On November 13, 2017, 23 countries of the European Union out of 28 signed an agreement on military cooperation - the Permanent Structured Cooperation on Security and Defense (PESCO) program. In connection with this event, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said: “Today is a special day for Europe, today we officially create the EU defense and military alliance ... This is a special day, it marks another step towards the creation of a European army.” How realistic is its creation? What problems and obstacles does it face and may face? In the first part of the article, we will consider the evolution of the idea of a European army, as well as in what institutional framework (outside NATO) and how the military cooperation of Western European states developed after the Second World War (which were joined after the end of the Cold War by a number of Eastern European countries). ).
The idea of creating a European army appeared quite a long time ago. Winston Churchill was the first in Europe after the end of World War II to express it at a session of the Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on August 11, 1950. He proposed the creation of a “European army subject to the democracy of Europe”, which would also include German military units. Such an army, according to his plan, was to be a coalition of national forces with centralized supply and standardized weapons, not subject to supranational control bodies. The Assembly approved this draft (89 votes in favor, 5 against and 27 abstentions).
France objected to the rearmament of Germany and on October 24, 1950, proposed its so-called "Pleven Plan" (initiator - French Prime Minister Rene Pleven). This plan envisaged the creation of a European Defense Community (EDC), the main element of which would be a single European army under a single command, with common bodies and a budget.
At the same time, Germany was not supposed to have its own army, and only insignificant German units would enter the European army.
In December 1950, the French proposal was basically approved by the NATO Council, which, in turn, proposed the development of a specific plan for the creation of a European army. The United States also supported the idea of creating a European army. But Great Britain, having supported the project itself, excluded its participation in the supranational European army. Moreover, among the critics of the French version was Winston Churchill, who returned to the post of Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1951. The final plan for the creation of the EOC was developed and approved at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the United States, Great Britain and France in Washington in September 1951.
As a result, on May 27, 1952, an agreement was signed in Paris on the creation of the EOC - an organization with an army, which was supposed to include the armed forces of six Western European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), with general military command and unified military budget. But the EOC was destined to remain only on paper, since on August 30, 1954, the National Assembly of France rejected the EOC Treaty by 319 votes against 264.
Many ideas of the EOC were taken into account in the Paris Agreement on October 23, 1954, in accordance with which the Western European Union (WEU) (Western European Union, WEU) was created - a military-political organization consisting of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium , the Netherlands and Luxembourg.
The forerunner of the WEU was the Brussels Pact, signed on March 17, 1948 by Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Subsequently, the WEU included as members all the states of the European Union within its borders until the expansion of 2004, except for Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, which received the status of observers. Iceland, Norway, Poland, Turkey, Hungary and the Czech Republic became associate members of the WEU, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became associate partners. During the Cold War, the WEU was "in the shadow" of NATO and served mainly as a place for regular political dialogue among NATO's European members and as an important mediator between NATO and the European Community (EU).
In the 1980s there was a certain "resuscitation" of the WEU. In the Rome Declaration of the WEU in 1984, it was proclaimed the "European pillar" of the security system within NATO.
On June 19, 1992, at a meeting in the Petersberg Hotel near Bonn, the WEU countries adopted the "Petersberg Declaration" on relations between the WEU, the EU and NATO, which expanded the functions of the WEU. If earlier it was focused on providing guarantees for the defense of the territories of the participating countries, now it has become responsible for conducting humanitarian and rescue operations, peacekeeping missions, as well as for performing crisis management tasks (including peace enforcement in the interests of the entire EU).
In this new role, limited contingents of European countries under the flag of the WEU took part in maintaining the embargo against Yugoslavia in the Adriatic and on the Danube in 1992-1996. and in crisis prevention operations in Kosovo in 1998–1999. In 1997, under the Treaty of Amsterdam, the WEU became "an integral part of the development" of the European Union (EU). The process of integration of the WEU into the EU was completed in 2002. After the 2007 Lisbon Treaty came into force on December 1, 2009, which expanded the scope of the EU's powers in the field of foreign and defense policy, the WEU ceased to be necessary. In March 2010, its dissolution was announced. The WEU finally closed its work on June 30, 2011.
