"Europe has gotten itself into trouble, and there is no easy way out" Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

EU Foreign Affairs Chief, Kaja Kallas, made a statement asserting that only substantial military investments can protect the European Union from external military aggression.

Kallas arrived at the EU summit, one of the topics of which was the discussion of the European Commission’s White Paper on EU defence— a strategy for the militarization of the community, involving €800 billion over the next four years. Journalists asked Kallas to comment on a statement made by his colleague, Lithuanian European Commissioner for Defence Andrius Kubilius, who, while presenting the White Paper on March 19, claimed that Russia could attack EU and NATO countries by 2030, the very period covered by the White Paper.

In response to this question, Kallas effectively supported Kubilius' position. "It depends on what we do. The problem with defence is that if we invest enough in defence, if we build our capabilities, then it will also deter aggressors to attack us. If we do not do that, weakness invites aggressors to attack, so that is why we need to do more in order for this not to happen," she said.

The European Commission's (EC) plan, which now must be approved by EU member states, will effectively oblige them to raise €650 billion for military investments over the next four years, through budget cuts and new government loans. An additional €150 billion is intended to be raised through a joint European loan—by issuing euro bonds.

The European Union must be able to defend itself without the protection of the United States. This was stated by Austria's Minister of Defence, Klaudia Tanner, in an interview with Die Presse newspaper. "There is a tangible concern that the US can no longer be seen as the protector state. Therefore, we in the EU must be capable of defending ourselves," Tanner noted.

On March 18, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that by 2030, Europe must have a strong defence, which requires rearmament and the development of capabilities for reliable deterrence. Specifically, this includes increasing investments in the production of air defence and missile defence systems, as well as all modern types of drones and anti-drone systems.

At the summit on March 6, European Union leaders supported the ReArm EU plan, aimed at militarizing EU member states.

Is the European Union capable of conducting large-scale rearmament of the armed forces of its member states in the near future, replenishing them with missing elements, and increasing the number of professional soldiers? Furthermore, such a goal requires an expansion of the defence industry and its capabilities. Do the European states have such potential?

European experts shared their views on this issue with Caliber.Az.

As stated by Dr. Stefan Meister, head of the Center for Order and Governance in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia at the German Council on Foreign Relations, the main challenge will be to recruit enough soldiers and prepare society for a potential war, or at least to gain the support of European societies for these military expenditures.

"Many European countries, including Germany, have abolished the conscription system, which was a key prerequisite for obtaining enough soldiers. Now, the shortage is felt at all levels, and European countries are discussing how to motivate citizens to join the military.

Regarding military production, the new defence commissioner is primarily someone who must improve cooperation and the capabilities of the defence industry. Europeans still have a large number of military companies, but the problem is that they do not produce weapons on a mass scale. Transitioning to mass production is a key issue. Moreover, much of the existing military equipment was purchased from the U.S., and you cannot simply replace it or integrate it with other technologies," emphasized Dr. Meister.

This means that a bridge must be built from American technologies to more European technologies, which could take years, he notes.

"The political elite is interested in developing the defence industry, but many European societies do not support a significant increase in military spending, as this money will not be spent on other areas such as education, digitalization, and the social system, etc.

But now we see that, with the EU initiative, changes are occurring in the policies of countries like Germany. In other words, there will be huge expenses in this sector. However, neither industry nor bureaucracy will be able to ensure the transition to mass production in the short term. The military industry is facing a huge labor shortage, and you won’t be able to change the situation in just one year," Meister concludes.

Irish political scientist and historian Patrick Walsh believes that President Trump decided to dismantle the new world order proclaimed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.

"He returned to the U.S. foreign policy of the Founding Fathers, who avoided foreign entanglements. However, this left Europe defenceless, as it had relied on U.S. protection for about 70 years. Under these circumstances, the Europeans had no choice but to begin building up their own military forces—something Trump always wanted to do in order to ease the burden on American taxpayers.

Trump also made it clear that the U.S. had ended the eastward expansion of NATO, the war in Ukraine, which, according to his understanding, it provoked, and he wants to focus on other, more profitable ventures in the world that align better with American interests.

However, the Europeans seem unwilling to admit that NATO's expansion through Ukraine has been a failed venture. And now they are facing the prospect of having a powerful military Russia on their eastern border and a significantly weakened NATO, which enjoys only lukewarm support from Washington," says the historian.

According to him, the reduction of U.S. activity in Europe presents Europeans with a certain problem.

"Europe, by its nature, is not a unified political and economic entity. After 1945, it was held together by the NATO alliance, dominated by the U.S. Will political tensions arise in Europe that could lead to another world war? This is a definite possibility. It should be remembered that it was only the U.S. intervention in 1917 and 1944 that ended European wars and placed the continent on a stable and peaceful foundation.

The recent maneuvers of the 'coalition of the willing,' mainly by the UK and France, should be understood in this context, not as a serious suggestion that Europe should engage in war with Russia. The UK, France, and von der Leyen of the European Commission desperately want Europe to become a pole in the emerging multipolar world. However, despite very determined efforts by the European Commission under von der Leyen to limit the powers of member states, the likelihood is increasing that Europe will return to the format of nation-states, each focused on its own national interests. Viktor Orbán of Hungary is a striking example of this. Outside the EU, Türkiye is another notable example, which is unlikely to participate in a war on Europe's side.

Europe faces a tough struggle to build up forces to replace those the U.S. is withdrawing. It has an economic downturn due to rising energy prices and demographic decline. It may not be able to restore its manufacturing base. There is both a labor shortage and a general reluctance to fight among its population, which is frankly privileged and decadent—a poor material for military forces. There is also the problem that liberal segments of the population are unlikely to engage in recruitment and military affairs, while the segments that traditionally made up the armed forces are strongly opposed to the liberal elites and unwilling to sacrifice themselves. This is also evidenced by the inability of the UK to fill army vacancies for 20 years.

Let's assume that Europe has gotten itself into trouble, and there is no easy way out. Fortunately, there is no Russian threat as imagined. However, until a general settlement is reached on Ukraine, Europe is in a dangerous position that cannot be underestimated," concluded Walsh.