The head of the EU government, Jean-Claude Juncker, a well-known lobbyist for transnational capital companies, proposed creating a single European army based on the armies of Germany and France. This new unifying idea for Europe (instead of the welfare state) will be discussed at the next EU summit in June. What could hinder the implementation of this idea?

"NATO troops should be expected at Russian borders"

Jean-Claude Juncker, being the Prime Minister of Luxembourg (the world's largest offshore), exempted transnational corporations from paying taxes in their countries. And thus shifted the burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of the population. There was a huge scandal in Europe; many politicians protested against Juncker’s appointment as head of the European Commission.

A natural question arises: is this man with a tarnished reputation again working on behalf of large lobbyists, this time from the military-industrial complex?

“The European army will be able to save significantly by purchasing weapons developed jointly,” said Jean-Claude Juncker. Obviously, he is creating a new team from old acquaintances (Greece has been armed by German concerns in such a way that as a result this Balkan country has the most powerful tank army in the EU with 1462 tanks; Germany, for comparison, has 322 tanks), which will be able to generate orders for the military-industrial complex France and Germany.

The reason is simple - there is a crisis and there is no investment at all. IN last years About 50 percent of German industrial equipment, according to a report to the Bundestag, did not work due to lack of orders.

Certainly, the real reason is not advertised, the aggressive strategy is justified under the pretext of the “Russian threat” and liberation from the dictates of NATO (read the USA). “This would be a signal to Russia that we are serious about protecting European values,” said the head of the European Commission. A unified EU army could serve as a deterrent, useful during the crisis in Ukraine, and in the future protect non-NATO countries from the threat of military invasion, Juncker added in an interview with Die Welt newspaper.

The project was immediately approved by German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who stated that in the future it makes sense to create a single army for all EU member countries. Juncker was also supported by other German politicians - Chairman of the International Committee of the Bundestag Norbert Röttgen (CDU), as well as the head of the Defense Committee, Social Democrat Hans-Peter Bartels, who said that there is no need to negotiate with all 28 countries, one can start with the conclusion of bilateral treaties .

The German press is also optimistic. Frankfurter Rundschau believes that "the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has come up with a reasonable proposal. The idea of ​​a pan-European army is being renewed." The newspaper recalls that in 1952 France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries wanted to create a common defensive army, but then France (through the efforts of the Gaullists and communists - approx. Ed.) this idea was buried in parliament.

And Nurnberger Zeitung emphasizes that "Europe must recognize that the world sees in the European Union more than just a unification of economies. Consequently, it must become independent in moral and military terms in order to survive between the fields of two forces."

Let us add that the German media have organized an information attack on General Philip Breedlove, NATO commander in Europe, who is too aggressive and inconsistent in his accusations against Russia. German blogs write that the creation unified army The EU, in essence, will mean the collapse of NATO, the cessation of its existence as unnecessary. And then the US will lose control over Europe, because US control over Europe is based on the military-political guarantees of Europe.

If Europe has its own independent army, and nuclear weapon France has, then, in principle, Britain may not join this army, and Europe will receive military-political independence.

Thus, the customer of the plan to create a unified army is obvious - it is Germany, which recently announced plans to increase its armored forces. Berlin spends about 37 billion euros a year on its military and will increase that to 74 billion this year, in line with NATO's directive to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. It is Frau Merkel, whom the UN Charter prohibits from being “aggressive,” who speaks through Juncker.

“I don’t think that Germany has entered into a conflict with NATO. At the same time, there is an obvious divergence of interests,” he told Pravde.Ru Vladimir Evseev, director of the Center for Social and Political Research, military expert. - Merkel is quite controlled by Washington. There are a huge number of American troops on German territory, which are of an occupation nature. In these conditions, Germany, in principle, cannot go against NATO, but Germany would like to show that it is the most important in the EU."

“The issue of creating a European army became aggravated and intensified precisely when European-American contradictions on military-political issues were growing,” Mikhail Aleksandrov, leading expert at the Center for Military-Political Studies at MGIMO, Doctor of Political Sciences, told Pravda.Ru. According to the expert, Juncker's statement is in the nature of diplomatic pressure on the United States.

“Apparently, the Europeans are satisfied with the Minsk agreements, and they would not want to torpedo them, while the United States continues to pursue a hard line,” the expert noted.

This point of view is confirmed by Juncker himself. “From a foreign policy point of view, it seems that we are not taken seriously,” the head of the European Commission complained.

