Here's a question: have you ever wondered whether it would be better for Europe to
have the military protection of NATO or to create its own European army?
Yes, I know they are probably compatible. But, if you had to choose only one,
which of the two options would you go for?
In this video we are going to deal with a topic that has serious implications,
especially if we take into account the recent events on the border between Poland and Belarus;
And let’s not forget the political-military crisis between Ukraine and Russia. A border
where Russian forces have spent months making more and more calculations about a possible invasion.
An invasion that, although it does not involve any NATO country at all,
is seen by many security experts, as well as by the Baltic countries themselves, as the prelude,
the rehearsal of what could one day happen in, for example, Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.
So, with all this in mind, would you like to know more about Europe’s defences?
What is in the best interest of the members of the European Union;
NATO or a new European army developed completely independently of the United States?
Which of the two options best guarantees the interests and security of the EU countries?
Well, let's answer all these questions. Listen up.
How can Europe's security be guaranteed? This is the real question.
But, before we start to dive into the question of whether or not to stick with NATO, whether or not
to build a European army, let's briefly look at what exactly NATO is and what it consists of.
Because, while I'm sure the vast majority of you know about this issue,
I realize some of you may view this whole thing with some distance.
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is an international military organization whose
objective is to ensure the collective defense of its member countries. It was
created in 1949 in the early stages of the Cold War and the dog-eat-dog confrontation
between the West and the Soviet Union. At that time, and for the next four decades,
the threat of war or Soviet attack on Western Europe was very real. Precisely because of this,
it was decided that the only way to deter the enemy was to join forces between the pro-Western
European countries and the United States. The basic key to this model is that if any
enemy attacks any of the NATO member countries, the rest commit themselves to assist that country
militarily, give them aid and even intervene directly. It’s a model that has survived over
time but has seen the name of its main adversary change: from the Soviet Union to Russia.
However, it is not only a commitment to mutual defense. NATO also seeks
to improve the modernization, coordination and integration
of the different armies in order to be able to fight together, if necessary.
We are talking about a complete security umbrella: decision making,
making commitments and even deploying troops to reinforce the security of the weakest allies.
This is, for example, what happens with the forces that many member countries of
this alliance send to the Baltic countries. We could also include permanent or rotational
deployments of US forces in alliance member countries.
In terms of security, it sounds good, doesn't it? Integration, coordination and the support of the
world's largest superpower. If we are talking about security, what more could you ask for?
Well, it turns out there is one small problem: over the years NATO seems to have become less
popular among the old powers of Western Europe. For example, pay close attention to these
statements by the French president on the crisis with Russia.
("It's good that Europeans and the United States coordinate, but it's necessary that Europeans
conduct their own dialogue" – Emmanuel Macron, President of France addressing
The European Parliament) Yes, that’s right.
Basically what Macron is asking is that Europe's security policy be
completely independent from that of the United States.
That Brussels conducts its negotiations, agreements and
commitments completely independently of Washington even in cases of conflict.
If we stop to think about it, this means breaking the common front,
the Atlantic axis, the idea that underlies NATO itself.
And obviously, in order to be independent in security matters you
need to have your own military capabilities. [What I mean is that clearly, you don't want
to be making decisions while you’re covering yourself with other people's soldiers...].
And so VisualPolitik friends, it is not at all common that a European leader of such
influence speaks with such a degree of "NATO-skepticism".
In fact, listening to Macron, we could almost come to think, I don't know,
that Vladimir Putin was on the verge of getting away with fracturing NATO by threat.
By the way, if you want to learn more details about how NATO has changed over time and how
it functions, you can't miss this video. I’ll leave the link in the description.
(THE GUARDIAN OF EUROPE)
Let's see, have you ever wondered what Europe’s defense is like, the current system,
and what role the United States plays in it? Well, the armies belonging to NATO have
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of soldiers in old Europe. Of course,
the vast majority of them belong, logically, to the European countries themselves.
However, we are talking about armies that typically have many shortcomings, particularly
if we refer to their deployment capabilities. Something that greatly limits their operations.
And this is not just our opinion, it’s what the European Union itself
says in its draft for the creation of a European rapid response military force.
("We need to be able to respond to imminent threats or quickly react to a crisis situation,
for example a rescue and evacuation mission or a stabilization operation
in a hostile environment". – EU Strategic Compass draft)
Evidently, it raises this as an objective because the EU is aware that, these days,
its European countries do not have this capacity. The fact is that, because of all these
shortcomings, every time tension rises in Eastern Europe, as for example happened after Russia's
invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea, the United States is forced to make a move
and reinforce its presence on the continent. The US power is one of the few members,
perhaps along with the United Kingdom and perhaps France, that could make very rapid deployments.
In fact, European countries have such limited capabilities that,
on their own, without US support and assistance, it is very likely that they would not be able to
guarantee the security of all member countries. So much so that the Barack Obama Administration
created the European Deterrence Initiative, known as EDI for short, in 2014.
This initiative responded to a long-standing request from the countries of Eastern Europe.
It was intended to reinforce the US contribution to European security. To achieve this objective,
the initiative proposed to increase the forces deployed in countries
considered to be on the front line, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Also, to increase the budget for multinational military exercises and
improve key infrastructure for deterrence. In practice, the program has cost Americans
nearly $25 billion between 2016 and 2021. Quite a show of commitment on the part of Uncle Sam.
Thanks to the European Deterrence Initiative, the United States has deployed F-15 and F-16
fighters in the United Kingdom and Italy. It has also increased the number of troops
deployed in Poland and the Baltic countries. Now, the question is: is this reinforcement
sufficient to protect Europe from external aggression?
