Will the EU be able to create its own Armed Forces?

The head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, still hopes to create a European army in the future. According to him, such an army will not be offensive, but will allow the EU to fulfill its global mission. The EC Chairman announced this on Sunday, August 21, speaking at a forum in Austria.

"We need a common European foreign policy, security policy and common European defense policy with the goal of one day creating a European army to be able to fulfill our role in the world,” Juncker said.

Let us remind you: the idea of ​​​​creating a unified European army is far from new. The main architects of the European Union in its current form - the French Robert Schumann and Jean 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 Alliance itself became the main guarantor of collective European security in the years cold war.

But recently, against the backdrop of the Ukrainian crisis and the influx of migrants from the Middle East to Europe, the movement to create a unified EU military force has intensified again.

In March 2015, Jean-Claude Juncker, in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, said that the existence of NATO is not enough for the security of Europe, since some leading members of the alliance - for example, the United States - are not members of the EU. Plus, Juncker noted that “Russia’s participation in the military conflict in eastern Ukraine” makes the case for creating a European army more convincing. Such an army, the head of the EC added, is also necessary as a tool for defending Europe’s interests in the world.

Juncker was immediately supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as Finnish President Sauli Niinistö. Some time later, Czech President Milos Zeman called for the creation of a unified army of the European Union, the need for the formation of which he explained by problems with protecting external borders during the migration crisis.

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 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.

It is clear that 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.

Will Europe create its own Armed Forces, what “global mission” will they help the EU fulfill?

The EU is trying to find a foreign policy dimension that could be projected onto the geopolitical balance of power, says Sergei Ermakov, deputy director of the Tauride Information and Analytical Center RISI. - It is no coincidence that the head of EU diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, has repeatedly stated that the European Union is in vain not to engage in geopolitics. In essence, the EU is now trying to carve out its own niche in the geopolitical game, and for this it needs certain levers, including the European Armed Forces.

At the same time, statements about the creation of a European army are still in the nature of an armchair, purely bureaucratic game. This game consists of Brussels’ attempts to put pressure on Washington on some issues, as well as to obtain certain preferences in bargaining with NATO. In many respects, this is being done so that overseas people do not rush to write off the EU.

In fact, Europe is not ready to refuse NATO's services to protect its own territory. Yes, the alliance in the EU is criticized for failures in the fight against terrorism. But even harsher criticism is appropriate for the EU itself, since it is Brussels that is primarily responsible for internal security.

In addition, Europeans do not have the resources to create an army, and not just financial ones. We should not forget that the North Atlantic Alliance has a rigid military structure that has been developed and improved over the years. While the same Western European Union (an organization that existed in 1948-2011 for cooperation in the field of defense and security) always remained in the shadow of NATO, and eventually died ingloriously. From this union, the EU has only a few formal structures left - for example, a pan-European headquarters. But there is very little real operational benefit from such a headquarters.

“SP”: - If statements about the creation of a European army are made for bargaining with Washington and NATO, what is the essence of this bargaining?

It's about on 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 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.

“SP”: - What issues could a European army solve?

In any case, it would have turned out to be an appendage of NATO. But that’s the problem: now such an “appendage” makes no sense. As part of the new strategic concept, the alliance has significantly expanded its powers and can now engage in a wide range of operations, including peace enforcement operations and humanitarian interventions. It turns out that the tasks of the European army and the North Atlantic Alliance would inevitably overlap.

Meanwhile, 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 exclusively to NATO cabinets.

Europeans are making another attempt to get rid of dependence on the United States in the military-political field, says an academician of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, former boss Colonel General Leonid Ivashov of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. - The first such 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 to some practical actions- for example, the selection of leadership for 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.

Now the idea of ​​a European army has arisen again. Whether Europe will be able to implement it depends on how strong the States will be after presidential elections whether the Americans have enough strength to suppress the “uprising” in the EU.

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.

That is why the question of creating a European army is now quite serious. It seems to me that the Bundestag and the French parliament are ready to take legislative steps to separate themselves from the North Atlantic Alliance.

In essence, the EU is advocating for the creation of a European collective security system, which will be based on a single Armed Forces and intelligence services.

The role of the EU in military-political issues in the world does not at all correspond to its place in the global economy, notes a reserve colonel, member Expert Council Collegium of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - In fact, this role is negligible - neither Russia, nor the USA, 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.”

I do not believe in the implementation of such plans. At one time, much larger political figures tried unsuccessfully to implement this idea - for example, the general and first president of the Fifth Republic, Charles de Gaulle.

Under de Gaulle, let me remind you, France withdrew from the NATO military structure and removed the alliance’s management 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 threw mud at him.

However, de Gaulle's efforts ended in vain. The efforts of Juncker and other European politicians will end exactly the same way now.

The fact is that the United States absolutely dominates European security, including within NATO. Neither EuroNATO nor individual European countries have any independent policy in this area. And if de Gaulle had any chance of putting the idea of ​​a European army into practice, now, I believe, this is completely impossible...

Partner news:

© 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 there is no alternative to NATO in at this stage regarding the conduct of such operations. European forces are called upon to participate in resolving 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. It appears important problem about the spatial responsibility of European forces, the borders and limits of their action. 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 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 use of the first forces created within the European framework military units 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, having reached quite convincing agreements on conflict resolution 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 the Caucasus, South-East Asia and in 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, it manifested itself completely low level coordination of the actions of military contingents in these conditions, incompatibility of leading types of military equipment, low level of technical and transport mobility of troops, 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 has no common standards and weapons production tasks.

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 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, Türkiye does not hide its interest in participating in peacekeeping operations in the South Caucasus and in 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. Presence on small area 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.

Three years ago, the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, proposed creating the European Union's own army. The initiative found support, but was never implemented. Now this project has a more serious supporter.

The French President once again stated that the EU faces numerous attempts to interfere in internal democratic processes and cyberspace. According to him, Europe must defend itself.

Despite the fact that most European countries are members of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), the Old World does not have its own regular army.

The idea of ​​a unified army is supported by German security ministers and Angela Merkel. The initiative was opposed by the UK and Finland, who noted that defense policy should be the prerogative of the country's leadership, not the alliance.

It is interesting that the regular armies in Europe today are generally small in number, since funding is aimed primarily at the quality of personnel training.

Russia

Russia has the largest army among European countries. The number of active troops is 1,200,000 people. It is armed with more than 2,800 tanks, 10,700 armored vehicles, 2,600 self-propelled guns, and 2,100 towed artillery pieces. Russia also has the most a large number of nuclear warheads in the world.

It is also worth noting that Russia's reserve forces number 2,100,000, and paramilitary organizations another 950,000.

Türkiye

Also, Türkiye, which is not a member of the European Union, is the second country in the Old World in terms of the number of active troops. There are 514,850 soldiers on constant combat readiness in Turkey, reserve troops number 380,000, and paramilitary organizations another 148,700 people.

Germany

The third in the overall ranking and the first largest army in the European Union in terms of the number of active troops is stationed in Germany. The regular army has 325,000 soldiers, and the reserve - 358,650. Germany's paramilitary units have only 40,000 people.

France

Following Germany, France is second in the list of the largest armies of the EU countries. These troops number 259,050. The French army reserve is 419,000 and its paramilitary units are 101,400.

Ukraine

Fifth Army in general list European countries are considered to be the armed forces of Ukraine. This country's active forces number 250,000 soldiers. The reserve forces number 720,000 and the paramilitary units number 50,000.

Italy

The sixth among European countries and the third in the European Union is the Italian army, where the active troops number 230,350 people, and the reserve forces number only 65,200 soldiers. Italy's paramilitary units have 238,800 personnel.

Great Britain

The UK, which opposed the proposal to create an EU army, has an active army of 187,970 people. The British Army Reserve numbers 233,860. The British Army does not have paramilitary units.

Spain

The eighth army on the list and the fifth in the European Union is located in Spain. It has 177,950 personnel in the active army and 328,500 soldiers in the reserve. Spain's paramilitary forces number 72,600.

Greece

The army of Greece, which, like Spain, has been struggling with the crisis for many years, is almost comparable in size to its counterparts due to economic difficulties. The Greek army has 177,600 active troops and 291,000 reserve soldiers. Paramilitary units have only 4,000 personnel.

Poland

The top ten is completed by the Polish army, whose active troops number 105,000 people, and their reserves number 234,000 soldiers. The paramilitary units have 21,300 soldiers.

The remaining armies of European countries do not exceed 100,000 people.

