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 the 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 single army will be perceived as NATO's competition.

« They believe that all security problems can be solved within 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. 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.

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

The opportunity to create its own armed forces from the European Union appeared in 1993. Then at the conference in Maatricht, it was decided that the countries of Europe should work out a "Common Defense and Security Policy." The basis for this policy was to be the so-called "Petersberg Tasks" adopted by the Western European Union (the predecessor of the EU) in 1993. This document defined the goals for which Europeans can combine military efforts, namely humanitarian action, peacekeeping, saving civilians, and resolving crises.

Throughout the nineties, the countries of Europe saw no real reason to worry about their own security. 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, did the Europeans remember the "Petersberg Tasks" and again started talking about their own united army.

At the Helsinki Conference in 1999, the European Union set about developing a common defense policy. At this meeting, the concept of a rapid reaction force was developed. All members of the Union, except Denmark, committed themselves by 2003 to ensure the deployment of all-European troops within 60 days and maintain their combat capability for at least one year. The new structure was 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. The commitments of other countries were more modest.

The conference participants decided to use the rapid reaction forces only for peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions. At the same time, in Helsinki, the UN prerogative was recognized in making decisions on the start 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 "Artemis", was the first use of EU troops 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 all-European military initiative, it was still very far from the formation of a single army. Each of the national units of the rapid reaction force is subordinate to the leadership in its country, and EU members are only ready to provide their troops at the request of Brussels. Meanwhile, the EU is increasingly acquiring the features of a single state, and the formation of a real army is an inevitable step 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 the combined armed forces.

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

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

Under the new plan, a permanent body with an international staff is to be created within the EU to coordinate a joint military force that will 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 the coordination of the armed forces and their compliance with uniform standards. At the summit, a proposal was made to open the headquarters of the new army. The European Pentagon was supposed to appear in Tervuren - a suburb of Brussels.

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

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 with thinking about military strategy by another factor - the approaching date for the adoption of a pan-European constitution, in which a separate paragraph will be devoted to the defense of the European Union.

The EU's plans to create its own army are least of all pleasing to the United States, which is afraid that NATO will lose its influence. The Americans were especially worried when the idea was supported by Tony Blair.

NATO and the EU - the history of relations

When the idea of ​​the European Union was still being discussed, the 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 defended by this organization.

In the nineties, NATO set itself very modest goals, and the alliance's development strategy basically repeated the experience of the confrontation with the USSR. Although the bipolar world was already destroyed, an alternative concept that takes into account the new realities has not appeared. 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 the participating countries, then from that moment the role of the alliance suddenly changed. The new document clearly indicated that NATO was going to deal with conflict resolution and military operations in hot spots.

From the very beginning, it was not clear exactly where NATO could send its troops. The wording explicitly suggested that military operations were not necessarily limited to the European continent and the North Atlantic. This is how the transformation of NATO into the "world policeman" began imperceptibly.

Therefore, in 2001, no one was surprised that Bush declared a "war on terrorism" around the world and the US ordered NATO to always have 20,000 soldiers ready to go anywhere in a period of 7 to 30 days. The weak protests of the 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 Rapid Reaction Force (NATO Response Force) began.

Even then, for the first time, there was a certain discrepancy between the concept of NATO and the position of the European states. The North Atlantic alliance was necessary for the Americans in order to protect the interests of the United States, which did not always lie on the same plane as the priorities of the EU.

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

While many accused Chirac and Schroeder of populism and a desire to win over voters, the war with Iraq did not really fit into the EU's vision of proper conflict resolution. In any case, the US was denied a request to use NATO even to indirectly support the war against Saddam. European soldiers did not replace the Americans in Kosovo, the US failed to use the necessary bases, and NATO did not participate in the Iraqi operation even after the process of "rebuilding" the country began.

Thus, the new EU military initiative is able 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 unified 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 to persuade other countries to take part in this or that mission.

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

And on October 24, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac once again tried to reassure the Americans and declared that the European army would in no way interfere with the existence of NATO.

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

Other materials

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

First experience

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

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

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

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

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

In December 2015, it was reported that in the near future the Polish and Lithuanian military would begin joint service in Lublin, Poland. The main goal of the battalion was to assist the Ukrainian military in teaching them methods of warfare according to NATO standards, but recently this formation has been talked about less and less. In this regard, some experts believe that the creation of a new European army can lead to the same deplorable results.

french model

A purely French attempt can be considered the doctrine of "defense in all directions", proclaimed by de Gaulle after the withdrawal of Paris from the military structure of NATO. The ambitious general, who dreamed of returning France to its former greatness, actually tried to play the role of the third center of power (along with the USSR and the USA), around which Europe should have united.

