Is Europe’s rise to separate from America, the “single army” and “defense fund”?

Mehr News Agency , International Group, Hassan Shokouhi Nasab: The humiliation of Ukrainian President Walodimir Zelnski by US President Donald Trump and his vice -president JD Venus. Separate from America.

alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, who has always been a major supporter of European military independence from the United States, and in particular the idea of ​​forming a “European Union Army”, these days Friedrich Mortex An approach that is directly linked to Trump’s humiliating treatment of Ukraine and subsequent military and intelligence assistance with the country. In addition to pursuing the European army instead of NATO, Brussels leaders have created a “defense fund” under the management of the European Commission.

European Commission Chairman Ursula von launched a new plan to increase EU member states’ defense budget and enhance the continent’s security in response to Washington’s controversial decision to stop military assistance to Ukraine. The project, called Rearm Europe, emphasizes the increase in union’s defense investments, the use of joint financial instruments, and the strengthening of European deterrence.

European Commission Chairman further explained that the project includes five main axes to enhance the EU’s defense capability in the coming years; First, the abolition of financial constraints to increase national defense budget; Second, creating a new credit fund worth € 5 billion; Third, Increasing the role of the EU budget in support of the defense industry; Fourth, private investment through financial reform as well as fifth, developing strategic partnerships with NATO and other Western allies.

, EU leaders at the Brussels Emergency Summit responded to suspension of US military aid and a change in Washington’s position on Russia, a packet of € 5 billion to boost European defense and military and financial support from Ukraine. Von in Line, as the Chairman of the Commission, emphasized that Europe should be more responsible for its security, was commissioned to make more accurate suggestions in this regard.

, from the viewers’ point of view, the formation of the European Union and the creation of a defense fund can lead to the strengthening of the EU’s military capability and strategic independence. However, the success of these projects, which face internal and external barriers, depends on the effective coordination and cooperation of member states.

internal and external barriers to the implementation of the United States of Europe and the Defense Fund Span>

۱ Difference in defense and security policies

European countries have different approaches in terms of defense policies, security strategies and dependence on foreign military forces. Some of these countries, such as France, seek strategic independence and are active in international military missions, while countries such as Austria traditionally pursue military neutrality policy. This divergence showed itself in military operations against Libya that, unlike France and Britain, Germany decided not to participate in the operation. Such differences indicate a lack of convergence in military decisions that can challenge a united army.

۱ NATO’s opposition

some European countries, especially those who are highly dependent on NATO, are reluctant to form a united European army. The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the Baltic countries are among the countries that emphasize the role of NATO as the main column of European defense and see the formation of the European army as a weaker replacement than NATO.

The dispute continues to the extent that the European Union failed to agree on a joint position on Ukraine’s support on Thursday, March 5, because Hungary – a country that has been a member of the EU since year 6, has been in Shengan. Prime Minister Victor Urban emphasized that the European Union could not continue to support Ukraine without US aid.

۱ Technical and logistical challenges

One of the biggest obstacles to the formation of the United European Army is the lack of coordination in the weapons and military equipment of the member states. Each country has different defense equipment and operational standards that make the military integration complex. This dispersion causes problems in supplying parts, training forces, and coordinating joint military operations. France and Germany, for example, have not yet been able to agree on a common model for the next generation fighter, because each country has its own weapons producers who have strong competition. In general, these obstacles show that the implementation of the European Union Army and the Defense Fund not only requires political will, but also the existing structural, technical and strategic challenges must also be resolved.

۱. Financial problems of European countries

One of the main obstacles to the implementation of the European Union and the Defense Fund is the financial limitations of many EU member states. The United States has always urged European members to allocate at least 2 % of their GDP (GDP) to defense costs. However, many European countries are incapable of achieving this goal or are reluctant to increase their military budget. NATO targeted about 2.5 percent of GDP in the short term and 2 percent of GDP in year 2 for Amsterdam’s summit in year 2. However, many EU countries are incapable of allocating the same 5 % formerly.

A few days ago a senior EU diplomat in a conversation with the American Pulitico magazine, saying that the issue of defense is a national responsibility, announced his country’s opposition to the establishment of a defense fund under the management of the European Commission.

The American magazine announced Poland and Finland, including the opposition countries, and wrote: “At the next European leaders’ meeting, facilitating the union’s regulations to increase the defense costs will leave the budget deficit with the present governments.”

Politico reported the anger of countries such as Italy and Spain over their low defense budgets, adding that countries such as Germany, Poland and Greece now spend more than 5 % of their budget for defense issues.

۱. Barriers called America and NATO

is one of the external barriers to the implementation of the United States of Europe and the defense fund, opposition and disruption of the United States. The United States has been the main provider of Europe’s security through NATO since the end of World War II, and has invested billions of dollars in defense and deployment of military forces in Europe. The creation of a European united army can diminish this role and reduce US strategic influence on the European continent.

Washington has always been cautious or essentially opposed to the idea of ​​European military independence. Various US governments, both Republicans and Democrats, are concerned that the creation of a European army will reduce the financial obligations of European countries to NATO and reduce their dependence on the United States. For example, when Macron first spoke of the idea of ​​”European Independent Army”, Trump called it offensive and tweeted, “Maybe Europe must first pay its share in NATO before talking about an independent army!”

now, Trump’s America may apply diplomatic, economic and even threatening security commitments to prevent the formation of an independent European army.

“NATO” is also one of the other external barriers to independent Europe. Creating an independent defense structure such as the United European Union could lead to the weakening of NATO and reducing coordination among member states. Many NATO members are concerned that focusing on the European army will weaken NATO and reduce US security obligations. Therefore, any attempt to create a European army requires a specific coordination with NATO and a specific agreement on the division of tasks so that the European army will be complementary to existing defense structures rather than competition.

Final Speech

The idea of ​​European military independence from the United States and the formation of a European United Army can theoretically increase the continent’s defense capability and strategic independence, but in practice it faces serious obstacles. The internal differences between European countries over defense policies, financial obligations and military coordination are key challenges. Many European countries refuse to accept these changes due to economic problems, unwillingness to increase military spending and historical dependence on NATO. Also, the scattering of weapons and the lack of joint military infrastructure makes it difficult to coordinate the national armies.

In the external dimension, the US and NATO response to these efforts is one of the main obstacles. The United States, which has played a key role in securing Europe, is opposed to reducing its influence on the continent and may apply diplomatic and economic pressure to prevent the formation of an independent European army. On the other hand, the creation of an independent European army will be challenging without interference with NATO, as many European countries, especially in the east of the continent, still see NATO as a guarantee of their security.

, in spite of efforts by European military independence, it will be difficult to implement the idea in the short term and require serious political determination, increase coordination between members, and find a way to manage relations with America and NATO. It was in this connection that the US NBC News website, after Trump and Zelnsky’s recent verbal arguments, pointed to Europe’s efforts to military independence from Washington, stressing that “filling the security vacuum from the European independence from the United States takes at least five years.”