by Stathis Poulantzas
The idea of a Common European army is far from new. In fact, it was introduced by France for the first time in the 1950s to be set into effect by France, Western Germany, Italy and the Benelux. The Paris Treaty, as it became known, despite its signing on 27 May 1952 between these nations, never got ratified by the French parliament and was thus rejected. This has been until today the most prominent attempt of the Europeans to create a joint defense system. The next few decades, the inclusion of several European countries in the US-led NATO resulted in a partial freeze of the discussions for a European Army. The military alliance would, especially during the Cold War, create a “social contract” according to which the US would be largely responsible for the protection of their allies overseas, by spending large sums on defending Europe through stationed military, mostly against communism and the threat of the Soviet Union.
"In the post-Cold War period reaching up to recently, NATO’s mission had arguably been to continue guarding Europe from the expansionist views and the continuing threat of Russia, which has been eyeing the former Soviet Block countries, wishing to include them under its radar. "
In parallel, the EU had still been left in general reliant in the US from a military point of view, to be protected from its enemies and mainly from Russia’s growing imperialist views, while focusing on its prosperity rather than its defence. In fact, the European powers started spending less and less on rearmament, despite their apparent financial wealth, with most countries such as Germany completely ignoring NATO’S agreement for the spending of 2% of GDP on defense.
More recently, the status quo during the polarizing Trump era saw massive changes in the foreign military operations of the U.S., as the country turned towards a semi-isolation policy, similar to the post-WW1. American spending on European armament underwent significant cuts, as American politics started having a certain direction in terms of Europe’s rearmament; European nations which are NATO members should finally start meeting the alliance’s rearmament goals, so that America can start spending less on protecting the continent and “babysitting” Europe. Fast forward a few years -now during the second half of the Biden era- and despite initial expectations, the European defense has not experienced significant transformations. The U.S. remains indispensable to European security, often opposing EU efforts to strengthen its defense industry, or create a united military front. American defense contractors benefit from contracts in Europe, and U.S. administrations have lobbied against EU initiatives that could limit American access and involvement to the European defense market.
Thus, it has been apparent that the EU is in dire need of a strong wake-up call, to take the re-armament process more seriously. And, with Moscow's active efforts to realize its aspirations in Eastern Europe — marked by the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the ensuing prolonged conflict, as well as exerting influence over Belarus and potentially seeking domination in the former Eastern bloc — the Union has finally received the wake-up call it crucially needed. In response to Putin's latest imperial ambitions in the Eastern bloc, Europe found itself at the forefront of a global surge in military spending in 2022, with an average increase in defense expenditure of 13%. In fact, countries in Central and Western Europe saw a total increase in military spending of approximately 30% since 2013.
Simultaneously, Germany, being the unofficial leader of the Union both in economical and in political terms, has finally committed to reaching the NATO target of military spending by 2027 using a newly-introduced €100 billion fund; this is clearly the most essential step to date for the remilitarization of Europe. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, at a political-military conference, emphasized the need for a strong Bundeswehr (German military) to ensure the nation's security, while Defense Minister Boris Pistorius proclaimed to turn Germany into the “backbone” of the EU defense. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight, that after failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target of 2% of GDP for over three decades, with its military greatly weakened during this time including issues in readiness and equipment failures during exercises, Germany will require a significant amount of time to become a powerful military force, able to defend Europe from strong conventional enemies. In addition, despite Scholz’s commitments for increased spending, and for maintaining this level of spending through the 2020s and 2030s, according to reports Berlin has already reversed its commitments to reach and surpass NATO’s 2% target. The strategy emphasizes Germany’s role as a central player in deterrence and collective defence in Europe and acknowledges the long-term neglect of the Bundeswehr, calling for a recommitment to military readiness.
"But the partial increase in military spending of some European countries and Germany’s actions are clearly not enough; collective action from all EU states is required to achieve real protection against its neighbours, and namely Putin’s Russia."
Being forced to search for new solutions to deal with the increasing threats in its eastern boarders, the European Union is taking some collective steps forward. Indicatively, it is revising its fiscal rules which set a ceiling on budget deficits at 3% of GDP and public debt at 60% of GDP, with disciplinary actions for exceeding these limits, to enable increased military spending in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, the member states of the EU (in addition to the UK) have in general presented a united front in supporting the Ukrainian military in its effort to defend its territory, providing billions of military assistance to Kiev, despite the rising inflation and subsequent cost of living crisis. Despite though these positive leaps forward, the reality remains grim, with just nine EU members currently meeting NATO's defense spending goal. In fact, some EU countries have reduced defence spending, reflecting varied military investment trends.
