Have you noticed that in recent years, with an enviable frequency in the media, there have been reports of the desire of European politicians and the military to create their own army? A purely European project without the participation of overseas defenders.
Moreover, this desire is expressed not by representatives from baby countries, but by quite serious uncles and aunts from the leading countries of Europe - Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain. Young and micro-Europeans, on the contrary, in every possible way invite the American military to their own territory.
So who and why is introducing into the minds of Europeans the idea of the need for their own army? Why did the NATO bloc suit everyone for many decades, and suddenly there was talk about the independent defense of European countries? Are European politicians independent in addressing their own security issues?
The world is changing rapidly. So much is said and written about this that I will not take up time and space in this article once again. These changes directly affect everyone. But to varying degrees.
And who is most worried about the changing situation in the world? The answer is obvious. The United States is losing its leading position as the world's gendarme. The concept of world domination, when Americans could do any abominations in any country in the world, collapsed. China, Russia, but the last spit on American hegemony was the actions of the DPRK.
We have been assured for a long time and continue to assure us that the main thing in the strength of the country is a strong economy. The ability to buy everything and everyone. And only in second place is the ability to strike the intractable with the armed forces. Smart TV heads have given many arguments in favor of this particular position.
Oddly enough, most believe in it. Believes even when the story of his own family says otherwise. When a grandfather or great-grandfather broke the back in 1945 in much richer Europe. Not only Germany, but all of Europe. They believe even when the "sanctioned DPRK with its economy torn to shreds" put the world's largest economy in its place.
Today, many are talking about the contradictions that supposedly exist between the United States and Europe. It is doubtful whether the Americans have given the Europeans the opportunity to "get off the hook." Too tasty morsel. Yes, and enough invested in Europe.
NATO? And what will happen to the alliance immediately after the US stops funding the bloc? EU? Who controls the EU? European countries or overseas hosts? A beautifully crafted "democratic governance system" works great by controlling the baby countries.
An interesting question arises. Why does the EU need the US? Theoretically, it is more profitable, on the contrary, to give Europe the opportunity to become on a par with the United States in terms of economic development. Then you can reduce your own investment. And use the freed money for your own defense.
But then how to develop American science, engineering thought, medicine and other, quite common, but necessary spheres of life? We are accustomed to the fact that our scientists leave for the United States. There are more opportunities, salaries are incomparably higher, it is easier to go to the world level. But Europe also has smart heads. And they are also needed by the United States.
Simply put, let the Europeans live well. Better than Russians or other "Asians". But let them live worse than the Americans. And then there will always be the possibility of "buying" a scientist from any country. "Purchase" any specialist you need.
But back to the original question. Let's go back to the European army. Why are Americans reacting so indifferently to these conversations? The answer is on the surface. The Common European Army is a US project. A project driven by necessity. A project that will allow to fulfill the promises of several presidents at once, including the current one.
Remember the beginning of Trump's rule? His public statements about the need for European countries to fulfill their financial obligations to pay for NATO membership? Those same 2% of GDP. In plain text, the Americans demanded money. You have to pay for safety!
So what? Someone can say today that those for whom such statements were intended have fulfilled the requirements? Notice the legal requirements of the Americans. Lithuania, with a powerful economy, does not count. I don't remember exactly how many countries fulfill the treaty inside and out. 3 or 4.
It is not serious to say that the United States has recently started pushing the Europeans. The beginning of the conversation coincides with the emergence of Russia in the geopolitical orbit. From the moment the Americans suddenly realized that the ocean had turned from a protector into a huge problem. And even tactical nuclear weapons deployed on offshore platforms are now dangerous for the country's territory.
Washington ran into the problem of its own security. Military budgets, which were all the time quite "edible", suddenly became completely inconsistent with modern realities. It is no longer necessary to create a European missile defense system, but an American one. It is necessary to create a defense system along the entire perimeter of the country. It is necessary to create real military units on your own territory.
And it was then that they started talking about the all-European army. An army that will be fully supported by the Europeans. The Americans, on the other hand, will "cut coupons" by supplying arms and ammunition to Europe. And it is impossible for the Europeans to get away from this. Those "NATO standards" will work. The Europeans "hooked" on American armaments simply cannot do without US companies.
Moreover, the Americans were very loyal to even real steps towards the creation of this army. Most recently, the European Council decided to implement a program providing for the creation of a common army (Permanent Structured Cooperation - PESCO). 25 European countries have started this implementation.
By the way, there are explanations for some of NATO's actions in relation to its own members. Remember Erdogan's horror when, after the downed Russian plane, he suddenly received a refusal to defend his own country by the alliance. When NATO simply "sent" the bloc's second largest army to independently resolve issues with the Russians.
Today, many of the analysts and journalists refer to the notorious Article 5 of the NATO Charter. We are frightened by an all-out war in the event of an attack on any of the member countries. Then a simple question arises. Why did this very point 5 not work with Turkey? And this question arose not only among journalists. It also arose from the leadership of most European countries.
But there is also a new US military doctrine in the field of the use of nuclear weapons. There is an official position. The United States is not at all obliged to use nuclear weapons when attacking any of the members of the alliance. The United States will use nuclear weapons in the implementation of its own goals and plans. Simply put, the US wanted to spit on European security. The rescue of the drowning is the business of the drowning themselves.
US actions are quite predictable. The United States does not intend to fight for Europe. The vector of foreign policy is largely forced to be redirected to Asia. But I want to preserve influence in the EU. That is why talk about 2% stopped. Today we are talking about tens of percent for European countries. American weapons and ammunition are expensive.
I repeat, but the project of the united army of Europe belongs to the United States. It benefits the Americans in many ways. A calm and well-fed life under the US cap ends. The EU faces a choice. Independently, at their own expense, start building a unified army or negotiate with Russia. Which, after many years of neglect, will be quite difficult to do.
But probably. We do not need a war in Europe.
