The European army could be seen as a snub by the United States

(B2) German Angela Merkel must be aware of the dangers of talking about a 'European army', according to Debora Haynes. The words of the editor-in-chief 'Foreign Affairs' of Skynews may not be shared, but it is an interesting piece of debate

There is no doubt that the (German) Chancellor's objective is laudable: to rally her country and other members of the European Union to stimulate investment in their armed forces and to be smarter when buying planes together fighters, warships and other equipment to drive down costs.

She will also want nations to ensure that each country's respective combat power best compliments and enhances their collective strength.

But Ms Merkel's remarks last Tuesday [in Aachen] — as she and French President Emmanuel Macron signed a pact to strengthen ties, including on defense — could easily be interpreted as across the Atlantic as an affront to the pre-existing military force in Europe, in other words NATO.

President Donald Trump has previously attacked E. Macron after the French leader spoke of his desire for a "true European army" in November (see also: Trump tackles Macron's European army project. Is he right ?).

The US commander-in-chief doesn't need much motivation to follow through on a threat to withdraw — or at least attempt to withdraw — his military from the transatlantic defense alliance, which has been the cornerstone of the European and American security over the past seven decades.

He warned that this could happen unless the majority of NATO's other 28 member states increase defense spending to a minimum of 2% of national income.

Any suggestion that European powers like France and Germany seek to bolster Europe's defenses in isolation could increase the risk of such a US departure.

A seismic change

It would be a seismic shift in the global distribution of power that would deal a fatal blow to an alliance that has helped hold the West together since the end of World War II.

Of course, French, German and European officials say their desire to strengthen European armed forces is to complement NATO capabilities rather than duplicate them. Twenty-two members of the alliance are also members of the EU - a number that will rise to 21 after Brexit.

Britain, however, is among allies who have long opposed greater EU defense integration, fearing such a move would dilute efforts when most EU nations — such as Germany, Spain and Italy — are already failing to meet their NATO spending commitments.

An unsustainable European army?

The German army [Bundeswehr] is so under-resourced that there have been reports of a tank unit being forced to use broomsticks as guns [for training], while last year the six under -country sailors were out of commission for repairs.

We can also [question the question of] the viability of a European army that is not supported by the United States. The UK and France are the only EU members to have the full range of land, air, sea, cyber and space capabilities, even though many elements of the UK Armed Forces have been wiped out by decades reductions in defense spending.

This means that the ability of a purely European army to sustain a large-scale operation over a long period without the United States is very doubtful. A dilemma that will take years of targeted spending to solve.

An army integrated into NATO

A much better idea would be for political leaders of the European Union like Mrs Merkel and Mr Macron to make sure, when they argue for a European army, that they are still convinced that this army is part of the NATO and for Europe to share more of the burden within the alliance - a move that should silence Trump's critics and help strengthen the transatlantic bond.

(Deborah Laynes)

Article published in Skynews Sun. 27 January. Reproduced with permission from the author. Translation and headings provided by the editorial staff. His remarks do not necessarily reflect the editorial line