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. The Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration and Relations 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.
This summer, talk about creating our own European army revived in European politics. So, at the end of August, the head of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, speaking at the Alps Forum in Austria, said:
“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.”
Junker Jean-Claude
By and large, there shouldn’t be any sensation in this - after all, this question The head of the European government raised it back in 2015. But until now this idea has been met with hostility by both the United States and its main European satellite, Great Britain. “We have imposed an absolute veto on the creation of a European army”, - declared British Secretary of Defense Michael Fallon back in June.
However, it was in June that a large-scale event took place in Foggy Albion - the notorious Brexit, a referendum on the country’s exit from the EU. After which there can no longer be any talk of London’s “veto” on any of the pan-European decisions, since such actions can only be carried out by existing members of the European Union.
Accordingly, the idea of creating a unified European army may come true. What cannot raise the following questions: why is it needed, what are the real prospects for this undertaking?
The ambiguities begin from the first point mentioned above, when Juncker says that such an army is required so that “the EU can fulfill its role in the world.” I mean, what is this “world role”? N and in the words of the EU it pursues supposedly “noble” goals. The same spread of the notorious European values. However, in reality it turns out differently: Europe is trying to expand its sphere of influence, occupy the territory of Russian national interests and get new markets for your products.
But again: why did the EU also need its own army to achieve expansion goals outside its borders? In recent decades, the West has preferred to achieve its goals through a policy of “soft power”: in the form of winning the hearts of foreign oligarchs by threatening to confiscate their capital in European banks and supposedly free journalists bought with grants from various Soros Foundations. Of course someone might be impressed words the same Juncker about the future European army:
“It will not be used immediately. But a common European army will make it clear to Russia that we are serious about defending EU values.”
Junker Jean-Claude
They say that if the Europeans want to create serious armed forces of their own, then only to fight “Russian expansion.” The thesis, no matter how formidable at first glance, is so funny upon closer examination. The whole point is that Europe could not count on any serious opposition to the USSR even during the Cold War era. Then, despite much more impressive military budgets, universal conscription for citizens of most European countries, military analysts of both NATO and the Soviet Union proceeded from the same forecast. Namely, in the event of the outbreak of the third world war in Europe without escalating into a global nuclear conflict, the tanks of the Warsaw Pact countries, after a maximum of a couple of weeks, should have reached the coast of the Bay of Biscay, occupying almost all of Europe up to and including the western coast of France.
Of course, now in such a hypothetical conflict Russian army it would be necessary to attack from positions much more eastern than before 1991, but, in general, the outcome of such an offensive still does not raise any doubts among NATO strategists. This is why, in fact, the EU, with manic persistence, is trying to create the thickest possible belt of buffer states near its eastern borders, which neither Europe nor NATO are going to defend, but which should hinder the possible advance of the Russian army in a western direction.
It is clear that the above-described fears of Russia are just as justified as, say, the phobias of small children who are afraid to fall asleep for fear of some mythical monster that they themselves invented. But even if we admit for a moment their reality, if Europe, even within the framework of NATO with the help of the most powerful military machine of the United States, on the European bases of which there are about 75 thousand of their military, could not feel even minimal security in the event of a hypothetical attack by the Soviet, and now Russian army - what can it hope for, based only on its own strength?
But maybe European politicians, while verbally exaggerating old cliches about the Russian threat, want to have their own army because in reality they don’t believe in this very threat from Russia? Moreover, the thesis “Europeans want a common army” is very ambiguous. Who exactly wants it? The French, for example, already had one of the most powerful armed forces in Europe and the world since World War II and still have them, constantly using them to ensure their interests outside French borders, usually in the form of the Foreign Legion.
In reality, the “uncrowned kings” of the European Union, the Germans, were concerned with creating a powerful military structure. Their authorities started talking seriously about the need to increase defense spending and began to transparently hint at the possibility of returning to “military conscription,” which had been abolished in Germany since 2011 in connection with the complete transition to a professional army.
