Yuri Mail

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, and the centralization of the EU structure. These decisions were made in the context of negotiations on the UK's exit from the EU, the rise to power in the United States of President Donald Trump and his expressed 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 election campaign in the United States, the fate of the European Union, the prospects of NATO, the migration crisis, the attitude towards Russia, and the fight against terrorism under Islamic slogans. This largely explains the striking results of voting for the proposal to create a single continental army (283 MEPs were in favor, 269 were against, 83 abstained). That is, the decision was made by the votes of 283 people, but 352 deputies, the majority 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 were weakening the organization and leading to its collapse. A 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 single 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 been made, in fact, 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 Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, France and Germany. In 1995, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal agreed to create the European Rapid Reaction Force. In 1999, the European Union began, in the context of developing a common defense policy, the creation of forces rapid response. It was intended to use rapid reaction forces to carry out peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions

The process of creating European armed forces was influenced by the existence of NATO, the special role of Great Britain in European integration (later joining on its own terms and current withdrawal), the specific role of France in relation to NATO (expulsion of headquarters from France, withdrawal from the NATO military organization, 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 in the admission of new countries to the EU and the expansion of NATO to the East is reflected. Great Britain, as the main US ally in Europe, either supported or rejected this project. Even with support, it sought to preserve NATO as the global military-political structure of the Euro-Atlantic community and to ensure a clear division of responsibilities between NATO and European armed forces. Brexit has clearly strengthened the position of supporters of the creation of a European army.

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

What is the difficulty of creating a unified European army? There are a number of reasons: political, financial-economic, organizational-administrative, military-technological.

The current level of European unity is insufficient 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 forming a united European defense force based on the six largest EU member countries: France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland. The project provided 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 classical offensive army (the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker).

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

Disagreements exist regarding the purposes 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 context 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 subordinate to the United States. The right to be the first to decide on the conduct of peacekeeping operations is granted to NATO.

Will this army consist exclusively of EU member states, NATO or other countries? If the UK does leave the EU, could it be invited to join 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 a balanced military force or will the leading European countries dominate it? Germany strives 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 in NATO operations 80-90% of military personnel are from the United States).

How much money is the EU going to use to maintain this army? For several years now, the United States, and Trump has expressed this in harsh terms, has been demanding that its NATO allies increase 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 the costs of European army?

The experience of peacekeeping operations has shown that European military contingents have a low level of coordination of actions, inconsistency in understanding tactical tasks, and unsatisfactory compatibility of the main types military equipment and weapons, 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 EU's military potential? 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 decreasing effectiveness of NATO, and also threatening the loss of the European arms market for the US military-industrial complex. The United States fears a conflict of interests between NATO and the interests of European security, and a reduction in the costs of Europeans participating 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 really have to strengthen the military-political aspect of their activities. But on at this stage 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 carrying out 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 all over the world. As shown by the ongoing recent years the war on terrorism in Europe, Europeans are not inclined to exchange intelligence information among themselves. France and Germany oppose the creation of a single EU intelligence service.

The emerging multipolar world and the weakening of the monopoly dominance of the United States as the leader of the Western world objectively suggests the need to unite the EU as one of the centers of world politics. This requires a sufficient degree of political and economic integration and the implementation 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 abandon NATO and the leadership role of the United States in the Euro-Atlantic community. For now, a single European army is a symbol of independence, a dream of a united Europe, and at the same time serves as a means of putting pressure on Trump - if you weaken attention to us, we will create an alternative to NATO. However practical implementation the task of creating a unified European army, while maintaining NATO, seems unlikely.

Yuriy Pochta - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Comparative Political Science at RUDN University, especially for IA

On November 13, 2017, 23 out of 28 European Union countries 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 union... 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 look at the evolution of the idea of ​​a European army, as well as in what institutional framework (outside NATO) and how military cooperation between Western European states developed after the Second World War (which was joined by a number of Eastern European countries after the end of the Cold War ).

