"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 to 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 pledged 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 money 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. In this regard, even at the bilateral level, it has not been possible to agree on anything so far - 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 discussed 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.
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.
Three years ago, the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, proposed the creation of the EU's own army. The initiative found support, but was never implemented. Now this project has a more serious supporter.
The French President once again stated that the EU is facing numerous attempts to interfere in internal democratic processes and cyberspace. According to him, Europe must defend itself.
Despite the fact that most European countries are part of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), the Old World does not have its own regular army.
The idea of a unified army is supported by the German power ministers and Angela Merkel. The initiative was opposed in the UK and Finland, who noted that defense policy should be the prerogative of the leadership of the countries, not the alliance.
It is interesting that the regular armies in Europe today are mainly small in number, since funding is directed primarily to the quality of training.
Russia
It is Russia that has the largest army among European countries. The number of active troops is 1,200,000 people. More than 2,800 tanks, 10,700 armored vehicles, 2,600 self-propelled guns, 2,100 towed artillery pieces are in service. Russia also has the largest number of nuclear warheads in the world.
It is also worth noting that the reserve troops of Russia number 2,100,000 people, and paramilitary organizations another 950,000.
Turkey
Also, non-EU Turkey is the second country in the Old World in terms of the number of active troops. There are 514,850 soldiers in constant combat readiness in Turkey, 380,000 in reserve troops and 148,700 in paramilitary organizations.
Germany
The third in the overall ranking and the first in terms of the number of active troops in the European Union, the army is stationed in Germany. The regular army has 325,000 soldiers, and the reserve - 358,650. Germany's paramilitary units have only 40,000 people.
France
Following Germany, France is second in the list of the largest armies of the EU countries. These troops number 259,050. The French army reserve is 419,000 men and the paramilitary units are 101,400.
Ukraine
The fifth army in the general list of European countries is the armed forces of Ukraine. The active troops of this country are 250,000 soldiers. Reserve troops number 720,000 and paramilitary units 50,000.
Italy
The sixth among the countries of Europe and the third in the European Union is the army of Italy, where the personnel of the active troops has 230,350 people, and the reserve - only 65,200 soldiers. Italy's paramilitary units have 238,800 personnel.
United Kingdom
Having opposed the proposal to create an EU army, the UK has an active army of 187,970 people. The British Army reserve is 233,860 men. The British army does not have paramilitary units.
Spain
The eighth army on the list and the fifth in the European Union is located in Spain. It has 177,950 personnel in the active army and 328,500 soldiers in the reserve. Spain's paramilitary units number 72,600.
Greece
The Greek army, which, like Spain, has been struggling with the crisis for many years, is almost comparable in size to its counterparts in economic difficulties. The Greek army has 177,600 active troops, and a reserve of 291,000 soldiers. The paramilitary units have only 4,000 personnel.
Poland
The top ten is completed by the army of Poland, whose active troops number 105,000 people, and the reserve - 234,000 soldiers. The composition of the paramilitary units has 21,300 soldiers.
The rest of the armies of the countries of Europe do not exceed 100,000 people.
The difficulties of creating a common army of the European Union lie not only in the financial component, but also in the issue of technical implementation, since, in addition to language differences, there will also be problems of standardizing service conditions, supplies and equipment. Nevertheless, according to experts, this idea can be implemented, but not in the form of a classical army, but some kind of peacekeeping contingent working on a permanent basis.
This week, the EU member states signed an interesting agreement: on paper, the permanent cooperation of the united European countries in the defense sphere was confirmed. We are talking about the creation of a single army in Europe, which, among other things, has the task of confronting the "Russian threat". Tremble, Moscow!
This topic has become one of the key topics of the week in the largest European and American media. The main NATO member Jens Stoltenberg, and the leading person of European diplomacy Federica Mogherini, and other high-ranking officials and diplomats speak about this.
The European Union has taken an important step towards ensuring its defense capabilities: 23 out of 28 member states have signed a joint investment program in military equipment, as well as related research and development, reports .
The goal of the initiative is to jointly develop European military capabilities and provide a unified military force for "separate" operations or operations "in coordination with NATO". Europe's efforts are also aimed at "overcoming the fragmentation" of European defense spending and promoting joint projects to reduce duplication of functions.
At a signing ceremony in Brussels, head of European foreign policy Federica Mogherini called the deal "a historic moment in the defense of Europe."
Jean-Yves Le Drian, French foreign minister and former defense minister, said the agreement was "a commitment by countries" aimed at "improving working together". He noted that there are "tensions" in Europe caused by Russia's "more aggressive" behavior "after the annexation of Crimea." In addition, there is also the threat of terrorist attacks by Islamist militants.
European leaders lamented US President Donald Trump's lack of enthusiasm for NATO and other multilateral institutions. Apparently, the newspaper notes, the audience decided, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in May, that the “age” has come in which Europeans will have to rely entirely on themselves, and not rely on someone. And so, according to Merkel, "we Europeans really have to take our fate into our own hands." True, Ms. Merkel added that European coordination should still be carried out in partnership with the United States and Great Britain. Interestingly, the UK, recalls the author of the material, "for many years blocked such cooperation", fearing that the creation of a European army would undermine NATO and London's partnership with Washington. Britain instead favored "a bilateral agreement with France".
However, the UK recently voted to leave the European Union. And after Brexit, other countries, especially the aforementioned France, but also Germany, Italy and Spain, decided to revive the long-standing idea of military cooperation. Such an idea was a way for them to show the citizens of their countries that Brussels "is capable of responding to fears about security and terrorism."
As for France alone, Paris advocated participation in the new alliance of a smaller group of countries - those that could bear serious expenses on military equipment and other defense capabilities that Europe lacks "outside of NATO". However, Berlin "played for a bigger club".
The German point of view, as it often happens, won, the American newspaper states.
The Brussels agreement on "permanent structured cooperation" (Pesco) is expected to be formalized by European leaders at a summit meeting. It will take place in mid-December 2017. But it is already clear even today that with so many votes in favor, approval seems like a mere formality. Everything has already been decided.
Curiously, NATO is supporting these European efforts, as European leaders say their intentions are not to undermine the defense capability of the current alliance, but to make Europe more effective against, for example, cyber attacks or a hybrid war like the one the Russians staged in Crimea. in the material.
The countries of Europe will present an action plan outlining their defense military objectives and methods of monitoring their implementation. For the acquisition of weapons, states will take funds from the European Union fund. The amount has also been determined: about 5 billion euros, or 5.8 billion US dollars. Another special fund will be used "to finance operations."
The obvious goal is to increase military spending to "strengthen the EU's strategic independence." The EU can act alone when necessary and with partners when possible, the Brussels statement said.
The program 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", which leads to the mentioned closer cooperation of the Europeans in security policy.
Among those who "pressure" on the EU, specific foreign politicians are named: "geopolitical" pressure is exerted by Putin, and simply "political" by Donald Trump.
In addition, the new military association is a “quite pragmatic” alliance: 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 a great speaker, speaking unequivocally and definitely, and he made it clear that ahead is the creation of a common military force by the European Union, and not some local addition to NATO. As for ten years, this number is also curious: it is exactly two terms of presidential rule in France.
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 existence 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 manages to break the Eastern European opposition and push through the real formation of a European army, the process of creating an effective armed forces 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 the rear service. 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 skillfully, then only the next generation (or even after one) can 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.
