Military Review

Who came up with the project of the united army of Europe

21
Have you noticed that in recent years, with enviable periodicity, there have been reports in the media about the desire of European politicians and the military to create their own army? Purely European project without the participation of overseas defenders.


Who came up with the project of the united army of Europe


And this desire is expressed not by representatives from small countries, but by quite serious uncles and aunts from the leading countries of Europe — Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Young and micro-Europeans, on the contrary, in every way invite the US military to their own territory.

So who and why is introducing into the minds of Europeans the idea of ​​the need for their own army? Why did the NATO bloc suit everyone for many decades, and suddenly there was talk of self-defense of European countries? Are European politicians independent in dealing with their own security issues?

The world is changing rapidly. This is said and written so much that I will not take time and place in this article once more. These changes directly concern everyone. But in varying degrees.

And who cares most about changing the situation in the world? The answer is obvious. The US is losing the leading position of the world gendarme. The concept of world domination, when Americans could do any abominations in any country in the world, collapsed. China, Russia, but the last spit in the American hegemony were the actions of the DPRK.

We have been assured for a long time and continue to assure that the main thing in the country's power is a strong economy. The ability to buy everything and everyone. And only in second place - the ability to strike the armed forces on the intractable. Smart heads from the TV set many arguments in favor of this particular position.

Oddly enough, most believe it. Believes even when история own family says the opposite. When grandfather or great-grandfather broke the backbone in 1945-m much richer Europe. Not just Germany, but all of Europe. They believe even when the “sub-authorized North Korea with a torn economy” put the largest economy in the world in its place.

Today, many talk about the contradictions that supposedly exist between the United States and Europe. It is doubtful that the Americans would enable the Europeans to "get off the hook." Too tidbit. Yes, and invested in Europe is enough.

NATO? And what will happen to the alliance immediately after the United States stops financing the bloc? The EU? And who controls the EU? European countries or overseas hosts? The beautifully created "democratic system of governance" works perfectly with the help of control over the countries of the little ones.

There is an interesting question. And the EU, why the US? It is theoretically more profitable, on the contrary, to give Europe the opportunity to become equal to the United States in terms of economic development. Then you can reduce your own investments. And free up the money to put on their own defense.

But then how to develop American science, design thought, medicine and other, quite ordinary, but necessary spheres of life? We are accustomed to the fact that our scientists are leaving the United States. There are more opportunities, salaries are incomparably higher, it is easier to reach the world level. But in Europe there are smart heads too. And they are also needed by the United States.

Simply put, let Europeans live beautifully. Better than the Russians or other "Asians". But let them live worse than Americans. And then the possibility of "buying" a scientist from any country will always remain. "Purchases" of any necessary specialist.

But back to the original question. Let's return to the European army. Why are Americans so indifferent to these conversations? The answer is on the surface. The pan-European army is a US project. The project, which is caused by necessity. A project that will fulfill the promises of several presidents, including the current one.

Remember the beginning of Trump's reign? His public statements about the need to fulfill financial obligations by European countries to pay for membership in NATO? Those same 2% of GDP. In plain text, the Americans demanded money. You have to pay for security!

So what? Can someone say today that those for whom such statements were intended fulfilled the requirements? Notice the legal requirements of Americans. Lithuania, with a powerful economy, does not count. I do not remember exactly how many countries execute the contract in and out. 3 or 4.

To say that the United States began to push Europeans recently is frivolous. The beginning of conversations coincides with the appearance of Russia in the geopolitical orbit. From the moment when the Americans suddenly realized that the ocean had turned from a defender into a huge problem. And even tactical nuclear weapons, located on offshore platforms, is now dangerous for the country.

Washington ran into the problem of its own security. Military budgets, which were completely “edible” all the time, suddenly became completely at odds with modern realities. It is necessary to create not a European missile defense, but an American one. It is necessary to create a defense system around the perimeter of the country. It is necessary to create real military units in their own territory.

And it was here that they started talking about a pan-European army. Army, which will be fully contain the Europeans. Americans will “cut coupons” by supplying arms and ammunition to Europe. And it is impossible for Europeans to get away from this. The very same "NATO standards" will work. "Podsazhennye" on the American arms Europeans simply can not do without US companies.

