if the EU consisted of 'modules' which countries could decide the join, or leave, if that wasn't working out. example, Customs union could be one. Schengen could be another. Maybe fisheries could be another, or maybe the common agricultural policy. Joint EU refugee and asylum could be another.. and the common currency another.. I think you get the idea.
The fight for a federalised European Union is much older. It just started right after the prominent Speech of Schuman. A multinational coalition of young people created the UEF and started the European Movement. If you're under 30, you should check out about the Young European Federalists. You can find them in all Member and some non member states. They offer great opportunities to get involved and in touch in European politics. And it's a great way to get in touch with people all around europe :)
I absolutely love MNE and believe that MNE joining the EU would benefit the EU and MNE massively. Your politicians just need to get their act together and ensure that MNE joins the EU asap.
It's interesting that in the UK a "Federal Europe" was used to mean a Europe with stonger powers for individual states rather than the opposite it is used here (prior to brexit).
Haven't finished the video yet, but let's face it, it's basically exactly what Belgium's Foreign Minister Mark Eyskens called it back in 1991: "[a]n economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm." If being humiliated for a solid decade due to their collective impotence in the face of the Yugoslavia meltdown wasn't enough to get them to man up and get serious about forming a credible joint defense force outside the umbrella of American leadership, nothing will be.
I support the creation of a federal Europe. To me, all Europeans are like siblings to me. Our nations evolved and in many ways, helped each other thoughout our history. We may still have disagreements and a few bad apples in our states, but that shouldnt let it disunite us. The EU has been a blessing to our continent as it allowed our economies to recover and grow after years of war and dictatorships and more importantly, it had (mostly) ended the cycle of war and bloodshed that had plaqued Europe since God knows when. Even eurosceptics like Le Pen and Orban know how important the union is. So to all my fellow Europeans, i salute you and may our fortunes continue in the future.
I welcome our union and all our continental brothers with open arms, brother. The EU is the most ambitious and successful diplomatic, political and geopolitical accomplishment ever seen in world history. It trumps every peace conference, every trade agreement, every foreign policy collaboration, every successful negotiation between peoples, because the European Union are all of these combined. Never before in world history has such a vast group of people come together to shed superficial differences and join together for the benefit of all. It is a beacon for all of mankind, a glorious precedent that is sure to make all of humanity more peaceable and willing to work together. Certainly mankind has a long way to in the arena of peace and reason, but one cannot help but smile when you see what great triumphs mankind can will when we are united
No. Im sorry, but not with the direction the EU is currently taking. It is a union for the rich, for oligarchs, and corporations. Serving only their own interests. How could the EU stand for the people, when its rulers are hellbent on keeping their economic power?
You're never going to make the average Finn feel the same kinship for the average Portugese, that they do for one of their own. To force all of these different peoples under one roof, with their different languages, cultures, histories and traditions, and apply some kind of artificial "European" identity to them in an attempt to pretend we're all the same is never going to work. We're not just European, we're Germans, Frenchmen, Swedes, Danes, Poles, Spaniards etc. and we're all very different. As for crediting the EU with "ending war in Europe", I think the living and highly documented memory of WWII itself has done more to prevent war in Europe than the EU ever has, but that's a different discussion.
I'm not so sure if there is another option at all. The largest economy in Europe, Germany, is only slightly larger than the largest economy among the US states, California. And then the US has a few other titans, like Texas and New York. Russia is only an issue due to proximity. But China and the US are more pressing. China due to manufacturing, and more importantly, the US. America is what I refer to as a "friendly bully". He'll help you out the best he can, but he'll also eat your lunch, telling you that you owe him.
@@me0101001000 Indeed. We need to remain allies with the US, sure, but we need to get rid of our dependence on them. For now, they're leagues better than Russia and China, in no small part because they ideologically align with the EU far more than the aforementioned two. However, given the gigantic list of shady shenanigans the US has done both internally and internationally, I still wouldn't close both eyes around them, ever.
This video gives a completely wrong idea about which competences are EU and which are Member-states. The most important competences are all with the member-states. Fiscal competence, defence competence, or social and economic policy, for example, are all with the states. That's why the EU budget is miniscule, being smaller than Denmark's, a state with 1% of the population of the EU.
The EU can either become a loose and ineffective alliance or an empire. Looking at how out of touch the current leadership is, the former seems like the better option.
Install War Planet Online for FREE here ✅wpo.page.link/Kings and choose your favorite new lieutenant! Thank you to Gameloft for sponsoring the video.
Hello, do the history of the Phillippines next please. Especially, The Philippine-American War.
Pleeeaaaase I beg youuu, make videos on Latin American history, on the region's wars and important events. You keep doing European and US history that has been done over and over again by countless channels. Latin American history is barely discussed and is full of interesting and epic events that aren't told by any English media.
@@zddxddyddw Apocalypto covers most of it.
Very nice video !
@@tedcrilly46 You wish.
Watching this as a Norwegian is funny when you remember "Oh yeah... we're not in the EU, this is not about us." halfway through the video.
My thoughts exactly ^^
We still love you guys regardless...now give us gas 😂😂😂😂
haha ikke sant xD
I have to admit, since leaving the EU it is rather fascinating to see how the EU will change and evolve from the sidelines. I’m still glad we’re out but hope for good relations.
Soon... ;)
Have to say the title of this video is quite misleading. I was expecting a video exploring the political and regulatory influence the EU has in the world, not a theorizing video about potential Federal EU. Still enjoyed it even though I got a different video than I was expecting :D
Yes i had exactly the same thought. The EU is currently more a regulatory power.
A lot of the video can be quite misleading. To take an obvious example, the point about how the EU hasn't yet 'enforced' its currency in certain member states... what's with that phrasing?
Edit: watched the entire video now and it ends on a call for further integration. The phrasing seems like you're deliberately obfuscating the issues with EU integration. EU's great and all but now it just feels like political propaganda. At least handle current issues in a fair way. I'd expected better.
Yeah, man. The title asks if it's a superpower but the video is about what it could be.
I was expecting something else also. I would have loved to see how a centralized European defense budget would invest in the security of the EU. What would be its most important sector of the defense. What some numbers would look like. Also which areas of the defense would be streamlined and made more efficient. The impact on EUs neighbors and areas of influence. Things like that. But I liked this video too
Agreed! It was disappointing
my main issue is that the question "can X be a superpower" is never followed by "what is a superpower". Citing Lebovic (2008), and Brooks & Wohlfort (2014) would have been a start, since power projection is commonly seen as a basic requirement. Not easy, mind you, as I'm trying to do just that in a paper. But you can't simply sum elements of national power and call it a day - nor can you disregard hard power.
Superpower is defined as country what can influence wole world and has strength to back it up. Great Powers have own zones of influences (so called Multi-Polar World), regional powers can impact own direct neighbours. And United States is conventional Superpower with all traits of it.
Only two forces what can challenge US, are China and in fact EU. Though neither of them have expeditionary major forces to challenge US on the sea. Still US also can't invade them and they also have lot of soft power. There is also few Great Powers like UK (including Canada and Australia), France, Japan, South Korea or India. Who can push they influence outside near neighborhood.
The case of Russia is unclear. Russia only have reputation of Superpower from time of Cold War. But that is it. They do not have strength to actually back it up. U would still say that they are Great Power. But declining. Currently Russia struggle to even hold local influence. After they disintegrate own military, they may not be even that.
There is several ways of determining what is a super power. I must admit the video lacks this information and evaluation. It is just a list of national elements of power for the EU. But I must admit that evaluating the aptitude of the EU to fullfill this prerequisites is quite hard because of it's internal structure. And the video makes a good job sumarizing thoose issues.