But the problem will be consistency of actions. Even the most optimistic federalists in Europe do not expect to create a “Junker army” in the near future. The European Union currently has neither the capabilities nor the resources to create joint armed forces, said Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja. He was joined by Estonian Foreign Minister Keith Pentus-Rosimannus. The idea is not feasible today; it could most likely be considered as a long-term project in Europe,” the minister told the Delfi portal.

What are the implications for Russia? “If Russia feels that not only are some NATO headquarters being created near its own border, but if heavy weapons depots are being created there, which could allow the deployment of NATO brigades or the EU army, Russia will be forced to create offensive capabilities.

In particular, against the Baltic countries. If this happens, then we can talk about a serious arms race on the European continent and a deterioration in the security situation in Europe as a whole,” Vladimir Evseev told Pravda.Ru.

"Foreign Military Review" No. 9. 2005 (pp. 2-8)

GENERAL MILITARY PROBLEMS

MILITARY POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

V. MAKSIMOV

An important area of ​​activity of the European Union (EU) is cooperation between member countries of the organization in the field of security. The goals, objectives, forms and methods of this activity are implemented through the so-called European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The main provisions of the ESDP are revealed in the Maastricht Treaty, the Petersberg and Helsinki Declarations, and the European Security Strategy.

The Maastricht Treaty establishing the European Union, signed in 1991, defines the “implementation of a common foreign and security policy” as one of the main areas of cooperation between member states. Coordination of the activities of EU members in the military sphere was entrusted to the Western European Union (WEU), which began to act as the power component of the European Union (see “Reference Data”).

Changes in the military-political situation that occurred at the end of the last century led to the evolution of the views of the country's leadership Western Europe to threats to national security and the resulting new tasks for national and coalition armed forces. The priorities of the military policy of European states in the security sphere were reoriented from preparation to conducting large-scale offensive and defensive operations in Europe to resolve armed conflicts in various regions of the world on terms favorable to the West.

In order to implement this course, a number of leading Western European countries led by France began to actively promote the idea of ​​​​increasing its independence in matters of security and gaining the opportunity to conduct dialogue and make decisions on the main problems of war and peace on an equal basis with the Americans. Particular dissatisfaction in Paris and other European capitals was expressed in connection with the United States' insufficient consideration of the opinions of allies on key issues of NATO activities.

Under these conditions, the WEU Council adopted the Petersberg Declaration in 1992, according to which the participating countries expressed their intention, independently of the North Atlantic Alliance, to “solve humanitarian, rescue and peacekeeping tasks, send military contingents to resolve crises, including by enforcing peace.” This document for the first time demonstrated the intention of European NATO members to seek greater independence from the United States in solving problems of ensuring their own security, although to a rather limited extent.

For its part, the United States criticized its allies for the discrepancy between their claims to strengthen their role in the Alliance and their actual contribution to the formation of coalition military potential. After the end of the Cold War, Western European states significantly reduced the share of military spending in national budgets, both by reducing the armed forces and by freezing a number of programs for the development, purchase and modernization of weapons and military equipment(VVT). As a result, the armies of these countries began to experience an acute shortage of modern control, communications, reconnaissance and electronic warfare equipment, as well as military transport aircraft and warships. In this regard, the ability of Western European states to autonomously carry out even the Petersberg tasks, which were quite modest in scale, raised serious doubts on both sides of the Atlantic.

In order to solve the problems of the ESDP and increase the military capabilities of the EU, the heads of state and government of the European Union in 1999 signed the Helsinki Declaration, prepared at the initiative of Great Britain and France, which defined the main parameters of military development within the organization. In accordance with this document, by 2003, the European Union was supposed to have the ability to conduct, 60 days after the adoption of a political decision, an independent operation to fulfill the Petersberg tasks lasting up to one year, subject to the simultaneous involvement of no more than 60 thousand military personnel.

The structure of the European Union also created its own military-political and military governing bodies: the Committee on Foreign and Security Policy (CFS), the Military Committee and the EU Military Headquarters.

The CFS, which includes representatives of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs with the rank of ambassadors, coordinates the military-political activities of the European Union countries, allowing them to quickly resolve current problems in this area.

The EU Military Committee is the highest military body of the European Union, responsible for assessing the military-political situation and preparing proposals for using the military potential of member countries in the interests of resolving crisis situations. In addition, this body is entrusted with organizing cooperation with NATO in the military field.

