Will a European army be created?

 The idea of a European army is not new. Eisenhower pushed for it but the French parliament shot down the proposal. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some Europeans raised the issue, but the US was not keen. Later, after an agreement between Blair & Chirac in 1998, a 'rapid reaction force' (at least on paper) has existed since 2007. In more recent years, little has been heard of it. Why? Europe has given up on 'convergence' to US per capita income. It has been growing at 1 percent whereas the Indo-Pacific has been growing at 5 to 10 percent. Europe has become less important. One might say, the need to create a big European army may cause Brussels to do a 180 degree turn. It may scrap the regulatory and compliance and accountability burden and order member States to do the same. Efficiency will take priority. Euro-sclerosis will disappear. Growth will average 5 percent and thus even if defence spending triples and quadruples, it will take no more than the existing share of the GDP (over a wide enough time horizon). Sadly, we have heard this story before at the time of the introduction of the euro. Currently Europe spends about 450 billion dollars on its armies which, in purchasing power parity terms is less than Russia. America spends almost 900 billion and has much less capital (as opposed to recurring) costs. But Europe's defence needs are much greater- more particularly if it wants to do force projection. Thus it may need to spend 1.2 trillion to get into the game. That's about 4 to 5 percent of GDP. The problem is 'crowding out' as opposed to a multiplier and accelerator effect. If infrastructure spending is crowded out, the burden increases. Moreover, if a lot has to be imported (over 70 percent currently), the exchange rate and hence the terms of trade fall. Less of the gains of trade are captured. True, this may be offset by higher exports. But will they materialize? Surely, lower wage economies will enter this crowded marketplace? There is another argument against going down this road. Technology is very much in flux. We may invest in obsolete platforms. One reason the Brits in the Thirties, despite their belief in air power, didn't actually build a lot of planes was because the technology was evolving rapidly. Perhaps, that is even more true today. 

Anyway, most of us now think, boosting manufacturing doesn't mean more jobs for our yobs. Immigrants will be required but, sadly, the locals don't seem too keen on them anymore. 

Some 6 years ago the head of NATO, a Norwegian, said

'What ...is important is that we need to avoid any perception that Europe can manage without NATO,

i.e. Europe can't defend itself. Why? Europeans hate and fear each other more than any bogeyman who, it is alleged, will invade and enslave them.  Put simply, if there is a European army, then there is no separate national sovereignty. There is only 'dual sovereignty' like that of the US. But that dual sovereignty didn't prevent a horrific Civil War over the right of secession. 

because two World Wars and the Cold War taught us that

we need outsiders to defend us and get us to play nice with each other and to wipe our bums 

we need a strong transatlantic bond to preserve peace and stability in Europe,” he said. “Especially after Brexit, it’s obvious that EU efforts cannot replace NATO, because after Brexit, 80 percent of NATO’s defense expenditure will come from non-EU members.”

He who pays the piper calls the tune. If America pays most, then it decides when and where to fight. Obama had previously said that Ukraine was vital to Russia but not America. He wouldn't fight there. He also said that Cameron & Sarkozy had tricked him into involvement in Libya. Never again would the US do 'stupid shit' because silly Europeans thought it a swell idea. Sadly, Obama hadn't bargained on his senile blockhead of a Veep becoming President. Biden, last year, promised to open NATOs door to Ukraine after the war ended- i.e. when NATO membership stopped mattering. But Biden was writing too many blank checks and promising too much to all and sundry. This was inflationary and Kamala paid the price of his profligacy. Europe understood that it needed to curry favour with Trump. Zelensky was supposed to go and sign a deal with Trump and the hope was this would cause him to back Biden era policies. Sadly, Zelensky blew up that deal with the result that Trump has paused assistance and is now looking at lifting some Russian sanctions. Europe could be left out in the cold as 'the big three'- Russia, China and the US get cosy at their expense. This means even if Europe gets an army equal to what US has now by 2035, the world would have changed so much that Europe would rank fourth and have little force projection capacity outside its borders. In other words, it would have spent a lot to be only as secure as it was when under American tutelage. But, it would have less 'voice' in global affairs. 

The question is whether Ukraine is now so vital an interest for Europe that it spends 5 percent of GNP so as to have its own Army? After all, Ukraine does have a battle hardened army- the largest in Europe- and thus is bringing something to the table. Moreover the Baltic countries, and maybe Norway itself, do feel threatened. Poland is putting its money where its mouth is and buying a lot of weapons. But nobody really thinks Putin is Hitler. Russia's vital interests in Ukraine were threatened and it wants to redraw borders taking in Russian speakers who, it appears, aren't too keen on being reunited to Mother Russia. American policy has been pretty consistent save in that Biden liked spending money like a drunken sailor and had no problem squandering billions in a place where his son had business dealings of a questionable type. But, sooner or later, the US was bound to stop pissing money against a wall of no intrinsic interest to them.

