EU Army

[Denny Crane!]

BERLIN (Own report) - The German government is accelerating the creation of an EU army by means of bilateral military cooperation. The German-Polish "declaration of intent" on military cooperation of the two countries' armed forces, signed in the middle of the week, is the most recent example. The agreement includes the exchange and joint training of officers as well as "placing combat battalions under the other's command." Poland's military already has more than 130 German-made Leopard 2 battle tanks with another 120 due to be added by 2015. A sales contract to this effect was signed last year, only a few months after an agreement "reinforcing" cooperation between the Navies of the two countries was signed. At the time, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière (CDU) spoke of a "totally new quality" in the military cooperation between Germany and Poland. His successor, Ursula von der Leyen (CDU), has gone a step further and had her ministry declare that the intended German-Polish military cooperation is a "trendsetting milestone for the development of European integrated military structures."

A Milestone

On the occasion of the "Bundeswehr Conference" that ended yesterday in Berlin, a high-level conference of the German military, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) and her Polish counterpart Tomasz Siemoniak signed a "declaration of intent on German-Polish military cooperation." The agreement includes both the creation of a "mutual military liaison organization" as well as the "reinforcement of cooperation" between their respective cavalry troops, military reconnaissance, mountain troops and artillery units. The exchange of officers and the joint officer cadet training is also planned. The agreement's declared objective is to reinforce the "interoperability" of both armies - coordinate their synergy in battle. Consequently, the "declaration of intent" is not limited to training sessions and maneuvers, but explicitly provides for "placing combat battalions under the other's command." Following the signing, von der Leyen had her ministry declare that the intended German-Polish military cooperation is a "trendsetting milestone for the development of European integrated military structures." This label is synonymous with an EU army under German command.[1]

"Totally New Quality"

An agreement providing for close cooperation between the German and Polish Navies was signed by the two countries in late May of last year. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[2]) The accord contains 28 "projects," ranging from "joint training," and "joint surveillance of the Baltic Sea Area" to "joint combat missions."[3] The significance of mines and submarine warfare were stressed particularly in the "Declaration of Intent." Reference was also made to the "interoperability" of the German and Polish Navies, which, among other things, can be seen in the fact that both Navies use RBS 15 MK3 (robot system missiles for maritime and land-based targets).[4] This missile, according to the manufacturers, German Diehl BGT Defence company and the Swedish Saab Dynamics, disposes of a range of over 200 km and the capability of circumventing islands. Its low altitude flight path and its "unpredictable evasive maneuvers in the final flight stage" provides it with a "high degree of efficiency," in regards to avoiding enemy anti-aircraft defenses.[5] Similar to the current defense minister, the Minister of Defense at the time, Thomas de Maizière (CDU) had emphasized the "totally new quality" of the German-Polish military cooperation sealed with that naval agreement. At the time, there was obviously no question of the German claim to leadership. As the Bundeswehr acknowledged after the signing, de Maizière's counterpart, Siemoniak, "explicitly" expressed his gratitude for the cooperation - after all, it "is particularly important for the further conceptual development of the Polish Navy."[6]

Direct Links

The "interoperability" and "further development" of the Polish armed forces is also served by their being equipped with Leopard 2 battle tanks, developed by the German company, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. The Polish army already has more than 130 of these tanks, and is due to acquire around 120 more by 2015. A sales contract to this effect was signed last year, a few months after the accord "reinforcing" cooperation between the Navies of the two countries. De Maizière, Defense Minister at the time, called the deal "another component of the very close and persisting cooperation between the armed forces of our two countries."[7] The Leopard 2 is used by the 11th Polish Armored Cavalry Div., which is linked via a liaison officer to the 1st Armored Div. of the German Bundeswehr. Evidently, the intention is to further expand this model of cooperation with the Polish armed forces. According to a Bundeswehr announcement, the 43rd Mechanized Brigade of the Netherlands is soon scheduled to be placed under the direct command of the Bundeswehr's 1st Armored Div.[8]

Key Role

As a good example of German-Polish military cooperation, military circles like to point to the collaboration within the "Multinational Corps Northeast" (MNC NE), headquartered in Poland's Szczecin. The German military's Inspector General, Bruno Kasdorf, recently referred to it as "our largest joint project."[9] The unit, formed in 1999 under the initiative of Germany, Poland and Denmark, is a permanent feature in NATO's European command structure and, according to the Bundeswehr, is capable of "commanding major multinational units." As the military explains, the MNC NE plays a "key role in the integration of new members in the framework of NATO's eastward expansion."[10] Members of the corps, which is alternatively commanded by a German and a Polish general, have done multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan. After Poland, Germany accounts for the second largest contingent and, thanks to this fact, has a military base on Polish territory. The Bundeswehr maintains an on-base administrative office at the MNC NE headquarters, which, according to the Bundeswehr's own accounts, is in charge of "assistance of all German service personnel, civilian employees and their families in Poland" - this, includes "plans for maneuvers in Poland with the participation of German troops."[11]

