Can European forces act alone?

These two phrases are thrown around every time the idea of ​​a pipe dream, a fantasy, a European or European Union army resurfaces.

This time, it was Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani who urged the conversation to be reawakened. “If we want to be peacekeepers in the world, we need a European army,” Tajani told Italian television. La Stampa Newspaper from early January. “This is a fundamental prerequisite for an effective European foreign policy.”

This idea has been fraught with complications from the beginning. Even terminology is not standardized. Is this a European force or is it only open to European Union member states? Is it an army or a full-fledged army with all the bells and whistles?

“This is nothing close to the real thing,” said former NATO official Edward Hunter Christie. newsweek.

But times are changing. As war has raged in Ukraine for two years, many NATO countries, including EU members, are sounding unpleasant alarms over lax defense spending. The Center for European Policy Analysis argued in late November that “more effort, resources and risk appetite are needed in Europe, where most allies have yet to grasp the costs of security.”

Comments from former President Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, added fuel to the fire. Speaking at a rally in South Carolina in February, the popular Republican suggested that the United States would not defend other NATO countries that lag behind in defense spending.

In fact, President Trump said he would “encourage” Russia to attack America’s partners.

These words were not welcomed by the United States’ European allies, and were a chilling blow to their fears. In just a few sentences, the potential future American leader undermined NATO Article 5, the foundation of the alliance.

President Trump’s comments once again expose the vague concept of the EU and European military forces to the light of day. If NATO’s dominant nation backs away from its commitment to defend any country in the alliance to the best of its ability, Europe will need a way to protect itself and may need it soon. .

“This is an even harsher warning shot than we’ve ever experienced,” Christie said. newsweek.

But barring a dramatic collapse of NATO’s credibility or the demise of the alliance as we know it, there is little chance of a formal military in Europe reviving. There are no incentives, and her NATO countries in Europe broadly want to keep the United States tied to the continent’s defense as much as possible. If NATO is still functioning, new European forces could undermine or weaken the alliance.

There is optimism that NATO and European militaries will be able to coexist harmoniously. Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, said the U.S. has been pushing European countries to invest in defense forces for decades, and that Europe has built up its own stockpiles of what the U.S. currently provides to the continent. He said he would be happy to build on it. newsweek.

NATO and European forces “can and should strive for the same goals,” he added.

The EU itself seems to have a similar idea. “A stronger and more capable EU in security and defense will complement NATO, which actively contributes to global and transatlantic security and remains the basis of collective defense for its member states.” the EU said.

President Trump’s comments aside, the signal from the United States is that while Washington may want European countries to spend more on defense, it has not abandoned Europe. In the past few months, the United States has signed several defense cooperation agreements with countries including Denmark and Sweden. Unless there are significant changes in the United States and NATO, it is unlikely that decades of uncertainty and indecision in European militaries will be resolved in any way.

What would Europe’s military look like?

British researcher William Freer said: “Defining what a European military is and should be is the first hurdle in the transition towards a functioning European military, and one that must be overcome.” It’s a difficult hurdle.” Based on the Geostrategic Council.

“The theory sounds great, except it’s always been built on the rock of reality,” said David Petraeus, a retired U.S. Army general and former CIA director. newsweek On the sidelines of a lunch event organized by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation during the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

Two main options emerge for European forces. States could disband their armies and concentrate their military power into a larger common super-military. Experts are skeptical, saying that national interests and deep attachment to sovereignty are likely to always prevail.

“It’s very unusual to try to integrate your military with another country’s military,” Christie said.

Alternatively, member states could contribute large amounts of resources into a common pool, similar to how NATO operates. There are also precedents. There is already an EU military staff, Germany and the Netherlands have combined brigades, and outside the EU the UK has formed a joint expeditionary force with countries such as Latvia, Norway, Estonia and the Netherlands. There are centers of regional cooperation, such as Nordic Defense Cooperation, also known as NORDEFCO, and it is possible that some form of European force could be built on existing structures.

The EU already has a combat group, a force of around 1,500 people from different countries, whose deployment can only be given the green light by a unanimous European Council decision.

