European Armed Forces. Germany is preparing to create a unified European army

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 ideas of the EOS 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 in relations 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, a Franco-German brigade (5,000 personnel) with headquarters in Mülheim (Germany) formed in 1989. The corps took part in peacekeeping missions in Kosovo (2000) and Afghanistan (2004-2005) .

In November 1995, 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 towards implementing 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 the 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 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 precisely the overly active participation of the United States in the politics of the European Union, which threatens stability on the entire continent. Perhaps Brussels and other European capitals have finally found the strength to formulate the main idea: we want to be independent and get rid of the dictates of the United States. And our own army is one of the symbols of such independence. And the hint that it will be created as if for the edification of Russia is nothing more than a 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 productive. 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.

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 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.

The WEU at various times included military units from 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; it could be fully operational 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 of the 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).

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.

Because Washington absolutely dominates NATO, the EU is limited in its ability to implement its own international policies. 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 alone, 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 within its 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 a high level of 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 a unified EU army. 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 work out. 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, the Europeans realize that it is the Americans who are dragging them into various kinds of military adventures, and in fact do not bear responsibility for this.

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 to 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 inter-ethnic 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 behind the creation of a European army, as we have already noted, is EU Vice-President, High Representative of the EU 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 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 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 has even come 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 issue of a new European security strategy has become so relevant that the issue of creating joint armed forces of the European Union was again put on the agenda. The political elite of most EU countries believes that such an army would help the EU 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 countries and neighboring states, Tihansky writes in his article for Sputnik Belarus.

First experience

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

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.

The efforts of Juncker and other European politicians in the current attempt may end exactly the same way.

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.

From the fourth pass

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 Secretary 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.

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 within its borders until the mid-90s (Old Europe - in modern terminology) was able to implement a coordinated foreign and economic policy due to the presence of real common interests and a high level of integration.

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

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 and control of troops in the theater of operations, has been 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 raised 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 united 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.

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.

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 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 to 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 schedule for creating a 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, High Representative of the EU 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 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 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 "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.

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

The European Union had the opportunity to create its own armed forces back in 1993. Then, at the conference in Maatricht, it was decided that European countries should develop a “Common Defense and Security Policy.” The basis for this policy was to be the so-called “Petersberg Objectives” adopted by the Western European Union (predecessor of the EU) in 1993. This document defined the goals for which Europeans could unite military efforts, namely humanitarian action, peacekeeping, saving civilians, and resolving crises.

Throughout the nineties, European countries saw no real reason to worry about their own safety. The Soviet threat disappeared by itself, and long-term strategic tasks were very successfully solved by NATO forces. And only in 1999, when the Kosovo crisis occurred, the Europeans remembered the “Petersberg Problems” and again started talking about their own unified army.

At the Helsinki Conference in 1999, the European Union began to develop a common defense policy. At this meeting, the concept of a rapid reaction force was developed. All members of the Union, except Denmark, have committed to ensuring the deployment of pan-European troops within 60 days by 2003 and maintaining their combat capability for at least one year. The new structure was supposed to include 100 thousand people, 400 combat aircraft and 100 ships. Germany promised to provide 13 thousand soldiers, Great Britain and Italy - 12 thousand each. Other countries' commitments have been more modest.

The conference participants decided to use rapid reaction forces only for peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions. At the same time, in Helsinki, the prerogative of the UN was recognized in making decisions on the commencement of peacekeeping operations, as well as NATO’s “right of first refusal,” which allowed the use of European troops only if the alliance for some reason refused to participate in the operation.

Already in June 2003, the EU, at the request of the UN, sent 1,800 troops to resolve the situation in the Congo. This operation, called Operation Artemis, was the first time EU troops were used outside the European continent. In addition, the “right of first refusal” was violated: since the United States was not concerned about the Congo problem, NATO did not even receive an offer to participate.

Although the creation of a rapid reaction force was the first pan-European military initiative, it was still very far from the formation of a unified army. Each of the national units of the rapid reaction forces is subordinate to the leadership in their country, and EU members are simply ready to provide their troops at the request of Brussels. Meanwhile, the EU is increasingly acquiring the features of a single state, and the formation of a real army is an inevitable stage in this process.

Moreover, there is already a real basis for this. Back in 1991, France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain formed joint brigades with a single command in Strasbourg and called them “Eurocorps”. The personnel of the Eurocorps reaches 60 thousand people. The brigades must carry out operations under the auspices of the European Union. And in 1995, the French, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese agreed to create EUROFOR (European Operational Rapid Force) to carry out the Petersberg Tasks, so Europe has some experience in using joint armed forces.

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

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

Under the new plan, a permanent body with international staff would be created within the EU to coordinate a joint military capability that would include not only the army, but also the navy and air force.

Separate funding should be allocated for the new structure, and European industry will receive orders for the supply of high-tech military equipment. At the same time, special measures will be taken to ensure coordination of the armed forces and compliance with uniform standards. At the summit, a proposal was made to open the headquarters of the new army. The European Pentagon was to appear in Tervuren, a suburb of Brussels.

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

So far, only Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg are ready to cooperate in the military sphere. These countries will bear all the costs of the new military program, waiting for others to join the initiative. Others are forced to hurry up and think about a military strategy by another factor - the approaching date for the adoption of a pan-European constitution, in which a separate clause will be devoted to the defense of the European Union.

The EU's plans to create its own army are least pleasing to the United States, which fears that NATO will lose its influence. The Americans became especially worried when Tony Blair supported the idea.

NATO and the EU - history of relations

When the idea of the European Union was still being discussed, issues of security and military cooperation were in last place among the participants. The leading EU countries were members of NATO, and their strategic interests on the European continent were successfully protected by this organization.

In the nineties, NATO set itself very modest goals, and the alliance’s development strategy largely repeated the experience of the times of confrontation with the USSR. Although the bipolar world had already been destroyed, an alternative concept that took into account the new realities did not emerge. Moreover, nothing threatened the immediate security of Europe.

For the first time since the end of the Cold War, NATO's strategic concept was revised in 1999. If during the previous decades NATO exclusively ensured the security of member countries, then from that moment on the role of the alliance unexpectedly changed. The new document clearly indicated that NATO was going to engage in conflict resolution and military operations in hot spots.

From the very beginning, it was not clear where exactly NATO could send its troops. The wording clearly suggested that military operations need not be limited to the European continent and the North Atlantic. Thus quietly began the transformation of NATO into the “global policeman.”

Therefore, in 2001, no one was surprised that Bush declared a “war on terrorism” throughout the world and the United States obliged NATO to always have 20 thousand soldiers on hand, capable of going anywhere within 7 to 30 days. The weak protests of EU member states, which were not very happy to serve US interests anywhere in the world, were not heard, and the creation of the NATO Response Force began.

Even then, for the first time, a certain discrepancy emerged between the NATO concept and the position of European states. The North Atlantic Alliance was necessary for the Americans to protect US interests, which were not always on the same plane as the EU's priorities.

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

Although many accused Chirac and Schröder of populism and a desire to win over voters, the war with Iraq did not really fit into the EU's idea of proper conflict resolution. In any case, the US request to use NATO even indirectly to support the war against Saddam was refused. European soldiers did not replace the Americans in Kosovo, the United States was unable to use the necessary bases, and NATO did not participate in the Iraqi operation even after the process of “reconstructing” the country began.

Thus, the new EU military initiative has the potential to further deepen the gap between this organization and NATO. It is not yet clear how the European army will cooperate with the North Atlantic Alliance. Perhaps the alliance will simply turn into a bilateral military alliance of two states: the US and the EU. However, with the advent of a united European army, the likelihood is growing that NATO will simply disappear as unnecessary and the American army will have to fight terrorism alone or each time persuade other countries to take part in one or another mission.

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

And on October 24, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac once again tried to reassure the Americans and stated that the European army would not interfere with the existence of NATO.

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

Other materials