The European Union itself began to create military structures after the Maastricht Treaty, signed on February 7, 1992, first designated the responsibility of the Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) (Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP).
It was founded in May 1992 and started functioning in October 1993 Eurocorps(reached full operational readiness in 1995). Its headquarters is located in Strasbourg (France) and has about 1,000 troops. The participating countries of the corps are Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg and France. Associated Nations - Greece, Italy, Poland and Turkey (these also previously included Austria (2002-2011), Canada (2003-2007) and Finland (2002-2006). The only military formation permanently located under the command of the Eurocorps, the Franco-German brigade (5000 personnel) with headquarters in Mülheim (Germany) formed in 1989. The corps took part in peacekeeping missions in Kosovo (2000) and Afghanistan (2004-2005) .
In November 1995, EU rapid reaction forces (European Rapid Operational Force (EUROFOR)) numbering 12,000 people, consisting of military personnel from Italy, France, Portugal and Spain, headquartered in Florence (Italy). On July 2, 2012 EUROFOR was disbanded.
EUROFOR forces in 1997. Photo: cvce.eu.
In November 1995, the European Maritime Forces (EUROMARFOR) with the participation of Italy, France, Spain and Portugal.
In June 1999, after the crisis in Kosovo, the countries of the European Union at the summit in Cologne decided to deepen the coordination of foreign policy and move on to the implementation of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) (European Security and Defense Policy, ESDP).
To coordinate the foreign and security policy of the EU, the post of the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy was established in the same year. Now this position is called the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Since November 1, 2014, it has been occupied by Frederica Mogherini.
In December 1999, at the Helsinki Conference of the EU, it was decided to create new political and military structures for decision-making in the field of foreign policy, security policy and defense. Based on these and subsequent decisions, since 2001, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) began to operate in the EU (for coordination on foreign policy and military issues), as well as the Military Committee (The European Union Military Committee, EUMC) (as part of the chiefs of the general staffs of the armed forces of the EU states) and the Military Staff subordinate to it (The European Union Military Staff, EUMS). The tasks of the latter are military expertise, strategic planning, organizing cooperation between and within multinational headquarters.
At the same conference, the goal was set to create by 2003 a potential that would make it possible to deploy a military contingent of 50-60 thousand people within 60 days ( European Rapid Reaction Force - European Rapid Reaction Force). He had to be capable of independent actions to carry out the entire spectrum of the "Petersberg missions" for at least one year at a distance of up to 4000 km from the EU border.
However, later these plans were adjusted. It was decided to create national and multinational battle groups of the EU (EU Battlegroup (EU BG)) battalion size (1500-2500 people each). These groups should be transferred to a crisis area outside the EU within 10-15 days and operate autonomously there for a month (subject to replenishment of supplies - up to 120 days). A total of 18 EU battlegroups were formed and reached initial operational capability on 1 January 2005 and full operational capability on 1 January 2007.
Members of the EU multinational battle group. Photo: army.cz.
Since 2003, the EU has begun to conduct operations abroad under the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The first such operation was the peacekeeping operation Concordia in Macedonia (March-December 2003). And in May of the same year, the first EU peacekeeping operation outside Europe began - Artemis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (completed in September 2003). In total, the EU has so far organized 11 military and one civil-military missions and operations abroad, of which six are ongoing (in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mali, the Central African Republic, Somalia, in the Central Mediterranean and in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Somalia).
On July 12, 2004, in accordance with the EU decision adopted in June 2003, the European Defense Agency (EDA) was formed in Brussels. All EU member states, except Denmark, participate in its activities. In addition, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine, which are not members of the European Union, received the right to participate without the right to vote.
The main activities of the Agency are the development of defense potential, the promotion of European cooperation in the field of armaments, the creation of a competitive European market for military equipment, and the increase in the efficiency of European defense research and technology.
The vigorous activity of the EU in the field of security and defense, as well as the events in Ukraine, when the EU found that it lacked the ability to exert force on Russia, eventually led to the fact that the idea of a European army reappeared on the agenda. But more on that in the second part of the article.
Yuri ZverevSince 2009, it has been called the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).