The idea of ​​creating a European army appeared quite a long time ago. The first in Europe after the end of World War II was expressed by Winston Churchill at a session of the Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on August 11, 1950. He proposed creating a “European army, subject to the democracy of Europe,” which would include German military units. Such an army, according to his plan, was supposed to be a coalition of national forces with centralized supplies and standardized weapons, not subject to supranational control bodies. The Assembly approved this project (89 votes for, 5 against and 27 abstained).

France objected to the rearmament of Germany and on October 24, 1950, proposed its so-called “Pleven Plan” (initiated by 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 authorities and a budget.

At the same time, Germany was not supposed to have its own army, and only minor German units would enter the European army.

In December 1950, the French proposal was largely approved by the NATO Council, which, in turn, proposed developing a concrete plan for the creation of a European army. The idea of ​​creating a European army was also supported by the United States. 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 EOS - an organization with an army, which was to include the armed forces of six Western European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), with general military command and control bodies and a single military budget. But the EOS was destined to remain only on paper, since on August 30, 1954, the French National Assembly rejected the EOS Treaty by a vote of 319 to 264.

Many EOS ideas were taken into account in the Paris Agreement of October 23, 1954, according to which the Western European Union (WEU) was created - a military-political organization consisting of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium , the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

The predecessor 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 before the 2004 enlargement, except for Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Sweden, which received observer status. Iceland, Norway, Poland, Turkey, Hungary and the Czech Republic became associate members of the WEU, and 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 primarily as a venue for regular political dialogue among NATO's European members and as an important mediator between NATO and the European Community (EC).

In the 1980s there was a certain “reanimation” of the WEU. The WEU Rome Declaration of 1984 declared it the “European pillar” of the security system within NATO.

On 19 June 1992, at a meeting at the Petersberg Hotel near Bonn, the WEU countries adopted the “Petersberg Declaration” on relations between the WEU, the EU and NATO, which expanded the functions of the WEU. If earlier it was focused on providing guarantees for the defense of the territories of the participating countries, now it has become responsible for conducting humanitarian and rescue operations, peacekeeping missions, as well as for carrying out crisis management tasks (including peace enforcement in the interests of the entire EU).

In this new role, limited contingents of European countries under the WEU flag took part in maintaining the embargo against Yugoslavia in the Adriatic and Danube in 1992–1996. and in operations to prevent the crisis in Kosovo in 1998–1999. In 1997, according to 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 entry into force of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty on December 1, 2009, which expanded the scope of EU powers in the field of foreign and defense policy, the WEU was no longer necessary. In March 2010, its dissolution was announced. The WEU finally ceased operation on June 30, 2011.

The European Union itself began to create military structures after the Maastricht Treaty, signed on February 7, 1992, first outlined the Union's responsibilities in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

It was founded in May 1992 and began functioning in October 1993 Eurocorps(reached full operational readiness in 1995). Its headquarters is located in Strasbourg (France) and employs about 1,000 military personnel. The participating countries of the corps are Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg and France. Associated nations are Greece, Italy, Poland and Turkey (they 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 formed in 1989 (5,000 personnel) with headquarters in Mülheim (Germany) took part in peacekeeping missions in Kosovo (2000) and Afghanistan (2004-2005). .

In November 1995, they were created European Rapid Operational Force (EUROFOR) 12,000 strong, consisting of military personnel from Italy, France, Portugal and Spain, with headquarters in Florence (Italy). On July 2, 2012, EUROFOR was disbanded.

EUROFOR forces in 1997. Photo: cvce.eu.

In November 1995, they were also formed European Maritime Force (EUROMARFOR) with the participation of Italy, France, Spain and Portugal.

In June 1999, after the crisis in Kosovo, the EU countries at a summit in Cologne decided to deepen the coordination of foreign policy and move to the implementation of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).