But what is even more interesting is that the idea of creating a European army was supported by the “new Europeans,” traditionally considered satellites and conductors of US interests in the European Union. Such a call was made not only by the President of the Czech Republic, known for his often shocking statements. Zeman, but also the Prime Minister of the country, Sobotka, and his Hungarian colleague took a similar position. By the way, last statement was done within the framework of a meeting of the leaders of the “Visegrad Group”, which unites, in addition to the Czech Republic and Hungary, also Poland and Slovakia. So, in a sense, we can talk about a real “revolt on the ship” - an increasingly noticeable reorientation of the previously radically pro-American Eastern European elites towards the “German direction”.
By the way, all of them - both the “new Europeans” and the Germans with Brussels officials - after traditional campaigns about the “need to counter the Russian threat,” through clenched teeth they begin to talk about threats that are much more real. In particular, about the danger of a migration crisis threatening the Old World, which is already beginning to be compared with the Great Migration of Peoples.
But the origins of this great migration lie precisely in the US policy of supporting the “Arab Spring” and the destruction of fragile stability in the Middle East and North Africa. And even now, hundreds of thousands of refugees, among whom there are many outright terrorists hiding, are getting to Europe with the help of supposedly humanitarian funds financed by the same Americans. Which benefits from the maximum weakening of the EU as an economic competitor, and it is quite difficult to weaken such a large association without provoking a political crisis.
It is clear that the European capitals are unlikely to be able to use the NATO framework to protect the real interests of Europeans, and not to force the geopolitical confrontation between Washington and Moscow. Therefore, the issue of creating our own European army is beginning to be taken up more and more seriously. The power of which will be clearly insufficient for a real confrontation with Russia (and any other serious adversary too), but for purely “semi-police” operations it can be quite useful.
Another thing is how realistic this idea actually looks. After all, a full-fledged armed force is not only tens of billions of euros and the latest technology. “Iron,” even the most modern, is almost nothing without the real fighting spirit of the fighters using it. But Europeans now have a very big problem with this very “spirit”.
Actually, most of all the EU now resembles Ancient Rome just during the period of decline. When the former “military democracy”, when every citizen capable of bearing arms took part in governing the state, was replaced by a poorly hidden dictatorship, first of princeps, and then of full-fledged emperors, relying on purely mercenary troops, then contract soldiers. But the trouble is that a society that completely entrusts its protection exclusively to such “professionals,” even among its own citizens, sooner or later becomes pampered, corrupted, and degrades.
And now, when Merkel’s associates are discussing the issue of increasing military spending, they are seriously beginning to consider the possibility of allowing foreigners to serve in the Bundeswehr. On the one hand, it seems to be not bad - almost like the Foreign Legion of the French, on the other - Rome, too, before its death, was forced to create legions not only from the Romans themselves, or at least other citizens of the Empire, but also from among the Goths.
In general, trying to create a truly combat-ready pan-European army is clearly beyond our reach. If they are replaced by new people, then things might change. For now, this idea is purely theoretical. Although it deserves close attention as evidence of the beginning rebellion of Europeans against the open dictatorship of the United States, albeit disguised as “patronage” within NATO.
Yuri Mail
On February 16, 2017, the European Parliament adopted a number of important decisions aimed at strengthening European unity: the creation of a single continental army, the creation of the post of EU Finance Minister, and the centralization of the EU structure. These decisions were made in the context of negotiations on the UK's exit from the EU, the rise to power in the United States of President Donald Trump and his expressed financial claims against most NATO member countries and doubts about the fate of the EU. In addition, the Euro-Atlantic world is experiencing a state of confusion and vacillation over the results of the election campaign in the United States, the fate of the European Union, the prospects of NATO, the migration crisis, the attitude towards Russia, and the fight against terrorism under Islamic slogans. This largely explains the striking results of voting for the proposal to create a single continental army (283 MEPs were in favor, 269 were against, 83 abstained). That is, the decision was made by the votes of 283 people, but 352 deputies, the majority of them, did not support this proposal one way or another. The motivation for this proposal was that the armed forces would help the EU become stronger at a time when protectionist nationalists in a number of countries were weakening the organization and leading to its collapse. A proposal to abandon the principle of consensus in decision-making and move to decision-making by a majority of EU members was also approved. It looks like there is an attempt to implement the idea of two speeds of development European integration.
