home Cosmetics Military policy of the European Union. Project "ZZ"

Military policy of the European Union. Project "ZZ"

Three years ago, the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, proposed creating the European Union's own army. The initiative found support, but was never implemented. Now this project has a more serious supporter.

French President in Once again stated that the EU faces numerous attempts to interfere in internal democratic processes and cyberspace. According to him, Europe must defend itself.

Despite the fact that most European countries are members of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), the Old World does not have its own regular army.

idea unified army supported by German security ministers and Angela Merkel. The initiative was opposed by the UK and Finland, who noted that defense policy should be the prerogative of the country's leadership, not the alliance.

It is interesting that the regular armies in Europe today are generally small in number, since funding is aimed primarily at the quality of personnel training.

Russia

Russia has the largest army among European countries. The number of active troops is 1,200,000 people. There are more than 2,800 tanks, 10,700 armored vehicles, 2,600 self-propelled guns, 2100 towed artillery pieces. Russia also has the most a large number of nuclear warheads in the world.

It is also worth noting that Russia's reserve forces number 2,100,000, and paramilitary organizations another 950,000.

Türkiye

Also, Turkey, which is not a member of the European Union, is the second country in the Old World in terms of the number of active troops. There are 514,850 soldiers on constant combat readiness in Turkey, reserve troops number 380,000, and paramilitary organizations another 148,700 people.

Germany

The third in the overall ranking and the first largest army in the European Union in terms of the number of active troops is stationed in Germany. The regular army has 325,000 soldiers, and the reserve - 358,650. Germany's paramilitary units have only 40,000 people.

France

After Germany, second in the list of most large armies France is coming to the EU countries. These troops number 259,050. Reserve French army is 419,000, and paramilitary units are 101,400.

Ukraine

Fifth Army in general list European countries are considered to be the armed forces of Ukraine. This country's active forces number 250,000 soldiers. The reserve forces number 720,000 and the paramilitary units number 50,000.

Italy

The sixth among European countries and the third in the European Union is the Italian army, where the active troops number 230,350 people, and the reserve forces number only 65,200 soldiers. Italy's paramilitary units have 238,800 personnel.

Great Britain

The UK, which opposed the proposal to create an EU army, has an active army of 187,970 people. The British Army Reserve numbers 233,860. The British Army does not have paramilitary units.

Spain

The eighth army on the list and the fifth in the European Union is located in Spain. It has 177,950 personnel in the active army and 328,500 soldiers in the reserve. Spain's paramilitary forces number 72,600.

Greece

The army of Greece, which, like Spain, has been struggling with the crisis for many years, is almost comparable in size to its counterparts due to economic difficulties. The Greek army has 177,600 active troops and 291,000 reserve soldiers. Paramilitary units have only 4,000 personnel.

Poland

The top ten is completed by the Polish army, whose active troops number 105,000 people, and their reserves number 234,000 soldiers. The paramilitary units have 21,300 soldiers.

The remaining armies of European countries do not exceed 100,000 people.

The difficulties of creating a common army of the European Union lie not only in the financial component, but also in the issue of technical implementation, since, in addition to language differences, there will also be problems of standardization of service conditions, supplies and equipment. However, according to experts, this idea can be implemented, but not in the form of a classical army, but some kind of peacekeeping contingent working on a permanent basis.

Will the EU be able to create its own Armed Forces?

The head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, still hopes to create a European army in the future. According to him, such an army will not be offensive, but will allow the EU to fulfill its global mission. The EC Chairman announced this on Sunday, August 21, speaking at a forum in Austria.

“We need a common European foreign policy, a common European security policy and a common European defense policy with the aim of one day creating a European army to be able to fulfill our role in the world,” Juncker said.

Let us remind you: the idea of creating a unified European army is far from new. The main architects of the European Union in its current form - the French Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet (in the 1950s - chairman of the European Parliamentary Assembly and head of the European Coal and Steel Community, respectively) - were passionate supporters of the creation of a unified European army. However, their proposals were rejected. Most European countries came under the wing of NATO, and the North Atlantic Alliance itself became the main guarantor of collective European security during the Cold War.

But in Lately, against the backdrop of the Ukrainian crisis and the influx of migrants from the Middle East to Europe, the movement to create a unified EU military force has intensified again.

In March 2015, Jean-Claude Juncker, in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, said that the existence of NATO is not enough for the security of Europe, since some leading members of the alliance - for example, the United States - are not members of the EU. Plus, Juncker noted that “Russia’s participation in the military conflict in eastern Ukraine” makes the case for creating a European army more convincing. Such an army, the head of the EC added, is also necessary as a tool for defending Europe’s interests in the world.

Juncker was immediately supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as Finnish President Sauli Niiniste. Some time later, Czech President Milos Zeman called for the creation of a unified army of the European Union, the need for the formation of which he explained by problems with protecting external borders during the migration crisis.

Economic arguments were also used. So, official representative EU Margaritis Schinas said that the creation of a European army will help the European Union save up to € 120 billion per year. According to him, European countries collectively spend more on defense than Russia, but at the same time the money is inefficiently spent on maintaining several small national armies.

It is clear that the Europeans' plans were not to the liking of the United States and the Americans' key ally in Europe, Great Britain. In 2015, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon categorically stated that his country had “an absolute veto on the creation of a European army” - and the issue was removed from the agenda. But after the referendum on Britain's exit from the EU, the idea seems to have a chance to be implemented again.

Will Europe create its own Armed Forces, what “global mission” will they help the EU fulfill?

The EU is trying to find a foreign policy dimension that could be projected onto the geopolitical balance of power, says Sergei Ermakov, deputy director of the Tauride Information and Analytical Center RISI. - It is no coincidence that the head of EU diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, has repeatedly stated that the European Union is in vain not to engage in geopolitics. In essence, the EU is now trying to carve out its own niche in the geopolitical game, and for this it needs certain levers, including the European Armed Forces.

At the same time, statements about the creation of a European army are still in the nature of an armchair, purely bureaucratic game. This game consists of Brussels’ attempts to put pressure on Washington on some issues, as well as to obtain certain preferences in bargaining with NATO. In many respects, this is being done so that overseas people do not rush to write off the EU.

In fact, Europe is not ready to refuse NATO's services to protect its own territory. Yes, the alliance in the EU is criticized for failures in the fight against terrorism. But even harsher criticism is appropriate for the EU itself, since it is Brussels that is primarily responsible for internal security.

In addition, Europeans do not have the resources to create an army, and not just financial ones. We should not forget that the North Atlantic Alliance has a rigid military structure that has been developed and improved over the years. While the same Western European Union (an organization that existed in 1948-2011 for cooperation in the field of defense and security) always remained in the shadow of NATO, and eventually died ingloriously. From this union, the EU has only a few formal structures left - for example, a pan-European headquarters. But there is very little real operational benefit from such a headquarters.

“SP”: - If statements about the creation of a European army are made for bargaining with Washington and NATO, what is the essence of this bargaining?

We are talking about the redistribution of powers in the defense sector. Here the Europeans have both the European Defense Agency and a pool of companies that develop and produce weapons. It is in these areas that the EU has real groundwork and advantages that can be used in bargaining with the Americans.

But in terms of creating a combat-ready army, the European Union clearly demonstrates that it cannot do without the help of the United States. The EU needs a superpower that would cement the national European armies - without this, things will not go well. In particular, without the United States, military-political contradictions between Germany and France immediately begin to grow.

“SP”: - What issues could it solve? European army?

In any case, it would have turned out to be an appendage of NATO. But that’s the problem: now such an “appendage” makes no sense. As part of the new strategic concept, the alliance has significantly expanded its powers and can now engage in a wide range of operations, including peace enforcement operations and humanitarian interventions. It turns out that the tasks of the European army and the North Atlantic Alliance would inevitably overlap.

Meanwhile, practice shows that Europeans are not capable of anything more serious than local operations. And they are simply unable to ensure their territorial security without NATO. It is not for nothing that European countries that shout louder than others about the threat to territorial security - for example, the Baltic republics or Poland - run for help not to the EU cabinets, but to the NATO cabinets exclusively.

The Europeans are making another attempt to get rid of dependence in the military-political field on the United States, says Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, academician of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, former head of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation of the Russian Ministry of Defense. - The first such attempt was made in 2003, when Germany, France, Belgium and a number of other European countries refused to participate in the US aggression against Iraq. It was then that the leaders of Germany, France and Belgium raised the question of creating their own European armed forces.

It came to some practical actions- for example, the selection of leadership for pan-European armed forces. But the United States skillfully blocked this initiative. Contrary to the assurances of the Europeans, they saw in the European army an alternative to NATO, and they did not like it.

Now the idea of a European army has arisen again. Whether Europe will be able to implement it depends on how strong the States will be after presidential elections whether the Americans have enough strength to suppress the “uprising” in the EU.

Europeans are aware that they spend money on the maintenance of their national armies and on the maintenance of the entire NATO structure, but receive little in return in terms of security. They see that the alliance has practically withdrawn from solving the problems of migration and the fight against terrorism in Europe. And the national European armies have their hands tied, since they are subordinate to the NATO Council and the NATO Military Committee.