To coordinate the EU's foreign and security policy, the post of 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 EU Helsinki Conference, it was decided to create new political and military structures for decision-making in the field of foreign, security and defense policy. 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) (consisting of the chiefs of general staff of the armed forces of the EU states) and the subordinate Military Staff (The European Union Military Staff, EUMS). The latter's tasks are military expertise, strategic planning, and organizing cooperation between and within multinational headquarters.

At the same conference, the goal was set to create by 2003 a potential that would allow the deployment of a military contingent of 50-60 thousand people within 60 days ( European Rapid Reaction Force). He had to be capable of independent actions to carry out the entire range of “Petersberg missions” for at least one year at a distance of up to 4000 km from the EU border.

However, these plans were later adjusted. It was decided to create national and multinational EU Battlegroups (EU BG) battalion size (1500-2500 people each). These groups must 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, which 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 conducting operations abroad within 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 mission and operation abroad, six of which are ongoing (in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mali, the Central African Republic, Somalia, the Central Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean off the coast of Somalia).

On July 12, 2004, in accordance with the EU decision taken in June 2003, the European Defense Agency (EDA) was established 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 voting rights.

The Agency's main activities are developing defense capabilities, promoting European cooperation in the field of weapons, creating a competitive European market for military equipment, and increasing the efficiency of European defense research and technology.

The active activity of the EU in the field of security and defense, as well as events in Ukraine, when the EU discovered that it lacked the ability to exert force on Russia, ultimately led to the idea of ​​a European army once again appearing on the agenda. But more on this in the second part of the article.

Yuri Zverev

Since 2009, it has been called the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).

The issue of a new European security strategy has become so relevant that the issue of creating joint armed forces of the European Union has again been put on the agenda. The political elite of most EU countries believes that such an army would help the EU form a common foreign policy and security policy. In their opinion, with such an army the EU will be able to respond to the threat to EU member countries and neighboring states.

First experience

A similar project was attempted back in 1948. The Western European Union (WEU) created at that time precisely 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 (an organization that existed from 1948 to 2011 for cooperation in the field of defense and security) has always been in the shadow of the North Atlantic bloc.

In WEU different times included military units 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 operational subordination to the Council of the European Union, but it was never used in this composition.

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

In 1995, the Rapid Reaction Force (Eurofor) was created and operates to this day, which includes troops from four European Union states: France, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Britain and France also attempted to create a Joint Expeditionary Force and agreed to share aircraft carriers. However, the Europeans could not seriously wage a 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 serving together in Lublin, Poland. The main goal of the battalion was stated to be to assist the Ukrainian military in training them in warfare methods according to NATO standards, but recently there has been less and less talk about this formation. In this regard, some experts are of the opinion that the creation of a new European army could lead to the same disastrous results.

French model

The doctrine of “defense along all azimuths,” proclaimed by de Gaulle after Paris left the NATO military structure, can be considered a purely French attempt. The ambitious general, who dreamed of returning France to its former greatness, actually tried to play the role of a third center of power (along with the USSR and the USA), around which Europe would unite.

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

Most European countries came 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 NATO's military structure and removed the alliance's governance structures from its territory. For the sake of realizing the idea of ​​a European army, the general even agreed to a very significant rapprochement in the military field with Germany. For this, some French veterans anti-fascist resistance subjected him to harsh criticism. However, de Gaulle's efforts ended sadly. The efforts of Juncker and other European politicians in the current attempt may end exactly the same way.

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 azimuths” was preserved until the early 90s, in fact after de Gaulle’s resignation it became a pure formality. Ambitious plans were buried, and Paris built its defensive plans within the framework 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 supposedly disappeared. The US military umbrella became burdensome for the EU, which competed with America economically and reasonably considered it necessary to back up its economic weight with 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 resistance from 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 problems and justify the need to preserve and expand NATO and the expansion of its “area of ​​responsibility” from the North Atlantic to the entire planet.

From the fourth pass

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

Work to strengthen military cooperation in the European Union intensified in 2015 in the wake of the migration crisis and due to the increasing frequency of terrorism. In addition, NATO, supporting the EU’s desire to arm itself, adds “Russian aggression” and an increase in defense spending of alliance members to the notorious 2% to the threats facing Europe.

To date, the joint Council of Foreign and Defense Ministers of the EU countries has agreed on a plan for the formation of a unified 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 were also used. Thus, EU official Margaritis Schinas said that the creation of a European army will help the European Union save up to 120 billion euros per year. According to him, European countries collectively spend more on defense than Russia, but at the same time the money is inefficiently spent on maintaining several small national armies.

Reaction from Washington and London

In turn, the Europeans’ plans were not to the liking of the United States and the Americans’ key ally in Europe, Great Britain. In 2015, British Defense Minister Michael Fallon categorically stated that his country had “an absolute veto on the creation of a European army” - and the issue was removed from the agenda. But after the referendum on Britain's exit from the EU, the idea seems to have a chance to be implemented again.

Since Washington absolutely dominates NATO, the EU is limited in its ability to implement its own international politics. Without the US, Europe is unable to project power. Therefore, the EU has to support US military measures that are sometimes unfavorable for it, 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 EU’s actions. Europe has consistently, for many decades in a row, been trying to become an independent military power. However, today, despite the obvious weakening of Washington, which is no longer able to dominate the world on its own, the possibilities of creating a “single European army” are significantly 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 the matter of confrontation with the USSR, still had its own balanced armed forces. Moreover, the EU borders until the mid-90s ( Old Europe- in modern terminology) was able to implement coordinated foreign and economic policies due to the presence of real common interests and high level integration.

Since the mid-90s, NATO has adopted the concept of 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, each individual European army, and all of them together, lost the ability to conduct large-scale combat operations without American support.

Modern NATO structures actually provide leadership to the allied armies within the framework of American strategic plans. In order to create an effective European military, the EU must either take over American leadership of NATO headquarters (which is impossible by definition) or proceed to dismantle NATO and replace it with a European headquarters organization. Without this, the creation of any number of “joint brigades” and “European corps” will cost nothing, since the American generals who control the alliance will still lead them and provide logistics.

Baltic umbrella for the alliance

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

Accordingly, EU countries do not yet see real opportunities for creating unified army EU. The European Union currently does not have the capabilities and resources to create 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 kind of common combat units.

Even if the Franco-German core of the EU manages to overcome the Eastern European opposition and push through the actual formation of a European army, the process of creating effective armed forces practically from scratch is not a quick matter. We can talk about decades. Even Russia, which completely preserved its headquarters structure and balanced armed forces, took a decade and a half to bring them out of the crisis state into which the army plunged in the 90s.

The embryo of the European army will be gestated for a long time

Europe needs to revive almost everything, from specific associations, formations, units and units capable of waging wars of any scale (from local to global), to weapons and headquarters, including the rear service. At the same time, the staff culture of the German General Staff, capable of engaging in relevant organizational work, strategic planning and command of troops in the theater of operations, was completely lost - it was deliberately destroyed by the Western allies (primarily the USA) after the Second World War. Meanwhile, qualified high-ranking staff officers are not born - they are trained over decades and even generations.

Considering the current nature of relations in the European Union and the severity 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 joint Franco-German armed forces (possibly with the participation of a couple more EU states - here the fewer participants, the more effective the work).

And then this army, to begin with, would only be suitable for establishing order within the European Union. For the concept of a European army proper, capable of performing on an equal footing with the armed forces of the United States, Russia or China, to be realized, at least two to three decades must pass.

Currently, in our opinion, we are talking about the redistribution of powers in the defense sector. Here the Europeans have both the European Defense Agency and a pool of companies that develop and produce weapons. It is 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 still 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, things will not go well. In particular, without the United States, military-political contradictions between Germany and France immediately 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 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 for the pan-European Armed Forces. But the United States 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.