© InoSMI collage
European armed forces and tasks of the region
The European Forces, or Rapid Reaction Corps, was the reaction of the European continental powers to the unprecedented US political and military dominance in history. The events in Georgia and Russia's attempts to speed up its project for the so-called "settlement" of the Karabakh problem aroused interest in the peacekeepers, and, naturally, attention was drawn to the Euroforce.
However, the Europeans categorically refused to participate in the peacekeeping operation in Georgia after the events of August 2008. In this regard, it is necessary to pay more attention to the essence and goals of the European armed forces, the motives and nature of their creation, the idea in general, as well as the intentions in conducting relevant operations in the regions. The return of France to the NATO military organization does not call into question the development of the Euroforce, on the contrary, according to the French plan, the role of the European Union in the global security system should increase.
This structure was not created within the framework of the so-called Western European Union, but represents the embodiment of a new idea of using force in hot spots in limited volumes. Despite the effective participation of European states in the hotbeds of tension in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Europeans realized that they were a subordinate force in relation to the United States, and they had no doubts about the need to form European forces. If earlier only France and Germany actively supported the development of this initiative, then after the meeting of Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair in Saint-Malo, Great Britain fully supported this project.
Nevertheless, Germany, due to various features of the historical past, does not seek to act as a leader in this project and prefers to follow France, supporting it in every possible way. France remains a leader in shaping this project and seeks to emphasize its anti-American, or at least alternative, significance. Germany more reservedly expresses the alternative nature of the creation of European forces and even tries to play on the contradictions between France and the United States. The UK, although supporting the project, seeks to remain loyal to the US, retaining its role as the US's main partner in Europe and as an "intermediary" between the US and Europe.
The position of the UK is to maintain the role of NATO as a global military organization of the Western community, and a clear division of functions between NATO and European forces. The Europeans, including France, are forced to admit that NATO has no alternative at this stage in terms of conducting such operations. European forces are called upon to participate in the settlement of relations in conflict zones in which the armed component has already been extinguished. That is, in essence, the functions of the European forces are reduced to the implementation of peacekeeping operations. In a sense, they are becoming an alternative to UN troops.
At present, Europeans are primarily interested in maintaining order in Europe. An important problem is the spatial responsibility of European forces, the boundaries and limits of their action. This also applies to a number of unresolved issues, although there may be more certainty in this area of problems. In this part, everything will also depend on the adoption of specific political decisions, which are conditioned by European interests.
France is very interested in peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone and West Africa in general, as well as in its other former colonies. Italy is very interested in the Balkans (Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia). Germany is also interested in using these troops in the Balkans and, if necessary, in Central Europe. Germany, at the suggestion of France, is seriously discussing the issue of using the first military units created within the framework of European forces in Transnistria. (Apparently, the United States is also interested in this). The South Caucasus remains an extremely undesirable region for European states for a military presence.
The leading European states will try to dissociate themselves from the use of European military contingents in the Caucasus. At the same time, if sufficiently convincing agreements are reached in this region on the settlement of conflicts, especially in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the presence of European military contingents may become a reality. This is consistent with Russia's interest in cooperation with Europe, including in the project of forming a European defense initiative. France is trying to form a European policy and assert interests literally everywhere - in the Balkans, in the Mediterranean, in Africa, in the Middle East and the Caucasus, in Southeast Asia and in Russia.
The military operation in Kosovo demonstrated the inability and inefficiency of the armed forces of European states to extinguish such hotbeds of tension. But along with these problems, many other shortcomings have been identified. First of all, there was a completely low level of coordination of the actions of military contingents in these conditions, the incompatibility of the leading types of military equipment, the low level of technical and transport mobility of troops, the lack of understanding of the most important tactical tasks, as well as the low efficiency of decision-making by the command. It should be noted that the Kosovo operation was carried out by NATO, but it was the European forces that demonstrated low efficiency. It turned out that the production of weapons in Europe is far from perfect, does not have the necessary universality, and is carried out, rather, according to national standards. In practice, Europe does not have common standards and objectives for the production of weapons.
European armaments companies and governments have found that, despite some advances in military technology, they generally lag behind the US defense industry and are unable to apply new technologies to narrow national arms markets. For example, UK companies export almost exclusively weapons components to the US, rather than finished products. According to the estimates of the French and British defense ministries, for the successful development of military production, arms markets must be expanded by 2-2.5 times. We are talking about the leading types of conventional weapons, the markets of which cannot be expanded at the expense of third world countries. Only a united Europe can provide such a capacious and promising market.
The United States is very wary of the development of the European Defense Initiative. Washington fears the emergence of a long-term contradiction between NATO and the European defense project. There may be a mixing of military-political functions, a reduction in the financial costs of European states under NATO programs, political contradictions between the United States and European states regarding the implementation of certain military and peacekeeping operations. Despite the fact that the statutory documents of the European defense project state that the European states - members of NATO and the European Union - do not intend to create special armed forces, but will improve the existing armies, increasing their combat effectiveness, efficiency and mobility, the Americans blame the Europeans, first of all, three leading states, intent on limiting their defense spending, including within the framework of participation in NATO. Right-wing circles in the US Congress are calling on the government to either limit or even withdraw American troops from Europe within 5 years. At present, the dialogue between the United States and European states touches upon two topics as priorities - missile defense and European military spending.
It is unlikely that in the near future the United States will reconsider its participation in ensuring security in Europe and in its military presence in Europe. In general, the United States considers the creation of European forces as an unnecessary, ineffective and dead-end initiative. The United States believes that NATO is quite capable of performing all the tasks that the Europeans are striving to solve. There are political forces in the US that are quite calm about the initiatives of the Europeans. These forces exist in both the Republican and Democratic parties of the United States. Most American analysts also view the European Defense Initiative as a fait accompli and suggest that the US government make efforts to develop principled approaches with the Europeans in terms of coordinating the actions of the NATO command and the European forces.
During the development of the concept of the European Defense Initiative, it became clear that it would be necessary to cooperate with NATO and the United States, since for operations in remote regions it is necessary to use the reconnaissance capabilities of satellites, air bases and naval bases that European states do not have. These tasks are not yet relevant, but still, fundamental long-term solutions are needed. The division of functions between NATO and European forces is far from being solved. The US does not believe that the division of functions and tasks in this case occurs between the same troops, which will simultaneously have tasks in both NATO and European forces. Therefore, one way or another, NATO will face new inconsistencies, political decision-making problems and simply military problems. According to the United States, the creation of European forces reduces the effectiveness of NATO and creates unnecessary problems.
The Russian factor in the creation of European forces plays a third-rate role, but it cannot be neglected. According to France and Germany, the Russians have a certain complex of hostility towards NATO, but they successfully enter into a dialogue, including on security issues, with individual European states. The Europeans have a strong opinion that Russia should be perceived as it is, and it is possible to successfully cooperate with it even in the military sphere. Therefore, the European Defense Initiative is quite acceptable for Russia, unlike NATO. Equal relations with Russia in terms of regional security can become a factor in a more rapid stabilization of the situation. In the leading European states, there is an opinion that Russia is following the path of pragmatism, and, despite the harsh style of V. Putin, is striving for a European orientation. It was believed that there were many pragmatists in the leadership of Russia who were striving to make Russia not only a pro-European country, but one closely integrated into Europe.
Turkey is a problematic country for Europeans; hostilities are often conducted on its territory. But this country has important geostrategic influence in a number of regions where a tense situation has developed, and large armed forces. Therefore, Turkey's participation in the European forces is very interesting and possible. At the same time, Turkey, using its membership in NATO, vetoes the approval of the creation of Euroforce. Turkey argues that it has made a lot of efforts to develop NATO, and the existing forces seek to use the European Union, which does not accept it into its membership.
Turkey can play a more important role in the European structures if it takes part in the Euroforces. At the same time, Turkey does not hide its interest in participating in peacekeeping operations in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as in the Balkans and northern Iraq. For Europeans, Turkey is a very attractive country as a military force, but its real participation in some regions is hardly possible due to its internal problems and relations with a number of states in the Middle East, the South Caucasus and the Balkans. Turkey is trying to use the contradictions between the US and the EU in its political interests, including the issue of creating European forces.