Moreover, the Europeans realize that it is the Americans who are dragging them into various kinds of military adventures, and in fact do not bear responsibility for this.

That is why the question of creating a European army is now quite serious. It seems to me that the Bundestag and the French parliament are ready to take legislative steps to separate themselves from the North Atlantic Alliance.

In essence, the EU is advocating for the creation of a European collective security system, which will be based on a single Armed Forces and intelligence services.

The role of the EU in military-political issues in the world does not correspond at all to its place in the global economy,” notes reserve colonel, member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - In fact, this role is negligible - neither Russia, nor the USA, nor China recognize it. Overcoming this discrepancy is what Juncker has in mind when he says that a European army will help fulfill the EU's “global mission.”

I do not believe in the implementation of such plans. At one time, much larger political figures tried unsuccessfully to implement this idea - for example, the general and first president of the Fifth Republic, Charles de Gaulle.

Under de Gaulle, let me remind you, France withdrew from military structure NATO, and removed the alliance’s management structures from its territory. For the sake of realizing the idea of a European army, the general even agreed to a very significant rapprochement in the military field with Germany. For this, some French veterans of the anti-fascist Resistance threw mud at him.

However, de Gaulle's efforts ended in vain. The efforts of Juncker and other European politicians will end exactly the same way now.

The fact is that the United States absolutely dominates European security, including within NATO. Neither EuroNATO nor individual European countries have any independent policy in this area. And if de Gaulle had any chance of putting the idea of a European army into practice, now, I believe, this is completely impossible...

Rate the news

Partner news:

The issue of a new European security strategy has become so relevant that the issue of creating joint armed forces of the European Union was again put on the agenda. The political elite of most EU countries believes that such an army would help the EU form a common foreign policy and security policy. In their opinion, with such an army the EU will be able to respond to the threat to EU member countries and neighboring states, Tihansky writes in his article for Sputnik Belarus.

First experience

A similar project was attempted back in 1948. The then-created Western European Union (WEU) European Union) precisely provided for collective defense. But already in 1949, after the creation of NATO, the European component was subordinated to the American one. The Western European Union (an organization that existed from 1948 to 2011 for cooperation in the field of defense and security) has always been in the shadow of the North Atlantic bloc.

In WEU different time included military units 28 countries with four different statuses. When the organization was dissolved, a number of its powers were transferred to the EU. At the same time, about 18 battalions from various states were renamed into a battle group (Battlegroup) and transferred to operational subordination to the Council of the European Union, but it was never used in this composition.

After the collapse of the USSR, when the US army group in Europe began to actively decline, and the combat readiness of the remaining troops of the alliance was continuously declining, the European Corps was created in 1992, which included nine states. But in reality, these formations never developed and, in fact, existed only on paper. IN Peaceful time each corps represented a headquarters and a communications battalion - it could be fully operational only three months after the start of mobilization. The only deployed unit was a joint French-German brigade of reduced strength, consisting of several battalions. But even here, Eurosoldiers met only at joint parades and exercises.

In 1995, the Rapid Reaction Force (Eurofor) was created and operates to this day, which includes troops from four European Union states: France, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Britain and France also attempted to create a Joint Expeditionary Force and agreed to share aircraft carriers. However, the Europeans could not seriously wage a war without the Americans.

Since 2013, plans to create a joint battalion of Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland have been repeatedly announced.

In December 2015, it was reported that in the near future the Polish and Lithuanian military would begin serving together in Lublin, Poland. The main goal of the battalion was stated to be to assist the Ukrainian military in training them in warfare methods according to NATO standards, but recently there has been less and less talk about this formation. In this regard, some experts are of the opinion that the creation of a new European army could lead to the same disastrous results.

French model

The doctrine of “defense along all azimuths,” proclaimed by de Gaulle after Paris left the NATO military structure, can be considered a purely French attempt. The ambitious general, who dreamed of returning France to its former greatness, actually tried to play the role of a third center of power (along with the USSR and the USA), around which Europe would unite.

And the main architects of the European Union in its current form - the French R. Schumann and J. Monnet (in the 1950s - Chairman of the European Parliamentary Assembly and head of the European Coal and Steel Community, respectively) - were passionate supporters of the creation of a unified European army. However, their proposals were rejected.

Most European countries came under the wing of NATO, and the North Atlantic bloc itself became the main guarantor of collective European security during the Cold War. Under de Gaulle, France withdrew from NATO's military structure and removed the alliance's governance structures from its territory. For the sake of realizing the idea of a European army, the general even agreed to a very significant rapprochement in the military field with Germany. For this, some French veterans of the anti-fascist Resistance subjected him to harsh criticism. However, de Gaulle's efforts ended sadly.

The efforts of Juncker and other European politicians in the current attempt may end exactly the same way.

Naturally, the United States, for which dominance on the European continent is a matter of principle, could not allow this scenario to develop. Although formally the doctrine of “defense in all azimuths” was preserved until the early 90s, in fact after de Gaulle’s resignation it became a pure formality. Ambitious plans were buried, and Paris built its defensive plans within the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Attempt number three Another attempt was made by Europe in the mid-90s. With the withdrawal of the USSR from the military arena, the danger of a military clash in Europe supposedly disappeared. The US military umbrella became burdensome for the EU, which competed with America economically and reasonably considered it necessary to bolster its economic weight with independent military force. Then they tried to revive the WEU and create their own European armed forces, not subordinate to NATO.

In the end, this attempt also failed as a result of resistance from the United States, which had already openly stimulated the Yugoslav conflict and gradually began to set fire to the Middle East - including in order to demonstrate the EU’s inability to independently solve military-political problems and justify the need to preserve and expand NATO and the expansion of its “area of responsibility” from the North Atlantic to the entire planet.

From the fourth pass

Now we are dealing with the fourth attempt. It is again caused by trade and economic contradictions with the United States, which have only grown over the past twenty years, as well as the growing influence of the geopolitical opponents of the United States (Russia and China).

Work to strengthen military cooperation in the European Union intensified in 2015 in the wake of the migration crisis and due to the increasing frequency of terrorism. In addition, NATO, supporting the EU’s desire to arm itself, adds “Russian aggression” and an increase in defense spending of alliance members to the notorious 2% to the threats facing Europe. To date, the joint Council of Foreign and Defense Ministers of the EU countries has agreed on a plan for the formation of a unified European security structure.

That is, the idea of forming a European army or the European Union’s own armed forces is still being revived.

Economic arguments were also used. Thus, EU official Margaritis Schinas said that the creation of a European army will help the European Union save up to 120 billion euros per year. According to him, European countries collectively spend more on defense than Russia, but at the same time the money is inefficiently spent on maintaining several small national armies.

Reaction from Washington and London

In turn, the Europeans’ plans were not to the liking of the United States and the Americans’ key ally in Europe, Great Britain. In 2015, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon categorically stated that his country had “an absolute veto on the creation of a European army” - and the issue was removed from the agenda. But after the referendum on Britain's exit from the EU, the idea seems to have a chance to be implemented again.

Because Washington absolutely dominates NATO, the EU is limited in its ability to implement its own international policies. Without the US, Europe is unable to project power. Therefore, the EU has to support US military measures that are sometimes unfavorable for it, while Washington practically does not allow NATO to be used for military support of the political and economic ambitions of the European Union.

That is, we can state that there is logic in the EU’s actions. Europe has consistently, for many decades in a row, been trying to become an independent military power. However, today, despite the obvious weakening of Washington, which is no longer able to dominate the world alone, the possibilities of creating a “single European army” are significantly lower than they were in the middle and even at the end of the last century.

In those days, every major European state although it depended on NATO in the matter of confrontation with the USSR, it still had its own balanced armed forces. Moreover, the EU within its borders until the mid-90s (Old Europe - in modern terminology) was able to implement coordinated external and economic policy due to the presence of real common interests and high level integration.

Since the mid-90s, NATO has adopted the concept of narrow specialization of national armies. At the same time, European countries cut military spending as much as possible, shifting the entire burden of their own defense to the United States (formally NATO). As a result, each individual European army, and all of them together, lost the ability to conduct large-scale combat operations without American support.

Modern NATO structures actually provide leadership to the allied armies within the framework of American strategic plans.

In order to create an effective European military, the EU must either take over American leadership of NATO headquarters (which is impossible by definition) or proceed to dismantle NATO and replace it with a European headquarters organization. Without this, the creation of any number of “joint brigades” and “European corps” will cost nothing, since the American generals who control the alliance will still lead them and provide logistics.

Baltic umbrella for the alliance

Perhaps the EU would have found the moral strength to abandon NATO (it made such an attempt in the 90s), but New Europe(represented by the Poles, the Baltic states and the former Eastern European countries of the Warsaw Pact) is strongly opposed to any encroachments on NATO. They see in it not only protection from Russia, but also a guarantee of their influence on the politics of the European Union.

Accordingly, EU countries do not yet see real possibilities to create a unified EU army. The European Union currently does not have the capabilities and resources to create joint armed forces. According to many experts, this project is not realistic, at least in the short term, and in the future the EU army will not be able to completely replace the armed forces of individual countries; rather, it will be possible to talk about some kind of common combat units.

Even if the Franco-German core of the EU manages to overcome the Eastern European opposition and push through the actual formation of a European army, the process of creating effective armed forces practically from scratch is not a quick matter. We can talk about decades. Even Russia, which completely preserved its headquarters structure and balanced armed forces, took a decade and a half to bring them out of the crisis state into which the army plunged in the 90s.

The embryo of the European army will be gestated for a long time

Europe needs to revive almost everything, from specific associations, formations, units and units capable of waging wars of any scale (from local to global), to weapons and headquarters, including the rear service. At the same time, the staff culture of the German General Staff, capable of engaging in relevant organizational work, strategic planning and command of troops in the theater of operations, is completely lost - it was deliberately destroyed by the Western allies (primarily the USA) after the Second World War. Meanwhile, qualified high-ranking staff officers are not born - they are raised over decades and even generations.

Considering the current nature of relations in the European Union and the severity of contradictions between its various members and groups of members, one cannot count on real coordinated work of the entire EU. If we talk about the foreseeable period of twenty years, then during this time it would be possible to create only the embryo of a European army in the form of united Franco-German armed forces (possibly with the participation of a couple more EU states - here the fewer participants, the more effective the work).

And then this army, to begin with, would only be suitable for establishing order within the European Union.

For the concept of a European army proper, capable of performing on an equal footing with the armed forces of the United States, Russia or China, to be realized, at least two to three decades must pass.

Currently, in our opinion, we're talking about on the redistribution of powers in the defense sector. Here the Europeans have both the European Defense Agency and a pool of companies that develop and produce weapons. It is in these areas that the EU has real groundwork and advantages that can be used in bargaining with the Americans.

But in terms of creating a combat-ready army, the European Union still clearly demonstrates that it cannot do without the help of the United States. The EU needs a superpower that would cement the national European armies - without this, things will not go well. In particular, without the United States, military-political contradictions between Germany and France immediately begin to grow.

Thus, the Europeans are making another attempt to get rid of their dependence on the United States in the military-political field. Such an attempt was made in 2003, when Germany, France, Belgium and a number of other European countries refused to participate in the US aggression against Iraq. It was then that the leaders of Germany, France and Belgium raised the question of creating their own European armed forces.

It came down to some practical actions - for example, the selection of leadership for the pan-European Armed Forces. But the United States skillfully blocked this initiative. Contrary to the assurances of the Europeans, they saw in the European army an alternative to NATO, and they did not like it.

The role of the EU in military-political issues in the world is completely inconsistent with its place in the global economy. In fact, this role is negligible - neither Russia, nor the United States, nor China recognize it. Overcoming this discrepancy is what Juncker has in mind when he says that a European army will help fulfill the EU's “global mission.”

But practice shows that Europeans are not capable of anything more serious than local operations. And they are simply unable to ensure their territorial security without NATO. It is not for nothing that European countries that shout louder than others about the threat to territorial security - for example, the Baltic republics or Poland - run for help not to the EU cabinets, but to the NATO cabinets exclusively.

In the current geopolitical situation, it can be stated that there is no immediate threat of military aggression for the EU. This threat subsided with the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. However, the end of the Cold War brought with it another serious threat - low- and medium-intensity interethnic and religious conflicts. International terrorism is becoming one of the main threats to EU security.

Britain's exit from the European Union may accelerate the creation of its own armed forces in the EU. The schedule for creating a military structure may be made public as early as this year, but even supporters of a unified European army admit that the implementation of the project is not a matter of the very near future. NATO pretends that it is not against the Europeans arming themselves further, but in reality it is afraid of losing influence on the continent.

One of the ideologists behind the creation of a European army, as we have already noted, is the Vice-President of the EU, the EU High Representative for foreign affairs and the security of Federica Mogherini. According to her, in Europe for the first time in for a long time a “political space” emerged to promote this project. “We have reached a turning point. We can restart European project and make it more functional and powerful for our citizens and the rest of the world,” the politician said, speaking to European diplomats.

Previously, London, a key ally of the United States in Europe, has repeatedly blocked proposals to create continental armed forces. Now the European Commission has a more or less real chance to bring the matter to an end. Military cooperation may be based on the corresponding clause of the Lisbon Treaty, which has not previously been applied. The EU's foreign policy chief even came up with a plan to overcome "procedural, financial and political barriers" to deploying battle groups. True, for the time being these measures are not advertised. What is known is that the road map will highlight three main elements of military cooperation: a common approach to crises and conflicts, a change in the institutional structure of security and defense cooperation, and the availability of opportunities for the creation of a pan-European defense industry.

Immediately after the Brexit referendum, Germany and France called for a separate military command structure to be established as soon as possible in the interests of the EU.

Italy, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have also put forward similar initiatives. This may indicate that many in Europe want to get rid of the dominance of the North Atlantic Alliance. Paris and Berlin have prepared a joint project for reforming the EU. One of the points in the document specifically involves strengthening integration between countries in the field of security and reducing dependence on NATO.

In general, the current generation of European politicians may want to create a European army, they may even create its semblance, but if they approach the matter in a qualified manner, then real results Only the next generation (or even after one) will be able to reap the benefits.

Thus, today's Europe can dream of its own European army, can take some steps to imitate its creation, can even begin to implement a real long-term plan to create its own European security structure. But before something effective is created, many years of coordinated hard work of all supranational and national structures EU.

Among the instruments designed to ensure the protection of the EU from external enemies, and from humanitarian problems caused by refugees, and from the threat of international terrorism, as well as capable of increasing the EU’s role in the world, the idea of creating a unified European armed force is often mentioned. The initiative was announced quite a long time ago, but the years go by, and real steps practically none in this direction. In particular, the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 obliged EU members to provide military assistance to any member of the union in the event of aggression against it. In addition, the same treaty laid the legal foundations for the creation of a unified European army. However, EU members were in no hurry to implement this project.

Depending on the current political situation, the issue of creating united forces in Europe comes up more often or less often. And now several countries have immediately remembered the project. However, their positions are so different that it is difficult to talk about the prospects for the early creation of a united army. Thus, Czech President Milos Zeman, who has consistently defended the idea of creating a unified European army for several years, believes that its absence has become one of the main factors preventing the flow of refugees from being effectively countered. On the other hand, the English-language press is inflating the hype around this issue solely in connection with the active preparations for the June referendum in the UK. Supporters of leaving the EU are trying to present the project of creating a European army as another threat to the sovereignty of Britain and an idea that will draw upon itself the financial and material resources necessary for NATO.

The current leadership of the EU seems to be unable to solve the problems facing Europe, and therefore more and more attention is paid not to Brussels with its weak-willed bureaucrats, but to the position of the locomotive of European integration - Germany. And now, the focus of attention of politicians and journalists is Berlin’s decision to postpone the presentation of Germany’s new defense and security strategy until July, until the results of the British referendum are known, so as not to put pressure on voters.

Preparation of this document began a year ago. In February 2015, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen announced the beginning of the development of a new strategy for the country, which should replace the document that had been in force since 2006. Even then, everyone noticed that the minister’s statement noted the need to abandon the restrictions on military policy that were characteristic of the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the post-war years.

While the document was being prepared, there were statements from politicians about the need to create armed forces in Europe. Either the Head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, convinces that a single army will guarantee peace between EU members and will increase the authority of Europe, then German Economics Minister Wolfgang Schäuble calls on Germany to invest more in the creation of a single army of the European Union.

So far, the main reason for the stalling of this project can be attributed not only to the resistance of individual members of the European Union and the inept policies of Brussels, but also to the lack of desire on the part of the main adherent of European integration, Berlin, to really act in this direction. With the outbreak of the crisis in Ukraine and Russia's entry into hostilities in Syria, Germany felt that the time to act had come. Behind the statements about serious threats to European security from the east and south lies Berlin's long-standing desire to give itself a free hand in matters of pursuing an active military policy. Previously, any attempts to increase Germany’s military role in the world ran into both condemnation within German society and opposition from other countries. The main deterrent was accusations of attempts to revive German militarism, which had cost humanity so dearly in the 20th century.

By the way, the Abe government adheres to similar tactics, with the only difference that Germany has been trying to demonstrate repentance for war crimes for 70 years, and Japan is not even ready to make concessions on this, which remains serious problems in relations with China and South Korea.

The refugee issue has somewhat spoiled German policy. The wave of Asians and Africans pouring into Europe sharply increased the number of Eurosceptics. For many of them, Germany and its leaders came to personify the source of the growing problem. Looking at the toothless European officials in Brussels, whose political fervor is inversely proportional to the growth of the EU's problems, most Europeans no longer have any doubt about who decides their common destiny. It is Berlin that is increasingly authoritarian in promoting key decisions in the European Union. Most states have either agreed to go along with it German politics, or are trying to wrest at least some preferences for themselves through outright blackmail. That is why, following Britain, threats of holding referendums on leaving the EU entered European political fashion. But most of these threats are nothing more than a storm in a teacup. Democracy in Europe has long been reduced to a two-stage process: heated debate, and then a unanimous decision imposed by the strongest. True, how this scheme differs radically from the Soviet or Chinese schemes so hated by liberals is not clear. What is the point of a preliminary discussion if it has absolutely no influence on the decision-making process?

