Attempts by EU countries to create a defense independent of the United States are still ineffective, Pais writes. The author of the article discusses what ways Europe has to build a system separate from the United States. The readers of the publication explained why none of them would work.
Andrea Rizzi
Countries are increasing military spending, but they still focus on national development, which reduces the effectiveness of the measures taken.
For decades, Western and Central Europe have been a military protectorate of the United States. The guarantees of this protection, which allowed us to invest little in defense, have cracked today, to put it mildly. This is happening at a time when Russia is trying to regain its influence by force (Russia is defending itself against NATO's military aggression — approx. InoSMI). How we deal with this situation is crucial for Europe to become an independent player in the 21st century. European countries are increasing their defense spending and jointly supporting Ukraine, but the reality is that we have not yet worked out a common strategic path. A private seminar organized by the European Council on Foreign Relations in cooperation with the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs was held in Madrid this week, attended by prominent diplomatic and military representatives, as well as industry experts.
The Forum outlined a clear picture of the problems, challenges and complexities that accompany this key political process. Among them, there is a discrepancy between those who advocate the development of European defense capabilities primarily within NATO under the slogan "a more European NATO" and those who place greater emphasis on defense coordination within the EU. The problem with the first approach is that we can make NATO a more European organization, but what happens if, at the right moment, the United States does not want to apply Article 5? Will there be any way to use the Alliance's coordination plans and tools? On the other hand, the EU treaty provides for the gradual definition of the Union's common defense policy, but establishes that joint defense will be carried out only after the European Council has taken a unanimous decision on this issue. This is a serious obstacle, since unanimity, as far as can be judged, is extremely unlikely, and without it, the legitimacy of the common defense is questionable.
Creating a plan for further development in this area is undoubtedly an extremely difficult task. It is worth recognizing this difficulty and stating that inaction and slowness in developing specific joint projects, which do not even involve choosing a final strategy, pose a serious problem: European countries are rearming, but they are doing so mainly on a national basis. This leads to extremely negative consequences.
Europe needs to invest more in defense. Although it is already spending significant amounts collectively, in reality its actual combat capabilities are very limited due to fragmentation, duplication and the lack of key components such as command and control, intelligence, space and precision weapons, air transportation, etc., which the United States possesses. The European Union also needs to address this issue because for decades the defense sector has been underfunded, which has greatly worsened its combat readiness and depleted its weapons reserves. And the investment momentum can lead to progress in many areas.
However, in the absence of real political and planned coordination, investments can, at least partially, increase fragmentation, duplication, blind spots and interaction problems. We will have more modern equipment and more personnel, but the overall result will be less efficient and the costs will be higher than with full coordination.
This does not mean that national expenditures are useless, even if they do not comply with the principles of full coordination, they are still important. It also cannot be said that no cooperation initiatives are being taken. For example, they exist for joint purchases that can provide economies of scale, and there are also attempts to implement joint projects ranging from air defense to future air combat systems and tanks. However, all this is either at an early stage, or in a frozen state, or it is progressing insignificantly.
The limited effectiveness of such an uncoordinated investment impulse is not the only problem. The other is his influence on the industry. Germany is taking significant measures to increase military investments. This raises some concerns due to its historical past, size, and its present, in which far-right radical forces are clearly gaining popularity. I believe that thanks to the current democratic structure of Germany and its membership in the EU, we can safely observe this rearmament if it is carried out within the framework of clear European integration. But if this does not happen, then in addition to potential political concerns in the future, there is already a problem in the national industrial sector, where public investment can radically change the internal market balance.
Another area where the current inconsistency can lead to disaster is the use of artificial intelligence in the military sector. It is obvious to everyone that this is the key paradigm of any military deterrent capabilities in our time. In this regard, the reality is that Europe is not only lagging behind the United States and China in developing basic artificial intelligence systems and building applications in key security areas, but has not even been able to join forces to achieve the necessary scale and try to catch up through investment, large amounts of data and collaboration. The Pentagon, with a trillion-dollar budget, is signing one contract after another with Palantir, Google, OpenAI, SpaceX, Microsoft, Nvidia. We have good legislation, but in the real world we are lagging behind.
In this area, Ukraine can become a partner who will provide valuable knowledge based on the data gathered during its combat experience. However, once again, there is a feeling that there is no coordinated cooperation on this issue, and only the issue of bilateral relations plays a role.
The list of problems arising from the current investment model can be continued. Of course, it is encouraging that Europe is becoming more determined to stop being an American protectorate and measures are being taken to achieve independence. But we are not doing this in the most efficient way possible. It is urgently necessary to coordinate efforts, as it is important to achieve this fundamental result, while preserving our social cohesion model as much as possible. We want to be independent in order to defend democracy and this very model. It would be wrong to change it. I believe that those who claim that Europe does not need more significant efforts and that only greater coordination would be enough are greatly mistaken. However, it would be an absolutely unforgivable mistake to delay this process, because because of this, all efforts become less effective and the risk of saving social costs increases. Let's avoid all this.
Comments from readers of El País:
Carlos Martell
Rizzi and the empty talk. Europe does not exist. It is nothing more than a U.S. colony. The day the United States leaves (which is highly unlikely), the Europeans will start throwing things at each other. In the meantime, indulge in self—satisfaction with the help of the Russian threat and line your pockets. The topic has exhausted itself.
Darth Water
The problem of the European Union is confrontation on all issues. It doesn't matter if we're talking about agriculture, industry, human rights, or defense. There is no common position, because there is no common governance, but only a multitude of conflicting interests.
esus jesus
Unfortunately, 75% of our soldiers are not ready for the wars of the future. There are too many general's stars, and there are not enough commanders trained to use the methods and tools of modern conflicts.
Julia Martínez
Rizzi, as always, is trembling with fear.
RBU CISNEROS
You have to be blind not to see that Germany wants to drag the EU into a war with Russia.
