A European army: would that be a good or a bad idea? There are arguments for such an army and there has been cooperation between the armies of many European countries since decades. There are also arguments against a European army and I have a starting opinion myself as well.
The war in Ukraine and the lack of a European army
When the war in Ukraine begun, I didn’t know what the Russians had all done in order to grab and keep an unwilling Ukraine in their possession. So I thought: ow heavens! If we’d also had an army here in the European Union, we’d be bankrupt by now. All those weapons that are going to Ukraine and all the men that are not going. I thought that either Europe should really stand by Ukraine and send armies as well as weapons, or not help at all. But the problem was that there was not enough European cooperation in order to send EU troops to the war and NATO couldn’t help, because Ukraine isn’t a member.
If there had been something more of a joint army in Europe or in the EU, we could have helped Ukraine a lot more. In the meantime I have learned and understood a lot about that country and about Russia as well. Learned a bit Russian to better understand their mentality by understanding their language. So now I know Ukraine is the one in the war who is totally right and Russia is indeed a dictatorial country, where President Putin has almost endless power to interfere with anything that happens within its borders. Many Siberians want to split off from the country and the majority of the Russians lives in quite some poverty which isn’t needed at all. But oh the corruption by the oligarchs suppored by Putin. I am so sorry to have found out that this is the sad truth in that beautiful, mighty country with so friendly and classy people in it.
How suffocating is the European Union really?
But is the war in Ukraine a reason to strive for a formal European army? I have always been against the Treaty of Lisbon, because Brussels can be so suffocating. Then I ask myself and Google as well the question if a simple EU member state could withdraw from some of its all too strict rules, but the only answer I get, is a no. Impossible, because you sign a contract and that’s that. Leftist people say that is good, because you have to sacrifice some of your sovereignty for safety and cooperation. Rightwingers say it’s bad, because suffocating.
This morning I finally found the real answer to that pressing question in an interview with Dutch former Integration Minister Rita Verdonk. She explained in plain language that Denmark had got itself an exceptional position on the issue of immigration. It doesn’t need to accept immigrants and can choose whom they want and don’t want to let in. The Netherlands could have asked for such a position as well, but didn’t do it. So … the EU doesn’t need to be suffocating if you have a government that likes European cooperation but also a healthy portion of sovereignty. Good to know, because for sure the same is valid for other European issues.
An army?
So in the case of the Ukraine war it would have been freakin’ useful to have an army in Europe, that could have helped to chase the Russians out and force them around the negotiation table. In the Yugoslavian war maybe as well, but who knows what impossible situations the future would bring in which you would say a loud and clear NO to such an army? That is always the point when you make choices. I don’t think there has been a situation in which a European army would have harmed. It would have had more action power in Ireland as well.
Only there should also be an active kind of a Ministry of Defence or something like that – a steering organ – for the whole of the European Union. Otherwise the member states would have these well-known endless discussions about intervening or not and then – if yes – how to intervene. Those could last until the war was over, knowing Brussels a bit from the last 70 years.
EU army instead of NATO?
But there is something else that would be an enormously good reason to say YES to a European army: Turkey. Yes, Turkey and no I’m not going to rant against the Turks today. It’s just that this dumb Prime Minister of Greece in the seventies Constantinos Karamanlís refused to have the huge NATO base on the isle of Crete and that NATO then moved to Turkey. That gave this dictatorial country the magnificent power to do exactly as it wanted and until today no-one can really form a counterweight against them, because they have this army base now and they will use it against anyone who even points at them to make them smaller. Or to throw the country off NATO. It is impossible and Turkey merrily goes on turning themselves against the western world, providing Russia with loads of power over the Middle East. Political games!
So in order to shut up Turkey it would be a heck of a jolly idea to shut down the whole NATO and continue the adventure in only the European Union. The Turkish government would be enraged and throw a tantrum of huge proportions, but wouldn’t win the fight on their own. They would be down and out as a world power in one streak, which would provide the chance to finally solve a lot of issues in the Middle East and the Balkan without them standing in the way. There could be a nice but free cooperation with the United States and even other countries – the more the merrier – and each country that cooperated, would be for the most part free of worries about a future war in their region.
Conclusion
Having said and written down all these thoughts … I think there are at least some good reasons to start a more formal European army. Even if it was a small one in the beginning and a proactive management with good strategists and transparent, democratic leaders.
And honestly … NATO as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a bit outdated, isn’t it? We don’t have to defend ourselves anymore against the Soviet Union and NATO is a cumbersome organ that has so many rules about when it can not intervene, that it isn’t workable anymore. Moreover an international army on our continent would also have more accurate knowledge about the situation in a country where there is war, so it could intervene more punctuously than a larger international one.
The argument against it is that it would force European countries into even closer cooperation and partnership. But we have just seen that countries can ask for exceptional positions, so it’s also to the member states themselves to start becoming handy and swift in negotiations with Brussels.
Sources:
–EU troops storm the beaches as bloc aims to be military player, Politico.
–That a 1952 treaty created a European Army within NATO, Shape, NATO
–Why an EU army is a bad idea we don’t need, Geoffrey Van Orden, New Direction
–Defence: is the EU a European army?, EU Monitor
–What we do and what it means for you, EDA (European Defence Agency)
Here underneath you can like, share and give a nice reaction!