Now on the topic of hard power, I'll use France for example because I know quite well military issues of my own country. A EU defense force is completely impossible in the current situation for the french parliament because absolutely NO country in Europe wants to abandon to another country any elements of military sovereignty (there is a strong morale obstacle for that : how would the french population accept, for exemple, that we send our comando-marine special force to death in a foreign country to protect polish, swedish, or hungarian citizens and no french ones ? Doing so would be very generous, very human, very chivalrous and stuff, but would the family and relatives of the soldiers sent there doing so accept it the same way ? And if so, for how long ?). For exemple, France is the only EU country able to project power over the globe (it's among the world top 3 with the US (which are three galaxies ahead) and the british). And even if you imagine building this power from scratch, France is the country in Europe that would contribute to it way more than any other : it's the only EU country that have meaningfull aircraft carriers (not talking of springboard boats here) and the means to build new ones. It's the only country in Europe that has meaningfull naval industry, a military tradition centered around projecting power, and military bases abroad to support thoose deployments. It's also the only EU power to have the atomic bomb. Yet, the French does not want to federalize the military with other EU country because that would mean that sending their boys abroad would be under the sovereignty of the EU parliament. And the political scene in France is not ready at all to abandon this key element of sovereignty to other countries that has no tradition in the matter. On the other hand, the EU has already shown that they can't cope with the french defense policy. Perun made a great video about french military doctrine in terms of strategy and defense budget, and notably the National Armament Agency (the DGA) in France, which is a structure that does not exist in any other democracy in europe. The DGA has no links with the political world, and the political world cannot study the armament budget in France. They can just vote it and say "Hay" or "Ney". It's not something that happens in other european countries. And yet, it is one of the reason why in France, despite a small military budget, the military is so competent. It always has what it requires, and the politics have nearly no words in that spendings. This is not acceptable for many democracies, but acceptable for the french ... And France is (if not the first, because we must take care of the poles, the greeks or the swedish for exemple, in terms of territorial defense, which are much stronger than France) among the top 3 military power in the EU.
But there is also the atomic bomb which is an issue. France is the only EU military power with atomic power. Yet, the stockpiles of atomic bombs in France are enough to defend France sovereignty, but not European sovereignty. This means that the EU is a dwarf in terms of atomic armament, and many european countries know this very well. This is why they rather rely on US support and alliance than rely on a united european defense alliance or structure. In case of a stand-off between the EU and any other country that has atomic power in the world, the US will always be a better protection than the EU.
For thoose reason, the EU is not, cannot, and never will be a military power on it's own, as long as it has not solved them (and I don't see any desirable or satisfying way of solving them in the near future. But that's personnal judgement). The EU has NO real hard power in any other continent than it's own. This is why it rely so heavily on it's soft power, which is way more powerful in terms of cultural and economic influence. Moreover, the creation or emergence of a EU centered hard power also require to study the views and interests of the United States in present days european defense system. But that's another debate :).
@@Unammedacc coalition.
@@tedcrilly46 A coalition is always temporary. It's unity is always built around similar tactical and operational objectives. It can't handle long term theater scale strategical objectives. Coalitions are already a thing on thoose matters. But they are built by the addition of the military might of their members. They don't solve any of the previously mentioned issues.
@@Unammedacc nato is a coalition.
0:50 You're wrong. The Schuman Declaration called for a single country as a federal union to be formed: "The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, ...". The first line proper of the Treaty of Rome calls for 'ever closer union', which refers to a single federal union.
Although there is no line in the Schuman Declaration that forbids federation as a solution, there was no intent for the federalization of Europe . The Schuman Declaration talks about economic cooperation AND a creation of a political entity that unites Europe. Not a sovereign entity, a political entity! Huge difference
European federation as mentioned in the Schuman Declaration should be understood as an organization that binds France-Germany and other states (actual line from the Declaration) in the co-production of Coal and Steel.
@@engelleip9625 The Declaration makes clear that the Coal & Steel Union is only a first step towards federalisation. This commitment was embedded into international law with the Treaty of Rome.
@@paulwood6729 you are repeating something that i have already explained so i am gonna repeat myself as well. The term federation as explained by Schuman in the Declaration which later was embedded in the Treaty of Rome as you have correctly said, was a High Authority-Organization where Germany, France and other european nations cooperate closely in economic affairs AND later it could become a political entity where european nations can cooperate closely in other issues such as security. There is NOT A SINGLE reference to the following words : sovereign state, one country. I mean before writing something let’s use common sense ok? 1950. 5 years after the end of the WW2. Germany was not even denazified. The Schuman Declaration was a radical idea that we as Europeans are thanking him for. But it was NOT THAT radical as you mention.
Just because it doesn't say it doesn't mean it doesn't imply it (and quite obviously it does, as a federation does mean sovereign state, one country).
Does the Second Amendment in the US mention AR 15's or Colt's? No but it does iinclude that by saying "arms".
From an insiders perspective, the EU is a lot less the United States of Europe and more of a confederation of European nation states. The system requires a lot of compromises for it to work and not fall apart. France wants the EU to be a military geopolitical power that can rival both the US and China but other countries like Denmark, which didn’t have an imperialistic legacy, don’t share France’s militaristic vision.
Don't think the EU can depend on the USA to defend them if they're ever attacked in perpetuity. They're going to need some type of military because the US isn't always going to be there like a big brother.
I would argue that Eastern Europe even without imperialistic heritage is very much in favor of this because of their experiences living next to imperial legacies. It's true there is no unified vision on the future of the EU but to paint the desire to have a European army as just the dream of former imperial powers is completely detached from reality.
@@mormacil The problem is that while eastern EU countries are in favour of a strong defense policy, they are currently against an EU army because they fear it would disrupt NATO or even cause it to disband, which I personally don't find very logical.
@@mormacil It is highly unlikely that Eastern Europeans will accept any "One country" model. It's not only about Russia, we got NATO for that, but also the experiences of those who worked abroard then came back with terrible stories of how Western Europe looks like from a cultural perspective. Those who came back have the view that the West is good to make money and then come back to the safer East.
@@dalirfarzan1694 USA is part of NATO, so they have obligation to come and help as they have obligation to help the USA. NATO have 31 members now and 29 of them are in Europe.
Finland alone has a wartime military strength of 280,000. With 700 howitzers, 700 heavy mortars, 100 MLS. It also have 64 F35's on order.
Poland has 122,500 active personnel at this time and that number set to go up. Just in partnership with south Korea the Polish are getting 1000 new tanks, 648 self propelled howitzer and the list go on. They are also building 1400 IFV's themselves.
With out the USA NATO still has 2million active and 1million reservist. 8,000 tanks, 8,000 artillery, 2,000 combat aircraft, 250 warships. Yes that has Canada counted in it as well, but still huge numbers.
Also, be aware that the EU is now looking to abolish the national veto, so that a majority vote by members will then be sufficient to change their policies, rather than an unanimous vote at present.
Finally rectifying what the Treaty of Lisbon failed to do.
Good
No it isn't, this is Euroskeptic disinformation. Some member states (Germany in particular) have suggested abolishing the national veto; the EU has made no moves towards any such decision, and is unlikely to ever do so, for the simple reason that any proposal to abolish the national veto... would need to get through the national veto.
Absolutely necessary
Should go easier, now that the UK is out.
The funny contradiction that we have in Europe is that people quickly get spooked by 'European Federation/superpower' or 'giving up sovereignty'. But pretty much everybody wants more cooperation > more integration between European countries.
Europe should unite to become it's own superpower or cease to become relevant or exist. The fact is no single European state or country can hope to match the economical, political or military power of nations like the US, China or worst yet, Russia. It's really just a matter of time before another superpower comes along and force their own authority upon any one or all EU members.
Well, well, well. This was the research question of my 12th grade school project, which was on the EU. And our project group came to the conclusion that EU is more like a 'civilian power' than a 'military power', and hence can't really be called a superpower in a conventional sense. It is really influential in economic matters and soft power in general, but lacking behind in military matters which can be resolved if the EU functioned more like a proper state than a regional organisation.
Man, this is bringing back memories of late night discussions on our project file.
The EU wants to be fully civilian. But it cannot be if it's neighbours don't let it be that.
@@phonepoies That's right. The 'resolution' is merely hypothetical, and we also noted that being a 'civilian power' is better for the EU.
Because NATO is subsidised by the US. They stop paying and Europe will lose interest.
@@aayushdasgupta That project must've either failed or whatever backwards caveman land you originate from have no understanding of geopolitics or the instruments that a state apparatus possesses
It mostly depends on the will of the politicians. If national leaders would have taken responsibility and kept European armies in a proper state, the EU would have had the military power.
Economically it isn't as strong as it seems as it completely depends on imports in crucial areas and it keeps depending on some countries instead of diversifying.
The EU is a giant on extremely shaky foundations. the only strong point of the EU is its Soft power.
It's interesting you say that the existence of the EU too was unimaginable. This seems to be the biggest recurring theme when it comes to the formation of states: Germany a united state? Preposterous! All the different Greek states coming together as 1 nation? Impossible! They're so culturally different, they hate eachother etc etc. Based on the pattern all a European (Con)Federation would need is an external enemy, and a Bismarck/Phillip/Cavour,Mazzini,Garibaldi figure (or Aethelstan to go really far back). Obviously European countries are more similar to eachother than to say China and by stressing that rather than differences is how these nations came to be. But probably requires a high pressure situation / war to forget the obstacles and inconveniences and push them together (starting with a loose confederation etc)
I couldnt have said it better myself. You realised this is the case when you move to countries like China or Japan and you see how similar you are to you European bretheren.
“New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” - John Locke
Anything is possible if given enough effort
@@kennethadler7380debatable at best. The German language wasn't unified for a long time and some dialects weren't understandable for most German speakers. Same with Greek, we know there were multiple vastly different dialects.
@@kennethadler7380 what a bunch of nonsense lol and 8 morons agree with you
Interestingly, the German Empire would serve as an almost ideal template for European integration. All that really would need to change are three things:
1. There would need to be majority rule (as opposed to unanimity) in the Council of the EU and hey, we're almost there already
2. There would need to be a common command structure and leader *during war time.* Something that should be doable, considering NATO is most of the way there already.
3. A slight prevalence for EU foreign policy over national one. Probably the most difficult, but certainly achieveable.
Other than that, we're basically already there. Legally speaking at least. The only current caveat being the ability of member states to leave; which would mostly not impact decision making.
@@crusty5059 That's called democracy and applies to any vote.
@@crusty5059 This applies to any kind of democracy, direct or not. It is the democracy part it is inherent to.
@@crusty5059 How about each country has the same amount of votes in one chamber, and the second less powerful chamber is proportional to people?
"members of a theoretical federal state could leave the organization, or change their relationship at anytime"
United States: "that's actually against the rules"
Yup. That's a paddling.
Well by that point the US was no longer a Loose Federation. Also, gotta paddle them slavers.
It depends on the rules of the federal state
In a lose-federation
The US is no lose-federation
At this point might as well just restore the Roman Empire
Awesome
Based
I like to think that an EU federation wouldn't rely on slavery and pillaging the neighbors, unlike the Romans.
Naaa... emperors have proven to be a faulty gouverment system. Unifying more and more, as willing, compromising, equal and free citizens, far better.
"Europe is too big to be united, but too small to be divided - its dual destiny is here ..."
- Daniel Faucher
who the fuck is Daniel Faucher
EU was never meant to expand towards the east as it was primarily a western economic alliance.
And here we are EU expanding towards the eastern part in subpar speeds until it reaches Russia.
Big thinkers have been mistaken before. A lot of people could see, and are seeing, the benefits of interrogation right now. The Scandinavians can align their defense policies, the Southern's can continue to excel at launching strategic assets. France is finding its new role while Germany is rearming, finally. In a proper union, a federation, these efforts would automatically align.
@@Siranoxz You make it sound like the EU is marching towards Russia, even though it's the countries bordering Russia pretty much begging on their knees to be allowed in.
There already exists a pan-european party with some succes in many counties. They have an MEP (from Germany), MPs in the Dutch parliament and the Bulgarian one, and many other members in local and municipal councils, the name of the party is Volt and considering that the video was about European Federalization, one of their key policies, I think it is relevant to mention them
A better question is: would the EU want to be a superpower? Being a superpower is a massive pain in the ass and it means being drawn into endless conflicts and crises the world over and it means constantly dealing with all the events of the entire world. I think a much better idea for the EU is to focus on strategic and economic autonomy, building up its own military strength to the point where it can credibly defend all its borders, its own economy to the point where it's mostly self sufficient in key respects and its own navy to the point where it can control its own marginal seas chiefly Mediterranean. An EU that's wealthy, independent, secure, federal and at the forefront of technological development is what I want to see, not necessarily an EU that has its fingers in every pie in the world.
Agree with you mostly.
A militarily superpower? No! Our past is full of conflict and our present shows "better together" is enriching us on all levels.
I disagree on defense. Even without NATO, no nation except the USA or nuclear strikes could bring the EU down. USA is so heavily interdependant with Europe, any conflict would be economical suicide for both sides.
Russia is loosing against Ukraine. Now imagine an invasion of Poland, who really have no desire to become russian subjects. Polish citizens would "welcome" russian troops same way as the ukranian citizens. Meanwhile Poland getting troops from all its european allies and Russia getting counterattacked on a boarder of thousands of thousands kilometres. And in contrary to Ukraine, the EU nations are heavily invested in air power.
Stupid point of view
The European Union already has its fingers in every pie in the world. Every power, great and small, is constantly dealing with events all over the world to maintain and increase that power. More power just means that you have a greater ability to actively shape those events.
It sounds like you assume being a "superpower" implies doing what the US does. They are not "drawn into endless conflicts." They invaded Grenada because their banana exports competed with Chiquita, for f-'s sake. It's completely avoidable.
@@AkselGAL europe can become the greatest millitary in the world if we wanted to. we hold the most experience when it comes to that. and this time no attacking eachother for it though
EU as a superpower is inevitable, at least as an attempt. In terms of longterm planning, it makes sense; why else would they form it in the first place?
I'm against sovereignty of individual EU countries. We need to stick together.
Average imperialist westoid
As an Armenian I would say the majority of our country wants to join the EU right now. We have done a lot for that. Corruption is low, democracy and free speech level is high, even higher than in some EU countries.
Yes it is, but the economy is still to weak :/
Mafia money laundering is your countries only business
Why/how does Armenia count itself part of Europe?
The same way Georgia does?
I would welcome you. Just get your house in order and your country will have a future as European nation. I think you'd do fine. And it would stabilize your country.
Unity all the way ! Stronger together !
As a U.S. citizen, I would love to see the E.U. emerge as a true third superpower with respect for human rights front and center in its constitution. The United States, in my opinion, has grown too used to being *the* democratic superpower of the world. It would do us some good to have an equal partner who could double-check our decisions and restrain our unilateral tendencies. In addition, our 2016-2020 adventure proved that the U.S. is not infallible. Authoritarianism can happen here, too. Europe should be able to set its own course and priorities should that happen, if it is to maintain its tradition of human rights and democracy.
A future European Federation would need to rethink its military, though. Its ability to project force would need a particularly large upgrade, for at least two reasons:
1). Europe remains a net resource importer. While rich in certain crucial mineral resources, the European continent is, by geological luck, remarkably poor in others. Oil, gas, rare earths, cobalt, and many other energy-critical resources come to mind. Maintaining the flow of those resources is thus a national security issue. European sovereignty requires that Europe be able to protect those flows, and that may require force projection into regions which do produce those resources.
2). In a hypothetical WWIII (pray that it never happens), any power with the ability to project force will have an enormous advantage over a power which does not. It is always better and cheaper to fight a war on someone else’s territory than on your own. If you need proof, just look at Ukraine today. Without an ability to project force beyond its immediate neighborhood, Europe will always be in the position of receiving strikes rather than making them. That’s an unenviable position to be in.
Well before the US was a democracy, it already existed in Europe (where it was born) so democracy has always been at core of European values and has always been a European thing. Greece, Iceland, the Cortes, the Carta Magna, the French Revolution, the Hansa, the Venetian Republic, etc... It was imported by Europeans to the American continent and it was them who created US after the values they had from Europe. So Europe was already projecting democratic values all the way across the planet since the very beginning. On the other hand, thinking the US is an actual democracy is a bit overstated since the presidents are always wealthy and always choosen from a duality party, this means that the lobbies and big corporations have A LOT of power in state affairs (Money is King in the US).. so much so they influence who is going to win and no matter who wins, little changes. US is an oligarchy of the wealthy desguised as a democracy. Triuth be told, a lot of countries are heading there too, including some of Europe.
