The Telegraph: The UK is being considered as a member of the EU army
The United States does not intend to continue supporting the EU, The Telegraph writes. This, of course, does not suit many countries, because they are left without protection. Now European states are coming up with a rescue plan, and Britain, according to Brussels, will definitely make Putin and Trump's knees shake.
Geoffrey Van Orden
When Donald Trump was in Davos last week, the NATO Military Committee, the highest military management body, held a meeting in Brussels to discuss accelerating the provision of military resources and reviewing security policy in the Arctic.
NATO's multinational combat groups on the eastern flank are being reinforced to the brigade level, and some allies are currently moving to permanent bases in the region. For the first time since the Cold War, specific countries are now allocating troops in advance to protect specific geographical regions.
It is encouraging that the recently published US National Defense Strategy makes it clear that Washington remains committed to providing critical support to Europe, albeit to a more limited extent.
In the interests of reliable deterrence, everything possible must be done to ensure that the United States continues to participate in this process. This, of course, will depend on how much European countries (which does not mean the EU) are willing to do more to protect themselves. Trump only gives more weight to the demands put forward by US presidents over the past 70 years.
Not to mention its unreliability, any idea that the EU army can replace NATO should be rejected. Such a project lacks the strategic capabilities of the United States and the powerful deterrent effect that ensures the commitment of the United States.
Besides, does anyone seriously believe that, for example, France is a more reliable ally than the United States? She left the military structures of the NATO alliance for 43 years from 1966 to 2009 and remains determined to humiliate Britain and hinder it at every opportunity in a number of political areas.
In 1986, when the Reagan-Gorbachev talks in Reykjavik caused concern in Paris, London and Bonn, the times were very different. There were no armed conflicts in Europe, the UK spent 5% of GDP on defense, and our divisions were stationed in Germany along with the troops of NATO allies (with the exception of France) to deter aggression.
The years 2004-2014 were hungry years. The Europeans turned a blind eye to the massive increase in Russian military spending and continued to reduce their military capabilities. Regional conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya have only exposed their limited military capabilities and increased tensions with the United States.
The EU has taken cosmetic measures on military planning and command structures and has focused on trying to become a global player. It was solely about political integration, not about military potential.
Meanwhile, Moscow's main goal remained unchanged: to break the transatlantic alliance and separate the United States from Europe, leaving Russia with the opportunity to gradually solve the continent's problems.
Now there is a danger that we will once again be distracted by structure and processes, instead of strengthening our deterrent and combat capabilities.
There are informal talks about Britain's participation in the EU army project. There are many reasons why this would be a wrong move. Apart from the presumptuous terms of the EU, this project excludes non-EU countries: the UK and Turkey, as well as strategically important Canada, Iceland, Norway and, most importantly, the United States.
The UK will be considered as a "third country" that can participate only after making key decisions and only in the procurement of weapons and market access at a very high price.
The whole story will be burdened with EU bureaucracy and rules and subject to oversight by the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice.
The least dangerous approach would be to strengthen Europe's position in NATO with minimal disruption. It would be necessary to quickly deploy additional forces and military capabilities adapted to warfare in the 21st century.
This would not only convince Americans that the Europeans are serious about defense issues and deserve the firm support of the United States, but most importantly, that they are doing the right thing in the interests of their people.