Of course, the creation of a single continental army is aimed not only against European nationalist protectionists, but it is also a response to Donald Trump, who questions the unity of the Euro-Atlantic world in the name of US national interests.
The idea of a European army is not new; attempts to implement it have been made, in fact, since the beginning of European integration in the 1950s. with the aim of weakening to some extent the military and political dominance of the United States and pursuing its own defense policy. In 1991, the Eurocorps was formed by Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, France and Germany. In 1995, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal agreed to create the European Rapid Reaction Force. In 1999, the European Union began the creation of a rapid reaction force in the context of developing a common defense policy. It was intended to use rapid reaction forces to carry out peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions
The process of creating European armed forces was influenced by the existence of NATO, the special role of Great Britain in European integration (later joining on its own terms and current withdrawal), the specific role of France in relation to NATO (expulsion of headquarters from France, withdrawal from the NATO military organization, and then return to it), the existence of the USSR and the organization of the Warsaw Pact countries. At the present stage, after the end of the Cold War, the dominance of the political approach over the economic one in the admission of new countries to the EU and the expansion of NATO to the East is reflected. Great Britain, as the main US ally in Europe, either supported or rejected this project. Even with support, it sought to preserve NATO as the global military-political structure of the Euro-Atlantic community and to ensure a clear division of responsibilities between NATO and European armed forces. Brexit has clearly strengthened the position of supporters of the creation of a European army.
Currently, each EU member state determines its own defense policy, coordinating this activity through NATO, not the EU. European military personnel participate in several military and humanitarian operations under the flags of individual countries and their armed forces, rather than the EU as a whole.
What is the difficulty of creating a unified European army? There are a number of reasons: political, financial-economic, organizational-administrative, military-technological.
The current level of European unity is insufficient to form a single European army with its own command, its own armed forces, and its own funding. The EU is neither a federation nor a supranational state. French President Sarkozy proposed forming a joint European defense force based on six largest countries- EU members: France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland. The project provided that the participating countries would establish uniform rules for themselves to achieve integration in the military sphere, and the minimum defense budget would be 2% of GDP. Such a project would be a real threat to NATO, since defense spending would double and a number of countries would not be able to participate in two structures at the same time. Currently, there is an opinion that the EU does not need a classical offensive army (the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker).
No solution has been found to the relationship between this army and NATO, which is dominated by the United States. Will it be competition, subordination or complementarity?
Disagreements exist regarding the purposes of the existence of this army (limited in conflict zones, to counter Russia, against terrorism, to protect the external borders of the EU in the context of the migration crisis) and the boundaries of its use (in Europe and in former colonies, globally). In practice, Europeans participate in peacekeeping operations in Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo) and in North and Tropical Africa in former European colonies. The Europeans there were subordinate to the United States. The right to be the first to decide on the conduct of peacekeeping operations is granted to NATO.
Will this army consist exclusively of EU member states, NATO or other countries? If the UK does leave the EU, could it be invited to join the European army? Is it possible to include Turkish military personnel in it? Will Turkish and Greek soldiers be able to find a common language in it?
Will it be a balanced military force or will the leading European countries dominate it? Germany strives to stay in the background of this process, however, there are fears that this will not be a European, but “ german army"(similar to how in NATO operations 80-90% of military personnel are from the United States).
How much money is the EU going to use to maintain this army? For several years now, the United States, and Trump has expressed this in harsh terms, has been demanding that its NATO allies increase the level of defense spending to 2% of GDP. Maybe the Europeans are hoping to persuade the United States to take on the main burden of the costs of the European army?
The experience of peacekeeping operations has shown that European military contingents have a low level of coordination of actions, inconsistency in understanding tactical tasks, unsatisfactory compatibility of the main types of military equipment and weapons, and a low level of troop mobility. Europeans cannot compete with the US military-industrial complex in the development and application of new technological developments due to the narrowness of their national markets.
