Will an 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 also 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 do so, 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. 

Zelensky- the Joker who thinks he is Batman.

 Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote a post asking if Zelenskyy would go the way of Sakashvilli- a former Georgian President now in jail. I got a lot wrong in that post. In subsequent posts I saw Zelenskyy as a heroic, even Churchillian, figure. But Churchill was a professional soldier turned statesman. He wooed FDR. He did not try to bully him or show him up in front of his own people. Because of his American mother, Churchill- more than any of his contemporaries in England-  understood that the American Civil War was the first truly modern war. It was then that the US showed its extraordinary capacity to very quickly train and equip vast armies. Thus, Churchill was properly humble to what he knew must be senior partner in the Union of English speaking people in which he believed so firmly. This is not to say that things never got heated between him and FDR. Relations were greatly strained at the Casablanca conference. But then FDR unilaterally announced the war objective was 'unconditional surrender' which took Churchill by surprise but which was greatly in the interest of the Empire. Where there is great asymmetry of power, the smart move is to let the big guy commit on his own to going whole hog. FDR did so not because Churchill was at the Conference but because Stalin wasn't. The lesson here is that the guy not in the room is the one who matters. In this case, for Trump it was China- the rising power par excellence because it is growing at five percent. For Zelenskyy it was Europe- which was only worth protecting for the US when its growth was 5 % back in the Sixties- whose leaders he will meet tomorrow. They already hate Trump or have a political reason to wish to back Zelenskyy. Britain's Starmer is attacking the rising power of the Reform party by saying Farage is Putin's poodle. Germany's new Chancellor is angry about Musk's support for AfD. Macron too can gain some political capital against his rivals. Which way will Meloni jump? Not with fug ugly Orban. That's for sure. Still, my point is Zelenskyy will receive a hero's welcome from these leaders. Since he doesn't have to hold elections while there is martial law, he is in no hurry to make peace. Thus from his own point of view, he has scored a blinder. But then Sakashvilli too was once considered a great hero by European leaders who promised EU integration and NATO membership. 

What should China- which as I said is the rising power- do in this situation? If Zelenskyy is a nutter who will go the way of a Sakashvilli, it should stick to Putin and watch Europe back down. If Zelenskyy hadn't been a nutter, he would have said little at the Press Conference but maybe cried while handing round pictures of murdered babies. In broken English, he should have expressed his nation's gratitude to Uncle Sam and said, when a reporter asked him why he wasn't wearing a suit, that he does not have the height and shoulder width and commanding presence of Donald Trump. 'I seeemple man. I iz no have gud clothes. But Ukraine rich. I dig dig dig raw earth for you earn mucho dollar. Maybe buy nice suit for my daughter's bat mitzvah- how you say... quinceañera?'. At this point Trump might have made a grand gesture. Why? What a smart POTUS wants is to drive a wedge between Russia and China. Currently Putin looks like the weak sister which is why it is worth wooing him. But maybe not all that much. If Trump had chosen to put the screws to Putin it would means having to give China a better deal. That's what really matters. For the moment, assuming Europe backs down and the Ukrainians dump the joker, China can carry on with its current strategy while considering what global trade patterns will look like eighteen months from now. That suits Trump too. Much of what will unfold is 'discovery' about elasticities, robustness etc. Once that picture has clarified- i.e. the deals are made- then 'security' can be easily settled. At any rate, that's what Trump is saying loud and clear to China precisely because the name of that country never passed anyone's lips. 

Zelenskyy, in his joint press conference with Trump, took the opposite tack to Churchill with FDR. He repeatedly contradicted his host and made an unseemly jibe- 'you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future'- in other words, Americans are pussies. You can say this in a pub towards closing time and, if you are a big guy who served in the Stepsnaz, the weedy little Yank you are talking to may swallow the insult. But, Zelenskyy was in the White House not some low dive. Moreover, he was the little guy and Trump was the big beast with the swinging dick. Trump shot him down but did not lose his own cool. After all, Trump had achieved all his aims in the interview. 

By contrast, Zelenskyy- though gaining the favour of European lightweights who face internal problems from the Right-  hasn't just blown himself up- Ukraine will have to dump him if Trump forces the issue- he has blown up the credibility of Article 5 of NATO. This is the requirement to aid a member who has been attacked. It has only been used once- after 9/11- and was an occasion for ex-Warsaw pact countries to show their loyalty. Once Trump mentioned World War III, it became clear that 'support' doesn't mean a nuclear umbrella. Even otherwise, what Article 5 does not cover is support for a country which initiates hostilities. Arguably, NATO countries which sends troops into the Ukrainian meat grinder have initiated hostilities. If Russia retaliates along their border with such countries, America could refuse support. Just a day or two ago, some Europeans were hailing Trump's support for Article 5 in a Press Conference he gave. Now the joker has blown it up.

Europe triggered World Wars twice in the first half of the twentieth century. Sadly, American spoilsports put boots on the ground to prevent Europe from going for Round Three. Now, in 2025, Europe is welcome to destroy itself without the rest of the world getting involved. After all, it is China which is the rising power.