Moreover, the Americans were very loyal even to the real steps towards the creation of this army. Most recently, the European Council adopted a decision on the implementation of the program, which envisages the creation of a common army (PESCO). European countries 25 started this implementation.

By the way, explanations of some of the actions of NATO towards its own members appear here. Remember the horror of Erdogan, when, after a downed Russian plane, he suddenly refused to protect his own country by an alliance. When NATO simply "sent" the second largest army of the bloc to independently resolve issues with the Russians.

Today, many analysts and journalists refer to the notorious 5 article of the NATO Charter. We are frightened by a general war in the event of an attack on one of the member countries. Then a simple question arises. Why did this very 5 item not work with Turkey? And the question arose not only among journalists. He came from the leadership of most European countries.

But there is also a new US military doctrine in the field of nuclear weapons. There is an official position. The United States is not obliged to use nuclear weapons when attacking any member of the alliance. The United States will use nuclear weapons in the implementation of its own goals and plans. Simply put, the United States wanted to spit on European security. Salvation of drowning is the business of drowning.

US actions are quite predictable. The United States does not intend to fight for Europe. The vector of foreign policy, largely forced, redirected to Asia. But I want to save influence in the EU. That's why the talk about 2% stopped. Today we are talking about tens of percent for European countries. American weapon and ammunition road.

I repeat, but the project of the united army of Europe belongs to the United States. It is beneficial to the Americans in many ways. Calm and well-fed life under the hood of the United States ends. The EU faces a choice. Independently, at their own expense, begin to build a unified army or negotiate with Russia. That after many years of ignoring it will be quite difficult to do.

But probably. We do not need war in Europe.
Author:
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    Cat 15 February 2018 05: 21
    +2
    Dear forum users, and if you "drive to the topic" on the other hand. Who dances a girl, to that she spreads her legs ... sorry for being rude.
    So, if we are rich and strong, then dances from the "neighboring villages" will be resorted to first by the European countries, and then the "grandmothers" will catch up.
    If we are beggars like church rats, this whole gop company will hang in a nearby disco.
    The most interesting, for some reason, in the countries of Europe, there is no desire to open their own dance floor!
    1. kvs207
      kvs207 15 February 2018 07: 26
      +1
      This is too troublesome and expensive. Drinking, hooliganism and, in general, all sorts of obscenity will begin))) Therefore, it is better in a neighboring village, only get a long time
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. XII Legion
    XII Legion 15 February 2018 08: 02
    +16
    the pan-European army is a US project.

    Exactly
    Who do not need a strong Europe - an economic competitor above all
    Therefore, little is left of the European armies
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 15 February 2018 11: 18
      +1
      For the United States, profit will go anyway. Keeping the European economy on the sidelines, forcing to fork out in NATO or its similar structure, does not matter. The main message - AGAINST WHO - you need to contain all this, and here Russophobia works in favor of the American economy by 100%. And to arrange another World War away from its shores - this is generally the blue dream of the neocons. Therefore, I would not be very happy about the Americans leaving Europe, because this can also be considered as preparation for a provocation against Russia with the wrong hands. In the case of a suicidal jerk of the same Ukraine to the Crimea (etc.), the United States will do "I'm in the house" and "we have nothing to do with it," and the war in Europe will flare up. Russia will respond harshly, and the EU will immediately rush to save "European values." The EU can, of course, also try to make a face a brick, but who will let it sit and not rock the boat from across the ocean ...
  4. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 15 February 2018 12: 52
    +3
    I do not want to offend the author, but the article was written by a person who does not understand the topic.
    Moreover, this desire is expressed not by representatives from small countries, but rather serious uncles and aunts from leading countries of Europe-Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain.

    Great Britain has always opposed the creation of a European army. And, by the way, the intensification of conversations about this coincided with Brexit.
    The EU military headquarters has been around for many years. They even have regional headquarters. If in NATO such a headquarters goes through a very complicated certification process, which confirms its readiness to command troops. That in the EU it goes at the level of “let's appoint your headquarters - well let's” and that’s all. (All this was told to me by the officers of the Higher School of Europe at the consultations).
    In my opinion, all this talk about the EU Allied Forces is just political intrigue. If only because the EU countries will not stretch the extra burden. They and 2% of GDP do not want to pay in accordance with NATO requirements.
    In NATO, missile defense, early warning aircraft, transport and strategic aviation are provided by the United States. Virtually all combat readiness is part of the Allied Forces.
    Statement that
    I repeat, but the United European Army project belongs to the United States. It benefits Americans in many ways.

    generally stupid. NATO ties European countries to the United States politically, economically and in the military sphere. Why should they break these ties?
    How falls the level of publications on the VO!
    1. Ocean's friend
      Ocean's friend 15 February 2018 16: 01
      +1
      Quote: Army 2
      I do not want to offend the author, but the article was written by a person who does not understand the topic.

      The author specializes in geopolitics and Ukraine. This obliges to maintain the quality of texts adopted in this genre. While substantial texts are still in the armaments almost every day, in opinions, analytics and news they write, as far as I can tell, only such authors.
      And on the topic, I did not quite understand your point of view. If I'm not mistaken, the talk about the European army is caused by the fact that the EU, using the example of Libya and partly Syria, understood that a) some problems require forceful solutions b) EU countries are not able to fight without Americans at all c) Americans are not at all ready to get into where I would like the EU, and if they fit, then with its own agenda, and not the European one.
      Thus, we are not talking about creating a separate European army from NATO, but about ensuring that the European segment of NATO can conduct operations on its own, without involving Americans. This is a long-overdue idea, which, of course, causes the Americans full support. To create an army capable by NATO standards in a national format, even the French or Germans seems too expensive a pleasure.
      1. Army soldier2
        Army soldier2 15 February 2018 17: 40
        +1
        Not certainly in that way. Or not at all. If you do not take into account the NATO military committee at headquarters in Brussels, then in peacetime, the NATO military structure is represented by two strategic commands (strategic operations command, Mons, Belgium (formerly NATO Allied Forces in Europe) and the strategic transformation command, Norfolk , The United States (formerly NATO Allied Forces in the Atlantic, now does not command troops) and a number of regional commands (for example, in Ramstein, Germany or Naples, Italy) which subordinate a small number of support units, eaters, etc.
        The troops are directly nationally subordinated and allocated by NATO during the threatened period, in wartime, and under separate agreements (for example, to participate in a peacekeeping operation).
        Perhaps, in our understanding, the European countries of NATO have only armed forces in Turkey, Poland, Germany, France, and Italy. The rest are assigned to the OVS units (company - battalion).
        If you remember, NATO conducted the SFOR peacekeeping operation in BiH. The Americans decided to get off and eventually handed over the EU peacekeeping operation (Altea, still ongoing). It immediately became clear that the EU was pulling it with great difficulty. And there was talk of creating an EU Allied Forces. Great Britain actively opposed this. It was and is about an alternative international military structure. There are no headquarters, no troops, no money. And this scares both the Americans and us. In my opinion, in the extremely distant future, a Franco-German-Polish brigade can be obtained, a maximum of a division without missile defense, real air defense, reconnaissance, transport aviation, etc.
        1. Ocean's friend
          Ocean's friend 15 February 2018 18: 24
          0
          Quote: Army 2
          In my opinion, in the extremely distant future, a Franco-German-Polish brigade can be obtained, a maximum of a division without missile defense, real air defense, reconnaissance, transport aviation, etc.

          I understand (although this is all a fortune-telling) that either the "EU army" is created instead of the national armies, or it is equipped according to the project principle, similar to how you described the relationship in NATO.
          You, as I understand it, see some kind of additional permanent structure (not only staff), in fact, suitable only for peacekeeping operations. To call such an "Army of Europe" would be rather ridiculous. Although it is possible that you will be right.
          1. Army soldier2
            Army soldier2 15 February 2018 18: 35
            0
            Option "EU army" is created instead of national armies. The article discusses the principle of creating the EU Allied Forces by analogy with NATO
            1. Ocean's friend
              Ocean's friend 15 February 2018 23: 26
              0
              Quote: Army 2
              The option "EU army" is created instead of national armies

              Yes, perhaps somehow too much.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 15 February 2018 23: 41
                0
                Quote: Ocean's Friend
                Yes, perhaps somehow too much.




