In mid-March, the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said that the European Union needs to create its own single army to ensure its interests. According to the official, such an army would help ensure a common foreign and defense policy of the EU. Can the Europeans have their own unified army, do they have the money to maintain it, and will this not lead to the collapse of NATO, Nasha Versiya dealt with it.
Now supporters of the creation of a European army are cruising the capitals of the EU countries, probing the opinions of politicians on this matter. It is already known that most of them support the idea of forming a unified armed forces. One of the main reasons for the creation of a European army is called the need to neutralize the threats emanating from Russia. Although a much more significant reason is obvious - the desire to free ourselves from too tight control by the Americans. It seems that the Europeans have ceased to trust NATO. After all, it is obvious to everyone: equality in the alliance exists only formally. The United States is in charge of everything in the bloc, but if something happens, Europe will turn out to be a training ground for waging war. Nobody wants to take the rap for Washington's policy. Not surprisingly, Juncker's idea was quickly taken up by EU leader Germany. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has already stated that peace in Europe can only be ensured with an independent EU army and Germany will insist on discussing this topic.
The US is strongly opposed to the creation of the armed forces of the EU
Nevertheless, skeptics are sure that the idea of creating a European aircraft is not viable in principle. Why? First, it makes no sense to have your own army to perform functions similar to NATO. After all, then you will have to duplicate the costs of a separate military potential, since 22 of the 28 EU countries are members of NATO and at the same time they do not have enough money even for a sparing participation in the alliance. Most European countries, referring to the difficult situation in the economy, are not ready to increase military spending even to the level limited by NATO rules of 2% of GDP.
Secondly, it is not clear how to unite two dozen armies, which individually have numerous problems. For example, the armies of the Czech Republic, Hungary or Belgium are small and poorly armed, the army of Denmark has been excessively reduced. In turn, Holland generally liquidated its armored forces. There are also problems with one of the most combat-ready armies in Europe - the French, which has almost no mobilized reserves either in people or in equipment. Nevertheless, experts say that if, nevertheless, it is possible to unite the European armed forces, then in terms of the total number of military equipment, including the number of tanks or aircraft, a fairly impressive army will be obtained. But even so, it remains unclear how combat units will operate and who will be responsible for their training. As a result, the majority of analysts and officials in the EU structures confirm that the implementation of the project is problematic.
In addition, Great Britain categorically opposed the creation of a new armed formation, whose opinion cannot be ignored. In London, they said that defense issues lie in the sphere of national responsibility of each country, and are not the collective responsibility of the EU. Moreover, the British are confident that the creation of a European army will have a negative impact on transatlantic security and may weaken NATO. In turn, the head of the Polish Foreign Ministry said that he considers the idea of creating a common EU army extremely risky. Representatives of Finland and a number of other states spoke in the same style. A paradoxical position was taken by the Baltic countries, which, more than others, are supporters of strengthening the combat capability of Europe, scaring them with inevitable Russian aggression, but even they turned out to be against a single European army. According to experts, in fact, the Baltic states do not have their own opinion on this issue, but only relay the position of the United States, which clearly indicates that the Americans are strongly opposed to this idea.
On this topic
German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out in support of the proposal voiced by French President Emmanuel Macron to create a pan-European army. Such an army would show the world that war is impossible in Europe, Merkel believes.
Europeans have repeatedly tried to create their own army
Opponents of the euroarmy are convinced that today the only way for European countries to maintain their security is to strengthen cooperation with the alliance. Others are calling for a revitalization of existing military projects, such as a rethinking of the rapid reaction force strategy.
It should be noted that this is not the first time that the idea of creating an independent European army has been heard. The first such experience can be considered the Western European Union, which existed from 1948 to 2011 for cooperation in the field of defense and security. At different times, it 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), 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 grouping of the US Armed Forces 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. True, 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 deployed formation was a reduced joint Franco-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: Italy, France, 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 have been repeatedly announced to create a joint battalion of Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland. In December last year, it was reported that in the coming months, 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, experts have an opinion that the creation of a new European army can lead to the same deplorable results.
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 of 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 single 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 of 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 between 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 1984 WEU Rome Declaration, 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 humanitarian and rescue operations, peacekeeping missions, as well as 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 began to conduct operations abroad in the framework of 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 improvement of 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).
Will the EU be able to create its own Armed Forces?
The head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, still counts on the creation of a European army in the future. According to him, such an army will not be offensive, but will allow the EU to fulfill its global mission. This was stated by the EC President on Sunday, August 21, speaking at a forum in Austria.
"We need a common European foreign policy, a security policy and a common European defense policy with the aim of one day creating a European army in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world," said Juncker.
Recall that the idea of creating a single European army is far from new. The main architects of the European Union in its current form - the Frenchmen Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet (in the 1950s - the chairman of the European Parliamentary Assembly and the head of the European Coal and Steel Community, respectively) - were just passionate supporters of the creation of a single European army. However, their proposals were rejected. Most European countries came under the wing of NATO, and the North Atlantic Alliance itself became the main guarantor of collective European security during the Cold War.
But recently, against the backdrop of the Ukrainian crisis and the influx of migrants from the Middle East to Europe, the movement to create a unified EU armed forces has intensified again.
In March 2015, Jean-Claude Juncker, in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, said that the existence of NATO is not enough for the security of Europe, since some of the leading members of the alliance - for example, the United States - are not members of the EU. Plus, Juncker noted that "Russia's involvement in the military conflict in eastern Ukraine" makes the case for the creation of a European army more convincing. Such an army, the head of the EC added, is also necessary as a tool for defending Europe's interests in the world.
Juncker was immediately supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as Finnish President Sauli Niiniste. Some time later, Czech President Milos Zeman called for the creation of a single EU army, the need for which he explained by problems with the protection of external borders during the migration crisis.
Economic arguments also came into play. Thus, the official representative of the EU, Margaritis Schinas, said that the creation of a European army would help the EU save up to € 120 billion 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.
It is clear that the plans of the Europeans were not to the taste of the United States and Britain, the key ally of the Americans in Europe. 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.
Will Europe create its own Armed Forces, what “world mission” will they help the EU fulfill?
The EU is trying to find a foreign policy dimension that could be projected onto the geopolitical alignment of forces, - said Sergey Ermakov, Deputy Director of the Tauride Information and Analytical Center of the RISS. - It is no coincidence that the head of EU diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, has repeatedly stated that the EU is in vain not engaged in geopolitics. In fact, now the EU is trying to occupy its own niche in the geopolitical game, and for this it needs certain levers, including the European Armed Forces.
At the same time, statements about the creation of a European army are still in the nature of an armchair, purely bureaucratic game. This game consists in attempts by Brussels to put pressure on Washington in some matters, as well as to obtain certain preferences in bargaining with NATO. In many ways, this is done so that overseas countries are not in a hurry to write off the EU.
In fact, Europe is not ready to give up NATO's services to protect its own territory. Yes, the alliance in the EU is criticized for its failures in the fight against terrorism. But even more harsh criticism is appropriate for the EU itself, since it is Brussels that is primarily responsible for internal security.
In addition, the Europeans do not have the resources to create an army, and not only financial. It should not be forgotten that the North Atlantic Alliance has a rigid military structure that has evolved and improved over the years. Whereas the same Western European Union (an organization that existed in 1948-2011 for cooperation in the field of defense and security) has always been in the shadow of NATO, and eventually died ingloriously. From this union, the EU has only a few formal structures left - for example, a pan-European headquarters. But there is very little real operational sense from such a headquarters.
"SP": - If statements about the creation of a European army are made for bargaining with Washington and NATO, what is the essence of this bargaining?
We are talking about the redistribution of powers in the defense 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 clearly demonstrates that it cannot do without the help of the United States. The EU needs a superpower that would cement the national European armies - without this, the matter does not go well. In particular, without the United States, military-political contradictions between Germany and France instantly begin to grow.
"SP": - What issues could be solved by the European army?
In any case, it would turn out to be an appendage of NATO. But that's the problem, that now there is no point in such an "appendage". As part of the new strategic concept, the alliance has significantly expanded its powers, and can now engage in a wide range of operations, including peace enforcement operations and humanitarian interventions. It turns out that the tasks of the European army and the North Atlantic Alliance would inevitably intersect.
Meanwhile, 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.
The Europeans are making yet another attempt to get rid of their dependence on the US in the military-political sphere, - said Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, academician of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, former head of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Russian Defense Ministry. - The first such attempt was made in 2003, when Germany, France, Belgium and a number of other European countries refused to participate in the US aggression against Iraq. It was then that the leaders of Germany, France and Belgium raised the question of creating their own European armed forces.
It came down to some practical actions - for example, the selection of leadership 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.
Now the idea of a European army has resurfaced. Whether Europe will be able to implement it depends on how strong the States will be after the presidential elections, whether the Americans will have enough strength to suppress the "uprising" in the EU.
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.
That is why the question of creating a European army is now quite serious. It seems to me that the Bundestag and the French parliament are ready to take legislative steps to separate themselves from the North Atlantic alliance.
In fact, the EU stands up for the creation of a European collective security system based on a single Armed Forces and intelligence services.
The role of the EU in military-political issues in the world does not at all correspond to its place in the world economy, - said Victor Murakhovsky, Colonel of the Reserve, member of the Expert Council of the Collegium of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation. - 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."
I do not believe in the implementation of such plans. At one time, much larger political figures tried unsuccessfully to implement this idea - for example, the general and the first president of the Fifth Republic, Charles de Gaulle.
Under de Gaulle, let me remind you, France withdrew from the military structure of NATO, and removed from its territory the administrative structures of the alliance. 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 poured mud at him.
Nevertheless, de Gaulle's efforts ended in poof. Exactly the same will end the efforts of Juncker and other European politicians now.
The fact is that the United States absolutely dominates in the sphere of European security, including within the framework of NATO. Neither EuroNATO nor individual European countries have any independent policy in this area. And if de Gaulle had any chances to put the idea of a European army into practice, now, I think, this is generally impossible ...
Rate the news
Partner news:
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 single army will be perceived as a competition to NATO.
« 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.
"It's more likely that pigs will learn to fly than the European Union will have its own army," Christopher Mayer, a British diplomat and former ambassador to Washington, said not so long ago. No tendency to fly after piglets has yet been noticed all over the world, but the "European army" project, which has existed in theory for more than a year, has unexpectedly received a second wind. It is likely that it, along with other important issues of EU reform after Brexit,will discuss oninformal EU summit in Bratislava scheduled for 16 September. In Moscow, the possible emergence of the armed forces of the EU, oddly enough, will rather be delighted.
At the talks between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the leaders of the Visegrad Four countries, which took place in Warsaw at the end of August, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban- his relations with neither Berlin nor Brussels can be called idyllic for a long time - he made an unexpected statement: "Security issues should be a priority, and we should start creating a common European army." Orban was supported by his Czech colleague Bohuslav Sobotka: "In the face of uncontrolled mass migration, even states in the center of Europe understand that internal borders in the EU should be controlled more tightly. In addition to closer coordination of foreign policy and security efforts, I think in the long term we cannot do without a single European army. Not so clearly, but also positively, two other prime ministers, Beata Szydlo (Poland) and Robert Fico (Slovakia), spoke about this idea.
At the moment, each of the EU countries determines its own defense policy - coordination here goes through NATO, not the EU. European military personnel are involved in six military and 11 humanitarian operations, mainly outside the Old World. But they are conducted under the flags of individual countries and their armed forces, and not the European Union as a whole. So, French troops are present in Mali, where they help local authorities fight Islamic militants and train soldiers and officers of the Malian army. And the British Navy is leading a joint naval operation against pirates off the coast of Somalia.
It is not surprising that the "Euroarmy" project, the need for which has so far been spoken out mainly by German and French politicians (and even then infrequently), gained a second wind after the UK voted in a referendum on June 23 to leave the EU. It was London that was the most consistent opponent of the creation of the EU armed forces. British Secretary of Defense Earl Howe Even before the Brexit referendum, he was unequivocal on this score: “The United Kingdom will never participate in the creation of a European army. We are against any measures that would undermine the ability of individual EU member states to dispose of their armed forces, would lead to competition with NATO, or duplication of functions with this organization".
The joint army will make it clear to Russia that we are more than serious when we talk about protecting the values of the European Union
Brexit removed this obstacle in the way of the supporters of the "euroarmy". One of the most active is the head of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, who justified the need for the formation of a unified EU armed forces: "The joint army will make it clear to Russia that we are more than serious when we talk about protecting the values of the European Union. The image of Europe has recently suffered greatly, and in terms of international politics, I It seems like they're not taking us seriously." However, the EU armed forces, if the decision to form them is nevertheless made, will be untenable as a replacement or competitor for NATO, and therefore will rather cause a feeling of deep satisfaction in Moscow, an analyst at the Slovak Institute for Security Policy says in an interview with Radio Liberty.
– The project of a unified army of the European Union has been discussed for quite a long time. What caused its existence and why was this project initially supported by Germany?
- Indeed, talks about the creation of the united armed forces of the European Union have been going on for more than a year. But it must be said that there has not yet been much progress towards specifics in this area - with the exception that initially the initiative came mainly from France, and now Germany is more active. Well, in recent days, the leaders of the Visegrad Four countries have spoken out in support of this idea, which can be considered a big surprise. I personally think that the creation of a "European army" would be such a clear sign of the federalization of Europe that for political reasons it would be difficult to implement. That is why consultations on this topic have been going on for several years at the expert level, but they have not yet moved to the level of serious political agreements. What is the essence of the project? In the replacement of the armed forces of individual EU countries by the common armed forces of the Union. They would be used for combat and some other operations and would be at the disposal of a single command. This is where the main problem lies: I find it hard to imagine the leadership of individual EU countries, especially small ones like Slovakia, that would agree to transfer to Brussels the authority to send European soldiers - including, for example, Slovak ones - somewhere in Syria or Africa.
– You have already mentioned the current position of the Visegrad Four countries. It looks paradoxical: after all, these countries have long been skeptical about the federalization of the EU, and they have strained relations with Brussels and Berlin on many issues. And suddenly such a turn, support for the idea of "euroarmy". What happened?
“I am quite surprised by what happened. It is hard for me to imagine that the highest political representatives of the four Central European countries are not aware of what this project implies, namely, that they will lose the ability to command the armed forces of their countries. But here it is important to understand what kind of plan will be proposed by the Visegrad Four in the end. Because it is one thing to create, in addition to national armies, some kind of common, joint unit or small army. This can still be understood and imagined in practice. But here the question is: how to finance all this? There would be a duplication of expenses: we would give something for our own army, something for this new general one. At the same time, with the exception of Poland, the Visegrad Four countries do not have a high level of defense spending. But such a project might have political meaning. It is a completely different matter - a truly united army with everything that it implies. I doubt very much that the project of its creation is really on the table and is being seriously considered by someone in the European top.
There would be a duplication of expenditures: we would give something for our own army, something for this new general
- Is the concept of "euroarmy" an attempt to weaken NATO and reduce the role of the United States in the European security system?
Now that would be pretty funny. Because at the moment in NATO, 75% of the costs are provided by the United States. European countries, with the exception of a few, cannot achieve the level of defense spending of 1.5% of GDP - let alone 2%, although this is the level they have repeatedly committed to maintain this spending. How then will these new European armed forces be built? Here, on the contrary, some politicians may have hope that if a "European army" is created, individual countries will not need to spend on it to the same extent as on their national armed forces. But this is completely unrealistic. It seems to me that the current statements of the Vyshegrad prime ministers indicate that they have not delved into this topic and do not know exactly what such an initiative could mean.
- Maybe it's nothing more than a political game on their part? Just an attempt to show Berlin and Brussels that, they say, we also know how to be constructive, to meet halfway, to work on common projects - because in general, primarily in matters of migration policy, the countries of the Visegrad Four have been playing the role of stubborn opponents of Germany for several months and EU guidelines.
- A political game, of course. The question is what is the purpose of it. The key issue is whether politicians in each of our countries, especially in Poland, which has the largest and most well-equipped army in the region, will be willing to give up some of their national defense powers. After all, the common armed forces of the European Union would inevitably mean the specialization of individual countries within the framework of the "European army": someone would be responsible for transport, someone for fighter aircraft, someone for engineering units, etc. I do not want to exaggerate , but imagine that some kind of situation will come, say, a catastrophic flood, in which it will be necessary to deploy engineering units in Poland. Which Poland itself will not have within the framework of the EU armed forces, but another country will have them. And all this will have to be decided in Brussels. This is a very sensitive issue. I'm not talking about the fact that the interests of the military industry of different countries, the issues of procurement of military equipment, are affected here. So far, even at the bilateral level, it has not been possible to agree on anything in this regard - even Slovakia and the Czech Republic, which have very close relations, have not been able to achieve anything significant in this area. It is extremely difficult to imagine the coordination of these serious problems within the framework of the entire EU at the moment.
The less the influence of the US and NATO in Europe, the more profitable it is for Moscow
- It is curious that now the main supporters of the creation of the EU armed forces are those leaders who - like, for example, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban or the Slovak Robert Fico - are known for rather warm relations with Vladimir Putin. Fico's recent visit to Moscow, after which he again called for the lifting of EU sanctions against Russia, confirmed this.
– In principle, the situation is unambiguous: the less the influence of the US and NATO in Europe, the more profitable it is for Moscow. But I cannot afford to speculate about why certain European politicians put forward some projects, whether someone's influence is behind it. It is quite obvious that in the current situation it is objectively unprofitable for the countries on NATO's eastern flank to work to weaken the North Atlantic Alliance, which is the guarantor of the security of its members. I think that the project of a unified EU armed forces is waiting for the fate of many other unrealistic undertakings: it will be talked about at different levels and put on the back burner. It is not profitable either financially or from the point of view of the growth of the defense capability of European countries, and it is completely unprofitable geopolitically.