Will the US position become an obstacle to strengthening the EU's military potential? Previously, the United States was wary of this process, wanting to maintain the significance of NATO and its leading position in this alliance. The European initiative was perceived as unpromising, senseless and leading to a dead end due to the decreasing effectiveness of NATO, and also threatening the loss of the European arms market for the US military-industrial complex. The United States fears a conflict of interests between NATO and the interests of European security, and a reduction in the costs of Europeans participating in NATO projects. It is not yet clear what US policy will be under Donald Trump. If the United States weakens its military presence in Europe and in the world as a whole, the Europeans will really have to strengthen the military-political aspect of their activities. But at this stage, the Europeans (this was shown by the military intervention of France and Great Britain in Libya, the participation of Europeans in the Syrian conflict) are not able to independently carry out serious military operations without the support of NATO and the United States: they do not have intelligence information from satellites, they do not have air and naval bases around the world. As shown by the ongoing last years the war on terrorism in Europe, Europeans are not inclined to exchange intelligence information among themselves. France and Germany oppose the creation of a single EU intelligence service.
The emerging multipolar world and the weakening of the monopoly dominance of the United States as the leader of the Western world objectively suggests the need to unite the EU as one of the centers of world politics. This requires a sufficient degree of political, economic integration and the conduct of defense and security policy in Europe and the world at large. There is a lack of political will to resolve many issues. At the same time, the Europeans are not going to abandon NATO and the leadership role of the United States in the Euro-Atlantic community. So far, a single European army is a symbol of independence, a dream of a united Europe and at the same time serves as a means of putting pressure on Trump - if you weaken attention to us, we will create an alternative to NATO. However, the practical implementation of the task of creating a single European army, while maintaining NATO, seems unlikely.
Yuriy Pochta - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Comparative Political Science at RUDN University, especially for IA
This week, EU member states signed an interesting agreement: the permanent cooperation of the united European countries in the defense sector was confirmed on paper. We are talking about creating a unified army in Europe, which, among other things, has the task of countering the “Russian threat.” Tremble, Moscow!
This topic has become one of the key topics of the week in major European and American media. NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, leading figure in European diplomacy Federica Mogherini, and others speak about this high-ranking officials and diplomats.
The European Union has taken an important step towards ensuring its defense capability: 23 out of 28 member states have signed a joint investment program in military equipment, as well as related research and development, reports.
The purpose of the initiative: to jointly develop European military capabilities and provide common armed forces for "stand-alone" operations or operations "in coordination with NATO". Europe's efforts are also aimed at "overcoming fragmentation" of European defense spending and promoting joint projects to reduce duplication of functions.
At the document signing ceremony in Brussels, the head of the European foreign policy Federica Mogherini called the deal "a historic moment in the defense of Europe."
Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign minister and former defense minister, said the agreement was a "commitment by countries" aimed at "improving how we work together." He noted that there is “tension” in Europe caused by Russia’s “more aggressive” behavior “after the annexation of Crimea.” In addition, there is the threat of terrorist attacks by Islamist militants.
European leaders have lamented US President Donald Trump's lack of enthusiasm for NATO and other multilateral institutions. Apparently, the publication notes, those gathered decided, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in May, that an “era” has arrived in which Europeans will have to fully rely on themselves, and not rely on someone else. And so, in Merkel's words, "we Europeans must truly take our destiny into our own hands." However, Mrs. Merkel added that European coordination should still be carried out in partnership with the United States and Great Britain. It is interesting that Great Britain, the author of the material recalls, “for many years blocked such cooperation,” fearing that the creation of a European army would undermine NATO and London’s partnership with Washington. Britain instead advocated "a bilateral agreement with France".
However, the UK recently voted to leave the European Union. And after Brexit, other countries, especially the aforementioned France, but also Germany, Italy and Spain, decided to revive the long-standing idea of military cooperation. The idea was a way for them to show their citizens that Brussels was “capable of responding to concerns about security and terrorism.”
As for France alone, Paris advocated the participation in the new alliance of a smaller group of countries - those that could bear serious expenses on military equipment and other defense capabilities that Europe lacks “outside NATO.” However, Berlin "played for a bigger club".