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

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

Exactly the same may end the efforts of Juncker and other European politicians in the current attempt.

Naturally, the United States, for which dominance on the European continent is a matter of principle, could not allow this scenario to develop. Although formally the doctrine of "defense in all directions" was preserved until the early 1990s, in fact, after de Gaulle's resignation, it became a pure formality. Ambitious plans were buried, and Paris built its defensive plans as part of the activities of the North Atlantic Alliance.

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

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

From the fourth run

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

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

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

Economic arguments also came into play. Thus, EU spokesman Margaritis Schinas said that the creation of a European army would help the EU save up to 120 billion euros a year. According to him, European countries collectively spend more on defense than Russia, but the money is inefficiently spent on maintaining several small national armies.

The reaction of Washington and London

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

Since Washington absolutely dominates NATO, the EU is limited in its ability to implement its own international policy. Without the US, Europe is not in a position to carry out "power projection". Therefore, the EU has to support sometimes disadvantageous US military measures, while Washington practically does not allow NATO to be used for military support of the political and economic ambitions of the European Union.

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

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

Since the mid-1990s, NATO has adopted the concept of a narrow specialization of national armies. At the same time, European countries cut military spending as much as possible, shifting the entire burden of their own defense to the United States (formally NATO). As a result, both each individual European army and all of them together lost the ability to conduct large-scale hostilities without American support.

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

In order to create an effective European military, the EU must either take over US leadership of NATO headquarters structures (which is impossible by definition) or proceed to dismantle NATO and replace it with a proper European headquarters organization. Without this, the creation of any number of “combined brigades” and “European corps” will not cost anything, since the American generals who control the alliance will still lead and provide logistics.

Baltic umbrella for the alliance

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

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

Even if the Franco-German core of the EU succeeds in overturning the Eastern European opposition and pushing through the real formation of a European army, the process of creating an effective armed forces almost from scratch is not a quick thing. It could be decades. Even Russia, in which the headquarters structure and balanced armed forces were completely preserved, took a decade and a half to bring them out of the crisis state into which the army plunged into in the 90s.

The embryo of the euroarmy will be nurtured for a long time

Europe needs to revive almost everything, from specific formations, formations, units and subunits capable of waging wars of any scale (from local to global), ending with weapons and headquarters, including rear services. At the same time, the staff culture of the German General Staff, capable of carrying out appropriate organizational work, strategic planning and command and control of troops in the theater of operations, was completely lost - it was deliberately destroyed by the Western allies (primarily the United States) after the Second World War. Meanwhile, qualified high-ranking staff officers are not born - they are brought up for decades and even generations.

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

And then this army, for a start, would be suitable only for restoring order within the European Union.

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

At present, in our opinion, we are talking about the redistribution of powers in the defense sphere. Here, the Europeans have both the European Defense Agency and a pool of companies that develop and manufacture weapons. It is precisely in these areas that the EU has real groundwork and advantages that can be used in bargaining with the Americans.

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

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

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

The Europeans are aware that they spend money both on the maintenance of national armies and on the maintenance of the entire structure of NATO, but in terms of security they receive little in return. They see that the alliance has practically withdrawn from solving the problems of migration and the fight against terrorism in Europe. And the national European armies have their hands tied, because they are subordinate to the NATO Council and the NATO Military Committee. Moreover, the Europeans are aware that it is the Americans who are drawing them into all sorts of military adventures, and in fact they are not responsible for this.

The role of the EU in military-political issues in the world does not at all correspond to its place in the world economy. In fact, this role is negligible - neither Russia, nor the United States, nor China recognize it. Overcoming this discrepancy is what Juncker has in mind when he says that a European army will help fulfill the "world mission of the EU."

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

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

Britain's exit from the European Union may accelerate the creation of its own armed formations in the EU. The schedule for the creation of a military structure may be made public this year, but even supporters of a single European army admit that the implementation of the project is not a matter of the very near future. NATO pretends not to mind the fact that the Europeans are additionally armed, but in fact they are afraid of losing influence on the continent.

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

Previously, London - a key ally of the United States in Europe - has repeatedly blocked proposals to create a continental military. Now the European Commission has a more or less real chance to finish the job. Military interaction may be based on the relevant clause of the Lisbon Treaty, which has not previously been applied. The EU foreign policy chief even figured out how to overcome "procedural, financial and political barriers" to deploying battlegroups. True, for the time being, these measures are not advertised. It is only known that the Roadmap will highlight three main elements of military cooperation: a common approach to crises and conflicts, a change in the institutional structure in the field of security and defense cooperation, as well as the availability of opportunities for creating a common European defense industry.

