Does Europe Need Its Own Army?

Maybe the war is also a wake-up call for us to go on and build the pillars of a common European defense. The difficulties that we are facing after the Russian invasion of Ukraine will bring us to take this decision. We cannot be the only global actor without any form of deterrents.

Three years of war in Ukraine were, in a certain sense, a wake-up call for Europe. On defense, many leaders have talked about Europe, that it needs its own military. An army, an army of Europe. We know that we lived with the security of the fact that our American partners would have provided defense for us. And indeed, this was the case. After the war,

We had almost 300,000 soldiers from the US in the European territory, especially in Germany and until the end of the Cold War, this presence was a given. But now, since several years, the American priority became the Pacific, and understandably. And in recent years, and with the new administration, this trend is always more and more evident. So this is the time for the European Union to address the problem of its common defense in a more active and serious way than in the recent past.

We are speaking of the European Common Defense since 25 years. The first roadmap white papers were at the end of the 90s, but at the same time, the progress has not been serious. Our procurement of defense systems in the last 2 or 3 years during the Ukrainian war increased in terms of volume, but where did we buy defense systems? Outside the EU.

Seventy, 68% of our procurement was outside the EU and mainly in United States. How can we imagine to have a European defense without a defense industry, with European workers, with European advantages? This is the reason why, in my view, it is absolutely now the opportunity, maybe the war is also a wake-up call for us to go on and build the pillars of a common European defense.

The main decision that is to be taken is on the economic front, because I’m sure that different European countries will, in any case, increase their own expenditure in defense because they are all aware of the fact that, unfortunately, the war is back near to our borders and we can’t rely anymore completely on the American commitments. But if we do this country-by-country with 17 different types of tanks, with ten different 150mm for their artillery, which is completely crazy.

So increase the expenditure without a common strategy is not the serious thing that we should do. The starting point, the most important decision to take is to have a common fund, around €500 billion, promoting common defense and giving an advantage and incentives for countries to buy European. To simplify the different defense systems to avoid duplication. Common defense is important also as a tool of foreign policy for the European Union.

We cannot be the only global actor without any form of deterrents. And by the way, in the last 70 years after NATO was born, NATO was in Europe involved only once in the intervention in Kosovo, part of the Balkans. And we had several crises in Africa in the Middle East, in Europe itself, without the possibility for NATO to intervene.

Because NATO is a tool of last resort in a certain sense. But foreign policy tensions, geopolitical reality need not only a tool of last resort in case of nuclear confrontation with Russia, but also something giving to the European foreign policy more serious credibility, for peace of course, some one could imagine that a common European defense is a contribution to increased tension.

On the contrary, it is a contribution to implement a peace role from the European Union. But peace is not achievable only with press statements. You need also to be credible when you have your own foreign policy positions, and maybe, as it happens frequently for Europe, a difficult moment, a crisis could trigger a very good thing.

So finally, after 25 years starting to be serious in our common defense.