Well... Yes and no at the same time. Yes, because thanks to these deployments,
any aggression would put the United States itself in play,
not only in terms of the general deterrence implied by the mutual security commitment
but also the prospect of having to attack US troops themselves. And that,
VisualPolitik fans, is a serious call. It is what we could call deterrence of no return.
But, on the other hand, the experts in military strategy seem to be very,
very clear about one thing: The three Baltic republics – which also
have a large Russian minority among their population – are NATO's Achilles' heel.
Let's be clear: according to studies and simulations, Russia could reach the
Baltic capitals – Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius – in a maximum of 60 days.
In other words – and take note because this is a vital issue in the European army debate – the
general deterrence discourse that NATO is capable of championing is the only real
protection that these countries have in practice against an invasion or a hybrid warfare attack.
That is perhaps what explains news stories like these:
(Kallas [Estonian PM] calls for US troops in the Baltics –Postimees)
(UK considers doubling troop presence in Estonia – Postimees)
The question is, why is Estonia asking the United States and the United Kingdom for more
troops and not doing the same with allied European countries that are much closer?
Well, basically they’re doing it as a matter of capability and deterrence. In the end,
the great asset that NATO has and that, for example, a strictly European Union security
organization would never have, is that the United States is behind it and to a lesser extent also
the United Kingdom. The largest and one of the next largest military powers in the world.
Nor would this same European organization have the combat and rapid deployment capabilities that the
United States currently brings to NATO. And this is something that brings us
directly to another of the big issues: cash. As you all know, NATO has a spending guideline
of 2% of GDP. However, with the exception of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Baltic
republics, Poland and a few other exceptions, the vast majority of the members of the Atlantic
club do not comply with this guideline. And the question is: Would they be willing
to change their allocation of public funds and increase their military budgets?
Well... In view of the above, everything seems to point to the fact that the answer
is negative. And,
take note, because it is not just a question of the volume of spending but
also of its breakdown. For example, the European NATO countries currently spend
almost as much on defense as China, and much, much more than Russia.
The problem is not the volume of expenditure but above all its composition: for example,
spending too much on personnel and too little on equipment.
In short, the armies of European Union countries, with a few honorable exceptions, do not have the
capacity to be considered relevant players on their own, even if we analyze them as a whole.
And of course, without effective armed forces and without even being able to
guarantee security in continental Europe, how on earth are you going to be able to have a totally
independent security policy? How are you going to establish an effective deterrence discourse?
And as far as other issues such as energy dependence go, let's not even talk about it.
However, would the creation of a strictly European military defense structure, as Macron seems to
want to propose, solve all these problems? Is NATO to blame for the lack of commitment
shown by many of its member countries? These are the key questions in this
whole story. Listen up.
(THE ILLUSION OF SELF-DEFENSE)
Why is Macron calling for Europe to go it alone? Does the European Union
really need to move forward with military structures other than NATO? Would Europe
be better defended if it relied solely on its own resources and did without the United States?
Well, you see, in this case the answers are almost always political in nature.
Donald Trump's presidency in the United States, for example, only fueled the
sentiment of wanting to bet the future of security on genuine European armed forces.
Why? Well, let's just say Trump wasn't the friendliest to NATO and European countries.
(Trump Discussed Pulling US From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns
Over Russia – The New York Times) ("It's not right to be taken advantage
of on NATO and also then to be taken advantage
of on trade, and that's what happens. We can't let that happen." – Donald Trump)
("We don't want to be the suckers anymore. [...] We're reducing the
force because they're not paying their bills; it's very simple." – Donald Trump)
(US to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe – Reuters)
In the end none of this happened, but words are rarely neutral.
Be that as it may, the idea of putting in place a European army or a coordination, decision
and operations structure without the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, is not new.
But, thanks to Trump and perhaps to growing energy dependence on Russia,
we have indeed encountered a new enthusiasm.
Of course, there have already been many attempts and many failures
by the European Union. It has never been possible to get things right.
This is the case, for example, of the Eurocorps, which, with up to
60,000 troops and 11 participating States, is a military corps established in 1992
which serves primarily to support UN, NATO and OSCE peace or stabilization missions.
There are also other examples such as the European Gendarmerie Force, which is a kind
of European police force with military status that has only about 2,000 units attached to it.
Or the European Rapid Task Force, which hasn’t existed since 2012, and which was supposed to
be a small rapid deployment force capable of maneuvering in less than five days to contribute
to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. Today, all these corps, and some additional ones,
are framed within the Permanent Structured Cooperation, known as PESCO, which seeks the
structural integration of the armed forces of the 25 member States that are attached to it.
Could this reality change in the future?
Well... It’s possible... But the first to be suspicious of this whole story
are the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The former members of the Warsaw Pact.
Countries such as Poland, the Baltic Republics, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia feel much more
secure with Washington than they do with Brussels. At all levels.
The crisis with Ukraine was a good example of this. While Paris and Berlin wanted to
conduct their own negotiations with Putin, most Eastern European countries asked for two things:
A single joint NATO voice. And an increased deployment of US troops.
("It is very important for NATO to give a common response [to the current tension]."
General Rajmund Andrzejczak, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Poland)
In fact, this could be an important element of fracture, a further crack, if France and
Germany remain determined to go it alone. Of course, recent developments with Russia
seem to have achieved quite the opposite of what Macron and also Vladimir Putin intended:
The crisis in Ukraine has rejuvenated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has been able
to show its importance in a way it had not done for decades. What’s more, improving the
coordination and interoperability of European armies is desirable, but trying to develop a
structure that ends up rubbing up against the Atlantic alliance could be a terrible idea.
But at this point, it's your turn: How do you think Europe would be better defended,
with a European army or with NATO under Washington's umbrella?
Leave us your opinion below, in the comments. And remember, if you liked this video don't forget to
like and subscribe to our channel. All the best and see you next time.