                ".... BRUSSELS, Feb 15 - RIA Novosti, Alexander Shishlo. The defense ministers of NATO member countries have agreed to create a kind of" military Schengen "within the European borders of the North Atlantic Alliance, a military-diplomatic source in Brussels told RIA Novosti.


                On the eve of the defense ministers of the alliance countries agreed on this proposal at a meeting in Brussels. The defense ministers approved the establishment of a command headquarters for the deployment of forces in Europe.
                The first to put forward this idea was the ex-commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges. He said that allied forces and military equipment should move "as fast as migrants."

                According to Hodges, obtaining permits to move troops and weapons is now “an amazingly complex process in a number of countries.” For example, the transfer of American troops from Poland to Germany requires a five-day notice period ... "


                No pan-European army expected
                1. Ocean's friend
                  Ocean's friend 15 February 2018 23: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  No pan-European army expected

                  You are writing about specific agreements right now. The EU army is a rather long conversation, which arose not yesterday and will not lead to any results tomorrow. But it can lead very much.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 15 February 2018 23: 52
                    0
                    In the foreseeable future, no. Only such optimization is bureaucratic and logistic. And it is possible to create some parts of a quick response. But no more
    2. alatanas
      alatanas 16 February 2018 12: 24
      0
      My former colleagues, who have still not been fired by chance, say this:
      - If we knew before what NATO represents, in three days they would have won!
      There (in NATO) it takes at least one week to agree on a single document.
      I can tell you the same about EU documents. 3 pages in front - what kind of document it is, what it refers to, whom it concerns, etc., then a few lines of meaningful, then another 3 pages - final
  5. MoJloT
    MoJloT 15 February 2018 13: 05
    0
    Who came up with the project of the united army of Europe

    Napoleon, in my opinion, maybe someone earlier, but whoever came up with it, everything ended the same way.
  6. Lexus
    Lexus 15 February 2018 17: 05
    0
    No matter how we later had to unfurl this "dovecote". It really hurt.
  7. k_ply
    k_ply 15 February 2018 19: 28
    +2
    The Eurocorps of the 90s was formed from the promise of Paris, inciting Bonn, with their Franco-German brigade initially based, with division into divisions. Later, Spain and Belgium joined the project (actually allocated parts). Even joint exercises were held, i.e. there was some kind of combat coherence of the units. The Americans and the British just did not participate.
  8. astill07
    astill07 17 February 2018 03: 52
    0
    Well, where the US "is losing global
    gendarme "? Where?
    Just the opposite. Over the past 15 years
    states received (= conquered) new
    areas of its (dominant)
    military "presence" in areas where their
    not previously (Iraq, Kuwait, Arabian
    Peninsula, Jordan), and where they never had children (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Australia), and even where they were for a long time (still, they were, though
    relatively) only we (Syria, Georgia,
    Baltic States and Eastern Europe, Ukraine).
    And do not deceive yourself:
    if in Georgia there is only partial
    presence (individual "components"
    means warfare), and, plus, "sleeping" objects for "possible" use at hour D, then this is already a military presence. Moreover, the presence of a long time (and maybe forever,
    as they believe and are SURE).
    The process in Ukraine is going the same way.
    The actual American conquests of new
    Presences (= gaining military control over the territory) in Afghanistan and
    in Syria.
    Well, there, they definitely might not have been,
    if not for “our joint” struggle
    with the "world evil of terrorism" if
    not "partnership" (solely on our part) in the matter of "ensuring
    world security systems. "
    All experience of the last 20 years (and more)
    showed the meaninglessness of our
    hopes for some options "meeting
    on the Elbe ", on" Yalta-2 ", etc.
    And the latest examples in Syria show that all the talk and "agreements" about "mechanisms of deconflict", about areas of "appeasement" for "seeking political solutions", etc., are conducted exactly until the moment when the Americans
    create a sufficient “military presence” in the area they need (planned).
    Then everything. The train is gone - their military
    presence in the new, "conquered",
    area of ​​the world, now forever, and will be
    defend as an object of "sacred"
    property. American, naturally.
    The same can be assumed for
    Ukraine (or rather, for parts of its territory). It’s like in the view of a magician: so that a fool-public does not understand (or did not immediately understand) what and how
    "openly" represented focus, you need to distract her, the public, attention. Anything: the dramatic struggle of "political forces" and personalities, the fight against "corruption", "peacekeepers"
    and "joint" political mechanisms of "European security", etc. and etc.
    Well, then, as far as ready ....
    Someone doubts that the "Kurds" in Ukraine are also preparing (if not already
    ready)?
  9. _person_
    _person_ 17 February 2018 04: 33
    0
    the project of the united army of Europe belongs to the USA. It benefits Americans in many ways.


