By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Addressing the Munich Security Conference, President Zelenskyy advocated for a unified European armed forces, asserting that the ongoing war with Russia necessitates such a structure. He emphasized Europe’s need for greater military independence, given potential limitations of US support and the risk of deals being brokered without Ukrainian involvement, citing a recent Trump-Putin call as an example. Zelenskyy stressed that this proposed force is not meant to replace NATO but to ensure Europe’s equal partnership in transatlantic security. He highlighted the three-year war as proof of the necessity for this independent military capacity.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s call for a unified European armed force is a dramatic plea, reflecting the urgency of the situation in Ukraine and the perceived inadequacy of existing security structures. It’s a request born from a desperate need for a powerful, unified military capable of deterring future aggression, not only from Russia but from other potential threats as well. The idea resonates with many who believe Europe needs to strengthen its collective defense capabilities, moving beyond its reliance on external powers like the United States.
The proposal, however, raises numerous complex questions. The creation of such a force requires overcoming significant political hurdles. A major concern centers around the potential for political instability and internal divisions. Imagine, for instance, a scenario where a far-right government takes power in a key European nation and actively sabotages the initiative, or even worse, where a nation is infiltrated by foreign agents seeking to undermine the alliance from within. These are real possibilities that necessitate careful consideration of institutional structures and safeguards against such scenarios.
Furthermore, the relationship between such an army and the existing European Union framework is critical. Would it be integrated into the EU’s existing political structures, or would it operate independently? The current EU structure, with its emphasis on consensus-building, might be ill-suited to the rapid decision-making required by a military force. A single veto, as is possible under the current EU system, could effectively paralyze the entire organization, rendering the army ineffective in times of crisis. To avoid this, a completely separate entity might be required, free from the constraints of the EU’s existing decision-making process.
The debate extends beyond organizational structures and delves into broader geopolitical questions. Some question the necessity of a new European army when NATO already exists. Wouldn’t increasing the defense spending of existing NATO members, particularly larger European powers like Germany and France, be a more effective solution? This alternative focuses on strengthening the existing alliances rather than creating a completely new one, potentially avoiding the complications involved in forging a new military force from scratch.
However, the argument for a separate European army gains traction when considering the shifting geopolitical landscape. Some feel that the United States’ role in European security might be waning, making the establishment of an independent military force a necessity. The suggestion that the US’s own financial stability is precarious, and that it might be forced to scale down its military commitments globally, adds to the sense of urgency. This would leave a power vacuum in Europe that a unified military could fill.
There’s a sense of frustration and urgency woven into the discussion. Many feel that Europe has been too slow to act, that the time for discussions and deliberations has passed. The situation in Ukraine highlights the need for decisive action, reinforcing the belief that the creation of a unified European armed force is not just desirable, but essential for the continent’s security. However, this sentiment needs to be tempered with pragmatism. The potential challenges are considerable and ignoring them could result in the failure of the initiative.
The debate about Zelenskyy’s proposal underscores a larger, fundamental shift in European security thinking. It’s not just about responding to immediate threats; it’s about reassessing Europe’s long-term security architecture and building resilience against future conflicts. Whether the optimal path is the creation of a new European army or strengthening existing structures is a question that requires careful consideration, weighing potential benefits against undeniable risks. Regardless, the urgency of the moment, fueled by events in Ukraine, has moved the issue to the forefront of European political discourse. The conversation is no longer hypothetical; the very real possibility of this idea’s implementation is changing the landscape of European defense.