But even the EU admits its own failures. The bloc said “issues regarding political will, ease of use and financial solidarity are hampering deployment.”

Ultimately, “there is no deal,” said Ed Arnold, European security researcher at the London-based think tank Royal United Services Institute.

EU vs. NATO

An important consideration is NATO’s position. In a world of strong NATO, a European military integrated into the EU’s structures “risks duplicating not only the role but also the bureaucracy of the NATO military” without providing additional military power to Europe, Freer said. insisted.

Countries that are members of both NATO and the EU would also be in a difficult position, Christie said. “They all have slightly different opinions about where the biggest efforts should be and what should be prioritized,” said Mathieu Boulègues of the Center for European Policy Analysis, a major push for military reform and innovation in Europe. He said that power often leans more toward NATO than the European military framework. newsweek.

With the UK leaving the EU and Finland and Sweden joining the NATO alliance after the 2016 Brexit referendum, “the idea that the EU was a precious place to discuss defense issues really fell to stone.” ” said Director William Alverk. Director of Strategy, Technology and Arms Control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and former senior NATO official.

Without NATO, the calculations regarding European forces are somewhat easier. The EU or a collection of European states could use the bones of the alliance as the backbone of a new European military in the image of NATO.

“But it may be difficult to take over that role,” Freer said. “Without the United States, the European Armed Forces would be like NATO, so we cannot hope to play the same role without significant increases in defense spending from European countries.”

The United States has long carried a heavy military burden in Europe, providing logistics, airlift, communications, intelligence, and reconnaissance capabilities. Without the US, European countries would have to provide this themselves.

“Currently, there is no European military capable of conducting sustained out-of-area combat operations,” Alberque said. newsweek.

The EU knows that. The European Defense Agency acknowledged in November 2023 that “a sustained lack of investment and insufficient European cooperation have resulted in a significant gap in defense capabilities.”

The United States leads NATO because it has capabilities few other nations possess in all types of operations, from refueling, space-based intelligence, and logistics to other enablers. said Volcker. “It all depends on your ability.”

With NATO still on the horizon, an EU or European military is likely to be shorthand for increased defense spending across Europe, a push already underway to bring EU countries in line with NATO’s 2% of GDP target It is necessary to continue. Defense expenses. Largely motivated by the Ukraine war, global defense spending rose 9% to a new record of $2.2 trillion in 2023, according to the IISS think tank.

NATO is in the process of pushing its members to meet the 2% threshold in earnest, but it remains unclear which countries will meet the 2% threshold by 2025.

However, there is a perception that Europe is lagging behind. In an April 2023 resolution, the European Parliament said: “The European Union urgently needs to take on increased responsibility for its own security by acting in its neighborhood and beyond.”

Who will be the leader?

Unless the U.S. government moves forward with important defense decisions, the overall picture of European military leadership remains unclear.

Without a clear leader, there is no one to see through the complex dynamics and push for change. “It’s really hard to get consensus,” Arnold said. newsweekespecially in a “fragmented” Europe.

The default leaders are traditionally France and Germany. Importantly, France will become the only nuclear power, but experts are wondering when, and exactly, Paris intends to utilize nuclear weapons to defend the group in any European military. He points out that there will need to be a frank and clear discussion about which nuclear forces to use. He says he will defend it.

Alberke said Germany currently lacks the capability and credibility to be at the forefront of this type of European military power.

But Poland is in the ascendancy, a burgeoning military power in the East staring Russia in the eye. Alberke said Warsaw is pouring large sums of money into its defense and will soon become the “largest and most capable land force” in Europe.

Strictly an EU military means disrespecting the UK and its nuclear deterrent. “The UK will want to help shape the way this European Army is created,” Freer said, arguing that most European countries would seek British involvement, particularly with respect to naval power and nuclear weapons.

After all, with Britain leaving Europe and Finland, Sweden and others committed to NATO, “the idea of ​​a European military organization separate from NATO doesn’t make as much sense as it did a year or two ago. “There are,” Alverque said.

But Volker added that “the time is never wrong” for Europe to do everything in its power to strengthen its defense capabilities.