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

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

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

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

The head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, came up with an idea that was immediately publicly supported by many European politicians and diplomats. He said that Europe needs its own army, including in order to hint to Russia how seriously the Old World takes the protection of its values. Juncker added that the European army is not supposed to be involved in any single "X hour", and it will not compete with NATO. Just the European Union, according to Juncker, it's time to make it stronger.

Of course, this news was picked up by all the news agencies and experts, who began to speculate about what caused this initiative. Versions here, of course, can be any number. One is on the surface. The crisis in Ukraine, largely due to the direct involvement of Washington, has exposed the weak points of European security. And one of the main such points is not the imaginary aggression of Russia, but just too active participation of the United States in the politics of the European Union, which threatens stability on the entire continent. Perhaps Brussels and other European capitals have finally found the strength to formulate the main idea: we want to be independent and get rid of the dictates of the United States. And our own army is one of the symbols of such independence. And the hint that it will be created as if for the edification of Russia is nothing more than a reassuring message to overseas partners. Like, do not worry, we are still opposed to Moscow.

Meanwhile, the possibility of the emergence of a European army was clearly not to the liking of Washington. This is confirmed by the words of the US Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Samantha Power. America is looking to its partners in Europe for more proactive conflict response, and more financial and military involvement in efforts to protect "common security interests," Power said. And she recalls that the United States finances the lion's share of NATO's budget, which, according to her, remains the main guarantor of stability and security.

But even assuming that the project of a unified EU army will go beyond political statements, a lot of questions remain. Who will finance it? This will require billions and billions of euros. It seems that only Germany and France can do such a mission. How will the unified armed forces be combined with NATO infrastructure and national armies? On what principles will the command be formed, and what priorities will it choose?

It should be noted that the idea of ​​creating a pan-European army is not new. She already spoke out after the Yugoslav events, but then it did not lead to anything. Perhaps the next call will be more productive. But the danger that Washington will intervene in this project still remains. The United States has too many levers of influence on the European elites to give up its position as the "first violin" in NATO and the main manager of European politics without a fight.

Ireland was marked in hot spots.
Photo from NATO`s nations magazine

Eighteen years ago, in February 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which laid the foundation for the European Union and its military policy. The EU has approached the military age with the united armed forces.

The treaty stated that "the Union determines and implements a common foreign and security policy, which covers all areas of foreign and security policy ...". The theme of military-political cooperation was continued in the form of the Common Foreign and Common Security Policy (CFSP) of the EU. It included "the possible formation in the future of a common defensive policy, which could eventually lead to the creation of a common defense force."

In autumn 1998, the framework of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) was promulgated. Within the framework of the ESDP, the Franco-British plan for the creation of the European Rapid Reaction Force (ESFR) and the Danish-Dutch program for the formation of the European Police Corps have been launched.

The first plan provides for the creation of a European Rapid Reaction Force capable of deploying a military contingent of 50,000-60,000 people within two months to carry out humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This project was supported by the NATO Washington Summit in April 1999.

Relations between the EU and NATO in the military field are friendly. This is explained by the fact that the list of members of the two organizations differs minimally. Of the 28 NATO member countries, 21 are members of the EU. And of the EU members, only 6 are not members of NATO - Finland, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta.

The possibility of providing NATO forces and assets for EU operations was discussed during difficult negotiations between the two organizations, which ended on December 16, 2002 with the signing of a joint NATO-EU Declaration on the European Security and Defense Policy. Recognizing NATO's leading role in maintaining security in Europe, the EU has been given ESDP recognition and access to NATO planning tools, including access to the headquarters of the NATO Commander-in-Chief for Europe in Mons (Belgium). As for the EU's access to NATO's military resources, the problem, according to many experts, is still far from being resolved.

In accordance with the declared goals, NATO and the European Union are working together to prevent and resolve crises and armed conflicts in Europe and beyond. In official statements, the Alliance has repeatedly confirmed that it fully supports the establishment of a European Security and Defense Identity within the EU, including through the provision of its resources, capabilities and capabilities for operations.