"Eurocorps"

In 2016, Poland is scheduled to become a member of the Strasburg France-based "Eurocorps". In the early 1990s, this unit, comprised of Germans, French, Spaniards and Belgians, was conceived as the EU's military headquarters and took on several command responsibilities in the framework of various wars of aggression - for example in Serbia's Kosovo province and in Afghanistan. If necessary, "Eurocorps," which, at regular intervals, provides personnel for NATO's rapid deployment force, can field up to 60,000 combat troops. As the Bundeswehr explained, the Eurocorps, therefore, provides the "basis for an efficient Army of Europe with an autonomous command structure."[12]

Is this the creation by stealth rather than by mandate of an EU army?

It could just be called cooperation but as we can see in this article this cooperation is the first steps in building it:

© AFP/Getty Images
There is a long path to walk until the vision of a European army can materialize and genuine European troops can actually help to secure international peace. While the member states of the EU have managed to deeply integrate their economies, European security remains largely neglected – even though it is obvious that the single member states are too small and militarily too weak to effectively engage in international conflicts.

Common problems should be solved together. However, the creation of a European army would diminish the nation states’ sovereignty and therefore remains a measure without consent.

In principle, the member states are content to perform joint missions to guarantee or create peace and stability. This is why the German Federal Forces take part in the European training mission EUTM and the UN-led support mission MINUSMA. And as Chancellor Angela Merkel noted already in 2007: “We must get closer to the formation of a European army.” Similarly, speaking at the last security conference in Munich, Federal Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen was impressed by the cooperation of the 50 states during the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan and asked: “Why should it not be possible to apply this practical experience to the strategic and political level?”

A plethora of advantages

But such cooperation has downsides too. In terms of security policy, the 28 European member states indeed have different beliefs. When the EU agreed on the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) in 1999, it was important to several member states to highlight their displeasure at the potential creation of a supranational force. With Finland, Ireland, Austria and Sweden, four militarily neutral states are associated with the EU.

Cyprus and Malta claim special statuses and Denmark, as the result of a referendum, does not support any form of joint CSDP actions. In addition, the relatively long decision-making progress complicates matters. After all, the members of the EU are even more heterogeneous than those of NATOs.

There are many obvious advantages, though. First of all, cooperation would result in much more effective acquisition and distribution of materials and know-how. Europe could save billions. This money could be used to foster the invention of new innovative technologies and better equipment. Such a European army should also play a part in creating a common European identity – a fact we should acknowledge these days.

Pooling and sharing

The past proved that missions like the ones in Kosovo and Afghanistan are possible when a crisis becomes urgent, even if there are various national reservations and strategic disagreements. This is why the German federal government supports the model of pooling and sharing. This type of cooperation also comes as an aftermath of the financial crisis: in recent years, defense budgets declined all across Europe. So in 2010 the member states decided to pool and share, aiming to save money as well as be more efficient.

First steps

Pooling means national capabilities are being offered to others by installing a multinational structure that combines them and coordinates their usage. For example, pooling can be used to develop, acquire and operate machinery. This has already been done with the Airborne Early Warning and Control Systems (AWACS).

Sharing means one or more countries provide their partners with existing capabilities and machinery (e.g. transport planes) or fulfill tasks for their partners. By doing so, all partners save resources, because they do not need to provide all capabilities themselves. Such a concept needs detailed arrangements; otherwise member states might accidentally conserve or acquire the same capabilities. This coordinative effort would push Europe quite a few steps ahead on the path to a European army.

Still, first of all we need the willpower – at least by smaller member state groups – to integrate security policies. This includes a precise distribution of responsibilities by the partners.

A realistic perspective

A real European army can only become true when the political basis for its establishment has been profoundly reformed. It can exist in the absence of neither a common foreign policy nor a shared defense budget. As mentioned before, one key aspect of the army would be its status as a parliamentary army; the forces must be commanded by the European Parliament and a Europe-wide government with corresponding competencies. Today, such a vision seems far from realistic.

A realistic perspective could be another arrangement: besides a European army, national armies could remain operative. That way the bigger European states could keep some of their military sovereignty. To develop such a dual concept is indeed a sophisticated task – still, the EU member states should work on it strongly in the coming decades.

Translation from German.

Read more in this debate: Ana Gomes, Alistair Shepherd.

Would this be a good idea or a bad idea do you think? I guess if you support the EU dream of a proper European Nation then an Army is an absolute prerequisite for that creation I should think.