The German point of view, as often happens, won, the American newspaper states.
The Brussels agreement on “permanent structured cooperation” (Pesco) is expected to be formalized by European leaders at a meeting on top level. It will take place in mid-December 2017. But it is already clear today that with so many votes in favor, approval seems to be a mere formality. Everything has already been decided.
It is interesting that NATO supports these European efforts: after all, European leaders say that their intentions are not to undermine the defense capabilities of the current alliance, but to make Europe more effective against, for example, cyber attacks or hybrid warfare like the one the Russians staged in Crimea, it is noted in the material.
European countries will present an action plan outlining their defense military goals and methods for monitoring their implementation. To purchase weapons, states will take funds from the European Union fund. The amount has also been determined: about 5 billion euros, or 5.8 billion US dollars. Another special fund will be used “to finance operations.”
The obvious goal is to increase military spending to “strengthen the EU's strategic independence.” The EU can act alone when necessary and with partners when possible, the Brussels statement noted.
The program also aims to reduce the number various systems weapons in Europe and promote regional military integration, for example in the area of naval cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands.
The article also names members of the European Union that have not signed the new military agreement. These are Great Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Portugal.
In Germany, the new military agreement, of course, was greeted positively by the mainstream press.
As he writes, today Europe does not have a common strategy. And the 23 EU states want to "cooperate more closely militarily." In Anna Sauerbrey's material, such cooperation is called “a good temporary solution.”
The article called the Pesco program "very important." And it’s not for nothing that there is already talk of a “defense union.” This approach “shows a new pragmatism in European integration policy.” The fact is that there is “huge” external “pressure”, which leads to the indicated closer cooperation of Europeans in security policy.
Among those who “pressure” the EU, specific foreign politicians are named: “geopolitical” pressure is exerted by Putin, and simply “political” pressure is exerted by Donald Trump.
In addition, the new military association is a “completely pragmatic” alliance: EU states should save money, but billions are spent on military cooperation, as evidenced by studies, including the scientific service of the European Parliament. Because EU countries are "having to save" in the current period, the level of investment in defense is quite low, and because it is low, many small countries essentially do not have their own defense industry. Equipment procurement is inefficient, and defense spending across all EU countries is the second highest in the world. And where is this European power?
At the same time, the Baltic states are "particularly concerned about the threat from Russia" and Europeans in the south are "prioritizing stability in North Africa" (due to migrants). In June 2016, “ Global strategy foreign and security policy” prepared by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, but this document is not legally binding and only defines “general goals” such as combating cyber attacks.
Pesco gives a pragmatic and even apolitical approach. This agreement, the author believes, is a “smart way out” of the dilemma of “practical needs and strategic differences.” The cooperation is “modular” because all EU countries are not required to participate. And not all states that agree with Pesco should participate in all of its projects.
The document continues Europe's previous line in its security policy. According to Anna Sauerbrey, a “big European army” should not arise: instead, a military “network” of European friends will operate.
The signed document gives another clear impression: its developers tried to avoid a “declaration of European independence from the United States.” NATO's commitment is "repeated repeatedly" in the text.
“This is smart,” says the journalist. Pesco is a good solution at the moment. In the long term, the agreement should still remain aside “from the overall political strategy.”
By the way, let’s add to this that one of the heralds of the new “defense” project was the young French President Macron. Speaking at the Sorbonne, he said that within 10 years Europe would have “a common military force, a common defense budget and a common doctrine for [defense] actions.”
The statement is curious simply because Emmanuel Macron seemed to distance himself from those experts who deny the creation of a separate army by Europe. Macron is an excellent speaker, speaking unambiguously and definitely, and he made it clear that what lies ahead is the creation by the European Union of a common military force, and not some local addition to NATO. As for ten years, this number is also curious: this is exactly two terms of presidential rule in France.
If any politician or military man in the mid-nineties had heard that NATO's main problem was the army of Europe, he would have thought 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 ability to create your own armed forces European Union appeared 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 new concept, a unified armed force must 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 not yet clear how the 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 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