The question now is whether Europe will piss money in that direction. It may for a bit. But voters will rebel. What now seems possible is that a 'coalition of the willing' led by 'the big 4'- Starmer (whose army is considered strongest in Europe) Macron (France comes third because Italy is in second place), Merz & Meloni- will revive the proposal to create a European Army except it won't be called that. If this happens, Macron may hope to get his legacy as the second De Gaulle. For the moment, Starmer's people may think they are scoring off Farage but the truth is UK taxpayers don't care about Ukraine. Merz may find it difficult to form a government and coalition partners may make big financial demands to help their own constituencies thus restricting fiscal headroom. One big problem with a European army is that there would be demands that it be used to remove people like Orban or to protect national minorities. Meloni may be aware of the pushback against this possibility from the Right. Furthermore, Mediterranean countries have different interests from Nordic or Baltic countries. Does Ukraine matter to Italy or Greece? Not very much. Money spent in the Baltic or Black sea is money which would have gone to the Mediterranean. 

Some two weeks ago, Zelenskyy at the Munich Security Conference called for the creation of a European Army. Why? He  said, I've talked to Trump. The plain fact is, US wants to end the Ukraine war through bilateral negotiations with Russia leaving Europe out in the cold. Somewhat foolishly, he added that Russia was assembling a new force of 150,000 men and asked the question 'if Putin comes for you, can your army fight him off the way Ukraine has done?' The answer was obvious. NATO members were safe- till the Joker's antics caused doubts to be sown about Article 5. Ukraine wasn't in NATO and should never have put its faith in Biden, whose doctrine was 'when the going gets tough, run the fuck away' . America didn't give a fart about the place though maybe they would buy its 'raw earth' and keep it safe for that reason. 

Be that as it may, it appears, it was the spectre of a European Army suddenly springing into existence which motivated Zelenskyy's fait accompli (though maybe Macron had primed him to do it) 

 If Ukraine really is a vital interest of Europe's, then the moment Zelenskyy blew up the deal offered by Trump, Europe had no choice but to create a European army. Sadly, even if Europeans really lurve Ukrainians, this will take time and 'moral hazard' is triggered in that the senior partner may abandon the junior partner who has decided to take an independent line. In other words, in the short to medium term, Europe's security position worsens while the financial burden rises rapidly. This is great news from Lockheed Martin. (Most EU defence purchases are from the US).

Economically, the question of protection for indigenous military production puts a big strain on relations with America and disrupts long range planning. That's why the existing position is that Europe will only do 'complementary' not 'competing' military production. But this leaves Europe tied to America's apron strings. Even Israel can't do what it likes because of this dependence. But, unlike Israel, Europe has a vast population and can certainly sustain very high levels of military production as well as R&D. 

Will there be a European army? Probably not. If a thing doesn't exist, there's a good reason why people think the thing would be highly mischievous. Armies are good things if you habitually do smart things. If you do stupid shit, powerful Armies are the last thing you should have. Europe's record in this respect has been bad. Moreover, it does not really face an existential threat. Putin isn't Hitler. But if you throw European troops into the Ukrainian meat grinder, Russia may retaliate across other borders. The US may decide that article 5 support is best supplied by sending thoughts and prayers. 

It appears that Trump has got Putin to agree to European peacekeepers. So the 'coalition of the willing' can save face by paying for a rag-tag bunch of squaddies standing around freezing their tits off. Meanwhile defence budgets rise and American military suppliers laugh all the way to the Bank. I suppose Hungary and Slovakia, who are holding out against aid for Ukraine, will have to be bought off. The question then becomes whether it is the powers that be, in Europe, or their insurgent challengers on the Right who benefit. This depends on whether voters think Euro money to Ukraine is well spent. Stories of Ukrainian corruption could alter the outcome. 

Zelenskyy is a comedian. Like little children, comedians find it odd (or pretend to find it odd) that people say one thing and do another. But the reason for this is economic. Fine words cost nothing but, sadly, butter no parsnips. Do a deal and the guy you are doing the deal with finds it in his interest to provide you with security. Blowing up a deal because you think this will cause an imaginary army to come fight for you is the act of an infantile, imbecilic, Joker. 

Obviously, there is another, more cynical explanation for Zelenskyy's clownish behaviour. He knows Ukraine is screwed. If he does a deal with the US, the Alien Torts Act will apply. Every contract could come under scrutiny. Convictions for corruption and extradition demands will follow. You will have to take refuge in Israel if you want to keep your freedom. On the other hand, European countries are more understanding in this respect. You can keep your ill gotten wealth though maybe, from time to time, your have to get a journalist killed or an EU auditor transferred by paying a little money.