The Military Committee makes the most important decisions during meetings of the commanders-in-chief of the armed forces (chiefs of the general staff of the armed forces) of the European Union member countries, which are held twice a year. Its day-to-day activities are carried out at the level of national military representatives. The Chairman of the Military Committee is appointed by the Council of the EU for a period of three years from among representatives of the senior command staff of the EU member states (the position corresponds to the rank of army general according to NATO gradation).

The EU Military Headquarters is responsible for implementing the decisions and plans of the Military Committee, including the organization and conduct of operations under the auspices of the European Union. However, this body does not have at its permanent disposal the necessary technical means and a sufficient number of trained personnel. In this regard, response force command and control points are deployed on the basis of the relevant Allied Forces in Europe or the national armed forces of EU members. Proposals to deploy a permanent operations center subordinate to the Military Headquarters are being implemented extremely slowly due to the lack of unanimous opinion on this issue within the organization. A corps general from the armed forces of one of the EU member states is appointed to the post of Chief of the EU Military Staff on a rotational basis.

As a follow-up to the Helsinki Declaration, a mechanism for forming the EU response force was developed. In everyday conditions, units and units intended to be allocated to coalition groups must be under national subordination. The decision on the allocation of military contingents is made independently by the leadership of each of the participating countries, based on state interests. Members of the European Union included their specific obligations in the catalog of forces and assets planned for transfer to the operational subordination of this organization. After the EU expanded to 25 countries in 2004 and signed an agreement on Norway’s participation in the implementation of the ESDP, the document included: 17 brigades and 14 separate battalions ground forces And Marine Corps, over 350 combat aircraft, more than 100 ships and boats (total number of personnel about 120 thousand people). These indicators were approved taking into account the need to rotate personnel in the conflict zone after four to six months and do not imply the simultaneous use of all the mentioned forces and means.

In order to create a military-industrial basis for the implementation of the ESDP in the European Union, efforts have been made to improve the efficiency of national manufacturers of military products. With the active participation of the EU leadership, company representatives began negotiations on deepening scientific and industrial cooperation, eliminating duplication of efforts in the creation of new models, and eliminating excessive competition. At the same time, the heads of national departments responsible for the formation of defense orders intensified consultations in order to implement joint weapons and military equipment procurement programs. The main attention was paid to cooperation in the field of aviation, radio-electronic and shipbuilding sectors of the military-industrial complex. In turn, the political leadership of the European Union began to more consistently defend the interests of arms and military equipment manufacturers from EU member countries in the domestic and foreign markets. In 2004, the European Defense Agency was created to more effectively and comprehensively resolve issues of military-technical cooperation within the EU structure.

Regular contacts were established between the European Union and NATO (summit meetings, joint council meetings

Alliance and CFS), which made it possible to quickly resolve problems arising in the relationship between these organizations. In 2002, a package of “Berlin Plus” agreements was signed, establishing the procedure for using the alliance’s military resources in EU operations.

The first practical event within the framework of the ESDP implementation was the EU's 2003 Operation Concordia in Macedonia. Its peculiarity was that it was organized in order to consolidate the results of the Alliance's operations in this Balkan country using the bloc's operational planning structures, communications systems, reconnaissance and airlift assets.

It was followed by Operation Artemis to suppress inter-ethnic clashes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire). It went down in history as the EU's first independent use of military force. The preparation and conduct of this operation were carried out without the involvement of NATO structures. France acted as the organizing country, and the necessary control bodies were created on the basis of the headquarters of the Armed Forces. This country also contributed 1,500 people to the international forces, numbering up to 1,800 military personnel.

The European Union's first experience in crisis resolution demonstrated the ability of this organization to solve individual peacekeeping tasks and allowed its leadership to take a broader look at ESDP priorities, previously limited to the implementation of the Petersberg tasks. The European Security Strategy, developed at the end of 2003, significantly expanded the list of threats to repel which the EU plans to use its military potential. Along with regional conflicts, these include: international terrorism, weapons proliferation mass destruction, crisis of the public administration system in “problem” countries, organized crime.

Analysis of the document shows that the European Union seeks to occupy a special place in the system international security, while maintaining a balance of interests and military-political functions with NATO. This organization sees its main task in resolving crises characterized by a low level of armed confrontation, but complicated by a complex of related political, economic and humanitarian problems that cannot be resolved solely by force and require the coordinated use of both military and non-military (in EU terminology - “civilian” ") forces and resources. At the same time, the European Union recognizes the functions of the guarantor of global security for Western countries and the conduct of operations in conditions of a high probability of serious armed resistance by the enemy at the present stage.

The need to implement the provisions of the European security strategy required clarification of the military development plans set out in the Helsinki Declaration. At the same time, the first place was put forward not by the quantitative indicators of the coalition forces, but by the standards of their readiness for use. In 2004, the EU completed the development of the so-called concept of combat tactical groups (CTG), which provides for the creation by 2008 of 13 highly mobile formations of 1.5 thousand people each as part of the response forces. If necessary, they must prepare within 5 days for deployment to a crisis area and operate there autonomously for a month. Each group, depending on the nature of the assigned combat mission, can include up to four motorized infantry (infantry) and one tank (armored cavalry) company, a field artillery battery, and a reinforced set of combat and logistics support units.

For the transfer of combat tactical groups, it is planned to use military transport aircraft maintained at the appropriate level of readiness, landing ships of the participating countries, as well as chartered aircraft and sea vessels of civilian companies.

According to Western military experts, BTGs should be used to proactively respond to crisis situations, create conditions for the deployment of the main peacekeeping contingents in the conflict zone, and carry out emergency tasks to protect and evacuate citizens of EU countries abroad.

The EU also pays significant attention to stabilizing the situation in various regions in the post-conflict period, which involves taking measures to completely disarm illegal groups, capture or destroy their leaders, assist local authorities in creating security forces, and solving humanitarian problems. In particular, in 2004, the European Union launched the peacekeeping operation Althea on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which about 7 thousand military personnel from 33 countries take part.

In addition, the experience of operations in the former Yugoslavia showed that after the suppression of armed resistance, international peacekeeping contingents were faced with the need to solve tasks unusual for armed forces: fighting crime, suppressing riots, organizing an administrative management system, solving the most pressing social and humanitarian problems of the local population , restoration of public utilities, energy, and transport facilities. In this regard, the European Union decided to create civilian anti-crisis structures with a total number of up to 15 thousand people, including units law enforcement, formation of rescuers, doctors, builders, a group of specialists in the field of law and management. They are planned to be used both independently and in cooperation with the EU response forces.

An important component of civilian anti-crisis structures is the EU police force, which is currently conducting operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in parallel with Operation Althea), Macedonia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The effectiveness of this form of EU anti-crisis activity is recognized not only within the organization itself, but also at the UN level.

In order to increase the capabilities of the police forces, this year the process of creating a European gendarmerie force should be completed, which will include the corresponding units of the Carabinieri troops of Italy, the national gendarmerie of France, the military gendarmerie of the Netherlands, the civil guard of Spain and the national guard of Portugal (up to 3 thousand people in total) . These forces must be able, during operations carried out by decision of the European Union, NATO, UN or OSCE, to maintain public security, ensure compliance with the regime and military discipline at the installations of international contingents, and provide assistance to local law enforcement agencies.

Other EU countries, as well as EU accession candidates with relevant paramilitary units (gendarmerie, national guard, border guard).

An important area of ​​activity of the civil anti-crisis structures of the European Union is to ensure a prompt and coordinated response to natural disasters anywhere in the world in order to localize their consequences and prevent humanitarian disasters. Thus, during an extraordinary meeting of the EU Council held in January this year, at which the situation in the countries of South Asia affected by the tsunami was discussed, a decision was made to strengthen coordination between EU states in the field of rapid response to natural disasters.

Threat from outside international terrorism, the relevance of which for European countries was confirmed by the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, the activities of organized criminal communities, and illegal migration have confronted EU countries with the need to develop and implement programs to ensure internal security within the framework of the ESDP. Currently, the European Union is preparing a concept for joint actions to protect the population from terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction and other highly destructive means. The measures included in the concept should also reduce the risk man-made disasters and improve preparedness to deal with the consequences natural Disasters. It is planned to involve in their implementation not only the civil anti-crisis structures created within the EU, but also units of engineering troops, forces and means of the Russian Chemical Defense Forces, military medical units, military transport aircraft of the participating countries, and special operations forces.

The protection of common external borders and the protection of maritime communications connecting Europe with North America and the main regions of hydrocarbon production. For these purposes, it is planned to actively use multinational naval formations formed with the participation of EU countries (Euromarfor, a Franco-German group of surface ships, a Spanish-Italian amphibious landing force), as well as the forces of the European gendarmerie.