"With Russia getting constantly more aggressive and threatening, it becomes ever-more obvious that the US cannot and does not wish to protect Europe in the same scale as during the 20th Century."
Therefore, it is essential that the EU develops its own joined defense and starts intervening more on matters outside its borders. The creation of a powerful, solely European army, is in fact the only apparent way for Europe to develop itself into a global actor, with the capability of influencing regions outside its territory and competing with other major states. Only in such a way will Brussels be able to make real threats against Russia, and actually force Putin to back down. Only so will it be able to match, from a military and political scope, its robust economy. Emmanuel Macron’s France, which after the Brexit has taken the reigns as the EU’s most powerful military country, has been especially supportive to the unification of Europe’s armed forces. As these are a vital tool for a state to set a region under its control, without a common military policy the Union will remain far behind other world-leading nations. “The times when we could unconditionally rely on others are past,” Angela Merkel highlighted last year in the European Parliament, maybe showing Germany’s willingness to move forward with such plans.
There will be nonetheless multiple obstacles for such actions to take place. To begin with, the EU consists of 27 individual countries, all having their own views and looking out for their own best interest. Thus, an attempt of the Union to create a common defense and achieve collective security will set into question the sovereignty of all individual states. Α country would have to accept sometimes looking beyond its own interests as a nation, and compromising for the benefit of the group, a scenario which would hardly be fulfilled in reality. Let one consider a possible conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean between Greece, Cyprus and Turkey. Though France could be in line on sending EU military forces to protect the Union’s boarders, several countries such as Germany, the state with the largest Turkish minority in Europe, would only under very special circumstances choose to engage in an armed dispute which would only harm them. A possible solution to this issue could be “if individual member states retain their own separate forces with complete operational autonomy and each state has a veto on anything the European force might want to do”, though such a turn of events might prove unrealistic and surely dysfunctional.
"The idea of a United Europe, a single state consisting of all, or the majority, of the EU members, is not new nor has it been abandoned."
A possible resolution could be for the Union to -slowly- start moving forward. At this stage, it would probably be beneficial for all or most members to begin setting this plan into motion. Despite Germany’s strong economy and France’s powerful military, the two leading states of the EU do not have the capability of turning themselves alone into superpowers; they have neither the population nor the area and the financial backing, or the military strength needed. As a result, a Europe United would be the only apparent way for the continent to develop into a superpower, with its own single defence. The creation of a central decision-making body for all states, would allow the Europeans to meet decisions of great importance in a short amount of time, while hence paving the way for the establishment of the joint forces.
Concluding, the European Joint Forces would be a large and vital step to the progress of the EU. The Europeans would in such manner finally become militarily independent from the NATO and the US, while most likely develop into a superpower, being able to compete with global actors such as Russia and China. Nonetheless, after examining possible issues the Union might face, one could realize the complexity of the obstacles, which would make it difficult for a United Army to become, in the status quo, a reality. Therefore, with the discussion of the Joint Forces functioning as a triggering event, one could argue it is now the right time for the Union to begin the transition, aiming to become a Europe United.
Articles used
Bergmann, M. and Besch, S. (2023) Why European defense still depends on America, Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/why-european-defense-still-depends-america?check_logged_in=1&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=registered_user_welcome&utm_term=email_1&utm_content=20231124
(Accessed: 06 December 2023).
Ibrahim, A. (2019) Europe is ready for its own Army, Foreign Policy. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/05/europe-is-ready-for-its-own-army/
(Accessed: 06 December 2023).
Strupczewski, J. (2023) Exclusive: New rules would give Europe more scope for military spending post-Ukraine Invasion, Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-rules-would-give-europe-more-scope-military-spending-post-ukraine-invasion-2023-09-07/
(Accessed: 06 December 2023).
What would happen IF America left Europe to fend for itself? (no date) The Economist. Available at: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/03/14/what-would-happen-if-america-left-europe-to-fend-for-itself
(Accessed: 06 December 2023).
Wilke, P. (2023) Germany U-turns on commitment to meet NATO spending target annually, POLITICO. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-defense-change-of-plan-nato-spending/
(Accessed: 06 December 2023).
World military expenditure reaches new record high as European spending surges (2023) SIPRI. Available at: https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/world-military-expenditure-reaches-new-record-high-european-spending-surges
(Accessed: 06 December 2023).