European states do not seek to participate in the use of military contingents in the settlement of conflicts in the Caucasus. But not only because it is a very dangerous and difficult to control region. The Balkans played an important role in understanding the problematic nature of such regions. At the same time, there is a factor of the Russian military presence. This seems to be the main factor. The presence on a small territory of the armed forces of Russia and the West, which do not have proper political coordination, can lead to confusion, chaos, which will further exacerbate the situation. Perhaps the creation of European forces will facilitate dialogue with Russia in terms of coordinating peacekeeping operations in regions that it considers a zone of its priority interests.
Translation: Hamlet Matevosyan
InoSMI materials contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editors.
This week, the EU member states signed an interesting agreement: on paper, the permanent cooperation of the united European countries in the defense sphere was confirmed. We are talking about the creation of a single army in Europe, which, among other things, has the task of confronting the "Russian threat". Tremble, Moscow!
This topic has become one of the key topics of the week in the largest European and American media. The main NATO member Jens Stoltenberg, and the leading person of European diplomacy Federica Mogherini, and other high-ranking officials and diplomats speak about this.
The European Union has taken an important step towards ensuring its defense capabilities: 23 out of 28 member states have signed a joint investment program in military equipment, as well as related research and development, reports .
The goal of the initiative is to jointly develop European military capabilities and provide a unified military force for "separate" operations or operations "in coordination with NATO". Europe's efforts are also aimed at "overcoming the fragmentation" of European defense spending and promoting joint projects to reduce duplication of functions.
At a signing ceremony in Brussels, head of European foreign policy Federica Mogherini called the deal "a historic moment in the defense of Europe."
Jean-Yves Le Drian, French foreign minister and former defense minister, said the agreement was "a commitment by countries" aimed at "improving working together". He noted that there are "tensions" in Europe caused by Russia's "more aggressive" behavior "after the annexation of Crimea." In addition, there is also the threat of terrorist attacks by Islamist militants.
European leaders lamented US President Donald Trump's lack of enthusiasm for NATO and other multilateral institutions. Apparently, the newspaper notes, the audience decided, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in May, that the “age” has come in which Europeans will have to rely entirely on themselves, and not rely on someone. And so, according to Merkel, "we Europeans really have to take our fate into our own hands." True, Ms. Merkel added that European coordination should still be carried out in partnership with the United States and Great Britain. Interestingly, the UK, recalls the author of the material, "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 favored "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. Such an idea was a way for them to show the citizens of their countries that Brussels "is capable of responding to fears 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 of NATO". However, Berlin "played for a bigger club".
The German point of view, as it 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 summit meeting. It will take place in mid-December 2017. But it is already clear even today that with so many votes in favor, approval seems like a mere formality. Everything has already been decided.
Curiously, NATO is supporting these European efforts, as European leaders say their intentions are not to undermine the defense capability of the current alliance, but to make Europe more effective against, for example, cyber attacks or a hybrid war like the one the Russians staged in Crimea. in the material.
The countries of Europe will present an action plan outlining their defense military objectives and methods of monitoring their implementation. For the acquisition of 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 said.
The program also aims to reduce the number of different weapons systems in Europe and promote regional military integration, such as in the field of naval cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands.
The article also names the members of the European Union that have not signed the new military agreement. These are the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Portugal.
In Germany, the new military agreement was, of course, received 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 article, such cooperation is called "a good temporary solution."
The Pesco program is called "very important" in the article. And it is not for nothing that we are already talking about a “defense alliance”. This approach "shows a new pragmatism of the European integration policy." The fact is that there is a "huge" external "pressure", which leads to the mentioned closer cooperation of the Europeans in security policy.
Among those who "pressure" on the EU, specific foreign politicians are named: "geopolitical" pressure is exerted by Putin, and simply "political" by Donald Trump.
In addition, the new military association is a “quite pragmatic” alliance: the EU states should save money, but billions are spent on military cooperation, as evidenced by studies, including the scientific service of the European Parliament. Since the EU countries are currently “having to save”, the level of investment in defense is rather low, and because it is low, in many small countries, in fact, there is no own defense industry. Procurement of equipment is inefficient, and defense spending in all EU countries is the second largest 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 from the south “are prioritizing stability in North Africa” (due to migrants). In June 2016, a "Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy" was developed by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, but this document is not legally binding and only defines "general objectives" such as combating cyber attacks.