[Stavroforos]

My only positive vision for the EU is for the EU to become a federal state, in which case a national army would not only make sense, but be required. As it is now though, I don't see the point of an EU army. NATO is the only military alliance Europe needs at the moment, and if Europeans want to be serious about defense then they can start spending more money on their militaries so that they don't need to always be mooching off the US.

[Denny Crane!]

My only positive vision for the EU is for the EU to become a federal state, in which case a national army would not only make sense, but be required. As it is now though, I don't see the point of an EU army. NATO is the only military alliance Europe needs at the moment, and if Europeans want to be serious about defense then they can start spending more money on their militaries so that they don't need to always be mooching off the US.

Well I guess the point is that the path to that federal state could quite possibly start with this step no?

[Stavroforos]

Well I guess the point is that the path to that federal state could quite possibly start with this step no?

It would be the path to a federal state through bullying and coercion if it started with an army. What the seems to be, for me at least, is a way for Germany to get an army on the cheap, since its leading role in the EU would cause it to take a leading role in the military. I don't know whether that would be a good or bad thing (ie, I don't know if the Germans are going to start invading everyone for the third time in 100 years), but I know that it's not the way to start a federal EU state. But in essence you're right, a federal army would lead to a federal union, just not the one that I think would benefit most nations of Europe.

[alhoon]

I think that a small EU army corps, about 3 divisions, where each of the member states send troops in say 2-3 month rotations according to pre-specified arrangements is good. If anything, it would help our lethargic military wake up when it comes to contact with modern armies that have updated their dogma in the past 40 years.

Also, serving alongside other Europeans in a foreign country would be good as education for the soldiers and officers participating. I believe that Greece could surely contribute a regiment to EU and send a few pilots to show those Baltic state novices how you do dogfights to protect your airspace.

[Mementomoridc]

I do not see this going much of anywhere unless as stated above the EU goes the USA route and becomes a federal state. Which I can see as being as likely as Canada joining the USA as states 51-58 or whatever. All other concepts for a true unified EU military are fine in theory but in practice they would be very problematic. Just think of the logistics, as well as the language barrier (even with Europeans speaking multiple languages).

[Sharpe's Company]

Nick Clegg said it was a 'fantasy' in the TV debates.
No wonder they got 350 votes in the last by-election.

Yes please jerry, continue to build your EU Army and Fourth Reich.
See you on the beaches of Normandy again, or I hope this time we just land one of our biggies right in the centre of Berlin.

[Denny Crane!]

Nick Clegg said it was a 'fantasy' in the TV debates.
No wonder they got 350 votes in the last bi election.

Yes please jerry, continue to build your EU Army and Fourth Reich.
See you on the beaches of Normandy again, or I hope this time we just land one of our biggies right in the centre of Berlin.

It is like we have Nick Griffin posting on the forums.

Not as funny as I thought it might be. Oh well.

[Sharpe's Company]

Denny. Are you an appeaser by any chance?

If you want to see our country flourish then our age old policy of the balance of power must be maintained.

Europe may wish to forge themselves together and in the process allow themselves to be submerged by the power of german industry but as a British subject I'm not going to follow that path, our only true positive way forward is to regain Russian favour and a mutual treaty of assistance.

[Holger Danske]

Denny. Are you an appeaser by any chance?

If you want to see our country flourish then our age old policy of the balance of power must be maintained.

Europe may wish to forge themselves together and in the process allow themselves to be submerged by the power of german industry but as a British subject I'm not going to follow that path, our only true positive way forward is to regain Russian favour and a mutual treaty of assistance.

Hilarious you talk about the Fourth Reich, then proceed right on to suggest that Britain should be friends with Putin. Priceless.

[alhoon]

Denny. Are you an appeaser by any chance?

If you want to see our country flourish then our age old policy of the balance of power must be maintained.

How that policy worked 100 years ago? Do you remember which war's anniversary we had in August?

Europe may wish to forge themselves together and in the process allow themselves to be submerged by the power of german industry but as a British subject I'm not going to follow that path, our only true positive way forward is to regain Russian favour and a mutual treaty of assistance.

It is NOT capitulation to Germany, it's working together with Germany.

[Roma_Victrix]

Europe may wish to forge themselves together and in the process allow themselves to be submerged by the power of german industry but as a British subject I'm not going to follow that path, our only true positive way forward is to regain Russian favour and a mutual treaty of assistance.

Come again, bro? I didn't just hear the words "mutual treaty of assistance" and "Russia" in the same sentence, now did I?

Let's get David Cameron on the phone, shall we? You have some explaining to do.

[DaniCatBurger]

Is this the creation by stealth rather than by mandate of an EU army?

It is existing NATO policy to interlink the available assets to optimise security. I would see it in that context.

[Denny Crane!]

It is existing NATO policy to interlink the available assets to optimise security. I would see it in that context.