I do agree that Europe needs first, to distance itself a bit from the US an have deals of its own that benefit Europe but might not benefit the US. For example the US blocked EU-Iran negotiations because US and Iran hate each other but Europe and Iran were settling energy treaties already that benefited Europe but not the US. So this type of mingling from the Americans must be stopped while still keeping close ties with them. This leds to the second point.
Europe needs to get it's own army to project it's power in case of attack on its interests. Our net resource importer was Russia, and Europe and Russia could have good relations if it wasnt controlled under Putin. But since it's not the case, Europe is currently (and has been for years) shifting to Electric cars, Solar pannel energy, wind energy and all sort of renewable energy source in order to become selfsufficient one day, anulling the power other countries might exerce in here.
It's a mistake to think Europe is poor in natural resources. Scortland and specially Norway have oil and Gas, Sweden has the largest iron deposits in the world, etc... But millenia of exploitation has eroded a lot of them. Specially things like silver or gold.
The EU has nothing to do with Human Rights....JUST a NAZI , lipstick on a Pig...
France would never fully get on board with a Federal EU, of course unless they were in the driver's seat, then maybe. More or less the same for Germany. Those two would be vying for the emperor's seat, if it were to even be a consideration.
France is the nation that has been pushing for a EU military the most. And yes they want to be in the driver’s seat of course.
There were times in which any cooperation with Germany would have called treason...
Time and people change.
Yea, we have this 15-30% of nationalistic idiots all arround.
But at the end, people in Europe are very similiar in attitudes, goals, view of the world.
@@AkselGAL not really. French and Germans still view things very differently. The English viewed things so differently they left the EU entirely. There's no guarantee the EU even survives the coming transition. The EU put all of their eggs into Russia's basket, and it is now apparent that decision was a fatal flaw of EU policy making for past two decades at least. The question of how the German and wider European industrial base will cope without *necessary* raw materials and energy from Russia is left completely unanswered. As it's becoming apparent China is supplying arms to Russia, China will also face trade bans. How will the EU cope with losing raw materials and energy from Russia, while simultaneously losing Chinese consumption and cheap manufacturing is a near existential crisis for the EU. The US being energy independent, and not relying much on exports to China, doesn't face the challenges Europe is now facing down. We are currently decentralizing manufacturing out of China as well, much of it likely going to Mexico in the next decade or so (as Mexican labor is 30% the cost of Chinese labor, and is of higher quality). Europe doesn't have nearly as good options in comparison. We will see how the EU weathers the coming crisis, to see if a stronger union is even possible within the European landscape.
@@the11382 the British smartly saw that the EU in it's current form is a crisis away from dissolution. Serious reforms are now necessary for the EU to even survive the coming decades. Putting all of the EU's eggs in Russia's basket of energy and raw materials was a fatal flaw in their policy making over the past decades. The English saw the nonsense and decided to hitch their wagon to the US economy, rather than a EU economy that was destined to tank after the Russian system was cut off from the world trade system.
@@the11382same with the dutch ahahab
I still don't understand how Europe hasn't forced Turkey to stop the illegal occupation of Cyprus
because it is not entirely illegal. Cyprus was leased to British empire by the Ottomans and the island was invaded by Britain when the two got in war so there was a big hustle when the time for decolonization came. Turks wanted it partitioned and Greeks demanded union with Greece which gave the British the genius idea of creating a multiethnic state in the island that would be guaranteed by Turkey, Greece and Britain. Greek nationalists on the island were not happy since they thought the deal gave too much power to Turkish minority(aprox %20 of the population) and they organized a coup installing religious fanatics and starting the process for union with Greece. Turkey invaded later due to interethnic violence in the island which disproportionately affected the Turkish minority and here we are today. I mean Turks already wanted to partition the island but they did not have a casus belli until ultra religious nationalist ogres gave them one with massacring Turkish civilians. Britain could have stopped it all but did not do so and Cyprus would not even be a country today if Turkey did not invade since it would have become a province of Greece. It is not like your main stream news outlets give proper information and background when they tell a story you know...
Mainly cus EU is all talk and no actions.
All EU knows, is to say "we condemn this".. and then do nothing about it.
@@s.p9638thanks for spreading truth
Stars on flags are op
I like the idea of a closer EU. It would also be good if teh EU would be less dependent on the USA and would form more of a counter weight.
Yeah it's embarrassing how there is a war in Europe and the USA has to yet again carry our continent
you know the USA practically protected all of europe since ww2?
@@majesticfool Nope, the USA protected their own interests in Europe since ww2.
@@lukaszwojtowicz1981 what were they?
@@majesticfool is not something against the US, the US would always remain allies and friends, but certainly European and American interests in the 21st century aren't always aligned. A strong independent EU would serve as an ally to the US while also allowing Europeans to take their interests deeper into consideration first (as Americans already do). Is about creating an entity that can work and collaborate with the US as equals, which is not currently the case.
I really hope to see a Federal European Union, at least to see European countries cooperating in a more coordinated way when it comes to foreign policy and dealing with superpowers like the US and China.
I prefer the EU to stay as the way it was intended. An economic union. Not really fond of the idea to hand over the reigns of my nation to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
@@zjeeewell we of course would need a different kind of democratic government like a president who is actually elected unline now
@@zjeeethe solution is to get rid of the council and commission. With that you are left with a fully democratic parliament.
The EU exists to be the US vassal state
@@zjeee European commissioners are designated by member states and voted into power by the European Parliament, just like national governments are formed. The parliament is fully and directly elected. The council is formed of the heads of state, which are either elected or voted for by the national parliaments, which are themselves elected. What exactly do you mean by unelected bureaucrats?
Do you consider your national government to be unelected bureaucrats? All EU officials which are in a position of authority are either directly elected or as accountable in front of directly elected representatives as your own government, and are not at all career bureaucrats, like a clerk of an administrative institution, hired, not voted for, either directly by the people or by another elected body, such as a national parliament.
Unelected bureaucrats is a myth propagated by anti-EU actors, be they nationalistic parties in Europe or anti-democratic forces such as Russia or China. The EU is indeed a huge bureaucracy, and that's inevitable, very specifically because it has to carefully navigate a tight and narrow path between conflicting interests of member states, but it's not at all led by bureaucrats.
As a Dane, I would give a European Federation a hard pass.
Working together with your neighbour is a completely differently level, than sharing homes.
As a Dane i would sign up for the European Fedaration immediatly
Working together is not the same as sharing homes and the only way our small irrelevant state can handle the big challenges of the world of tomorrow is to be part of something larger.
Maybe you need the same treatment as Britain to see what is means to be isolated in Europe. Completely only Denmark. Just think about, how you feel to go against Germany or France or even Netherlands.
That is what you are doing to europeans against China and Russia and soon India
@@blackhole3298just to clarify this dude is in the minority when it comes to support for our EU memebership, most danes are very supportive especcialy after the brexit disaster.
@@alexanderrose1556 I believe I must clarifiy my statement, as it seems to have been misunderstood twice in a row, based on your responses.
I am not against working together with the other EU countries. Heck, if it was up to me, I would unite all of Scandinavia into one country (if not all the Nordic countries if possible).
I am just not in favor of going all in, as it seems like the most extreme solution, to a problem, which I believe can be handled with much less.
And while you are right, that the majority of the Danes are positive in their attitude towards the EU. That does not mean, that they are willing to go all-in. Just like the majority wants animals to give good lives. But the majority is not about to go so far, as to become vegans.
@@sfp2290 Well, you had an opt out against an EU army as well as the euro (probably have).
Your minister not so long ago vowed to do everything against an EU army that was proposed by Macron. The Danish population directly went against the foreign policy of 60 million French people. You had an opt out from the beginning and everything that would have been decided would have not applied to you anyways.
You see the problem of the big countries? These were always the countries that made Europe powerful and we continue to live of our old empires status that is diminishing everyday. There is currently the believe that every European people deserves a good life and peace, but that will quickly change if it would require the old European powers to be completely destroyed.
Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain had to give in to alot of the demands of the smaller nations who are in my opinion, in part completely unfit to have any say in Europe because they never had to defend Europe and just give a shit about its bigger brothers. You can only achieve solidarity between the big nations if, the big nations sponsor and leverage the power of the smaller states, but in return the smaller states must back at least foreign policy of Europe. Otherwise the big states will end the single market rather quickly.