In general, cooperation in the field of security, including military, is one of the most important areas of activity of the European Union states. The prospects for its further development are determined by the ability of this organization to solve existing problems in the political and economic spheres, which were especially evident during the period of the constitutional crisis that erupted in this organization. A significant increase in the EU coalition military potential is impossible without completing the reform of government bodies, simplifying the decision-making procedure on fundamental issues, and overcoming the imbalance in development between the “old” and “new” Europe. However, we can already say that the European Union has emerged as a new participant in the international security system, consistently and firmly defending its own interests.

If any politician or military man of the mid-nineties heard that main problem NATO is the army of Europe, he would think that he was the victim of a hallucination. However, the world is changing at a rapid pace, and political realities are changing even faster.

The European Union had the opportunity to create its own armed forces back in 1993. Then, at the conference in Maatricht, it was decided that European countries should develop a “Common Defense and Security Policy.” The basis for this policy was to be the so-called “Petersberg Objectives” adopted by the Western European Union (predecessor of the EU) in 1993. This document defined the goals for which Europeans could unite military efforts, namely humanitarian action, peacekeeping, saving civilians, and resolving crises.

Throughout the nineties, the countries of Europe did not see real reasons worry about your own safety. The Soviet threat disappeared by itself, and long-term strategic tasks were very successfully solved by NATO forces. And only in 1999, when the Kosovo crisis occurred, the Europeans remembered the “Petersberg Problems” and again started talking about their own unified army.

At the Helsinki Conference in 1999, the European Union began to develop a common defense policy. At this meeting, the concept of a rapid reaction force was developed. All members of the Union, except Denmark, have committed to ensuring the deployment of pan-European troops within 60 days by 2003 and maintaining their combat capability for at least one year. The new structure was supposed to include 100 thousand people, 400 combat aircraft and 100 ships. Germany promised to provide 13 thousand soldiers, Great Britain and Italy - 12 thousand each. Other countries' commitments have been more modest.

The conference participants decided to use rapid reaction forces only for peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions. At the same time, in Helsinki, the prerogative of the UN was recognized in making decisions on the commencement of peacekeeping operations, as well as NATO’s “right of first refusal,” which allowed the use of European troops only if the alliance for some reason refused to participate in the operation.

Already in June 2003, the EU, at the request of the UN, sent 1,800 troops to resolve the situation in the Congo. This operation, called Operation Artemis, was the first time EU troops were used outside the European continent. In addition, the “right of first refusal” was violated: since the United States was not concerned about the Congo problem, NATO did not even receive an offer to participate.

Although the creation of a rapid reaction force was the first pan-European military initiative, it was still very far from the formation of a unified army. Each of the national units of the rapid reaction forces is subordinate to the leadership in their country, and EU members are simply ready to provide their troops at the request of Brussels. Meanwhile, the EU is increasingly acquiring the features single state, and the formation of a real army is an inevitable stage in this process.

Moreover, there is already a real basis for this. Back in 1991, France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain formed joint brigades with a single command in Strasbourg and called them “Eurocorps”. The personnel of the Eurocorps reaches 60 thousand people. The brigades must carry out operations under the auspices of the European Union. And in 1995, the French, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese agreed to create EUROFOR (European Operational Rapid Force) to carry out the Petersberg Tasks, so Europe has some experience in using joint armed forces.

Two factors are forcing Europeans to quickly decide on their defense policy. First, in the spring of 2003, American planes flew to bomb Iraq, despite the objections of Chirac and Schröder. Then these leaders realized that to confront the United States, their diplomacy needed forceful support. At the same time, the United States can only be opposed to a strong pan-European army, at least as a distant prospect.

Therefore, on April 29, 2003, representatives of Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg gathered in Brussels to discuss a fundamentally new approach to military policy EU. According to the new concept, unified armed forces should finally be created in Europe.

Under the new plan, a permanent body with international staff would be created within the EU to coordinate a joint military capability that would include not only the army, but also the navy and air force.

Separate funding should be allocated for the new structure, and European industry will receive orders for the supply of high-tech military equipment. At the same time, special measures will be taken to ensure coordination of the armed forces and compliance with uniform standards. At the summit, a proposal was made to open a headquarters new army. The European Pentagon was to appear in Tervuren, a suburb of Brussels.

The ideas expressed by the summit participants were not formalized in the form official document and remained just plans for subsequent discussion. However, the participants also made several specific decisions. By 2004, it is planned to have a pan-European strategic air transport unit, joint air defense forces, and personnel training centers.

