UE Army instead of 28 armies?

[HeliArmy]

I often think about the lack of unification of EU and I wonder how it relates in military strength of Europe as a whole.

I mean, currently, Europe counts 28 members. Outside of nuclear weapons, I think French military strength is near to zero. About other countries, I am not that aware of a rocket solid army ready to really overcome a big affair.

Yes, they give money and supplies to NATO & UN interventions, but when we take past affairs, it is almost like they beg US Army to act on their behalf, sometimes even when Europe is in the topic - like Ukraine.
So, it is not the time to have an EU consolidated army rather than 28 weak armies? What are the pro and the cons of this approach? Wouldn't it make it appear more strong and serious?

 

[Redheart]

On face value though the EU appears to be united, divisions do exist. The first step towards any form of integration would be political integration. As long as there is no political union they'll be no "European" army. Under the guise of friendship, brotherhood, etc, lurks distrust and hatred that has lasted for ages.

Need some proof?

William Cook: Why we still hate the Germans | World news | The Guardian
The English hate the Germans more than their grandfathers who actually fought Hitler.

 

[HeliArmy]

On face value though the EU appears to be united, divisions do exist. The first step towards any form of integration would be political integration. As long as there is no political union they'll be no "European" army. Under the guise of friendship, brotherhood, etc, lurks distrust and hatred that has lasted for ages.

Need some proof?

William Cook: Why we still hate the Germans | World news | The Guardian
The English hate the Germans more than their grandfathers who actually fought Hitler.

Meanwhile it perhaps needs some compromise on EU members side, it wouldn't be the first time nations or armies get united while they are not really friend. We already seen some alliances that were really paradoxical - like URSS & US to fight Germany in World War II - but they existed and some succeeded to be viable.

Also, there was the Civil War between what's now the US North states and US South states. And then? I mean, that wouldn't be the first time nations unify just for interests - or to survive to be stronger. Is being weak better than not being fully friends but being strong and have a louder voice on the world?

 

[Susimi]

European nations do have their disputes with one another but I think having the 28 separate nations however small they are in military might is a good show of how they are fighting for what they feel is right. I guess what I'm trying to say is 28 nations has a much bigger psychological impact than one unified coalition.

 

[HeliArmy]

European nations do have their disputes with one another but I think having the 28 separate nations however small they are in military might is a good show of how they are fighting for what they feel is right. I guess what I'm trying to say is 28 nations has a much bigger psychological impact than one unified coalition.

They are already a coalition with NATO - if one of NATO members is under attack, other NATO members should rescue them. While not all EU members are in NATO if I recall correctly, there's many, many members inside it, so that's about the same.

And also, often, what we remember and what remains for the past conflicts is the big alliances, not really the country acting alone, except when one country is especially strong. So I am not sure it will lower their voice. After all, if they are implied in a conflict as EU army, i would mean at least many members (50%?) agrees on it somehow.