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 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.

This week, the EU member states signed an interesting agreement: on paper, the permanent cooperation of the united European countries in the defense sphere was confirmed. We are talking about the creation of a single army in Europe, which, among other things, has the task of confronting the "Russian threat". Tremble, Moscow!

This topic has become one of the key topics of the week in the largest European and American media. The main NATO member Jens Stoltenberg, and the leading person of European diplomacy Federica Mogherini, and other high-ranking officials and diplomats speak about this.

The European Union has taken an important step towards ensuring its defense capabilities: 23 out of 28 member states have signed a joint investment program in military equipment, as well as related research and development, reports .

The goal of the initiative is to jointly develop European military capabilities and provide a unified military force for "separate" operations or operations "in coordination with NATO". Europe's efforts are also aimed at "overcoming the fragmentation" of European defense spending and promoting joint projects to reduce duplication of functions.

At a signing ceremony in Brussels, head of European foreign policy Federica Mogherini called the deal "a historic moment in the defense of Europe."

Jean-Yves Le Drian, French foreign minister and former defense minister, said the agreement was "a commitment by countries" aimed at "improving working together". He noted that there are "tensions" in Europe caused by Russia's "more aggressive" behavior "after the annexation of Crimea." In addition, there is also the threat of terrorist attacks by Islamist militants.

European leaders lamented US President Donald Trump's lack of enthusiasm for NATO and other multilateral institutions. Apparently, the newspaper notes, the audience decided, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in May, that the “age” has come in which Europeans will have to rely entirely on themselves, and not rely on someone. And so, according to Merkel, "we Europeans really have to take our fate into our own hands." True, Ms. Merkel added that European coordination should still be carried out in partnership with the United States and Great Britain. Interestingly, the UK, recalls the author of the material, "for many years blocked such cooperation", fearing that the creation of a European army would undermine NATO and London's partnership with Washington. Britain instead favored "a bilateral agreement with France".

However, the UK recently voted to leave the European Union. And after Brexit, other countries, especially the aforementioned France, as well as Germany, Italy and Spain, decided to revive the long-standing idea of ​​​​military cooperation. Such an idea was a way for them to show the citizens of their countries that Brussels "is capable of responding to concerns about security and terrorism."

As for France alone, Paris advocated participation in the new alliance of a smaller group of countries - those that could bear serious expenses on military equipment and other defense capabilities that Europe lacks "outside of NATO". However, Berlin "played for a bigger club".

The German point of view, as it often happens, won, the American newspaper states.

The Brussels agreement on "permanent structured cooperation" (Pesco) is expected to be formalized by European leaders at a summit meeting. It will take place in mid-December 2017. But it is already clear today that with so many votes in favor, approval seems like a mere formality. Everything has already been decided.

Curiously, NATO is supporting these European efforts, as European leaders say their intentions are not to undermine the defense capability of the current alliance, but to make Europe more effective against, for example, cyber attacks or a hybrid war like the one the Russians staged in Crimea. in the material.

The countries of Europe will present an action plan outlining their defense military objectives and methods of monitoring their implementation. For the acquisition of weapons, states will take funds from the European Union fund. The amount has also been determined: about 5 billion euros, or 5.8 billion US dollars. Another special fund will be used "to finance operations."

The obvious goal is to increase military spending to "strengthen the EU's strategic independence." The EU can act alone when necessary and with partners when possible, the Brussels statement said.

The program is also designed to reduce the number of different weapons systems in Europe and promote regional military integration, such as in the field of naval cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands.

The article also names the members of the European Union that have not signed the new military agreement. These are the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Portugal.

In Germany, the new military agreement was, of course, received positively by the mainstream press.

As he writes, today Europe does not have a common strategy. And the 23 EU states want to "cooperate more closely militarily." In Anna Sauerbrey's article, such cooperation is called "a good temporary solution."

The Pesco program is called "very important" in the article. And it is not for nothing that we are already talking about a “defense alliance”. This approach "shows a new pragmatism of the European integration policy." The fact is that there is a "huge" external "pressure" that leads to the mentioned closer cooperation of the Europeans in security policy.

Among those who "pressure" on the EU, specific foreign politicians are named: "geopolitical" pressure is exerted by Putin, and simply "political" by Donald Trump.

In addition, the new military association is a “quite pragmatic” alliance: EU states should save money, but billions are spent on military cooperation, as evidenced by studies, including the scientific service of the European Parliament. Since the EU countries are currently “having to save”, the level of investment in defense is rather low, and because it is low, in many small countries, in fact, there is no own defense industry. Procurement of equipment is inefficient, and defense spending in all EU countries is the second largest in the world. And where is this European power?

At the same time, the Baltic states are “particularly concerned about the threat from Russia” and Europeans from the south “are prioritizing stability in North Africa” (due to migrants). In June 2016, a "Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy" prepared by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini was developed, but this document is not legally binding and only defines "general goals" such as combating cyber attacks.

Pesco, on the other hand, gives a pragmatic and even apolitical approach. This agreement, the author believes, is a "smart way out" of the dilemma of "practical needs and strategic disagreements." The cooperation is “modular”, since all EU countries are not required to participate in it. And not all states that agree with Pesco should participate in all of its projects.

The document continues the previous line of Europe in its security policy. According to Anna Sauerbrey, a "large European army" should not arise: instead, a military "network" of European friends will operate.

The signed document gives another clear impression: its drafters tried to avoid a "declaration of European independence from the United States." NATO's commitment to the text is "repeated over and over again."

"That's smart," says the journalist. Pesco is a successful solution at the moment. In the long term, the agreement should still remain aloof "from the overall political strategy."

By the way, let's add to this, one of the heralds of the new "defense" project was the young French President Macron. Speaking at the Sorbonne, he said that in 10 years Europe will have "a common military force, a common defense budget and a common doctrine for [defense] actions."

The statement is curious by the mere fact that Emmanuel Macron, as it were, dissociated himself from those experts who deny the creation of a separate army by Europe. Macron is an excellent orator, speaking unambiguously and definitely, and he made it clear that ahead is the creation of a common military force by the European Union, and not some local addition to NATO. As for ten years, this number is also curious: it is exactly two terms of presidential rule in France.

Over the past few days, the European media have continued to excitedly discuss the news about the creation of the EU armed forces: the European Union has again become preoccupied with the idea of ​​​​creating its own army. Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the European Commission, speaks loudest about this. And recently, speaking in the European Parliament with an annual message on the state of affairs in the EU, he said the same thing. Speaking about Brexit, Mr. Juncker said that one of the ways to solve the problem of European security after the UK left the EU would be the deep integration of the armed forces of the participating countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, her Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, French President Francois Hollande and Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, Finnish President Sauli Niiniste and other political figures of the Old Continent also spoke in favor of creating a European army. We have already practically agreed on the creation of a joint military headquarters.

A simple and obvious question arises - why does Europe need its own army? References to “the unpredictability and aggressiveness of Russia”, as well as to a real terrorist threat, do not work here. For the so-called "containment of Russia" there is a whole North Atlantic alliance, which, however, is powerless in the face of the terrorist threat to Europe, which has been brilliantly proven more than once in recent times.

But to fight terrorists, we need not an army, but extensive and professional law enforcement agencies, a wide network of agents and other anti-terrorist structures that cannot possibly be an army. With its missiles, tanks, bombers and fighters. They don't fight terrorists with heavy military equipment. And in general, does Europe really lack NATO, which includes the majority of European countries and where the rule of the 5th paragraph of the Washington Treaty operates - “one for all, all for one!” That is, an attack on one of the NATO countries is an attack on all, with all the obligations that follow from this.

Isn't the European Union not enough for the security umbrella that was opened over it by one of the most powerful armies in the world, which has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear missile weapons - the US Army? But perhaps the annoying interference of this country in the affairs of Europeans, its shameless messianism and intrusive influence on EU policy, which often leads to losses in the economy (take, for example, sanctions imposed on the European Union by Washington against Russia), drawing European countries into unnecessary and disadvantageous wars and military conflicts (in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan) just became the underlying reason for the emergence of the idea of ​​a "separate European armed forces"?

Such an assumption cannot be ruled out. But still, how to create a European army? Will the United States agree to this, which perfectly understands the hidden and long-playing meaning of the idea voiced by Juncker and unanimously supported by other politicians of the Old World? And what about NATO? Europe will not withstand two parallel armies. They do not have enough financial resources. Even now, European countries are in no hurry to fulfill the instruction of the Welsh summit to allocate 2% of their GDP to the overall defense budget of the alliance. Currently, NATO funding is provided mainly by the United States, which contributes 75% of the total.

And the human resources for the EU's own army will also not be enough: do not involve refugees from the Islamic countries of the Middle East and North Africa in such troops. Togo and look, this practice will come out sideways. And then the modern army needs highly professional specialists, it is unlikely that a person without a minimum secondary specialized, or even higher education, will be able to control fighters, tanks, self-propelled artillery, communications and electronic warfare systems. Where to recruit additional tens of thousands of such people, even promising them mountains of gold in the form of salaries and social benefits?

There is a proposal to create a European army within and on the basis of NATO. It was expressed by François Hollande. At the same time, in his opinion, the European armed forces should have a certain independence. But in the army, the basis of which is unity of command and unquestioning obedience to the commander / chief, there can be no independent structures in principle. Otherwise, this is not an army, but a bad collective farm.

In addition, the North Atlantic Alliance is unlikely to like a parallel and autonomous army. He doesn't have an army at all. There are commands in the theater of war (theater of operations) - central, southern, northern ... To solve certain combat missions, special formations are created, in which each country allocates the units and subunits assigned to it from the national armed forces. From someone - tankers, from someone - missilemen, someone provides motorized infantry, signalmen, repairmen, rear guards, medical staff, and so on.

It is not clear on what principle to create integrated European troops. However, this is not our headache. Let them think about it, if they think about it, in European capitals. Including Brussels and Strasbourg.

Europe already has several joint brigades. There is a German-Danish-Polish corps "North-East" with headquarters in Szczecin. German-French brigade, whose headquarters is located in Mulheim (Germany). NATO's European Rapid Response Corps, run by the British. An armed formation of the northern countries, which includes battalions and companies of neutral Sweden and Finland, as well as NATO members - Norway, Ireland and Estonia. Even a Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian brigade was created with headquarters in Poland. There are other similar structures that have never distinguished themselves by anything serious. It seems that the talk about the European army, about its joint headquarters is another attempt to mold new bureaucratic structures for European officials so that they can live comfortably, developing paper and public declarative activities, just like it is done in the European Union and PACE .

But what if the European army is still created? How will Russia react to it? One of my familiar generals said this: “In Europe, I remember, before that there were already two united armies - Napoleon and Hitler. What they ended up with, literate people know.”

Yuri Post

On February 16, 2017, the European Parliament adopted a number of important decisions aimed at strengthening European unity: the creation of a single continental army, the creation of the post of EU finance minister, the centralization of the EU structure. These decisions were made in the context of negotiations on the UK's exit from the EU, President Donald Trump's coming to power in the United States and his financial claims against most NATO member countries and doubts about the fate of the EU. In addition, the Euro-Atlantic world is experiencing a state of confusion and vacillation over the results of the US election campaign, the fate of the European Union, the prospects for NATO, the migration crisis, attitudes towards Russia, and the fight against terrorism under Islamic slogans. This largely explains the amazing results of the vote for the proposal to create a single continental army (for - 283 MEPs, against - 269, 83 - abstained). That is, the decision was adopted by the votes of 283 people, but 352 deputies, most of them, did not support this proposal one way or another. The motivation for this proposal was that the armed forces would help the EU become stronger at a time when protectionist nationalists in a number of countries are undermining the organization and leading to its collapse. The proposal to abandon the principle of consensus in decision-making and move to decision-making by a majority of EU members was also approved. It seems that there is an attempt to implement the idea of ​​two speeds of development of European integration.

Of course, the creation of a unified continental army is aimed not only against European nationalist protectionists, but it is also a response to Donald Trump, who questions the unity of the Euro-Atlantic world in the name of US national interests.

The idea of ​​a European army is not new; attempts to implement it have actually been made since the beginning of European integration in the 1950s. with the aim of weakening to some extent the military and political dominance of the United States and pursuing its own defense policy. In 1991, the Eurocorps was formed by the forces of Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, France and Germany. In 1995, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal agreed to create a European Rapid Reaction Force. In 1999, the European Union began, in the context of developing a common defense policy, the creation of a rapid reaction force. It was supposed to use rapid reaction forces for peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions.

The process of creating European armed forces was influenced by the existence of NATO, the special role of Great Britain in European integration (later joining on its own terms and the current withdrawal), the specific role of France in relation to NATO (the expulsion of headquarters from France, the withdrawal from the military organization of NATO, and then return to it), the existence of the USSR and the organization of the Warsaw Pact countries. At the present stage, after the end of the Cold War, the dominance of the political approach over the economic one affects the admission of new countries to the EU and the expansion of NATO to the East. Great Britain, as the main ally of the United States in Europe, either supported or rejected this project. Even with support, it sought to preserve NATO as a global military-political structure of the Euro-Atlantic community and to a clear division of functions between NATO and the European armed forces. Brexit has clearly strengthened the position of supporters of the creation of a European army.

At present, each EU member state determines its own defense policy, coordinating this activity through NATO, and not the EU. European military personnel are involved in several military and humanitarian operations under the flags of individual countries and their armed forces, and not the EU as a whole.

What is the difficulty of creating a single European army? There are a number of political, financial and economic, organizational and managerial, military and technological reasons.

The current level of European unity is not sufficient to form a single European army with its own command, its own armed forces, and its own funding. The EU is neither a federation nor a supranational state. French President Sarkozy proposed to form a joint European defense force on the basis of the six largest EU member states: France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland. The project envisaged that the participating countries would establish uniform rules for themselves to achieve integration in the military sphere, and the minimum defense budget would be 2% of GDP. Such a project would be a real threat to NATO, since defense spending would double and a number of countries would not be able to participate in two structures at the same time. Currently, there is an opinion that the EU does not need a classic offensive army (European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker).

No solution has been found to the relationship of this army with NATO, which is dominated by the United States. Will it be competition, subordination or complementarity?

Differences exist over the purpose of the existence of this army (limited in conflict zones, to counter Russia, against terrorism, to protect the external borders of the EU in the conditions of the migration crisis) and the boundaries of its use (in Europe and in former colonies, globally). In practice, Europeans participate in peacekeeping operations in Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo) and in North and Tropical Africa in former European colonies. The Europeans there were in a subordinate relation to the United States. The right to be the first to decide on the conduct of peacekeeping operations has been granted to NATO.

Will this army include exclusively EU member states, NATO or other countries? If the UK really leaves the EU, can it be invited to participate in the European army? Is it possible to include Turkish military personnel in it? Will Turkish and Greek soldiers be able to find a common language in it?

Will it be armed forces balanced in terms of state representation, or will the leading European countries dominate there. Germany seeks to stay in the background of this process, however, there are fears that it will not be a European, but a “German army” (similar to how 80-90% of the military personnel in NATO operations are from the United States).

With what money is the EU going to support this army? For several years now, Trump has put it bluntly, the United States has been demanding that its NATO allies raise the level of defense spending to 2% of GDP. Maybe the Europeans are hoping to persuade the United States to take on the main burden of spending on the European army?

The experience of conducting peacekeeping operations has shown that European military contingents have a low level of coordination of actions, inconsistency in understanding tactical tasks, unsatisfactory compatibility of the main types of military equipment and weapons, and a low level of troop mobility. Europeans cannot compete with the US military-industrial complex in the development and application of new technological developments due to the narrowness of their national markets.

Will the US position become an obstacle to strengthening the military potential of the EU? Previously, the United States was wary of this process, wanting to maintain the significance of NATO and its leading position in this alliance. The European initiative was perceived as unpromising, senseless and leading to a dead end due to the decrease in the effectiveness of NATO, as well as threatening the loss of the European arms market for the US military-industrial complex. The US fears a conflict of interest between NATO and the interests of European security, a reduction in the costs of Europeans to participate in NATO projects. It is not yet clear what US policy will be under Donald Trump. If the United States weakens its military presence in Europe and in the world as a whole, the Europeans will indeed have to strengthen the military-political aspect of their activities. But at this stage, the Europeans (this was shown by the military intervention of France and Great Britain in Libya, the participation of Europeans in the Syrian conflict) are not capable of independently conducting serious military operations without the support of NATO and the United States: they do not have intelligence information from satellites, they do not have air and naval bases around the world. As the recent war on terrorism in Europe has shown, Europeans are not inclined to share intelligence among themselves. France and Germany oppose the creation of a single EU intelligence service.

The emerging multipolar world and the weakening of the monopoly domination of the United States as the leader of the Western world objectively implies the need to unite the EU as one of the centers of world politics. This requires a sufficient degree of political, economic integration and the conduct of defense and security policies in Europe and the world as a whole. There is a lack of political will to resolve many issues. At the same time, the Europeans are not going to give up NATO and the leading role of the United States in the Euro-Atlantic community. So far, a single European army is a symbol of independence, the dream of a united Europe, and at the same time serves as a means of pressure on Trump - if you weaken attention to us, we will create an alternative to NATO. However, the practical implementation of the task of creating a single European army, while maintaining NATO, seems unlikely.

Yuri Pochta - Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Comparative Political Science of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, especially for IA

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

"NATO troops should be expected at the Russian borders"

Jean-Claude Juncker, being the prime minister of Luxembourg (the world's largest offshore), exempted transnational corporations from paying taxes in their countries. And thus shifted the burden of the crisis on the shoulders of the population. The scandal was grandiose in Europe, many politicians protested against the appointment of Juncker to the post of head of the European Commission.

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

"The European army will be able to save a lot by buying weapons developed jointly," said Jean-Claude Juncker. It is obvious that he is creating a new team from old acquaintances (Greece was armed by German concerns so that as a result this Balkan country has the most powerful tank army in the EU in 1462 tanks, Germany, for comparison, has 322 tanks), which will be able to generate orders for the military-industrial complex France and Germany.

The reason is simple - there is a crisis and there is no investment at all. In recent years, about 50 percent of German industrial equipment, according to a report for the Bundestag, was not working due to a lack of orders.

Of course, the true reason is not advertised, the justification of the aggressive strategy comes under the pretext of the "Russian threat" and liberation from the dictates of NATO (read the United States). "This would be a signal to Russia that we are serious about protecting European values," the head of the European Commission said. A single EU army could serve as a deterrent, useful during the crisis in Ukraine, and in the future to protect countries that are not members of NATO from the threat of a military invasion, Juncker added in an interview with Die Welt newspaper.

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

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

And the Nurnberger Zeitung emphasizes that "Europe must recognize that the world sees in the European Union more than just a union of economies. Therefore, it must become morally and militarily independent in order to survive between the fields of two forces."

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

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

Thus, the customer of the plan to create a unified army is obvious - this is Germany, which recently announced plans to increase its armored forces. Berlin spends about 37 billion euros a year on its armed forces and this year will bring this amount to 74 billion, in accordance with the NATO directive to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. It is Frau Merkel who speaks through Juncker, whom the UN Charter forbids to be "aggressive."

“I don’t think that Germany has entered into a conflict with NATO. At the same time, there is an obvious mismatch of interests,” Pravda.Ru said. Vladimir Evseev, director of the Center for Social and Political Studies, military expert. - Merkel is sufficiently controlled by Washington. On the territory of Germany there is a huge number of American troops, which are of an occupational nature. Under these conditions, Germany, in principle, cannot go against NATO, but Germany would like to show that it is the most important in the EU."

"The issue of creating a European army escalated and intensified precisely at the time when European-American contradictions on military-political issues were growing," Mikhail Alexandrov, a leading expert at the MGIMO Center for Military-Political Studies, a doctor of political sciences, told Pravda.Ru. According to the expert, Juncker's statement is in the nature of diplomatic pressure on the United States.

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

Juncker himself confirms this point of view. "From the point of view of foreign policy, it seems that we are not taken seriously," the head of the European Commission complained.

But the problem will be in the consistency of actions. Even the most optimistic federalists of Europe do not count on the creation of a "Junker army" in the near future. The EU has neither the capacity nor the resources to create a joint armed force, Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said. He was joined by Estonian Foreign Minister Keith Pentus-Rosimannus. The idea is unrealizable today, it could most likely be considered as a long-term project in Europe," the minister told the Delfi portal.

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

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