So far, only Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg are ready to cooperate in the military sphere. These countries will bear all the costs of the new military program, waiting for others to join the initiative. Others are forced to hurry up and think about a military strategy by another factor - the approaching date for the adoption of a pan-European constitution, in which a separate clause will be devoted to the defense of the European Union.

The EU's plans to create its own army are least pleasing to the United States, which fears that NATO will lose its influence. The Americans became especially worried when Tony Blair supported the idea.

NATO and the EU - history of relations

When the idea of ​​the European Union was still being discussed, issues of security and military cooperation were in last place among the participants. The leading EU countries were members of NATO, and their strategic interests on the European continent were successfully protected by this organization.

In the nineties, NATO set itself very modest goals, and the alliance’s development strategy largely repeated the experience of the times of confrontation with the USSR. Although the bipolar world had already been destroyed, an alternative concept that took into account the new realities did not emerge. Moreover, nothing threatened the immediate security of Europe.

For the first time since the end of the Cold War, NATO's strategic concept was revised in 1999. If during the previous decades NATO exclusively ensured the security of member countries, then from that moment on the role of the alliance unexpectedly changed. The new document made clear that NATO was going to resolve conflict situations and conducting military operations in hot spots.

From the very beginning, it was not clear where exactly NATO could send its troops. The wording clearly suggested that military operations need not be limited to the European continent and the North Atlantic. Thus quietly began the transformation of NATO into the “global policeman.”

Therefore, in 2001, no one was surprised that Bush declared a “war on terrorism” throughout the world and the United States obliged NATO to always have 20 thousand soldiers on hand, capable of going anywhere within 7 to 30 days. The weak protests of EU member states, which were not very happy to serve US interests anywhere in the world, were not heard, and the creation of the NATO Response Force began.

Even then, for the first time, a certain discrepancy emerged between the NATO concept and the position of European states. The North Atlantic Alliance was necessary for the Americans to protect US interests, which were not always on the same plane as the EU's priorities.

The Americans counted on NATO in 2003, when they were just about to start a war against Saddam Hussein. However, they unexpectedly met resistance from some EU members, now known as the Franco-German Axis. The heads of these countries did not want NATO to be used as an instrument of American policy, which Europe does not approve of.

Although many accused Chirac and Schröder of populism and a desire to win over voters, the war with Iraq did not really fit into the EU's idea of ​​proper conflict resolution. In any case, the US request to use NATO even indirectly to support the war against Saddam was refused. European soldiers did not replace the Americans in Kosovo, the United States was unable to use the necessary bases, and NATO did not participate in the Iraqi operation even after the process of “reconstructing” the country began.

Thus, the new EU military initiative has the potential to further deepen the gap between this organization and NATO. It is still unclear how European army will cooperate with the North Atlantic Alliance. Perhaps the alliance will simply turn into a bilateral military alliance of two states: the US and the EU. However, with the advent of a united European army, the likelihood is growing that NATO will simply disappear as unnecessary and the American army will have to fight terrorism alone or each time persuade other countries to take part in one or another mission.

An emergency NATO meeting was timed to coincide with the October conference of the European Union, at which military strategy was discussed, which was convened on October 16 by US Ambassador to the Alliance Nicholas Burns. According to the Financial Times, he announced the Pentagon's dissatisfaction with Blair's too close cooperation with the EU and said that the militarization of Europe could pose a serious threat to NATO.

And on October 24, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac once again tried to reassure the Americans and stated that the European army would not interfere with the existence of NATO.

Only the Russian military is not worried: to them, NATO, the united EU army are all one.

Other materials

The issue of a new European security strategy has become so relevant that the issue of creating joint armed forces of the European Union has again been put on the agenda. The political elite of most EU countries believes that such an army would help the EU form a common foreign 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.

First experience

A similar project was attempted back in 1948. The Western European Union (WEU) created at that time 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 consisted of a headquarters and a communications battalion; it could only be brought fully into combat readiness 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 The battalion was announced to provide assistance to 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 back up 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. So, official representative EU 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 Minister 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 dependent on NATO in the matter of confrontation with the USSR, 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 a coordinated foreign 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 trained 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 joint 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 the European countries that shout loudest 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 to 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 inter-ethnic 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 timetable for the creation of the 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 safety of Federica Mogherini. According to her, in Europe for the first time in for a long time a “political space” has 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 has even come up with a plan to overcome the "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 EU structures must pass.

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, security policy and common European defense policy with the goal 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 recently, 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. Thus, EU official 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 taste 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 a European army solve?

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 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.

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 the 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 the NATO military structure 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: