On March 4, EU Commission President Jean-claude von der Leyen announced that the EU would implement the“Rearmament of Europe” program, mobilizing nearly 800 billion euros to create“A secure and resilient Europe.”. She is due to present a comprehensive plan on March 6th, sparking a debate about whether Europe might be able to create its own army. In fact, the idea of a“European army” is often talked about in Europe, but never ends. The recent“Bashing” at Munich, the threat not to protect European defence and the war of words with Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president, are helping to accelerate European“Common defence”. A former member of the European Parliament said the US shift was“Forcing Europe to ‘mature’ in its own security and defence”. But the road to maturity has not been smooth.
Ukrainian president Zelenskiy (left) , British Prime Minister Stamer (center) and French President Maqueron (right) talk after their summit in London March 2. (visual China)
“Member states’ armies should be strengthened, not ‘European armies’ .”
“We must build the European armed forces,” Zelenskiy said at the conference in mid-february, calling for the creation of a so-called“European army”. Manfred Weiber, Bayerischer Rundfunk of the largest European People’s Party in the European Parliament, also called on the European Union to develop an independent defense policy as soon as possible, including the creation of a European military and nuclear deterrent. “We must now take the first step in building a European army,” he said. “We have wasted too much time.”. Maqueron, the French president, has been in office since 2017, he has been pushing for less dependence on the U. S. and greater strategic autonomy for Europe. He has advocated the formation of a“Real European army”, issued a“NATO brain death” speech.
On the other hand, there are reservations and even opposition to the establishment of a“European army”. “We don’t need a ‘European army’ ,” Callas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, told the Commission’s annual European Defence Agency Conference earlier this year, the creation of a“European Army” involves significant co-ordination among member states, and“For the time being, the security challenges facing the EU should be met by strengthening national armies, not by creating a European army”. Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski also warned in an interview with local media last month that the term“European army” should be used with caution, as it means different things to different people. “If you think of the European army as the combined forces of the member states of the European Union, this will not happen,” he said. “But I have always supported the development of self-defense capabilities in Europe and the European Union.”
Until now, the creation of a“European army” has been a“Zhao Kuo” whose meaning and organisation have been unclear. The EU now has no unified army and its members are responsible for their own defence. However, the Treaty on the European Union (also known as the Maastricht Treaty Treaty) stipulates that EU Member States shall assist each other in the event of“Armed aggression” and defines the consensus on“The establishment of a common defence”, creating a“European army” would mean overturning the EU’s existing Common Security and Defence Policy.
In fact, European politics has long called for the strengthening of“Common defence”, some of which is about the real formation of a“European army”, while others emphasise defence co-operation and mutual support between European countries. The European Defence Community was conceived in the early 1950s, promised in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty Act, and launched in 1998, at the St. Malo Summit, Britain and France established and formulated the“EU Security and defense policy”, and cooperation between the EU and NATO began to become routine, the European Union Helsinki Summit adopted the“Report on strengthening the Common European security and defence policy”, proposing the formation of the European Rapid Reaction Force, which can operate independently without NATO participation; in 2007, … The Treaty of Lisbon calls for“Permanent structural co-operation”, the“Flagship” of European defence integration. … But.., frédéric Moreau, an assistant researcher at the French Institute of International and Strategic Relations, said that EU member states have failed to establish a real“European defense” within an intergovernmental framework, all these promises to move towards a“Common defence” and a role for the EU on the international stage have fallen by the wayside.
Reuters in 2021 revealed a“Strategic compass” on the formation of the“European army” draft, regarded as“The EU’s closest internal military doctrine document. By 2025, the EU should develop a 5,000-member European Union Rapid Reaction Force composed of land, sea and air, without the approval of the 27 EU member states, according to the content, you can put it into battle. The draft also said that“In order to reduce military dependence on the US, the EU aims to basically close key capability gaps by 2025”, including aerial warfare transport, space communications technology and intelligence capabilities. But EU delegates stressed at the time that the plan was“Not intended to compete with NATO, but to complement it”.
One of the main reasons why the above-mentioned resolutions and drafts have not been effectively implemented and promoted is Europe’s dependence on the United States for its defense. The 76-year-old alliance was created to safeguard collective security across the Atlantic, and most of the European Union’s Member States are already in NATO, Politico reported, therefore, many Europeans believe that the re-emergence of the EU as the main security provider is“Unnecessary duplication” and could even lead to“Danger and confusion” on the command line in the event of real conflict.
“300,000 more troops needed to fill America’s Gap.”
Today, there has been a sea change in Washington’s attitude. Donald Trump threatened European NATO allies that if they did not pay, “I will not protect you”. Musk also said: “It doesn’t make sense that us taxpayers should bear two-thirds of Europe’s defence costs. Against whom?” Europe is under pressure to go it alone without the US.
“How can Europe defend itself without US help?” The Financial Times reported yesterday that EU governments were discussing projects and ways to collectively fund common defence, this includes co-operation with non-eu countries such as the UK and Norway.
