Talk:European Rapid Reaction Force

message: My understanding of the European Rapid Reaction Force goes against what is said in the article. My understanding is that the ERRF is NOT a standing army primarily responsible to the EU, but rather a list of available resources that *can* at short notice (aka "rapid reaction") be made available to the EU if the need arises, but would normally belong to their own national armies. 
This is my first concern -- that the article misrepresents the ERRF as a body that would be responsible primarily to the EU rather than a grouping of national forces.
Secondly I believe (but am not sure) that this registry of resources/divisions/army formations has indeed happenned, and therefore the ERRF has indeed been made a reality, atleast to an extent.
That's why I'm "totally" disputing the elements of this article. 
Aris Katsaris 13:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reexplaining some of my issues with this article 

message: Yep yep totally see your point (I didn't write the original page) I decided to edit it (well yeah I completely re-wrote it), it is now quite accurate as far as I can see, most of my information is from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), the Guardian (British newspaper admittedly left-wing) and il Corriere della Sera (Italian centrist daily newspaper) as well as the Italian State Television Service (RAI).  My suspicions are that this article was originally written by either a British conservative or American republican and was not only not up-to-date but also just plain wrong (no need to point out where, you do a fine job).  I'm Italian but I've lived in Britain most of my life so I know a bit about this.
Michele Giorgi
: I think in some points you confused the European Rapid Reaction Force with the European Union battle groups. These are two different concepts. I don't have time right now, but in the next days I'll try to doublecheck and correct possible mistakes. Aris Katsaris 04:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that this thing acutally exists as opposed to being a debated proposal, is the "totally disputed" tag still either deserved or required?  I would think not.  The only thing in the article as now constituted that would seem to be POV or disputable is the assertion that it is now universally recongized that European indifference to "ethnic cleansing" in ex-Yugoslavia is reprehensible; while that is certainly recognized by me and, I daresay, by most civilised people, there are certainly "peace at any price" types who would still object to any form of outside intervention, especially if their own country's armed forces were to be involved.  Aside from that, it seems to be a totally factual, largely unbiased article, which is commendable.  Rlquall 20:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been working quite a lot on the UNPROFOR article last week, so I've got a relatively clear picture of the problems related to non-intervention against ethnic cleansing. If someone is interested, we could work on a consensual version here and merge it into the article when it seems OK. I'd like to take the opportunity to mention that this mess what quite complicated, so this part might advantageously link to another page (whose existence I am unsure of :p )We might want to take into consideration : the "zero dead doctrine", its impact on the political cost of the operations and what the soldiers though about it; the fascination for armoured vehicles and air strikes, which had worked extremely well in Kuwait but turned out to be much less effective in Bosnia; the stances of France, the UK, the USA, the Soviet Union and China, both on the ground and at the UN; the stances of the warring parties; the consequences of the Somalia debacle for the USA; the doctrine of the UN at the time; etc. Rama 20:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Every bit of that needs to be hammered out; it's all important.  Again, I would agree that I don't know just where all of it belongs, but have no doubt that it all deserves speculation.  Rlquall 21:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  You've not understood my issue. Half the article talks about an *ENTIRELY UNRELATED* concept, the EU battle groups. It's the EU Battle groups that were decided on 22 November 2004, it's the EU Battle groups that are divided in groups of 1500 soldiers and will be ready in the coming years. I'm still disputing the factual accuracy of this article. Aris Katsaris 23:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey 

message: What do you people think of the current version of the article ? I think it is far less POV than it used to be, though it might still be a little bit imprecise... Do we keep the "factual accuracy" notice ? Rama 14:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status of the article 

message: The "European Rapid Reaction Force" is NOT the same as the "European Union rapid reaction mechanism" as the dispute tag suggests.  The latter involves rapid financial support (primarily for natural disaster and humanitarian relief efforts) while the latter involves rapidly mobile military forces (primarily for peacekeeping and conflict management).  They are definitely not the same thing despite sharing similar terms.
: Agree, looks like these are two different things. --Edward Sandstig 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the Same 

message: How is this different from the EU Battlegroups? --Edward Sandstig 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I missed the answer to my own question over there: "The battlegroups project is not to be confused with the European Rapid Reaction Force which concerns up to 60,000 soldiers, deployable for at least a year, and take one to two months to deploy. The battlegroups are instead meant for more rapid and shorter deployment in international crises, probably preparing the ground for a larger and more traditional force to replace them in due time." --Edward Sandstig 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Battlegroups 

message: I removed the following statement:
"However, large deployments outside europe would be very difficult in any case, as the logistics and transportation cababilites of the armed forces of the EU countries are rather limited."
Although probably true for the most part, the degree of difficulty indicated is not something that I think many of us on Wikipedia can speculate on. We can probably put back a similar statement at a later time if someone can provide a credible reference. --Edward Sandstig 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about limited transport assets 

message: The article contains many bold claims which are not backed up by any source. Many are pure speculation, and some are absurd in the current political climate (future EU invasion of Bealrus and Ukraine).Paul111 11:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy disputed 

message: There is actually no organisation called the 'European Rapid Reaction Force'; there's simply the list of forces being gathered for the Helsinki Headline Goal. I believe these two articles need to be merged under the HHG article, which presents a much more accurate picture of where the debate is. Buckshot06 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger