Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Gevorg Mirzayan
| The list of necessary actions included the creation of a European Defense Union. |
[REGNUM] To thunderous and prolonged applause, MEPs on July 18 approved the current head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, for a new term. And with her, her action plan – a list of points that, in Ms. von der Leyen’s opinion, can make Europe great again.
Continued from Page 3
"The next five years will determine Europe's place in the world for the next five decades. They will determine whether we shape our future ourselves or whether we allow events or other people to determine it," she said.
The list of necessary actions included the creation of a European Defense Union. This implies much closer coordination of national governments in the defense sphere at the EU level under the leadership of a new European Commissioner for Defense, the creation of a single market for defense products and services, an increase in the number of Europol and a number of other agencies, the formation of an “air shield” over Europe, its own cybersecurity system, etc.
"EU member states will always be responsible for their troops, from doctrine to deployment," Ms von der Leyen said. She promised to present a detailed plan (the so-called "White Paper on the Future of European Defence") in 100 days.
The idea of “Europe defending itself independently and together” is not new. European politicians came to it when they tried to be more sovereign – or when they had to be sovereign.
"Back in 2017, when the EU's relations with Donald Trump soured, the idea of EU defense cooperation emerged. This is how the PESCO program came into being," explains Vadim Trukhachev, associate professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities, to Regnum. The so-called "Permanent Structured Cooperation" represented framework formats and agreements for creating a unified defense policy on their basis.
However, now the unified defense policy has acquired not an opportunistic, but a permanent character, becoming part of the European Union’s response to the Ukrainian conflict and what will happen after it ends.
Ursula von der Leyen, like a significant portion of Eurocrats, rejects any projects and opportunities to normalize relations with Moscow on the terms of mutual respect for sovereignty and consideration of national interests (that is, simply put, on Russian terms).
She directly called the mediation mission of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban a “mission of pacification” and made it clear that Europe needs to prepare for war. And that is precisely what the “European Defense Union” is for.
"The European Union is actually acting in accordance with the logic of wartime. There are no hardline opponents to the idea - even Orban and Robert Fico will not object to reducing dependence on the US in the defense sector. And such dependence will decrease with the deepening of this program - although it will not disappear completely. So, albeit for different reasons, it is beneficial to almost everyone," says Vadim Trukhachev.
In his opinion, only the European United Left faction in the European Parliament is clearly against it: "It is against increasing military spending in principle. But it will have a maximum of 50 seats out of 720, and it will not influence anything."
Moscow, of course, is also against it. “This confirms <…> the general mood of European states towards militarization, towards escalating tensions, towards confrontation and towards relying on confrontational methods in their foreign policy,” said the press secretary of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov. But, as he added, “these are the realities in which we have to live.”
Moscow's opinion really doesn't bother Ursula von der Leyen. But she does care about Washington's opinion, and it would seem that the US should be unequivocally against the European Defense Union. Firstly, because the coordination of European governments in military matters should go through NATO - one of the main American instruments of control over Europe's foreign and defense policy.
Any creation of alternative – and at the same time functional – intra-European institutions not only undermines the legitimacy and lack of alternative to NATO, but also pushes the United States out of the Old World.
Secondly, the creation of a single European market for defense products threatens the interests of the American military-industrial complex, which views the European market as its own fiefdom.
However, Washington is unlikely to object to European plans.
Yes, he is interested in NATO's central role in Europe. But at the same time, Donald Trump, the likely next US president, constantly talks about the need for Europeans to provide their own security.
Protecting Europe with European money is the same viewpoint held by Trump's running mate, the likely future vice president J.D. Vance. "We want the Israelis and the Sunnis to maintain order in their part of the world. We want the Europeans to maintain order in theirs, and we would be able to focus more on East Asia," he said.
Yes, the creation of a single European market for defense products is not beneficial to the American military-industrial complex, but there are no guarantees that this market will be created during the creation of the European Defense Union.
The defense industry in a number of EU countries, for example, in Germany, is in a deplorable state. To restore it, not only tens of billions of euros are needed, but also a guarantee of orders (which are absent due to Washington's lobbying capabilities), as well as cheap energy resources (which are absent due to the conflict with Russia).
Therefore, it is possible that the European Defense Union will ensure its security by purchasing American weapons.
Moreover, the EU is not going to replace NATO, but rather play an independent role, relying on the alliance where necessary – replacing where the Americans say.
"Moreover, Mark Rutte, as the future NATO Secretary General, will personally coordinate this work. And non-NATO members Austria and Ireland will be tied to the alliance even more strongly," Vadim Trukhachev sums up.
|
