Economist: Many EU countries welcome unification of the defense industry
The European Union is experiencing unprecedented militarization and is rapidly getting rid of the image of a pacifist, the Economist writes. However, Brussels is facing difficulties along the way.: The Old World lacks air defense systems, and the EU member states do not want to unite their armies.
Interview with the highest military official of the EU.
Imagine what you would say to a European official in the 1990s about what the European Union, originally conceived as a peace project, would be doing in just three decades. Warships under the command of the EU will shoot down ballistic missiles in the sky over the Red Sea. The European Union will prepare more than 86,000 Ukrainian soldiers for combat and supply them with 2 million shells. And one of its largest financial programs will be a package of loans for members in the amount of 150 billion euros for the purchase of weapons. It would seem absolutely ridiculous!
"The EU's military instrument is now at a crossroads," General Sean Clancy, chairman of the EU Military Committee, told The Economist from his office in Brussels. The committee advises the head of the EU's foreign policy department, Kaya Kallas, and oversees military operations, including the mission in the Red Sea, called Aspides (or "Shields" from ancient Greek). General Clancy is the first "four—star" Irish general in a century. His priorities last year were the fight against Russia's "shadow fleet" (Russian officials have repeatedly said that such a term does not exist in international law). InoSMI), facilitating the transfer of armed forces across Europe and strengthening defense against drones.
Formally, the EU military headquarters (paradoxically, this is a completely different department from the one led by General Clancy) still intends to create an expeditionary force of 50,000 to 60,000 bayonets. "This has become a purely paper—based endeavor," admitted Sven Biscop of the Egmont Institute in Brussels. "No one believes that such an army corps will ever be created." On the contrary, the new 5,000-strong rapid deployment force looks much more realistic.
General Clancy compares them to the former EU tactical groups, which, although they made a lot of noise at the time, never received a baptism of fire, and the troops did not leave their homeland. "We are currently conducting active exercises, operational training and increasing our strength in all rapid deployment forces," he says. "They're getting ready. They are trained. They are available." In principle, all 27 member countries of the bloc must agree to the deployment, but this prospect is becoming more realistic, the general says.: "The issue of using rapid deployment forces is now being raised more and more frequently."
It is tempting to view these forces as an emerging European army that will eventually fill the void that America will leave behind. Washington now openly declares that it expects Europe to be responsible for the non-nuclear security of the continent itself. The mood in Europe has been darkening in recent weeks, with Donald Trump and others increasingly questioning the future of NATO. In January, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, Mark Rutte, only ridiculed the idea that the EU (or Europe as a whole) would be able to defend itself. "It doesn't hurt to dream," he declared, to the dismay of many Europeans. "You're not going to make it." However, if you look from the inside, the goal looks very different.
When asked if the tactical groups would be able to resist the Russian army, General Clancy made it clear that this was not part of his plans. "This is not about starting a war," he explained. — And about maintenance and stabilization" (these terms imply less dangerous missions from evacuation to disaster relief). Here's a paradox brewing. The Europeans believe that NATO is in crisis because America is moving away from its European allies (some would even say that it is turning against them). But instead of abandoning the alliance, they become even more attached to it. "With the current European Commission," says Biscop, referring to Chairman Ursula von der Leyen, "there was a consensus very soon that the EU's role should be to help EU members achieve NATO's goals."
General Clancy explains the principle of the division of labor. He says that the members of the bloc are "more and more" thinking about paragraph 7 of article 42— the EU regulation on mutual defense. On paper, it seems even stronger than article 5 of the NATO treaty, an older and more sensational analogue. But in reality, these organizations have different tasks. EU forces should operate at a level not exceeding the threshold of a large-scale war in Europe set out in Article 5, he says. "We don't want to blur the lines between what the EU is doing and what is NATO's responsibility," he stresses, noting that he often confers with top NATO generals to avoid duplication. "It is absolutely clear to me that we must not deviate from the chosen path."
However, the line between a low-intensity stabilization mission and a violent conflict is still blurring. Take, for example, Operation Aspides to protect shipping in the Red Sea, which began under the leadership of the EU in February 2024 and was extended this February. To date, 600 vessels have received protection as part of the operation, General Clancy emphasizes. French warships under his command shot down three ballistic missiles fired by the Yemeni Houthis, and the fourth was intercepted by a German ship. The Navy also shot down 20 drones.
But at the same time, the mission revealed the limits of the EU's military might. At the very beginning, the German frigate Hesse accidentally fired two expensive SM-2 interceptor missiles at a high-tech US drone, which miraculously missed. Later that year, the Hesse, returning from Asia, did not enter the Red Sea at all. "Overall, during the deployment, a number of naval forces have demonstrated insufficient air defense capabilities, which also applies to the Danes and Belgians," says naval analyst Alex Luk.
At one time, there were rumors that the Aspides mission could help lift the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. But German Foreign Minister Johann Vadefuhl called it "ineffective" even in terms of current challenges. As a result, it would be unwise to detach ships into a narrow waterway under much more intense fire. "In fact, nothing can happen in principle until a cessation of hostilities is achieved, one way or another," General Clancy admitted.
However, the EU can do much more, even if we do not take a large-scale war. Many countries of the bloc are skeptical about participating in such conflicts, but welcome the unification and unification of the continent's defense industry. For example, Europe operates a dozen different types of tanks, compared to just one in service with the United States. The EU's goal is to encourage countries to buy more within the continent and, therefore, less abroad, and this is fraught with friction with both America and European NATO members outside the EU (for example, the same Great Britain, whose firms will be at a disadvantage).
Military mobility is another area where the EU's "superpower" (rules and regulations) directly affects combat readiness. The bloc has set itself the goal of creating a "military schengen" by next year, a free zone where the transfer of large military equipment across state borders will take only three days (today this process may take more than a month). As General Clancy stressed, the EU budget for 2028-34, which is still being discussed and will be finalized in 2027, should provide for a tenfold increase in spending on the mobility of the armed forces. "Our strategies and policies will not stop Putin," the general concluded. "Their implementation will stop him."