Pesco, on the other hand, 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 disagreements." The cooperation is “modular”, since all EU countries are not required to participate in it. And not all states that agree with Pesco should participate in all of its projects.
The document continues the previous line of Europe in its security policy. According to Anna Sauerbrey, a "large European army" should not arise: instead, a military "network" of European friends will operate.
The signed document gives another clear impression: its drafters tried to avoid a "declaration of European independence from the United States." NATO's commitment to the text is "repeated over and over again."
"That's smart," says the journalist. Pesco is a successful solution at the moment. In the long term, the agreement should still remain aloof "from the overall political strategy."
By the way, let's add to this, one of the heralds of the new "defense" project was the young French President Macron. Speaking at the Sorbonne, he said that in 10 years Europe will have "a common military force, a common defense budget and a common doctrine for [defense] actions."
The statement is curious by the mere fact that Emmanuel Macron, as it were, dissociated himself from those experts who deny the creation of a separate army by Europe. Macron is a great speaker, speaking unequivocally and definitely, and he made it clear that ahead is the creation of a common military force by the European Union, and not some local addition to NATO. As for ten years, this number is also curious: it is exactly two terms of presidential rule in France.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker recently said that the European Union needs to create its own army. The main goal of this army, according to the European official, should not be in competition with the already existing NATO military alliance, but in maintaining peace on the continent.
« A common European army would show the world that there would never be war again between EU member states. Juncker said.
The news about the creation of a single European army is not yet in the nature of specific programs or laws, but is only a proposal, but already now it has caused a storm of conversations both within the EU and beyond. What do the EU member states themselves think about this, what is the reaction of Russia, and why does Europe need its own army - read in 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 the Soviet Union. Now it is happening, and politicians say that the plane 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 like 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 benefits and "protection of Europe from possible Russian aggression." Juncker is sure that now funds for defense in the EU countries are distributed inefficiently, and in the event of a unification, the army will be much more combat-ready, the funds will be distributed rationally. The second reason arose sharply after the start of the confrontation with Russia.
« We know that at present Russia is no longer our partner, however, we should take care 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 the protection of 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,. With complete military dependence on the United States, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do this.
Political scientists believe that Berlin is the real initiator of the idea of creating a unified army. It was the plans of Germany that were voiced by the head of the European Commission. Germany has recently become the mouthpiece of Europe, which wants independence for the continent.
European opinion divided
After the official statement of the head of the European Commission in Europe, talk began about the prospect of creating a common army. In his speech, Jean-Claude Juncker said that now the European countries together spend more on defense than any other country, these funds go to the maintenance of small national armies. They are spent inefficiently, 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.," the British government said in a statement released shortly after Juncker's speech. The UK is able to "bury" all undertakings regarding a single EU army, which "will show Russia that the EU will not allow its borders to be violated" - this is how the European official justified the need to create an association.
To be fair, Britain is the only country to openly oppose the idea. Most EU members continue to keep silent and wait for further developments. The only country that openly advocated this idea was, of course, Germany.
So, most of the EU countries have taken their usual position of observers, they are waiting for the official decision of the main players in the euro ring. It should be noted 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 scheduled for the summer, before that time politicians will still have a big debate about the need for armed forces. Who will win in this battle - conservative Britain or pragmatic Germany - time will tell.
EU army. The reaction of Russia and the United States
The creation of a unified European army will not be defensive in nature, but can only provoke a nuclear war. This assumption was made by the first deputy of the United Russia faction, a 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 Junkevich's statements as "hysteria and paranoia." The politician added that Russia is not going to fight with anyone, and creating a defense against an ephemeral enemy is beyond normal.
An official reaction to the plans to create a single EU army has not yet been received from across the ocean. American politicians pause and take their time with their criticism or support. However, Russian experts are confident that America will not support the EU's plans, and the creation of a unified army will be perceived as NATO's competition.
« They believe that all security problems can be solved within the alliance. In particular, they cite the operation in Libya as an example, where the United States did not directly participate, and everything was decided with the participation of France, Italy, and Great Britain. Aircraft from other, smaller European countries were also connected.”, Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, explained the US position.
EU army against NATO?