But let's return to the European army. The United States remains the main counterweight to Germany in Europe. In addition to NATO structures, Americans have the opportunity to directly influence the policies of individual members of the European Union. This is especially noticeable in the example of the Central and of Eastern Europe. In order not to arouse suspicion from such a powerful rival as Washington, Berlin accompanies its every step with statements about the important role of NATO and the United States in ensuring European security.

Despite the lack of progress in the formation of unified armed forces, it cannot be said that nothing has been done in the direction of cooperation in the military sphere in Europe. Apart from activities within NATO, where the United States plays the leading role, European countries have given preference to bilateral or narrow regional security treaties. Examples include cooperation within the Visegrad Group, the Swedish-Finnish partnership, and agreements between Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia. These and other steps by European countries towards rapprochement in the military sphere pursue several goals:

increasing the level of training of military specialists;

improving interaction and coordination of military actions of neighboring states;

rejection of Russian and Soviet military equipment in favor of Western models (relevant for Eastern and Southern Europe);

deepening cooperation in the development and production of military equipment both for our own needs and for export to third countries.

It should be noted that an additional incentive to develop cooperation in the military and military-technical spheres is the commitment approved at the Wales NATO Summit to increase the level of spending on national defense to 2% of GDP. And although some EU members are not members of NATO, most EU states, especially in Eastern, Northern and Southeastern Europe, are seeking to increase their military budgets.

In addition, a number of countries are trying to resolve issues of developing their own military-industrial complex through bilateral and regional cooperation. For example, Poland, in its Regional Security Support Program, designed for cooperation with Eastern European states from Bulgaria to Estonia, officially declared the promotion of the Polish military-industrial complex abroad as one of its main tasks.

Germany also plays a key role in this process. Its military and industrial potential, as well as political support, contribute to the development of ties with its neighbors. Thus, the Germans plan to develop armored personnel carriers with Poland, attack drones with the French and Italians, and a new generation of tanks with the French.

In recent years, there has been a tendency to increase the degree of interaction and unify the military of different countries into single combat units. How can one not remember Great Britain again, so defiantly defending its sovereignty and not wanting to submit to the Europeans. This does not prevent it from systematically conducting joint exercises with the Europeans. By the way, the last large-scale Franco-British exercises took place as recently as April 2016.

Another example could be the decision of the Benelux countries to join forces to protect airspace. As part of the Renegade agreement concluded last year, the Belgian and Dutch air forces will be able to carry out combat missions up to and including combat operations in the airspace of all three states.

In northern Europe, Finland and Sweden have an agreement on a joint naval group, which can use the ports of both countries when carrying out combat or training missions.

In Eastern Europe, a project is being implemented to create a joint Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian battalion.

But the German and Dutch military have advanced the furthest. There has not been such a degree of integration in Europe since the Second World War, when the troops of some states were part of the armies of other countries. Thus, the motorized brigade of the Netherlands was included in the German rapid reaction division. In turn, the Bundeswehr amphibious assault entered as a component unit into the Dutch unit Marine Corps. By the end of 2019, the merging units should be fully integrated and combat-ready.

Thus, the processes of establishing closer ties between the armed forces of European states are actively developing. The move to a larger level of integration was hampered by political opposition from the governments of individual EU member states and the passivity of the EU leadership. The events of recent years, the active propaganda campaign to create the image of an enemy in Russia, the desire to have our own forces to conduct military operations outside the EU - all this plays into the hands of supporters of the creation of a unified European army.

Germany, which remains the most active supporter of integration processes in Europe, is ready to use the current situation to launch a full-scale program for uniting the military potential of European states. At the initial stage, Berlin will face the same difficulties that have hampered this process for many years. However, if the new German security strategy demonstrates the determination of the German leadership to abandon the stereotypes that previously held it back, there can be no doubt that Germany will mobilize its strength and its authority to achieve its goal. The only question is how major geopolitical players, primarily Russia and the United States, will react to the real prospect of the emergence of armed forces in Europe.

The head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, recently said that the European Union needs to create its own army. the main objective This army, according to the European official, should not consist of competition with the already existing NATO military alliance, but of maintaining peace on the continent.

« A common European army would show the world that there will never be war between EU member states again."- said Juncker.

The news about the creation of a single European army does not yet have the nature of specific programs or laws, but is only a proposal, but it has already caused a storm of conversation both within the EU and outside it. What the EU member states themselves think about this, what Russia’s reaction is, and why Europe needs its own army - read the editorial material.

Why does the EU need its own army?

