By Matt Underwood Spain’s proposal to create a joint EU army, especially given the backdrop of rising global instability and a potential dispute over Greenland, is a fascinating and complex issue. The idea, as Spain’s Foreign Minister articulated, is to establish a unified military force as a deterrent. The notion of a “coalition of the willing,” with key players like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain at the core, seems like a pragmatic starting point. It’s probably unrealistic to expect all 27 EU member states to sign up immediately, and starting with a core group could be a good approach, preventing a backlash.
One of the central arguments revolves around the necessity for the EU to develop greater strategic autonomy, particularly as doubts grow about the continued reliability of the United States. The situation with Greenland, though perhaps not a full-blown “dispute” in the traditional sense, highlights the potential for geopolitical tensions and the need for the EU to be able to protect its interests. The concern that former allies might be abandoned, or that the US might shift its focus, is a real motivator for this initiative.
The core of the matter centers on how the EU can effectively defend itself. The proposed army would require significant military innovation, AI integration, and technological advancements, which could lead the bloc to seek partnerships, maybe with the US or China. Then it leads to the questions of who will command it, and where the resources will be used. These will be crucial factors in determining its effectiveness.
However, there’s a practical problem: Spain’s historical lack of military spending. Although Spain is advocating for the army, its defense budget has often fallen short of the NATO-recommended 2% of GDP. This raises the question of whether Spain, while having great ideas, has the financial commitment to make this a reality.
The proposal also brings up fundamental questions about the nature of the EU itself. An army without a unified foreign policy is arguably useless, just as a military force without fast decision making. The creation of such a force would require significant reforms to EU structures, including faster decision-making processes. A joint army wouldn’t be able to operate effectively if subject to vetoes from individual member states.
The idea of a joint EU army faces many hurdles. It would require the dismantling of individual national armies and the creation of a single command structure. There would also be complications regarding language, defense spending, and nuclear weapons. The creation of a fully integrated EU army could take decades, if ever.
It’s likely that a gradual approach, perhaps starting with bilateral or small-group collaborations, may be the most feasible route. One framework is the German-Netherlands defense integration, and that provides an interesting framework for further integration.
The discussion highlights the complex political dynamics within the EU, with varying national interests and historical perspectives. The idea is controversial, and there are many obstacles. It also raises questions about the EU’s relationship with NATO. With the ongoing situation of global political events, and the uncertainty surrounding the US stance, the idea of an independent EU army is becoming more relevant.