If you are a big nationality you might as well call it the period of humiliation after the last empires got dissolved. You know the answer to that if you know history, or watch China today
I am a massive supporter of the EU, despite its many flaws, and I'd endorse progressing the union into a Federation. Specially if we take into consideration what happened to the Holy Roman Empire, which stood "half way through" for too long and eventually collapsed, which is exactly what the EU has been doing since the Treaty of Lisbon.
However, I don't think we Europeans understand one basic element of this equation: Germany, the UK, France, Spain, Poland... Some of us haven't been relevant superpowers for centuries. None of us are anymore. Our flags, our economies, our military... they're just a weak heirloom from the past and we don't stand a chance if we want a seat at the modern table, on our own.
Alas, we don't get it, the same way the Hellenic city states failed to do so as well.
It makes the most sense for Europe to unify as a single federation super nation like the USA. This will put it into the category of super powers like USA and China, and can thus compete on a level playing field of economic and (eventually soon enough) military might. UK logically should join this large new superpower, adding it's might and benefiting from the weight of the new federation
I think UK will come back in a close future when they will change their minds, be more open and less focussed on themselves, I think this is just a matter of time, even if being aside with the US, the EU is closer and probably more profitable on the long term.
When the music kicked in at 9:50 i expected to hear the voice of Shirvan from Caspian Report.
Kings and generals is overall pretty objective id say. Tries to cover a lot of things from neutral point of view.
Caspian report is informative but listen with a pinch of salt as it is sometimes highly biased.
@@EV02EV01EV00funny how I would have said the exact contrary! 😅 I guess the lesson is "take everyone With a grain of salt"
Caspian report smells of russbots
@@lordz00 And Erdolf bots too
While the video is well-made, I really don't understand the confidence of the narrator at some points. Especially towards the end, it felt a lot like pro-EU propaganda about how the EU will be a pillar of stability for all states etc.
As a Greek, the EU has been the main reason behind my people's economic misfortunes and most Greeks (in fact the people of most "smaller" countries) do not feel as if their needs and priorities are addressed by the EU.
@@arnold3768 You clearly have no idea of what happened (and continues to happen) in Greece. I would not make such a claim if there wasn't substantial evidence of this. In fact, I am not the only one making this claim, it is backed by the majority of the academic community in economics.
It is futile to try and debate with you over UA-cam comments, but I will just state that I actually teach economics in the US, with a focus on the financial crisis of 2008, so I will warmly encourage you to try and educate yourself on this matter via reading some textbooks and/or watching some videos. If you want any recommendations, just let me know. :)
No one forced Greeks to spend more money then they have had. Greeks did this to themselves taking a lot of loans (state and private) which they couldn't pay back.
@@lukaszwojtowicz1981 Before the crisis Greece was in deep financial trouble that was partly the previous governments' fault, yes.
However, after the crisis, the memoranda that were put in place were not aiming to bring sustainability back to Greece but instead to maximize profit for the bankers of the UK and Switzerland who saw this situation as an opportunity instead of a crisis.
It is very short sighted to only blame Greece for what happened, as it only explains the situation up to 2009 and not afterwards, and not even the full story there.
@@Istorian After crysis Greece had too options. Bankruptcy or paying off debts. The only way to pay debts was to get money from somewhere. Money came from the EU. The only condition was to bring back responsible economic policies. It means no more spending money like crazy and taking loans whenever it was possible. That's all. I know that they would love to get money and live like nothing happened. But in that case no-one would borrow them money. 🤷
@@lukaszwojtowicz1981 Unfortunately you seem to be highly mistaken on the matter. Nobody wanted to keep living like nothing happened, and keep in mind that when the Greek government lied about its finances it also lied to the people as well, not just the EU.
The part where you're mistaken though is where you say that the only conditions set out by the EU were to have responsible financial policies. That's flat out wrong. If you read the memoranda (I have, it's part of my job), and have any basic education in macroeconomics, you will quickly realize that the policies required to be implemented were not there to guarantee sustainability but to ensure that Greece remains financially dependent on the EU for political leverage, while maximizing the profit of the loaners, and the plan worked to perfection for those who drafted it.
In fact, perhaps the most striking thing is that policies like the ones required by the memoranda were previously considered unimaginable and too ludicrous to be implemented in any country, by the academic community. If such policies were implemented for example in Germany or France in a similar situation, the EU would be a shell of what it is now.
What about Turkey as a candidate for EU membership? Why didn't you mention that? I think in the long run it will be an inevitable debate.
No one in Europe wants Turkey to join
As long as Turkey is ruled by a dictator and enforces islamic extremism, it has no chance in joining. A secular, progressive Turkey, which respects the autonomy of the Kurds and Armenians, and has democracy and respects human rights, then we can talk.
@@jehandesains8674 ah yes.. in 200 years maybe.
Not until Atatürk's vision comes true.
4:43 small eu-nerd-fix: "The Head of State *and* Government" i.e. The King of the Netherlands is the Head of State of the Netherlands but has no seat in the European Council. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, as the Head of Government, does.
The Member States actually decide themselves who they send. In theory nothing would stop them to send their actual Head of State for Symbolic gatherings. But that has not happened as of yet.
I for myself would really love the actual Heads of State to be meeting for symbolic events. For example when the Council choses the Commission President (defacto Prime Minister of the EU) or when welcoming a new Memberstate.
Yes, but in a less conventional manner. Economically, technologically, diplomatically and culturally, the EU is a powerhouse. What I wish we did was cooperate more on a military level so we could defend ourselves instead of depending on the US to do it for us. It tethers us to them and their policies, which more often than not, contradict with the overal EU stance on a lot of issues. And it also makes us heavily dependent on who has the president hat overseas; something that also does not sit well with me.
Military cooperation in the EU risks blurring the lines that separate it from NATO. Besides, an european army wouldn't answer to elected national oficials but to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I don't like that one bit.
I am not sure man France is the nation that has been signaling its willingness to lead a united European army. Honestly I trust the US a lot more than I trust France. Besides our US alliance is a defensive alliance only and we have no obligation to follow them into a war unless we want to.
I have big trust that Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, Andorra and Switzerland are incapable of conquering us!
Russia? European Union + UK have enough nukes to put 8x nukes on every capital russian city.
Conventional war? The Ukranian war would be a russian army summer holiday camp special in comparision to the military arsenal, monetary might, industrial capacity, population size thrown on them by the EU nations. And the polish and baltic people will not "welcome" the russians with flowers, only if the flower is glued to an ATGM. And a few days later all hell would break loose on the russians.
Ukraine had neither nukes, nor significant airpower, big fleets, thousands of cruise missiles.
China as an ally to Russia or keeping its economy intact? No brainer.
Yea, we are not the USA as europeans.... but together, we are the most heavily armed region after them.
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py These bureaucrats are answering to elected national officials, who elected them. So yes, they would and do answer to the people, maybe more indirectly, altough i do think we should have a more direct system, with a people elected parliament and a people elected commission.
What you are saying is impossible since Germany is being held hostage by a clique of politicians who are sold to the Russians. There is no "German independent state" as of now. All decisions are run by Russia and occasionally the US, as has been since WW2.
The German people have no intention to change this status quo out of existential dread - Germans consider that any gesture to elevate military independence will bring back Nazi sentiment. They prefer to be openly racist against for example Eastern Europeans and to dominate Europe economically.
Until that changes, there will be no federated EU. We in the East do not wish to become subjects of this traitorous clique of German politicians. They will sell us out the first chance they get, while still claiming that they need to be the absolute leaders of EU policy in all domains.
An example in history could be an example.
The German confederation:
The rules of the Confederation provided for three different types of military interventions:
-the federal war (Bundeskrieg) against an external enemy who attacks federal territory,
-the federal execution (Bundesexekution) against the government of a member state that violates federal law,
-the federal intervention (Bundesintervention) supporting a government that is under pressure of a popular uprising.
The German Federal Army (Deutsches Bundesheer) was supposed to collectively defend the German Confederation from external enemies, primarily France. Successive laws passed by the Confederate Diet set the form and function of the army, as well as contribution limits of the member states
"Bundesexekution"
Never has a word been more German.
The EU is a mess and not very democratic. There are too few voices for their competencies. I hope that the EU will never continue to suffocate the member states
Cyprus should included in the maps. Very interesting video
Cyprus is not in Europe, a little bit hard to put it in a map. Cue argument saying it is.
@@issamkholoud2009 you should check the title , EU 😂😂😂😂
@@chrisd997 then the video maker should include the French and Dutch parts of the eu in South America and the Caribbean, gets a little silly now doesn’t it. After all EU is in the title.
@@issamkholoud2009 fair point given also the superpower title and the potential impact of overseas territories
As good as this channel is at explanation this video demonstrates the problem with the EU. It is a complex and Byzantine organization. As a demonstration of I leave a challenge to the readers: Find what the European people need to change if they don't like an EU law that had a purpose but no longer well serves Europe.
My contention is that this is hard to the point of being impossible. That makes a system that grows and gains power but can never be corrected. This will, eventually, lead to member states becoming so disenfranchised by the system that they will be willing to rebel or wage war to leave it.
Only 2 things:
1 vote for the parties that want that change in the European parliament elections.
2 vote for the partjes that want that change in the national elections.
And as option 3, write to your national politician, European councilor, or evem write to the Eiropean commision to see if the law can still be effectively enforced (if a bad one).
Its not THAT complex.
@@BarringtonDrive Tell me what the actual mechanism is in the EU system for removing or overwriting a law.
@@tedhill5983
... I just told you, right now. That is what you, as a civilian, can do.
Otherwise go into politics
@@BarringtonDrive You don't understand the question. How does the EU remove or overwrite a law? If it practically can't then no amount of people voting will help.
So, answer that question.
Kaliningrad glancing around nervously
Unlike the Russian the EU does not wage wars under the guise of obsolete casus bellis like imperialism. Let the people of Kalinigrad choose their own destiny, but we will make sure the Russian government does not stop other peoples from doing the same.
But why would anyone want this? Like how do the individuals in these countries benefit from a more centralized government, making more and more decisions further and further away from them?
EU is not a government that is further away, if anything it's in many cases more actively engaged with regions and municipalities than the states are.
Furthermore the EU have so far been able to reduce the damage that retarded memberstates like Hungary can cause.
Do you like the US calling the shots? Because in practice that's how it currently works. Sanctions, trade deals, military cooperation, all of that an more needs a US seal of aproval first. A strong European Union would help return power back to Europe and achieve geopolitical independence from the US and other countries.
@@iamlegqso we don’t care about becoming fascists and authoritarians just as long as the US doesn’t run the show?
Man the EU parliament finna turn into the The Grand Convocation Chamber from star wars with that many members lol
As a Frenchman, let me give you a contradictory inner view on the EU on the points you developed in your video.
- I understand that from a North American point of view, a European federation must seem like a great idea but it is really not to many of us: we do not share the same history, culture, economical system, foreign interest, diplomatic relations with non-EU states with any other country in Europe. Only a very small minority of Europeans feel part of it rather than part of their own country. We just do not want to be part of the same state.
- You stated that a united Europe should and would have to maintain amicable relations with the us because we share the same democratic values... Well I think we really do not. Once again, what interest do we share with the US? Some countries might need the American umbrella to protect them but here again, others do not. The French want to part from American foreign policy and we do not want to share our chair at the UN security council with other states.
- The EU forces us to destroy our social state, give up our border and monetary sovereignty and makes us de facto vassals of the US. What good is there to keep it?
My hope is that this European nightmare ends soon, hopefully with a Frexit. Now you might say that this is just a personal point of view but on the few occasions that the people were consulted on the EU matter like in 2005, we voted "no" to a further integration of UE states. (Oh! and by the way, what did the champion of democracy that is EU do? they just passed the same bill 3 years later without a vote).
70% of all EU citizens feel that they are European citizens opposed to just national citizens. That's not a small group but admittedly from 2020 so maybe things went even higher since then. France is part of a particularly Eurosceptic part of the memberstates. Not at the bottom of course but certainly lower than most. Only 27% say they don't want to be a European and would prefer only a national identity. Is there Euroscepticism? Sure but you got a solid ~20% of the average Western population that will always be nationalistic and thus always reject any form of unification. That's a stable percentage that remained constant as far back as the 50's. So having 27% rejecting it is entirely in the line of expectation as it's unrealistic to believe that everyone not nationalistic would be pro-EU. It just sounds like you're stuck in your echo chamber instead of looking at the actual statistics.
@@mormacil hey there! You're absolutely right, my comment is not based on any statistics. My point was not that a majority of Europeans want to see it end. I was expressing an opinion shared by a significant part of French citizen. Would you mind sharing these data with me? I would be really interested in reading them.
pS: Is that from the eurobarometer? Can we consider it an independent source? Not that I want to discuss the figure itself but the way the question is asked is of prime importance, especially when talking about a feeling.
That doesn’t mean they would be willing to give up their sovereignty lol
Gotta love that Denmark-Germany border on your map.
Whoever named the parts of the EU government needed to use a thesaurus. They really over use the word council
Although the heads of state have to unanimously agree to the transfer of sovereignty, these heads of states often don't have the support of the majority of the electorate for such transfers of power. These heads of states often fail to ask permission to do so via referendum, because they know what the outcome will be.
Man, northern Jutland in Denmark looks a bit flooded here!
Thanks for all your great videos.
thank you
I think the idea of whether or not one is comfortable with a European federation depends on how comfortable one is with giving away power to foreign politicians and bureaucrats that one didn't vote for, and thus can't hold accountable. A federalized and more centralized EU would be a democratic disaster for Europe.
People also give power away to politicians in different regions of their country without being able to vote for them, that isn't really different to giving it away to politicians from another country/region in the (con)federation imo.
@@MDP1702of course it’s different. It’s different because we have allegiance to our own countries. We don’t have allegiance to the EU.
@@noodlyappendage6729 If EU is a country then by default your country is EU, you just countered yourself
MDP, I disagree. It’s not the same, politicians in different regions and counties can only make regional/local decisions so it doesn’t matter to people in other regions. You cannot compare that to bodies of government that makes national decisions. Totally different.
@@noodlyappendage6729 Why do you have allegiance to your country? They are as much a construct as the EU, just an older. In the past everyone had allegiance to a smaller region than the countries now. Personally I have just as much allegiance to the EU as my country/region. I see no really reason why I shouldn't.
Ithink the 3 tier version of Europe given by the french president,quite a good idea.I would love to see a bigger and stronger Europe,but it will take time and obviously our enemies won't like it. Europe knows that divided will not achieve nothing,we must unite,so we can be stronger.GOD BLESS EUROPE,AND THE EUROPEANS.
i mean.. i want all of us to be friends and close allies.
But i don't want us to be.. One.
We are not usa.
@@akhsdenlew1861 top 15 strongest european countrys should just unite as one we dont need the rest it would cause more problems anyway
@@cobraeditz9454 sounds impossible, and just a bad idea...although i am curious to hear those "15"
EU states have demographic problems that will become unignorable in the coming decades. Demographics is everything and is way more important than some hypothetical federation.
Europe for Europeans
The problem you have is you have states with compete different outlooks on things. You have France that highly active in Africa with it military and then you have people like Germany, who hates spending money on their military and never want to use it. So who going to win out there?
You have EU finding it almost impossible to agree on anything and handle everything bad because of it.
If you are going to have one country, what national health care system will it have? Because France can't keep what they have now when people in Greece get a lot different.
Is Finland, Germany and so on willing to eat Spain, Italy and Greece debt.
That not even the tip of the problems they have to deal with.
Also if EU forms a country then they only have one vote at the UN not 27. Texas in the USA don't get it own vote.
Countries in Africa, Asia or America's will not be dealing with a country they might like and know, they will be dealing with a new country made up from people like and dislike with a lot of inner troubles going on in it.
