By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky renewed his call for a 3-million-person European armed force, prompted by Russia’s projected military size by 2030, nearly a year after first proposing the idea at the Munich Security Conference. The envisioned force wouldn’t replace NATO, but could include Ukraine, which can offer combat experience and technology sharing. The proposal comes as the U.S. President threatens tariffs on NATO allies, raising concerns about transatlantic relations and potentially affecting Greenland’s future, a strategically important territory.
Read the original article here
Zelensky reiterates call to create joint European army with at least 3 million personnel. This call, coming from a leader deeply entrenched in the current geopolitical turmoil, definitely sets off some interesting thoughts, doesn’t it? The sheer scale of it – three million personnel – immediately grabs your attention. It’s a significant number, no doubt. The suggestion isn’t just about bolstering defenses; it’s a bold vision for a more integrated, self-sufficient Europe.
Thinking about the feasibility, it starts to become clear that it’s potentially within reach. If you consider the existing military strength of EU member states, coupled with the Ukrainian army, the groundwork is already laid. Some commentators point out that Ukraine alone accounts for a substantial portion of this potential force. Integrating and coordinating existing military structures, rather than starting from scratch, seems like a more pragmatic approach.
The potential implications are huge, though. A strong, unified European army could fundamentally shift the global balance of power. It’s not just about deterring Russia, although that’s obviously a pressing concern. Some believe it’s also about safeguarding Europe’s interests in a world where the United States, as a potential ally, may become less reliable. And it’s not just a European affair, either. The possibility of nations like Japan, Canada, Australia, and even Mexico joining the ranks has been floated.
However, the path to a joint European army isn’t without its obstacles. The question of unity within the European Union itself is paramount. The ability of individual member states to block decisions, as Hungary has done on several occasions, could severely hamper the effectiveness of a unified military force. The need to address internal issues, such as affordable living conditions and job opportunities, while not directly related to defense, is also relevant, as it affects the overall stability and well-being of the population.
Some believe that a joint European army may be unnecessary, or counterproductive. They highlight the possibility of aggressive actions, as has happened in the past. There is also the question of whether Europe is ready to shift focus to an army, when the social support systems of the citizens need more focus. Others may also doubt its feasibility, as they don’t see how it’s possible when the United States can only mobilize a total of 2.1 million. The reliance on advanced technology in modern warfare is another factor. Some people are already thinking of a world with robot soldiers.
But even with those obstacles, there’s a strong sentiment that this is a necessary step. It’s about a continent taking its destiny into its own hands. It’s about ensuring Europe can defend itself, project power, and safeguard its interests in an increasingly uncertain world. Many would feel safer with a strong, united European force. The prospect of having reserves, like those in Finland, can bolster the numbers even more.
The debate over the optimal size, the need for federalization, and the integration of reserves will no doubt continue. The call for a European army isn’t just about the numbers; it’s a call for a stronger, more united Europe. It is the beginning of a conversation of what an armed force would look like. It is about a new reality.