The idea of creating a single European army on the continent arose back in the 70-80s of the last century, but then such an initiative was rejected, despite open confrontation with Soviet Union. Now this is happening, and politicians claim that the scope of disputes will not go beyond economic and political restrictions. In this light, creating a powerful military unit, and even with the slogan “against Russia,” seems the height of cynicism and provocation.

The initiator of the creation of a unified European army in the 21st century names two main reasons: economic benefit and “defending Europe from possible Russian aggression.” Juncker is confident that currently defense funds in the EU countries are distributed ineffectively, but in the event of unification, the army will be much more combat-ready, and funds will be distributed rationally. The second reason became acute after the start of the confrontation with Russia.

« We know that at present Russia is no longer our partner, however, we should pay attention to ensure that Russia does not become our enemy. We want to solve our problems at the negotiating table, but at the same time have an inner core, we want protection international law and human rights“said German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

Some experts say that not only “Russian aggression” could be the reason for such statements and initiatives. Recently, Europe has begun to move away from American standards, or rather, . Having complete military dependence on the United States, this is becoming increasingly difficult.

Political scientists believe that the real initiator of the idea of creating a unified army is Berlin. It was Germany’s plans that were voiced by the head of the European Commission. Germany has recently become the voice of Europe, which wants independence for the continent.

Europe is divided

After the official statement by the head of the European Commission, conversations began in Europe about the prospect of creating a common army. In his speech, Jean-Claude Juncker said that European countries together now spend more on defense than any other country, these funds go towards maintaining small national armies. They are not spent effectively, and the creation of a single army of the European Union would help ensure peace on the continent.

However, Juncker's idea was not supported in London. " Our position is very clear. Defense is the responsibility of each individual state, not the European Union. We will never change our position on this issue", said a British government statement issued shortly after Juncker's speech. The UK is able to “bury” all initiatives regarding a unified EU army, which “will show Russia that the EU will not allow its borders to be violated” - this is exactly how the European official justified the need to create an association.

In fairness, it is worth noting that Britain is the only country that openly opposed this idea. The majority of EU members continue to remain silent and wait for further developments. The only country that openly supported this idea was, of course, Germany.

So, most EU countries have taken the usual position of observers, they are waiting for the official decision of the main players in the Euroring. Let us note that the leaders have already made their statements, but, oddly enough, their opinions differ radically. Discussion of the issue of creating a unified army in Europe is planned for the summer; before that time, politicians will still have a lot of debate regarding the need for armed forces. Time will tell who will win this battle - conservative Britain or pragmatic Germany.

EU Army. Reaction of Russia and the USA

The creation of a unified army of Europe will not be of a protective nature, but can only provoke nuclear war. This assumption was expressed by the first deputy of the United Russia faction, member of the defense committee Franz Klintsevich. " In our nuclear age additional armies do not guarantee any security. But they can play their provocative role"- said the politician.

In Russia, the idea of creating a new military alliance is already directly at the country's borders. Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian integration and connections with compatriots, described Yunkevich’s statements as “hysteria and paranoia.” The politician added that Russia is not going to fight with anyone, and creating protection from an ephemeral enemy is beyond abnormal.

An official reaction to the plans to create a unified EU army has not yet come from overseas. American politicians pause and do not rush with their criticism or support. However, Russian experts We are confident that America will not support the EU plans, and the creation of a unified army will be perceived as competition with NATO.

« They believe that all security problems can be resolved within the framework of the alliance. In particular, they cite as an example the operation in Libya, where the United States did not directly participate, and everything was decided with the participation of France, Italy, and Great Britain. Airplanes from other, smaller European countries also joined", explained the US position Chief Editor magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" Viktor Murakhovsky.

EU army against NATO?

Speaking about the prospects for creating an EU army, even Jean-Claude Juncker himself expressed caution on this issue. He does not know when specific work on this issue may begin.

« The creation of a unified European army is not feasible in the near future. Therefore, this idea cannot be a direct response to the current security environment. It could most likely be considered as a long-term European project“says Estonian Foreign Minister Kate Pentus-Rosimannus.

It was previously reported that discussion of the issue is planned for this summer during the next EU summit. But the prospects for this project are vague, as the leading EU country, Great Britain, expressed its disapproval.

Political scientists report that discussions on the creation of a unified European army could split the European Union. Countries will be divided into two camps - “for independent army" and "for a pro-American NATO." It is after this that it will be possible to see who is the real “vassal” of America on the continent, and who sees Europe as an independent part of the world.

It can be assumed in advance that the Baltic countries and Poland, led by Great Britain, will oppose the idea of a single army, and Germany and France will defend Europe’s independence in military security.

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

Military policy of the European Union. Project "ZZ"

Why does the EU need its own army?

Europe is divided

EU Army. Reaction of Russia and the USA

EU army against NATO?