Very lovely stuff by Kings and Generals!! Europeans have to wake up and appreciate that no single national state will ever be stronger alone as opposed to when being within the EU. The older I become the more I am being appalled with all these pseudo nationalist groups in different European states. Being part of the EU does not mean at all having to give up on your cultural heritage. This high number of sovereign states makes hardly any sense when all countries have a similar legal, political and economical setup. What are these nationalists afraid of? Well, it's probably not fear but the desire to cut oneself a larger slice of the piece.
The EU is not and never will be a Union.
The bell button was pressed Mr. Brown
Only at self harm, compromising its own future and finally, loosing at everything.
The fact that video surfaced means a lot
As Serb i honestly hope we will never join EU, not the hate or anything, just don't want to be someone bootlicker
No offence but isn't that what your governemnt is doing right now when it comes to russia?
It could be and it should be. Europe should be able to protect itself and handle it's own business without American aid. The EU should be able to guarantee security and grant nuclear status to all member countries.
EU most certainly can protect itself. without the Americans.
who is the threat?
Russia can't beat Ukraine. Go check some stats.
As for business, €17 trillion economy.
"Is the EU a superpower."
Its a loose confederation without a formal military so i'd say no.
But it could become one
It is difficult enough to get the local mayor to do what the people want. Why are so many people this enamored with ever larger and less accountable governments?
"The common good " and "increased security" are always the justification for more power.
The EU as it stands is already too much of an overreach.
It would be so cool if the EU's militaries agreed to contribute one bot each that could combine into a giant mech robot; like in Power Rangers. And you wouldn't need all 27 pieces for the mech, like different bots could combine together for different missions. Just putting it out there.
Its interesting how the EU seems to have imitated the USA in some ways and the UN in other ways.
A interesting view of the EU to this Canadian.
"De facto empires are a good thing actually"
Theoretically yes on paper it is, but Russia was also the Worlds 2nd Strongest Military on paper just a few short years ago. I would be inclined to say yes if Great Britain was still a part of the EU. The EU's problem is the fractious nature of it's Political body, while the EU is supposed to be a Governing body that unites Europe, underneath that layer there's a complex web of Political Entities. While the USA is pretty divided atm, really it's Political System is a 2 Party system with a few other options such as Independents. Within a single EU Nation, they sometimes comprise of well over 100 Political Parties. Simple answer.. if the EU can be on the same page, yes they are Superpower, but if they are not.. well then it's pretty much a loose Alliance of Nations.. some strong.. some not so strong..
What an odd title when you know perfectly well that it probably can't
Germany, France, and Spain joined together on a 6th Generation Fighter Project and can’t agree on it being Carrier capable, whose making what parts, etc… to the point 2035 is the optimistic goal for deployment.
While the US is looking at 2030 projections for 2 6th Gen Fighters, and they’ve already recently revealed the B-21 a 6th Gen Bomber. The UK meanwhile pulled Italy, Japan, and Sweden into their own 6th Gen project as well.
Never mind Poland’s goals of being the most militarized state in Europe with the goal of grinding Russian soldiers into dust for just looking at them funny.
My point is the EU isn’t a super bloc, it can influence but as we’ve seen once nations feel threatened or have their own interests that unity goes out the door real quick. The recent Ukraine war has reminded Eastern Europe that relations with America will always match if not exceed relations with France or Germany. Especially when America is always up to fight where Germany’s lack luster approach to Ukraine hasn’t built anyone confidence in an EU super state.
Europe lacks alot of natural resources needed to compete long term. So as a super power they'd lose to any other power like China because China has 1. a larger population. 2. Somewhat reliable channels to get raw resources to manufacture.
Are you trying to claim other countries like Canada had no say I the joint strike fighter program?😂
yeah sure, america is already preparing to pull out. poland thinks america is this super ally while america cares more about asia right now
@@RRRRR15 Your Source? Cause if you can’t give anything accurate your just pulling this out of your ass. Poland is buying everything to be militarily self sufficient it’s not relying on the US to fight for them, it’s strategy is to be strong enough to deter conflict but if it comes kick ass and be ready to join in a greater NATO effort. China’s threat isn’t so great the US can’t project power in multiple fronts.
@@RRRRR15 Because China is a far larger adversary which can threaten the world's critical trade routes. The US wants to pull out of Europe but couldn't because most NATO countries skimped-out on army funding for decades.
The invasion of Ukraine demonstrated to the US that Russia wasn't the Soviet Union, and that what it inherited from it could be grinded down to irrelevancy, along European countries finally waking up to grease their military industry again.
This is good for both the US and Europe, as the former will soon be able to fully concentrate on the largest threat while us European will hopefully not need a babysitter anymore.
'sigh' I need this lab protocol ready by today and it will be an absolute nightmare... oh a new K&G video!
this won't happen we are already fed up with european influence. more autonomy not less.
That's not what people vote for but maybe you are in charge
Where can I find bibliography for the video essay?
thansk for this one!
well made, as all your vids.
Well done for the great work and the very informative video.
It was really refreshing (and somehow a bit hopeful) to watch a video of your channel that is not focused on war.
I hope you'll make more similar ones in the future.
Is the word "unilateral" being used when the word "unanimous" is intended?
For the EU to start being a superpower first they have to start spending on their own defense. The fact that the EU spends so little on defense depending mostly on the US is going to negatively affect the EU at some point.
except thats not a fact.
thats you parroting nonsense. sheeple.
manparrotsheep.
Never going to happen. Most Europe country are struggling to get people in uniform as it is.
So an EU army would most likely be a horde of conscripts who don't want to be there and can't even talk to their commanding officers.
It's not about money perse: defence per capita in Denmark for example is much more expensive than in Bulgaria: Bulgaria gets more buck for its money. European NATO countries also have a significant higher amount of ships, tanks, other armoured vehicles and people in uniform than the US. The main problems are a) the armies are separated per country, rather than being united as one army like the USA and b) there's a massive difference between the quality of equipment between the different armies, with a lot of former Communist countries still using equipment from that era.
@@zaros1781 that's becouse in USA everyone is in the same line and have the same interests.
In EU, that's not the case.
The EU'S interests are nothing alike with the interests of my country for example ( greece) , especially as far as defence is concerned.
Most of the EU cares to defend against russia, but my country cares to defend against turkey.
So you see there, that our interests are just not the same.
Therefore it will be impossible for my country to send men into an EU agenda ( which is mainly russia), when we have problems of our own.
Indeed. Although putins vicious war of aggression against Ukraine has prompted the european countries to really strengthen their armies and increase defense budgets.
Confederate States of Europe (CSE) :) the Bonnie Blue Flag 🇪🇺
The EU is kind of like the Holy Roman Empire, in theory it could really kick ass, but all the tarded internal divisions and silly ways of doing things meant it never lived up to its potential.
Amazing comment!
Freedom to leave EU might become more of a big question mark after EU gets it's own military, their Norman Bates-esque approach to whom has the right to membership and even sovereignty, by which I'm mainly meaning Scotland and Catalonia doesn't bring any peace of mind. On one hand they sing the freedom of Scots to join back to EU after separation but the other they threaten Catalonia of repercussions if they do so instead of membership, now what would such a sociopathic organization manage to do with a full military, who knows.
Great work !
We have a very long way to go for this to happen, and one of the most basic mentalities that have to change concern issues that in every other sovereign country are of the absolutely basic level. When Turkey occupies half of Cyprus for 50 years, and never for a single day stops making threats and irrational demands against Greece for 202 years, but countries with interests tied to Turkey, like Germany, act in a neutral manner, instead of a resolute supportive stance in favour of, well, part of their state's future self, then what kind of European State without an ounce of European solidarity are we talking about? Same goes with when most countries leave Greece to deal with the immigrant problem on our own, when Europe treats Greece worse for owing millions, than Europe treated Germany for killing millions!
Just imagine USA, being invaded by Russia in Alaska or Japan in Hawaii, and Washington DC saying "I don't know, Alaska straighten your relations with Russia, I don't care, I'm neutral, Oahu, you bear some responsibility for being bombed by the Japanese, sort it out!"
Just imagine Illinois saying "don't concern me with migration policies and budget, it's all Texas' and California's problem! Let then Burn!"
Just imagine California saying "You know what? MY economy is threatened by the bad economy of Missouri, so in order to save myself, I'm going to force Missouri to implement such policies that anyone living in that state is condemned to poverty for the next 100 years!"