Europeans are aware that they spend money on the maintenance of their national armies and on the maintenance of the entire NATO structure, but receive little in return in terms of security. 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, since they are subordinate to the NATO Council and the NATO Military Committee. Moreover, Europeans realize that it is the Americans who are dragging them into various kinds military adventures, and in fact bear no responsibility for it.

The role of the EU in military-political issues in the world is completely inconsistent with its place in the global 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 EU's "global mission."

But practice shows that Europeans are not capable of anything 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 loudest 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 subsided with 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 - low- and medium-intensity interethnic and religious conflicts. International terrorism is becoming one of the main threats to EU security.

Britain's exit from the European Union may accelerate the creation of its own armed forces in the EU. The timetable for the creation of the military structure may be made public as early as this year, but even supporters of a unified European army admit that the implementation of the project is not a matter of the very near future. NATO pretends that it is not against the Europeans arming themselves further, but in reality it is 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, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Federica Mogherini. According to her, for the first time in a long time, “political space” has appeared in Europe to promote this project.

"We have reached a turning point. We can restart 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 continental armed forces. Now the European Commission has a more or less real chance to bring the matter to an end. Military cooperation may be based on the corresponding clause of the Lisbon Treaty, which has not previously been applied. The EU's foreign policy chief even came up with a plan to overcome the "procedural, financial and political barriers" to deploying battle groups. True, for the time being these measures are not advertised. What is known is that the road map will highlight three main elements of military cooperation: a common approach to crises and conflicts, a change in the institutional structure of security and defense cooperation, and the availability of opportunities for the creation of a pan-European defense industry.

Immediately after the Brexit referendum, Germany and France called for a separate military command structure to be established as soon as possible in the interests of the EU. 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 in the document specifically involves strengthening integration between countries in the field of security and reducing dependence on NATO.

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

Thus, today's Europe can dream of its own European army, can take some steps to imitate its creation, can 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 EU structures must pass.

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

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

Meanwhile, Washington clearly did not like the possibility of the appearance of a European army. This is confirmed by the words of the US Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Samantha Power. America expects its partners in Europe to be more proactive in responding to conflicts, as well as greater financial and military participation in efforts to protect "common security interests," Power says. And she recalls that the United States finances the lion's share of NATO's budget, which, according to her, remains the main guarantor of stability and security.

But even if we assume that the project of a single EU army will go beyond political statements, a lot of questions remain. Who will finance it? This will require billions and billions of euros. It seems that only Germany and France are capable of such a mission. How will a unified armed force fit in with NATO infrastructure and national armies? By what principles will the command be formed, and what priorities will it choose?

It should be noted that the idea of ​​​​creating a pan-European army is not new. She already spoke out after the Yugoslav events, but then it led nowhere. Perhaps the next visit will be more effective. But the danger that Washington will interfere in this project still remains. The United States has too much leverage over the European elites to give up its position as the “first fiddle” in NATO and the main manager of European politics without a fight.

© collage InoSMI

European armed forces and regional tasks

The European Force, or Rapid Reaction Corps, was the response of the European continental powers to the historically unprecedented US dominance in the political and military spheres. Events in Georgia and Russia’s attempts to speed up its project for the so-called “settlement” of the Karabakh problem aroused interest in the peacekeepers, and, naturally, attention was paid to the Euroforces.

However, the Europeans categorically refused to participate in the peacekeeping operation in Georgia after the events of August 2008. In this regard, it is necessary to pay more attention to the essence and goals of the European Armed Forces, the motives and nature of their creation, the idea in general, as well as intentions in conducting relevant operations in the regions. The return of France to the NATO military organization does not at all call into question the development of Euroforce; on the contrary, according to the French plan, the role of the European Union in the global security system should increase.

This structure was not created within the framework of the so-called Western European Union, but represents the embodiment of a new idea of ​​​​using force in tense areas in limited quantities. Despite the effective participation of European states in the hotbeds of tension in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Europeans realized that they were a subordinate force in relation to the United States, and they had no doubts about the need to form European forces. If previously only France and Germany actively supported the development of this initiative, then after the meeting of Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair in Saint-Malo, Great Britain fully supported this project.

However, Germany, due to various features historical past, does not seek to act as a leader in this project and prefers to follow France, supporting it in every possible way. France remains the leader in the formation of this project and seeks to emphasize its anti-American or at least alternative significance. Germany is more restrained in expressing the alternative nature of the creation of European forces and is even trying to play on the contradictions between France and the United States. The UK, although it supports the project, strives to remain loyal to the United States, maintaining its role as the main partner of the United States in Europe and a “mediator” between the United States and Europe.

The UK's position boils down to maintaining NATO's role as the global military organization of the Western community, and a clear division of responsibilities between NATO and European forces. Europeans, including France, are forced to admit that NATO has no alternative at this stage in terms of conducting such operations. European forces are called upon to participate in the settlement of relations in conflict zones in which the armed component has already been extinguished. That is, in essence, the functions of the European forces are reduced to carrying out peacekeeping operations. In a certain sense, they are becoming an alternative to UN troops.

Currently, Europeans are primarily interested in ensuring order in Europe. The problem of the spatial responsibility of European forces, the borders and limits of their action seems important. This also applies to a number of unresolved issues, although perhaps there is greater certainty in this area of ​​problems. In this part, everything will also depend on the adoption of specific political decisions that are determined by European interests.

France is very interested in carrying out peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone and West Africa in general, as well as in its other former colonies. Italy is very interested in the Balkans (Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia). Germany is also interested in using these troops in the Balkans, and also, if necessary, in Central Europe. Germany, at the instigation of France, is seriously discussing the issue of using the first military units created within the European forces in Transnistria. (Apparently, the USA is also interested in this). The South Caucasus remains an extremely undesirable region for European states to have a military presence.

Leading European states will try to distance themselves from the use of European military contingents in the Caucasus. At the same time, if sufficiently convincing agreements on conflict resolution are reached in this region, especially in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the presence of European military contingents may become a reality. This is consistent with Russia's interest in cooperation with Europe, including in the project of forming a European defense initiative. France is trying to shape European policy and establish interests literally everywhere - in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, Africa, the Middle East and Caucasus, Southeast Asia and Russia.

The military operation in Kosovo demonstrated the inability and ineffectiveness of the armed forces of European states to extinguish such hotbeds of tension. But along with these problems, many other shortcomings have been identified. First of all, there was an absolutely low level of coordination of the actions of military contingents in these conditions, the incompatibility of leading types of military equipment, a low level of technical and transport mobility of troops, a lack of understanding of the most important tactical tasks, as well as low efficiency of decision-making by the command. It should be noted that the Kosovo operation was carried out by NATO, but it was the European forces that demonstrated low effectiveness. It turned out that the production of weapons in Europe is far from perfect, does not have the necessary universality, and is rather carried out according to national standards. In practice, Europe does not have common standards and objectives for the production of weapons.

European arms companies and governments have found that, despite some advances in military technology, they generally lag behind the US military-industrial complex and are unable to apply new technologies in the conditions of narrow national arms markets. For example, UK companies export almost only weapons components to the US, not final products. According to the French and British Ministries of Defense, for the successful development of military production, arms markets must be expanded by 2-2.5 times. We are talking about the leading types of conventional weapons, the markets of which cannot be expanded at the expense of third world countries. Only a united Europe can provide such a capacious and promising market.

The United States is very wary of the development of the European defense initiative. Washington fears the emergence of a long-term contradiction between NATO and the European defense project. There may be a mixing of military-political functions, a reduction in the financial costs of European states under NATO programs, and political contradictions between the United States and European states regarding the implementation of certain military and peacekeeping operations. Despite the fact that in statutory documents European defense project states that the European states - members of NATO and the European Union - do not intend to create special armed forces, but will improve existing armies, increasing their combat effectiveness, efficiency and mobility; the Americans accuse the Europeans, primarily the three leading states, of intending to limit their defense costs, including within the framework of participation in NATO. Right-wing circles in the US Congress are calling on the government to either limit or completely withdraw American troops from Europe within 5 years. Currently, in the dialogue between the United States and European states, two topics are raised as priorities - missile defense and European military spending.