According to experts, NATO understands the importance of strengthening relations with the European Union. According to the leadership of the alliance, a strong European security and defense policy is only to the benefit of NATO. In particular, close cooperation between NATO and the EU is an important element in the development of the international project "Integrated Approach to Crisis Management and Operations", the essence of which is the effective use of a set of military and civilian assets. The Alliance aims for a strong NATO-EU bond, in which cooperation develops not only in the regions where both organizations are present, such as Kosovo and Afghanistan, but also in their strategic dialogue at the political level. An important condition for interaction is the exclusion of unnecessary duplication of efforts.

The political principles underlying the relationship were reaffirmed in December 2002 with the adoption of the NATO and EU Declaration on ESDP. It covers the so-called "Berlin Plus" arrangements, which include four elements:

– the possibility of EU access to NATO operational plans;

– presumption of accessibility of EU resources and common NATO facilities;

– options for the participation of the NATO European Command in EU-led operations, including the traditional European quota of the Deputy Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe;

- adaptation of the NATO defense planning system, taking into account the possibility of devoting forces to EU operations.

Now, in reality, the EU and NATO have common working mechanisms for consultations and cooperation, they hold joint meetings, including at the level of foreign ministers, ambassadors, representatives of the military and defense departments. There are regular contacts between the staff of the NATO International Secretariat and the International Military Headquarters and the Council of the EU.

According to analysts, NATO and the EU have significant potential for developing cooperation in areas such as the creation and use of the Rapid Reaction Force, the implementation of the "Helicopter Initiative" to increase the availability of helicopters for operations. The Alliance and the European Union cooperate in the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, exchange information on activities in the field of protecting civilians from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks.

The New Strategic Concept of NATO, which is currently being developed and is scheduled to be adopted in November 2010, experts are convinced, should provide a new approach to cooperation with the European Union.

RESPONSE FORCES

The main "military" program of the EU, according to observers, is the program developed in 1999 and currently being implemented to create the Reaction Force (SR) and the corresponding structures of military-political control, planning and assessment of the situation. The European Council, held in 2000, approved the main parameters and deadlines for the implementation of this program. By 2003, it was planned to have a grouping of up to 100 thousand people (a land component of more than 60 thousand), up to 400 aircraft and 100 warships, designed to carry out the so-called "Petersberg" tasks (humanitarian and peacekeeping operations) at a distance of up to 4,000 km from the EU border for up to 1 year. In peacetime, units and subunits were to be under national subordination, and the decision to allocate would be made by the leadership of the member country in each individual case.

The involvement of the EU Response Force is expected both in Europe and in other regions of the world on the basis of a UN Security Council resolution or an OSCE mandate in order to provide humanitarian assistance, evacuate the civilian population and personnel of international organizations from the area of ​​armed clashes, as well as to carry out special anti-terrorist measures.

However, time, lack of funds and political reasons made their adjustments. New decisions are currently in force for 2005-2010. They offer slightly different approaches to the organization and functioning of the European Response Force. At the initiative of France, Great Britain and Germany, a concept was created for the formation of rapid reaction and deployment units, called combat groups, which are on a rotational basis in constant readiness for use. By 2008, they were supposed to have 13 (then it was decided to increase their number to 18 with an extension of the formation period until the end of 2010), 1.5–2.5 thousand people each. Groups should be able to move to a crisis area outside the EU in 5-15 days and operate autonomously there for a month. Each group may include four (moto) infantry and one tank company, field artillery battery, combat and logistics support units, thus representing a reinforced battalion. It is assumed that the battle groups will have to operate in difficult natural and climatic conditions. A UN mandate is desirable but not required.

Now work is underway to create these battle groups.

France, Italy, Spain and Great Britain form their own battle groups.

Mixed groups form the following countries:

– Germany, Holland, Finland;

– Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Germany;

– Italy, Hungary, Slovenia;

– Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal;

– Sweden, Finland, Norway, Estonia;

- UK, Holland.

In addition to the "big five" battle groups should form Greece (together with Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania), the Czech Republic (together with Slovakia) and Poland (units from Germany, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania should come under its command). Recently, the creation of the Weimar Group under the leadership of Poland with the inclusion of units from Germany and France was announced.

As an example of a multinational contingent, consider the Northern Battle Group, led by Sweden. Its number is about 2.5 thousand people. 80% of the personnel, almost all the combat forces and the headquarters of the group, are provided by Sweden. Finland allocates 200 people: a mortar platoon, cartographers, RKhBZ forces. Norway and Ireland - 150 and 80 people respectively for medical support. Estonians - two platoons (45-50 people) with the tasks of ensuring security and safety.