 I suppose Zelenskyy's game plan was

1) get a security guarantee even though guarantees mean shit just as assurances do (the US had assured its territorial integrity back in the Nineties when it gave up nukes)

2) get European troops into the meat grinder and hope for an escalation of hostilities across their borders so that Article 5 is triggered and a united NATO defeats Russia and gets it to pay massive reparations to Ukraine.

A smart guy who wants a security guarantee says 'look, there is no security problem. Putin is a lovely guy. The whole thing was a misunderstanding. What's the harm in giving a guarantee to a pal who will never ask you to honor it? Don't forget we've lots of lovely 'raw earth' (as Trump puts it) which you are welcome to have as a present from us. 

It is now evident that Zelenskyy is not a smart guy. He said Putin is now using ballistic missiles against Ukraine because Putin thinks Ukraine is part of Russia. The problem here is that ICBMs are ballistic missiles. They can cross 'nice oceans' and flatten multiple cities. Putin has no beef with America or Poland because only Ukrainians and maybe Byelorussians speak Russian (Zelensky is a Russian speaker by birth). Why get involved in a fratricidal war? It is clear Zelenskyy will never make peace. He is like Saakashvili who led his country to defeat in a war in which Russia supported the other side. After his own people had enough of his misrule he fled to Ukraine where he was made a governor of a Province by Poroshenko. Then the crazy fellow turned against his patron and created his own political party. Poroshenko stripped him of citizenship. Zelensky, once elected, restored it and gave the nutter some high sounding job. Then the silly man made the mistake of returning to Georgia where he is rotting in jail. 

Perhaps this will be Zelenskyy's own future trajectory. I suppose there has been corruption and beating and killing of opponents under his regime. There must be a good reason he hasn't held elections. It is easy enough to do so by Presidential ordinance without lifting martial law.  Sadly, he may have to flee to some other country once he gets the order of the boot. Perhaps that is his true motivation. He just wants to survive even if every last drop of valorous Ukrainian blood has to be shed to keep him in power. 

There was no great harm in Zelensky dressing like a soldier during the conflict. The mistake was to think he was actually Batman. He forgot that Batman's super-power is that he is as rich as fuck. European leaders need to put some distance between themselves and this child. A joker can be a winning card in some card games. But, this joker can't trump Trump. 

Will Zelenskyy go the way of Saakashvili?

 In 2008, Saakashvili looked like a smart, brave, reformer in Georgia. But he was Christian and Georgians have a strongly Christian identity. But some Ossetians were Muslim and wars in that region have to be about Christians taking a battering because...urm... how can I put this delicately?... Christians aint gonna come to our Cities and suicide bomb us so as to get to fuck plenty of virgins in Paradise. Thus Sarkozy turned up to broker a deal between the Georgians and the Rooskies.

 Where is Saakashvili now? On hunger strike, in prison in Georgia. Previously he'd been taken up by the Ukrainians and Poroshenko had appointed him Governor of a Province but then Poroshenko kicked him out and then Zelenskyy brought him back but then Saakashvili thought he could return to Georgia in triumph and now the guy is just a laughing stock.

Poroshenko too has returned to Ukraine but may stay out of jail for the time being because he claims he is there to fight the Rooskis. Zelenskyy rose to power by making fun of crazy narcissists like Poroshenkov and Saakashvili and others more evil yet. But the guy is of Jewish heritage as is his Prime Minister. Guess who is going to get the blame when things turn pear shaped? 

Ukraine, on independence, was about 20 per cent richer than Poland. It had nukes. If it had grown as fast as Poland, it would be a regional power. Sadly, Ukraine did not free up manufacturing for f.d.i. Instead oligarchs were favored in that sector while the country pursued a chimera of wealth through finance and real estate speculation. Thus, after 2008, the country was ripe for revolution. It had fallen behind  even Belarus. Sadly, its 'Euromaidan' revolution did not improve economic policy. Unlike the Armenian Revolution, in 2018, which elevated Pashniyan who did improve the economy and reduce corruption and so forth, Zelenskyy and Proshenkov failed on the economic front. Thus, though Pashniyan got re-elected after the Azerbaijanis gave his country a beating, it is unlikely that Ukraine's clowns will be rehabilitated if it is discovered that they are shit at fighting Rooskies. They led their country down an internally divisive, economically disastrous, garden path. Poroshenko, in particular, passed a law in 2019 making Ukrainian mandatory for all public sector workers- a stupid piece of chauvinistic populism- in a country where 30 percent speak Russian while only 53 percent say they speak Ukrainian at home- thus making a widening of the conflict inevitable. Zelenskyy, a Russian speaker, was supposed to roll back this law. He doubled down on it. The consequence are now visible in bombed out buildings in the capital itself. 

Biden, of course, is known for his hatred of Putin and his son's entanglement with Ukrainian craziness. Putin's reckless action gives Biden a unique historical opportunity to undermine American 'exorbitant privilege' by fucking up SWIFT. Sadly, BoJo is taking the lead on this. That is a clear signal it is the stupidest possible thing to do. Meanwhile, the comedy of Christian Europe fucking up all down the line runs and runs.