Speaking about the prospects for creating an EU army, even Jean-Claude Juncker himself expressed caution in this matter. When exactly concrete work on this issue can begin, he does not know.
« The creation of a single European army is unrealizable in the short term. Therefore, this idea cannot be a direct response to the current security environment. It, most likely, could be considered as a long-term project of Europe”, says Estonian Foreign Minister Keith Pentus-Rosimannus.
Earlier it was reported that the discussion of the issue is scheduled 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 the discussion of the issue of creating a single army in Europe could split the European Union. The countries will be divided into two camps - "for an 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, while Germany and France will defend Europe's independence in military security.
Yuri Post
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, the centralization of the EU structure. These decisions were made in the context of negotiations on the UK's exit from the EU, President Donald Trump's coming to power in the United States and his 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 US election campaign, the fate of the European Union, the prospects for NATO, the migration crisis, attitudes towards Russia, and the fight against terrorism under Islamic slogans. This largely explains the amazing results of the vote for the proposal to create a single continental army (for - 283 MEPs, against - 269, 83 - abstained). That is, the decision was adopted by the votes of 283 people, but 352 deputies, most 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 are undermining the organization and leading to its collapse. The 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 seems that there is an attempt to implement the idea of two speeds of development of European integration.
Of course, the creation of a unified 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 actually been made 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 the forces of Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, France and Germany. In 1995, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal agreed to create a European Rapid Reaction Force. In 1999, the European Union began, in the context of developing a common defense policy, the creation of a rapid reaction force. It was supposed to use rapid reaction forces for 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 exit), the specific role of France in relation to NATO (expulsion of headquarters from France, withdrawal from the military organization of NATO, 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 affects the admission of new countries to the EU and the expansion of NATO to the East. Great Britain, as the main ally of the United States in Europe, either supported or rejected this project. Even with support, it sought to preserve NATO as a global military-political structure of the Euro-Atlantic community and to a clear division of functions between NATO and the European armed forces. Brexit has clearly strengthened the position of supporters of the creation of a European army.
At present, each EU member state determines its own defense policy, coordinating this activity through NATO, and not the EU. European military personnel are involved in several military and humanitarian operations under the flags of individual countries and their armed forces, and not the EU as a whole.
What is the difficulty of creating a single European army? There are a number of political, financial and economic, organizational and managerial, military and technological reasons.
The current level of European unity is not sufficient 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 to form a joint European defense force on the basis of the six largest EU member states: France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland. The project envisaged 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 classic offensive army (European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker).
No solution has been found to the relationship of this army with NATO, which is dominated by the United States. Will it be competition, subordination or complementarity?
Differences exist regarding the purpose 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 conditions 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 in a subordinate relation to the United States. The right to be the first to decide on the conduct of peacekeeping operations has been granted to NATO.
Will this army include exclusively EU member states, NATO or other countries? If the UK really leaves the EU, can it be invited to participate in 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 armed forces balanced in terms of state representation, or will the leading European countries dominate there. Germany seeks to stay in the background of this process, however, there are fears that it will not be a European, but a “German army” (similar to how 80-90% of the military personnel in NATO operations are from the United States).
With what money is the EU going to support this army? For several years now, Trump has put it bluntly, the United States has been demanding that its NATO allies raise 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 spending on the European army?
The experience of conducting 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 military potential of the EU? 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 decrease in the effectiveness of NATO, as well as threatening the loss of the European arms market for the US military-industrial complex. The US fears a conflict of interest between NATO and the interests of European security, a reduction in the costs of Europeans to participate 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 indeed 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 capable of independently conducting 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 the recent war on terrorism in Europe has shown, Europeans are not inclined to share intelligence among themselves. France and Germany oppose the creation of a single EU intelligence service.
The emerging multipolar world and the weakening of the monopoly domination of the United States as the leader of the Western world objectively implies 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 policies in Europe and the world as a whole. There is a lack of political will to resolve many issues. At the same time, the Europeans are not going to give up NATO and the leading role of the United States in the Euro-Atlantic community. So far, a single European army is a symbol of independence, the dream of a united Europe, and at the same time serves as a means of 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.
Yuri Pochta - Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Comparative Political Science of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, especially for IA