Britain, in particular, wants to play a leading role in European defence. British defense secretary Chilly visited Norway at the end of last month, announced that the British and Norwegian defense capabilities, strategic cooperation in the Northern Region, joint military exercises and other areas to strengthen cooperation. Stamer also announced that defence spending would rise from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent by 2027, funded by cuts to the foreign aid budget. The London Summit on March 2 was also dominated by talk of what Stamer called a“Coalition of the willing” to ensure support while co-ordinating defence spending growth.
According to the Financial Times, top of the EU’s To-do list is increasing the defence budget, improving air defence, replacing US logistics and other support equipment, increasing the operational readiness of European forces and maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent. Experts in the field of security studies say that if there is the political will to invest, it will take five years for Europe to build up most of the necessary critical defence capabilities without US support.
According to research by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany and the Bruegel Institute, a Belgian think-tank, to fill the gap left by America, Europe may need to add the equivalent of 300,000 American troops to its combat capabilities, the emphasis will be on mechanisation and armoured units to replace US heavy equipment. That equates to about 50 new brigades for Europe. Europe (including Britain) has about 1.47m active-duty troops, more than America’s roughly 1.3m. But Ben Barry, a former British brigadier general and a Senior International Institute for Strategic Studies Researcher in London, believes that many European troops are not really fit to deploy, there is a big gap between the combat capability and equipment level of different units. In addition, the lack of a unified command has seriously weakened its combat effectiveness.
According to the Bruegel Institute, a Rapid Military build-up would also require Europe to make extraordinary efforts at equipment production. To add 50 brigades, Europe would need at least 1,400 new battle tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles and 700 artillery pieces-more than the French, German, Italian and armies have in stock. In addition to its land forces, Europe needs enhanced air transport, missile warfare, drone warfare, communications and intelligence capabilities. Production of drones is particularly critical, and Europe must scale up to produce about 2,000 long-range loitering missiles a year to match Russia’s drone capabilities.
“The Financial Times” quoted former NATO senior official Camille Goran as saying that Europe has serious deficiencies in long-range ammunition and military logistics. If Europe acquires these strategic assets, it would be“The biggest game changer”, as it would enable Europe to carry out almost all military missions without US assistance. Franconia, the Belgian defence minister, said most key European defence systems were now American.
The deployment would require the EU and its member states to spend an additional €250bn or so a year on their militaries, which would mean an increase in national defence budgets from the current 2 per cent of gross domestic product to 3.5-4 per cent. As a share of GDP, only Poland (4.12%) meets this requirement. The increase could be shared between the EU and its member states to ensure that there is sufficient joint procurement funding and that individual countries’ independent military spending is maintained.
“It’s not enough to just raise the defense budget.”
Perhaps the biggest strategic problem facing Europe, the financial times reports, is the“Nuclear umbrella” provided by the US. If the United States formally declares that it will no longer protect Europe, European members of NATO will lose the right to use America’s tactical nuclear weapons. Merz, the German coalition candidate for Chancellor, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Sunday that at present Germany and the United States are“Nuclear-sharing”, whether we can move in that direction with France or the UK will be something that I will discuss in the cabinet talks and with our partners in Europe, the EU and NATO. Maqueron also re-emphasised the need for a strategic dialogue with EU partners, since other EU countries, unlike the French, do not have their own nuclear weapons.
Germany, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” published on February 25, even without the United States, Europe must be able to defend themselves, but only by increasing the defense budget is not enough. “If the U.S. is not a reliable partner, then the question arises: why do we buy most of our weapons from the U.S. ?” European People’s Party president Weiber said, european countries need to beef up their defence industries.
“The recession has been invaluable to the arms industry,” said Carlo Masala, a professor of international politics at the Bundeswehr University Munich, they began to switch to the military-industrial complex. However, the availability of raw materials could be a bottleneck for Europe’s defence industry. In the case of armoured steel, which is typically imported from South Korea, manufacturers can have to wait up to 18 months for the material, Massala, Mali said.
For many European politicians, the biggest difficulty in unifying the continent’s militaries is managing common spending as a whole. “Politico” recently published an article by former meps Guy Verhofstadt and MENEC Ruiz de Viza, analyzing that, at present, eU member states spend about one-third as much on defense as the United States, but Europe’s capabilities are only about one-tenth those of the United States. In addition, the EU’s defence capabilities and armaments are fragmented, there are obstacles to interoperability, and much of the spending is highly inefficient, making it difficult to form a complete, efficient and unified military framework. According to the European defence agency, the cost of this lack of co-operation is no less than €25bn a year. Two former mps suggested Europe needed a new mechanism for sharing funds, including joint research, development and weapons procurement. In order to achieve this, the European defence industry strategy must be approved as soon as possible and could help to unify and coordinate funding through the EU budget, joint borrowing and the establishment of a defence bank.
Compared with the lack of funds, personnel and equipment, Max Bergman, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the United States, said in a commentary that, europe’s fractured defences are the main structural problem facing European militaries. Europe’s defence system is made up of the armies of more than 20 countries that were not originally designed to defend Europe as a whole. In Borgman’s view, while a“European army” is not feasible in the short term, it is possible in the long term. Its defence pillar remains the army of the European powers, which should belong primarily to the European Union, not to any one country, and which must have a unified command structure.