No mentality of Europe as a "We", no Europe as a state.
Short Answer. Yes, but not easily and a lot will have to happen before that point.
As an EU citizen, I wouldn't support a fully unified federal EU, I would stop unification just before that. Not because of national sovereignty, but because the constant search of consensus between different actors/countries is one of the things that give the EU a great deal of healthy stability.
EU should be a federation like the Swiss one, that leaves most power to the various states. The EU should deal only with Foreign policy, Defence, Monetary policy and at best some major infrastructure projects. Things like ethical issues (abortion, gay rights, etc...), justice system, healthcare, etc ... should be left to the member states
You are suggesting giving over control over foreign policy and defense decisions to a body consisted of people not elected by the people they are meant to make decisions for? No thanks I prefer to have the power to vote out politicians making defense and foreign policy changes that I don’t agree with. If you can’t keep your political leaders responsible for their decisions then what’s the e point of having a democracy at all.
@@zjeee Why wouldn't they be elected by the people just like national or even local politicians?
@@zjeee I didnt know that the Swiss Federal Council is not elected by the people.
Can we please get a CANZUK VIDEO.
We can't even trust the UK to keep to a union, let alone another newer one.
No, as it can't project military power in any way, and is utterly dependent on the nuclear protection of two non-EU states; the US and UK. Its future will depend on how it handles the migrant crisis, as the natives are not going to accept mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East continuing, as it being proven quite clearly. Yet a humane way of solving it is not yet obvious.
You mean France?
France has nukes
Ah yes, the EU has always had the choice to have a nuclear arsenal. The only reason why most countries didn't is because nobody wanted more nuclear proliferation, as that increases the risk of nuclear war. Also, even right now as others pointed out France has a nuclear arsenal.
Mass migration will still be a thing as long as climate change isn't contrasted and as long as corrupt leaders are held in position in those poor countries in order to preserve the interests of foreign companies. I guess that "natives" includes Europeans migrants living in other European countries and European citizens of non-European heritage.
@@katieee4915 France had to rely on British air support for it's recent jaunt in Mali.
It is not remotely capable of projecting power or defending Europe, nor does it have the global delivery system the US and UK have for their nuclear weapons.
"The founding fathers of the EU proved that the common good of the people of Europe is more important than any national interest." - The issue is whose common interest? Because making Greek suffer for say the Netherlands is not a fair deal. The common good only matters when it is good for all, which is rarely the case.
100% this was a pro-EU propaganda piece.
Greek politicians brought that to themselves
@@staC-wh6ik The EU helped a lot.. don't worry.
it's easy to blame the country and miss the whole picture here.
it's obvious that the EU's interest lies North...
The south will suffer for the north to flourish.
I think it would have been helpful if the EU consisted of 'modules' which countries could decide the join, or leave, if that wasn't working out. example, Customs union could be one. Schengen could be another. Maybe fisheries could be another, or maybe the common agricultural policy. Joint EU refugee and asylum could be another.. and the common currency another.. I think you get the idea.
The fight for a federalised European Union is much older. It just started right after the prominent Speech of Schuman. A multinational coalition of young people created the UEF and started the European Movement.
If you're under 30, you should check out about the Young European Federalists. You can find them in all Member and some non member states. They offer great opportunities to get involved and in touch in European politics. And it's a great way to get in touch with people all around europe :)
a federal united europe.. Damn that sounds awfull.
Montenegro is already in NATO and should be a new member of the EU, that would give other countries hope that they too will join one day.🇲🇪🇪🇺🇪🇺🇲🇪
We have a bouquet of roses waiting for you. Don't be late ❤
I absolutely love MNE and believe that MNE joining the EU would benefit the EU and MNE massively. Your politicians just need to get their act together and ensure that MNE joins the EU asap.
Montenegro would do well in the EU. It's probably the chillest of the Balkan countries
It's interesting that in the UK a "Federal Europe" was used to mean a Europe with stonger powers for individual states rather than the opposite it is used here (prior to brexit).
One of us is wrong, I wonder who...
Haven't finished the video yet, but let's face it, it's basically exactly what Belgium's Foreign Minister Mark Eyskens called it back in 1991: "[a]n economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm." If being humiliated for a solid decade due to their collective impotence in the face of the Yugoslavia meltdown wasn't enough to get them to man up and get serious about forming a credible joint defense force outside the umbrella of American leadership, nothing will be.
One thing I cant argue against, is the EU has successfully helped peace in a continent who is always fighting.
Didnt the austrian empire try this?
Go ahead for federation!
I support the creation of a federal Europe.
To me, all Europeans are like siblings to me. Our nations evolved and in many ways, helped each other thoughout our history. We may still have disagreements and a few bad apples in our states, but that shouldnt let it disunite us.
The EU has been a blessing to our continent as it allowed our economies to recover and grow after years of war and dictatorships and more importantly, it had (mostly) ended the cycle of war and bloodshed that had plaqued Europe since God knows when. Even eurosceptics like Le Pen and Orban know how important the union is.
So to all my fellow Europeans, i salute you and may our fortunes continue in the future.
Completely agree now, lets see the tankies saying anything else without substanse and spam disinformation.
I welcome our union and all our continental brothers with open arms, brother. The EU is the most ambitious and successful diplomatic, political and geopolitical accomplishment ever seen in world history. It trumps every peace conference, every trade agreement, every foreign policy collaboration, every successful negotiation between peoples, because the European Union are all of these combined. Never before in world history has such a vast group of people come together to shed superficial differences and join together for the benefit of all. It is a beacon for all of mankind, a glorious precedent that is sure to make all of humanity more peaceable and willing to work together. Certainly mankind has a long way to in the arena of peace and reason, but one cannot help but smile when you see what great triumphs mankind can will when we are united
No. Im sorry, but not with the direction the EU is currently taking. It is a union for the rich, for oligarchs, and corporations. Serving only their own interests.
How could the EU stand for the people, when its rulers are hellbent on keeping their economic power?
You're never going to make the average Finn feel the same kinship for the average Portugese, that they do for one of their own. To force all of these different peoples under one roof, with their different languages, cultures, histories and traditions, and apply some kind of artificial "European" identity to them in an attempt to pretend we're all the same is never going to work. We're not just European, we're Germans, Frenchmen, Swedes, Danes, Poles, Spaniards etc. and we're all very different.
As for crediting the EU with "ending war in Europe", I think the living and highly documented memory of WWII itself has done more to prevent war in Europe than the EU ever has, but that's a different discussion.
@@Etzellll Baseless lies, where is Threads? I cant download it, thuss its complete BS your spouting
great. now im an anarchist
The Euroblob consumes all cultures.
Increase Crown Authority!!!
Lol, it looks like you used the Russian flag instead of the Dutch flag in one of the early animations
Hello, am 'new subcriber'. Save first, and then listen to. Thank you for sharing this insightful content.
Kinda seems like their best option to compete with the US , China and Russia economically
Russia lol
@@Finkaisar lol maybe I should have just said Putin
I'm not so sure if there is another option at all. The largest economy in Europe, Germany, is only slightly larger than the largest economy among the US states, California. And then the US has a few other titans, like Texas and New York.
Russia is only an issue due to proximity. But China and the US are more pressing. China due to manufacturing, and more importantly, the US. America is what I refer to as a "friendly bully". He'll help you out the best he can, but he'll also eat your lunch, telling you that you owe him.
@@me0101001000 Indeed. We need to remain allies with the US, sure, but we need to get rid of our dependence on them. For now, they're leagues better than Russia and China, in no small part because they ideologically align with the EU far more than the aforementioned two. However, given the gigantic list of shady shenanigans the US has done both internally and internationally, I still wouldn't close both eyes around them, ever.
Not Russia. It's a huge country that is underpopulated, underperforming and with, now, essentially a 3rd world economy
This video gives a completely wrong idea about which competences are EU and which are Member-states. The most important competences are all with the member-states. Fiscal competence, defence competence, or social and economic policy, for example, are all with the states. That's why the EU budget is miniscule, being smaller than Denmark's, a state with 1% of the population of the EU.
The EU can either become a loose and ineffective alliance or an empire. Looking at how out of touch the current leadership is, the former seems like the better option.