These actions are far and beyond any existing precedent or direction of the NATO alliance.

[DaniCatBurger]

These actions are far and beyond any existing precedent or direction of the NATO alliance.

The Wales Declaration speaks about strengthing of the capabilities according to the needs of the Alliance. It is possible that the needs develop in a direction where it is reasonable to anticpate negative possibilities.

[Denny Crane!]

Denny. Are you an appeaser by any chance?

If you want to see our country flourish then our age old policy of the balance of power must be maintained.

Europe may wish to forge themselves together and in the process allow themselves to be submerged by the power of german industry but as a British subject I'm not going to follow that path, our only true positive way forward is to regain Russian favour and a mutual treaty of assistance.

You say you are not an appeaser but you want to join up in appeasement with the aggressor Russia? Nothing makes sense. Russia were the last ones to pose a significant threat to us and are heading down the Nazi style route. You would have been one of the people cosying up to Hitler in the 30s if you could I bet.

Disgusting how dare you say you care about the UK, appeaser and sympathiser are not labels for me but you, people like you we would be under the Nazi boot right now.

It would be the path to a federal state through bullying and coercion if it started with an army. What the seems to be, for me at least, is a way for Germany to get an army on the cheap, since its leading role in the EU would cause it to take a leading role in the military. I don't know whether that would be a good or bad thing (ie, I don't know if the Germans are going to start invading everyone for the third time in 100 years), but I know that it's not the way to start a federal EU state. But in essence you're right, a federal army would lead to a federal union, just not the one that I think would benefit most nations of Europe.

If it is being done in a Machiavellian way yes you are right but if it is being done in the spirit of "here are the necessary steps already taken should we go down that path" then it is not quite so bad. Of course you actively have German Think Tanks and policy makers agitating to try and get an EU army so it probably is not totally benign.

The Wales Declaration speaks about strengthing of the capabilities according to the needs of the Alliance. It is possible that the needs develop in a direction where it is reasonable to anticpate negative possibilities.

Specifically where in the Wales Declaration does it talk of this level of cooperation and merging of assets and where for instance is the parallel taking place right now say between the UK and USA or France and USA or any example of your choice.

I know roughly the Wales Declaration but not in this detail so if you could give me the specific point, just a number will do.

[Stavroforos]

If it is being done in a Machiavellian way yes you are right but if it is being done in the spirit of "here are the necessary steps already taken should we go down that path" then it is not quite so bad. Of course you actively have German Think Tanks and policy makers agitating to try and get an EU army so it probably is not totally benign.

In general, I think most actions taken by states are done in a Machiavellian way, and any time that involves increasing military power then I'm even more certain that the actions are Machiavellian (not using that term as a negative, but simply as synonymous with states being power maximizers).

[Dante Von Hespburg]

It would be the path to a federal state through bullying and coercion if it started with an army. What the seems to be, for me at least, is a way for Germany to get an army on the cheap, since its leading role in the EU would cause it to take a leading role in the military. I don't know whether that would be a good or bad thing (ie, I don't know if the Germans are going to start invading everyone for the third time in 100 years), but I know that it's not the way to start a federal EU state. But in essence you're right, a federal army would lead to a federal union, just not the one that I think would benefit most nations of Europe.

If it is being done in a Machiavellian way yes you are right but if it is being done in the spirit of "here are the necessary steps already taken should we go down that path" then it is not quite so bad. Of course you actively have German Think Tanks and policy makers agitating to try and get an EU army so it probably is not totally benign.

I think you guys have hit this rather well. I don't think this agreement is the beginning of an 'EU Army' or any such issue. I more think it's probably Germany taking smart steps to shore up it's current military inadequacies through agreements with nearby powers.

By inadequacies i don't mean either their typical constitution restrictions or small armed forces for their states size, but more that Germany with it's existing military is having chronic issues with actual operational capability.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-and-Isil.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...epair-exposure

http://rt.com/news/183120-germany-air-force-military/

http://online.wsj.com/articles/despi...ing-1411948771

A mix of total failure to actually maintain a military that's capable of deployment basically, coupled with a Berlin who's hesitant about addressing the situation means thus far despite the growing tensions between Germany/EU and Russia and generally the current instability of many global areas, the Germany military is rather a non-entity as it stands. Hence such agreements like this make for a potential 'quick-fix' while the issue is looked at/ignored/whatever Germany has decided to do with it's lack of operational capability. So it's rather machavellian indeed in a way, but not in terms of an EU federal context, more it's a state using others potentially to help it out while it gets it's act together (hopefully)

[Treize]

What Nuland said.

[Heathen Hammer]

What Nuland said.

Yeap.
I can see Europe creating some sort of unified military, but I doubt that can happen under EU, given how it is a very clumsy organization that is terrible at working on things like that.