In a hurry, the governments agreed on common sanctions against the attacker and on aid measures for the people of the attacked country and the war refugees. It was noteworthy that France and Germany, the heart chambers of the EU, were rather reluctant to support them with arms deliveries.
At the same time, not a few of Russia’s political friends in the EU have had a hard time explaining themselves in recent weeks. Marine Le Pen clearly lost the presidential election in France last Sunday to Emmanuel Macron, who was not particularly popular in his own country.
Austria corrected its initially very hesitant attitude towards severe sanctions against Russia, and even Hungary’s right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, probably the closest ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the EU, did not oppose any of the sanctions aimed at Moscow.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
In Slovenia, the voted-out head of government Janez Jansa is likely to have been politically doomed not least by his closeness to Orban and thus to Putin in last Sunday’s election. The Lega Nord in Italy, which is supported by the Kremlin, has also seen better times when it comes to popular voters.
Great opportunity to advance European integration
In Germany, the AfD’s pro-Putin orientation is falling on its toes, and quite a few Social Democrats and some prominent politicians from the Left Party quickly revised their understanding, transfigured view of the Kremlin. In short: there is great agreement: Putin is an aggressor whose urge to expand must be countered with determination and strength.
Prof. Bert Rürup is President of the Handelsblatt Research Institute (HRI) and Chief Economist of the Handelsblatt. For many years he was a member and chairman of the German Council of Economic Experts and an adviser to several federal and foreign governments. You can find out more about the work of Professor Rürup and his team at research.handelsblatt.com.
Now the war in Ukraine and concerns about its continued existence as an independent country are undoubtedly tying up large diplomatic capacities in the capitals of Europe. Nevertheless, it would be a serious mistake to neglect to take a look at Brussels.
After all, Putin’s secondary goal of a willing puppet government taking power in Ukraine was to split the EU in this way. Although the war is still raging, the attempt at division has failed miserably.
In fact, the chances of advancing the integration of Europe have never been better than today. Brexit is history and certainly not suitable for promoting the meaningfulness of leaving this community of states.
Germany and France have new, pro-Europe governments, and in Italy Mario Draghi, another great European, is head of government at least until the beginning of next year.
Putin’s side goal of a willing puppet government taking power in Ukraine was certainly to split the EU in this way.
(Photo: dpa)
At the same time, there is a danger that in a good two years Donald Trump or a clone of him will move into the White House and the USA will largely leave the old continent to itself, not least in military terms. It is therefore hard to imagine a better time for this community of states to take a bold step towards greater depth.
“Window of Opportunity”
The fact is that the conflict in Ukraine has opened a “window of opportunity” to come a great deal closer to the vision of a united and strengthened Europe. This includes a coordinated foreign policy that is long overdue, the European Security Council proposed by Macron and, last but not least, a common army.
A European army will have to start out as an army of Europeans, i.e. consisting of the national armed forces that can only be used as a European armed force. Initially, there will be a division and integration of national armies’ capabilities and joint procurement programs.
More Handelsblatt articles on the war in Ukraine
This has already opened up considerable potential for efficiency. At the end of this process there would be a common army that would give new impetus to European identification.
In the early 1950s, a European army seemed within reach. The mature plans for a “European Defense Community” foundered at the last minute because of France’s veto – with the argument that French soldiers could not be expected to wear the same uniforms as German soldiers.
Since 1989, however, there has been a 6,000-strong Franco-German brigade whose staff is stationed in Müllheim, Germany.
Further attempts were more due to distrust of the USA. In 2003, under the impression of the Iraq war, the then Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the heads of state and government of Belgium, France and Luxembourg proposed a European security and defense union.
In a hurry, the governments agreed on joint relief measures for the people of the invaded country and for those fleeing the war.
(Photo: dpa)
With the “Permanent Structured Cooperation” (Pesco) – at the time of Donald Trump’s presidency – an institutional basis was created at the end of 2017. The member states involved agreed in a legally binding manner to cooperate more closely in the planning and development of military capabilities.
European army would be compatible with NATO structures
A common European army would be compatible with the structures of NATO. It would not be an expression of distrust in the United States, but could play a stronger role in the common defense alliance.
If you had a European army instead of almost two dozen national armed forces with their numerous, often incompatible weapon systems, there would be enormous economic potential in the medium term for the procurement and maintenance of military equipment. Because while the USA, the strongest military power in the world, gets by with 30 weapon systems, around 160 (!) different systems are used in the 23 national armies in the EU.
A European army would be part of NATO, and the countries supporting that army would be under NATO’s nuclear shield. This would eliminate an answer to the ultimately unsolvable problem of France’s Force de Frappe, France’s nuclear force, which serves exclusively to defend France.
On the other hand, it would be obvious, even necessary, to develop the strategies for a future cyber war at European level that do not yet exist – using our own cutting-edge technologies.
>> Read more: US military strategist – “I doubt that Putin will be successful with his new strategy”
In addition, the United States could be financially relieved, even if the EU states usually invested less than two percent of their economic power in armaments, as in the past decades. It is obvious that such an army, whose soldiers would not only be professional soldiers but also volunteers, would strengthen the cohesion of the EU states.
Even if the Commission is the EU’s supreme executive body, command of these European troops should rest with the European Security Council, made up of the heads of state or government and their foreign and defense ministers.
Of course, none of this will happen overnight and will require member states to give up their sovereign rights. But a union that could agree on a common currency should not leave the military permanently under national control. After all, the great advantages of a common European army are obvious.
More: Follow the current developments in the Ukraine war in the live blog