It is unlikely that in the near future the United States will reconsider its participation in ensuring security in Europe and its military presence in Europe. In general, the United States considers the creation of European forces as an unnecessary, ineffective and dead-end initiative. The United States believes that NATO is quite capable of carrying out all the tasks that the Europeans are striving to solve. There are political forces in the United States that are quite calm about European initiatives. These forces exist in both the Republican and Democratic parties of the United States. Most American analysts also view the European defense initiative as a fait accompli and suggest that the US government make efforts to develop principled approaches with the Europeans in terms of coordinating the actions of the NATO command and European forces.

During the development of the concept of the European Defense Initiative, it became clear that it would be necessary to cooperate with NATO and the United States, since in order to conduct operations in remote regions it is necessary to use the reconnaissance capabilities of satellites, air bases and naval bases, which European states do not have. These tasks are not yet relevant, but still, fundamental, promising solutions are needed. The division of functions between NATO and European forces is far from a solved problem. The United States does not believe that the division of functions and tasks in in this case occurs between the same troops who will simultaneously have tasks in both NATO and European forces. Therefore, one way or another, NATO will face new inconsistencies, problems of making political decisions and simply military problems. According to the United States, the creation of European forces reduces the effectiveness of NATO and creates unnecessary problems.

The Russian factor plays a secondary role in the creation of European forces, but it cannot be neglected. According to France and Germany, the Russians have a certain complex of hostility towards NATO, but are successfully entering into dialogue, including on security issues, with individual European states. Europeans have developed a strong opinion that Russia should be perceived as it is, and that it is possible to successfully cooperate with it even in the military sphere. Therefore, the European defense initiative is quite acceptable for Russia, unlike NATO. Equal relations with Russia in terms of regional security can become a factor in more rapid stabilization of the situation. In leading European states, there is an opinion that Russia is following the path of pragmatism, and, despite V. Putin’s tough style, is striving for a European orientation. It was believed that there are many pragmatists in the Russian leadership who strive to make Russia not only a pro-European country, but closely integrated into Europe.

Türkiye is a problematic country for Europeans; military operations are often carried out on its territory. But this country has important geostrategic influence in a number of regions where tensions have developed, and large armed forces. Therefore, Turkey's participation in the European forces seems very interesting and possible. At the same time, Türkiye, using its NATO membership, vetoes the approval of the creation of Euroforce. Turkey's arguments are that it has put a lot of effort into developing NATO, and that the existing forces are seeking to be used by the European Union, which does not accept it as a member.

Türkiye can play a more important role in European structures if it takes part in the Euroforce. At the same time, Turkey does not hide its interest in participating in peacekeeping operations in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as in the Balkans and Northern Iraq. For Europeans, Turkey is a very attractive country as a military force, but its real participation in some regions is hardly possible due to its internal problems and relations with a number of states in the Middle East, South Caucasus and the Balkans. Turkey is trying to use the contradictions between the United States and the European Union in its political interests, including the issue of creating European forces.

European states do not seek to participate in the use of military contingents in resolving conflicts in the Caucasus. But not only because this is a very dangerous and difficult to control region. The Balkans played a major role in understanding the problematic nature of such regions. At the same time, there is the factor of the Russian military presence. This seems to be the main factor. The presence in a small territory of the armed forces of Russia and the West, which do not have proper political coordination, can lead to confusion and chaos, which will further aggravate the situation. Perhaps the creation of European forces will facilitate dialogue with Russia in terms of coordinating peacekeeping operations in regions that it considers to be an area of ​​its priority interests.

Translation: Hamlet Matevosyan

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively from foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.