Talk:Common Security and Defence Policy

message: *Merge -I agree with merge of European Security and Defence Identity into European Security and Defence Policy proposed two months ago (feb) by User:Paul111 -JLogan 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge: European Security and Defence Identity

message: This argument with the Maastricht Treaty is not true. This citation does not occur in the treaty. I only found it in a strategic industry report.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.156.129 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maastricht treaty

message: :Image:Eufor handover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Eufor handover.jpg

message: :Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg

message: Could someone who knows more about this topic please update it in the light of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty? --Red King (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know more, but unfortunately, although specific titles and identities have been designated (such as the EU President and Foreign Policy Chief), what role these positions will actually play will be determined over the course of the next year or two. The EU president may try to make certain moves which could be blocked by the EU heads of state, for example - effectively closing that door to him (or her in the future).Airborne84 (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite needed 

message: The article mentions the small operations centre.
"From 1 January 2007, the EU Operations Centre began work in Brussels. It can command a limited size force of about 2000 troops (e.g. a battlegroup).
In addition to the EU centre, 5 national operational headquarters have been made available for use by the Union; Mont Valérien in Paris, Northwood in London, Potsdam, Centocelle in Rome and Larissa. For example, Operation Artemis used Mont Valérien as its OHQ and EUFOR's DR Congo operation uses Potsdam. The EU can also use NATO capabilities.[8]"
The mentioned EU operations centre is far from a real functioning Operational Headquarters at the union level. Indeed, it has shown itself to be insufficient, even with the Berlin Plus agreement. There is a command gap in the current military organization. There exists a politico-strategic command, but not the lower next step, the military-strategic command for planning and C2 (command and control). Borrowing NATO's military-strategic command is simply not sufficient. This all according to the following research from the ISS:
http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Planning_for_EU_military_operations.pdf
In another report from the European Parliament the civ-mil relations is pointed out, alongside the need for a real EU Operational HQ (military-strategic command) due to the actual flaws of the current "no duplication" state proposed by Britain and the US, and the lack of civ-mil competencies in the framework nations, and other flaws which only can be solutioned with a proper EU military-strategic command, i.e an EU military headquarter (EU OHQ). The current operations centre is not an EU OHQ, but merely a possibillity to ad hoc set up an OHQ by borrowing NATO's or member states' OHQs, whilst the Union needs a permanent HQ structure:
http://tepsa.be/Hynek%20Consolidating%20the%20EUs%20Crisis%20Management%20Structures.pdf
The next link is an actual political motion to the EU Parliament, discussing these topics. This is real contemporary politics to be discussed on october 26th, 2010:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/pr/829/829289/829289en.pdf
83.177.143.51 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If a more permanent OHQ with more staff and money is actually set up, that might merit a mention, if it is widely recognized as a change in policy, but I'm not sure this motion by the EP is particularly noteworthy (for an encyclopedia), even if the motion is passed. --Boson (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU OHQ 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Common Security and Defence Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309144841/http://www.cdi.org/mrp/eu.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/mrp/eu.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429211047/http://www.diis.dk/sw87465.asp?csref=RSS to http://www.diis.dk/sw87465.asp?csref=RSS
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Common Security and Defence Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060215035907/http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf to http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627111238/http://www.ifri.org/files/Securite_defense/Focus_strategique_5_Chivvis_PESD.pdf to http://www.ifri.org/files/Securite_defense/Focus_strategique_5_Chivvis_PESD.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214175238/http://euroakadeemia.ee/materjalid/Logic%20of%20the%20EU%20crises%20mang.pdf to http://euroakadeemia.ee/materjalid/Logic%20of%20the%20EU%20crises%20mang.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.rpfrance.eu/IMG/pdf/Guide_to_the_ESDP_nov._2008_EN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214175238/http://euroakadeemia.ee/materjalid/Logic%20of%20the%20EU%20crises%20mang.pdf to http://euroakadeemia.ee/materjalid/Logic%20of%20the%20EU%20crises%20mang.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose that the entire article Military of the European Union is merged into the Common Security and Defence Policy article for the following reasons:
*"Military of the European Union" is a slightly misleading/premature title that could be considered original research (OR); as Article 42.2 puts it: "[The common security and defence policy] will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.". While I do agree that "Military of the EU" also could be interpreted more widely as "all sorts of military structures and capacities on the EU's territory", I do think that a well-established (treaty-based, non-OR) title such as CSDP should be the preferred title encyclopedically. Besides, the EU's recent terminology is this: "A Security and Defence Union in the making". Wikipedia should have a unified CSDP article describing the status quo until the EU declares that this Security and Defence Union is a reality - then we might consider a renaming of the article. 
*Both articles are mediocre and in need of update at present; maintaining a single article will be easier.
*The subjects of the two articles have practically 100 % overlap, and no content needs to be excluded in a new article; just a little rewording is required.
*The following recent developments do in my view justify that an overview of national copacities, as is currently shown in Military of the European Union, is relevant content in a unified CSDP article:
**Article 42.6 of TEU: The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) initiated by most member states last year.
**The mutual defence clause in TEU, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon; Article 42.7: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".
*Article 42.3 of TEU explains why also information on multinational forces such as Eurocorps, presently covered in this section of "Military of the European Union", should also be moved to a single CSDP article: "Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy."
Thoughts? - Ssolbergj (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree for merge because of the point 42.7.They are several armies but mutual defence clause is main.Thanks.LittleOx (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No further response in 3 months. Merged now. - Ssolbergj (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The MoEU page is about the actual military of the EU member states that make up the total forces in the EU. The article is still relevant and should not be deleted. Saying there is no military in the EU would be misleading and not true. - Jeleva (Jeleva) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:CSDP which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Should https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_defence_integration.svg be updated to remove the UK from the CSDP? Unfortunately I do not have the technical expertise to do so.Alekksandr (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated Venn diagram?

message: I added a new row in the "Aerial refueling and transport" section for the shared planes operating under EU command. I don't know if this is the correct way to handle this, so please do come with ideas if you have some. My thinking behind this was: Seeing as how there are probably going to be more shared vehicles in the future a separate row might be handy for those. As this is also a page that explains the EU combined military capabilities it fits in quite nicely, but again, do change if you think you have a better idea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HVDT (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle the MRTT shared with multiple EU countries 

message: sounds like it could be useful here, so many flagicons... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  use armed forces template? 

message: Surely it is nonsense (and misleading) to claim the EU has nuclear weapons. One member has and some others have US weapons on their territory. Similarly, the EU does not have 49 submarines nor any of the other claims made here. The EU cannot command deployment of any of them which is surely the common understanding of "owning" a force. Member states may cooperate and provide equipment (but not nuclear weapons), for EU-wide actions but they ultimately decide, not the EU. 82.17.68.3 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Forces? 

message: This page has a referencing error (and appears in :Category:Pages with broken reference names) because of footnote problems caused by the use other footnotes around . I've asked over at Template talk:Structural evolution of the European Union about how to best fix the issue, but haven't yet received a response. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing error

message: The redirect EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 00:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The table in the history section is completely incomprehensible to me. I don't know what it is even trying to explain, but some of the text is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise, and the table itself runs well off of the page. This table also has no sources whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gödel2200 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible table