French President Emmanuel Macron is actively promoting the creation of a European army. But in the way of his Napoleonic plans there were serious obstacles. And we are not talking about the Wishlist of Eastern European Limitrophs, but about German national interests.
Power changes people, and not always for the worse. French President Emmanuel Macron came to the Champs Elysees in 2017 as an absolute protege of globalist forces. An apologist for the European mainstream, a supporter of a close alliance with the United States.
However, less than two years later, the position of the French leader shifted sharply towards "strategic sovereignty." And he not only calls for greater EU independence, not only talks about the "death of NATO's brain", but also raises the idea of creating a pan-European army to the shield.
The brain of Macron, of course, was cleared by Donald Trump's foreign policy activity, his openly dismissive attitude towards his European partners. More and more Europeans began to view the behavior of the United States as a threat to their own countries. Moreover, the French president realizes (or his advisers explained to him) that the plan “let's sit over Trump, and then everything will be the same as before” will not work.
Donald Trump at the head of the United States is not a coincidence, but a pattern. And the arrogant-selfish US policy towards Europe is also not a whim of one person in the White House, but a logical consequence of the development of US-European relations over the past 30 years. The security interests of the United States have long diverged from those of Europe: if not after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (when the common enemy disappeared), then precisely after the start of an extremely aggressive foreign policy by the Americans in the zero years.
Washington’s desire to replace China, humiliate Russia, and blow up the Middle East never meets European national interests. And the thoughtless following of European elites in the American foreign policy track has already led to a serious weakening of the EU - in the form of a migration crisis, severed relations with Moscow and the emergence of an instability belt in the Southern Mediterranean.
Therefore, the French president advocates that Europe should become more independent and protect itself also independently. At the same time, as Macron himself absolutely rightly says, the guarantee of the present peace in Europe is “equilibrium free from hegemony”. This means that the European army should not be built on the basis of the same French (in fact, the only truly combat-ready armed force in Europe), but by consolidating and strengthening all European armies.
And this is just the weak link in the French plan. Many European countries agree that the EU should be more independent, but there is no agreement between them on the extent to which this independence should extend. Many refuse to accept the new reality, preferring to patch up the crumbling, but such a familiar mechanism of transatlantic relations. The same united army must protect countries from united, real threats. However, again, not all countries agree on which threats are real. Many are afraid to come to terms with reality for the sake of patching up the crumbling NATO.
If we discard delusional concepts like the invasion of an army of polar bears from the Arctic, it turns out that, from the point of view of Europeans, today security threats come from four directions: from the formidable Russia, radicalized Turkey, unstable countries in North Africa, as well as from inside the countries The EU - from those who do not want to integrate into the European way of life of migrants and right-wing forces opposing them. The last three threats are most real, and Europe is able to deal with all three with its own forces if it makes minimal efforts to develop its own armed forces.
However, the most “generally accepted” of these threats is considered to be Russian. Which, in fact, is a substitute for the threat, promoted solely for political reasons that have no special relation to real security.
The appeal of the Russian threat to a number of Western propagandists lies in the fact that it is precisely the only one with which European countries are unable to cope with their purely European forces. The military potential of the “gas station country,” as it is called in America, is inaccessible to European countries. And this is not to mention the psychological fear of the Russians, who took Berlin more than once and whose boots marched through the streets of Paris. Europe can be protected from Russia only with the help of the United States, therefore those who advocate maintaining an American presence in the EU are actively promoting the theme of the Russian threat to the masses.
And among these promoters, not only East European limitrophies, but also the authorities of the largest European country - Germany. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, agreeing to the need to strengthen security mechanisms in the EU, politely but firmly rejected Emmanuel Macron’s plans for an autonomous European army. He said that "without the US, neither Europe nor Germany can effectively defend themselves," noted the inadmissibility of "separating European security from American" and summarized: "We need a strong Europe, but as part of a strong NATO, and not as a replacement for it."
However, the skepticism of Berlin (in contrast to the line of the same Poles and Balts) is quite rational from the point of view of German national interests. Germany already controls Europe thanks to a large wallet (the economic dominance of Germany in the region has already led to what the EU is called the Fourth Reich), and the desire to get in addition to this a big gun will not only help but undermine this control.
The German authorities understand that the growth of Germany’s military power will cause serious concerns among the countries of Eastern Europe - the same Czech Republic or Poland. Fears that will lead to the consolidation of these countries on an anti-German basis. In addition, serious investment in the army can provoke an increase in militaristic sentiments among the German population. For too long, the German authorities have driven their voters into the guilty sense of guilt for the events of World War II to revive the Prussian militaristic traditions in the country, which (against the background of internal problems with migrants and the strengthening of right-wing political forces) can lead to a serious transformation of the political landscape in Germany.
Finally, the Germans (at least in western lands) were simply used to living under an American defense umbrella. There was no de Gaulle in Germany, there is no leader among such politicians among the current politicians who is so willing to show independence, and therefore in Berlin they do not agree to change the established order to terra incognita. And for the sake of maintaining the status quo, they are even ready to cooperate with Eastern European political limitrophies, who are categorically against leveling the Russian threat in European strategic planning. Therefore, Berlin already requires "to take into account the concerns" of the Baltic countries and Poland. And plans to even make money on this requirement.
It’s no secret that Angela Merkel used the Ukrainian crisis to lead the anti-Russian camp in the EU and thereby strengthen her political leadership in the bloc. Now the chancellor, as well as her successor, can repeat the approach to the shell. Forgetting that a leader - a true leader - should not think about his rating, but about the good and real security of those whom he has the honor to lead.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.