Unlike the Northern Battle Group, all the rest are completely or almost completely NATO in their composition. At the same time, they must perform tasks independently of NATO, which, according to analysts, obviously creates the possibility of conflicts between the two structures. As for the Northern Group, Norway, a member of NATO, is not part of the European Union. It is the only non-EU country invited to form European Battlegroups (Turkey could be the second). Sweden, Finland and Ireland are non-NATO members of the EU. And only Estonia carries out the “link”, because it is a member of both NATO and the EU.

At this stage, no decision was made on the participation of national contingents in combat groups Austria, Ireland. Ireland is consulting with other neutral EU member states Austria, Sweden and Finland.

It was announced that since January 2007, two combat groups (it is not specified which ones) are combat-ready. Two tactical battle groups can be activated on demand, at any time during the respective half-year period when they are on duty.

According to experts, the purpose of the formation of battle groups is purely political. The European Union wants to play an independent role in world affairs. At the same time, as the practice of participation of European countries in NATO operations shows, the combat effectiveness of their armed forces is low. They are completely dependent on the United States in terms of combat support - intelligence, communications, command and control, electronic warfare, logistics and global transfers using transport aircraft. In addition, European countries at the same time have extremely limited capabilities for the integrated use of high-precision weapons, where they are also almost completely dependent on the Americans.

By itself, the planned composition of combat groups confirms the fact that their participation in more or less large-scale military operations is not envisaged, since it is impossible for one battalion to carry out autonomous combat missions for a month.

Thus, the only potential adversary of the combat groups appears to be small and poorly armed formations that do not have heavy weapons. Accordingly, the only possible theater of operations is the most underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, where there are not even any serious guerrilla-terrorist formations.

COUNTRY POSITIONS

Germany has always supported the idea of ​​creating European Union (EU) troops. Such a statement was made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of this country, Guido Westerwelle, at a security conference in Munich in February 2010. According to the German minister, the creation of EU troops, which should be subordinate to the European Parliament, will give the organization more political weight. However, 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. Experts note that France remains a leader in the formation of 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.

France proposes to follow the path of deeper military integration. In particular, Paris considers it necessary to create a single operational headquarters of the European Union in Brussels to manage foreign military operations. In addition, proposals sent to European governments include moving towards shared funding for military operations, creating a unified air transport force, launching pan-European military satellites, establishing a European Defense College and developing officer exchange programs between EU countries.

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 UK's position boils down to maintaining the role of NATO as a global military organization of the Western community and a clear division of functions between NATO and European forces.

Italy is also trying to play a prominent role in the process of creating the European Armed Forces. Rome invited the EU to create a single European army. The statement was made at the EU summit on November 19, 2009. According to Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, this follows from the Lisbon Treaty. The existence of a unified army would be useful given the current situation in Afghanistan. According to Frattini, now we have to discuss the issues of strengthening the military contingent with each country separately. If there was a single structure, such issues would be resolved much more quickly. In addition, according to him, now each country is forced to duplicate its military resources.

Italy believes that in the course of integration it is realistic to create a common navy and air force. While the unification of the ground forces looks like a more difficult task and may be delayed.

Spain has invited EU colleagues to create a military-civilian rapid reaction force to provide humanitarian assistance in the event of disasters like the earthquake in Haiti. Spanish Defense Minister Carme Chacón voiced this proposal during a press conference in Palma de Mallorca (Balearic Islands), where an informal meeting of EU defense ministers took place on 24-25 February 2010.

Recently, the United States has changed its position and no longer considers the armed forces of the European Union as a threat that could lead to a weakening of NATO. The United States ensured the adoption of a decision on the creation of a Rapid Reaction Force within NATO and switched to the tactics of active participation in managing the process of creating a military component of the EU. This makes it possible to involve countries that are not members of NATO, including neutral ones, in military cooperation. Speaking in Washington on February 22, 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “In the past, the United States has questioned whether NATO should be involved in security cooperation with the EU. That time has passed. We do not see the EU as a competitor to NATO, but we see Europe as the most important partner for NATO and the United States.”

Thus, it can be stated that a new stage is beginning in the creation of the armed component of the EU, connected with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. In reality, at present, the armed forces of the European Union alone are not capable of carrying out even limited actions outside Europe. They are completely dependent on the United States for combat support and global deployments and have extremely limited capabilities for the use of precision weapons.

The most promising, according to a number of experts, is the possibility of creating a unified Navy and Air Force within the European Union. So, after the implementation of shipbuilding programs by France and Italy and equipping other navies of the Mediterranean basin and the Atlantic with frigates being built under the FREMM program by 2015, as well as the formation of strike groups, which will include aircraft carriers, complete superiority of these forces in these regions will be achieved.