Difficulties of creation general army European Union are not only in the financial component, but also in the issue of technical implementation, since, in addition to language differences, there will also be problems of standardization of service conditions, supplies and equipment. However, according to experts, this idea can be implemented, but not in the form of a classical army, but some kind of peacekeeping contingent working on a permanent basis.

In mid-March, the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said that the European Union needs to create its own unified army to ensure its interests. According to the official, such an army would help ensure a unified foreign and defense policy of the EU. “Our Version” looked into whether the Europeans could have their own unified army, whether they have the money to maintain it, and whether this would lead to the collapse of NATO.

Now supporters of the creation of a European army are traveling around the capitals of EU countries, sounding out the opinions of politicians on this matter. It is already known: most of them support the idea of ​​​​forming unified armed forces. One of the main reasons for creating a European army is the need to neutralize threats emanating from Russia. Although a much more significant reason is obvious - the desire to free ourselves from too tight control on the part of the Americans. It seems that Europeans have stopped trusting NATO. After all, it is obvious to everyone: equality in the alliance is present only formally. The United States is in charge of the bloc, but if something happens, Europe will be the testing ground for waging war. Nobody wants to take the rap for Washington’s policies. It is not surprising that Juncker’s idea was quickly taken up by the leader of the European Union, Germany. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has already stated that peace in Europe can only be ensured with an independent EU army and Germany will insist on discussing this topic.

The US is strongly against the creation of EU armed forces

Nevertheless, skeptics are sure: the idea of ​​​​creating a European armed forces is not viable in principle. Why? Firstly, there is no point in having your own army to perform functions similar to NATO. After all, then it will be necessary to duplicate expenses on separate military potential, since 22 of the 28 EU countries are members of NATO and at the same time they do not have enough money even for sparing participation in the alliance. Most European countries, citing difficult situation in the economy, are not ready to increase military spending even to the level limited by NATO rules of 2% of GDP.

Secondly, it is not clear how to unite two dozen armies that individually have numerous problems. For example, the armies of the Czech Republic, Hungary or Belgium are small and poorly armed, and the army of Denmark has been excessively reduced. In turn, Holland completely eliminated its armored forces. One of the most combat-ready armies in Europe, the French, also has problems, which has almost no mobilized reserves in either men or equipment. Nevertheless, experts say that if it is possible to unite the European armed forces, then in terms of the total number of military equipment, including the number of tanks or aircraft, you will get a fairly impressive army. But even so, it remains unclear how combat units will operate and who will be responsible for their training. As a result, most analysts and officials EU structures confirm that the implementation of the project is problematic.

In addition, Great Britain categorically opposed the creation of a new armed formation, whose opinion cannot be ignored. London stated that defense issues are the national responsibility of each country and are not a collective responsibility of the EU. Moreover, the British are confident that the creation of a European army will have a negative impact on transatlantic security and could weaken NATO. In turn, the head of the Polish Foreign Ministry said that he considers the idea of ​​​​creating a common army of the European Union extremely risky. Representatives of Finland and a number of other states spoke in the same style. A paradoxical position was taken by the Baltic countries, which more than others are supporters of strengthening the combat capability of Europe, frightening with inevitable Russian aggression, but at the same time even they found themselves against a unified European army. According to experts, in fact, the Baltics do not have their own opinion on this issue, but only relay the position of the United States, which clearly indicates that the Americans are strongly against this idea.

On this topic

German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed support for the proposal voiced by French President Emmanuel Macron to create a pan-European army. Such an army would show the world that war is impossible in Europe, Merkel believes.

Europeans have repeatedly tried to create their own army

Opponents of the European army are convinced that today the only way for European countries to maintain their security is to strengthen cooperation with the alliance. Others call for reinvigorating existing military projects, such as revising the strategy for using rapid reaction forces.

It should be noted that this is not the first time that the idea of ​​creating an independent European army has been raised. First similar experience can be considered an organization called the Western European Union, which existed from 1948 to 2011 for cooperation in the field of defense and security. Its composition includes different time 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), 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 military force 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. True, 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 only be brought fully into combat readiness only three months after the start of mobilization. The only deployed formation was a joint French-German brigade of reduced strength, 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: Italy, France, 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 have been repeatedly announced to create a joint battalion of Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland. Last December it was reported that Polish and Lithuanian troops would begin carrying joint service 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, experts believe that the creation of a new European army could lead to the same disastrous results.

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 main idea: We want to be self-reliant and get rid of the dictates of the United States. AND own army- This 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.