    Enchanting conclusion! Answer the question - why is it the United States? What - overseas (West) seriously someone believes that Russia will suddenly attack Europe?
    Political bacchanalia and propaganda rhetoric are one thing, but there are not as many insane people in the West as it might seem - there are completely wise pragmatists there.
    What kind of war for Europe from the US are we talking about? With whom? WITH ISIS? So here Russia already consider this problem to be solved for Europe.

    And that the United States does not understand that the united army of Europe is an opportunity for maneuver for its politicians and out of direct US dictatorship? They understand perfectly. So what is the benefit to the USA? The answer is nothing.

    And why look “through the sleeves” - because the time is different, Russia gains state sovereignty and pursues an independent policy, China becomes a center of concentration of power and, above all, ECONOMIC, a special operation to create new states and peoples in Europe, which was predicted by B. Obama It didn’t take place, due to the liquidation of the instrument represented by ISIS, and most importantly, the political strife within the United States makes it possible for the cryptocolonies to harness themselves, due to a decrease in the quality of management of the warring elites of the United States itself in the world.

    Europe itself needs the united army, and not as a “defense against Russia,” which will never attack anyone, that the West, I repeat, understands perfectly well, including more than once convinced of historical experience, but as a defense against the "main ally" of NATO and the ability to pursue an independent policy.

    North Korean sub-sanctioned economy torn to shreds put the largest economy in the world


    Enchanting conclusion number 2! Do you yourself believe in that? How long can the DPRK survive in the battle with the United States? Politically and politically? And in the economic? These snot and screams from across the ocean about the DPRK’s nuclear power are another show designed to divert public attention from the problems that Washington and the collective West as a whole are falling into. It’s not clear who is where and where and in what place. More precisely, one thing is clear - D. Trump repeatedly puts the political elite of the United States in a convenient position, in the agony of the internal political struggle. Including effectively using the information campaign around the DPRK nuclear program.

    We have been assured for a long time and continue to assure that the main thing in the country's power is a strong economy. The ability to buy everything and everyone. And only in second place - the ability to strike the armed forces on the intractable. Smart heads from the TV set many arguments in favor of this particular position.


    Enchanting conclusion number 3!
    There is no difference in direct or reverse order you will list military or economic priority, and it is not just who will buy what or what. It is important that the military priority is less stable and does not have such a long-term and effective impact as economic. It’s like with a factory for the production of, for example, automobiles - security and the fence around it - this is important and needs to be organized first of all, but without organizing the proper production process and selling the manufactured products (economy), the security will be scattered, because in the absence of wages it will have to be decided already trivial problems of survival of himself and his family, and the fence will come into complete functional disrepair.

    In general, in short, an article about nothing
  10. corporatex
    corporatex 17 February 2018 16: 59
    0
    They are creating — they are not creating their army in the EU, what’s the matter to you ?! Not enough of your own affairs? Or is there really anyone who believes that Russia may be of interest to someone ?!
  11. LeonidL
    LeonidL 18 February 2018 06: 43
    0
    If you look a little into history, then the term fortress Europe, the European struggle against Russia and the like wander around Europe since the time of Napoleon. Just then, for the first time, a united European army went to Russia. For the second time, the united army of the West went to Soviet Russia in 1918. In 1941, under the same pretext, with the same divisions of European solidarity against Russian barbarism, Hitler's European army marched on the USSR. What is it to be surprised if now they again try to blow the common European gathering under the same flags and the same hymns in general? Only now the times are different and I think that what is desired by Poproshenko and his masters, most of Europe absolutely do not need.