Such conclusions can be drawn after reading the EP’s report on proposals for changes to the treaties, which calls for the withdrawal of EU member states from NATO while transferring matters relating to defense and security policy to the level of the European Union. The goal is to deprive countries of their defense capabilities and the ally that is the guarantor of their security, the United States.

The report on proposals for amendments to the treaties “calls for the creation of a defense union of permanently stationed European military units with permanent rapid deployment capability under the operational command of Brussels; proposes that joint procurement and development of weapons be financed by the Union through a dedicated budget subject to a procedure of joint decision and control parliamentary body and proposes an appropriate adjustment of the competences of the European Defense Agency; notes that these changes will not affect the clauses relating to national traditions of neutrality and NATO membership”.

This is rhetoric, but what effects will such solutions have on the defense of member states? First of all, it should be noted that the European Union has no tradition of being a defense alliance, so it has not developed appropriate structures or procedures, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Transferring defense competences to the EU level will paralyze the ability of countries such as Poland or Lithuania to defend themselves against Russian aggression. This will happen primarily because the EU, controlled from Berlin, would first have to recognize Russia as an aggressor, which it has not clearly done so far and which – controlled by Germany – it simply will not be capable of. Then, possible scenarios of Russian aggression should be prepared, and then tactical military actions should be developed. In this respect, Brussels, under the direction of Germany, would purchase weapons supplied mainly by German industry, because business is a key motive for Germany and therefore putting pressure on building the EU army and removing the connection with NATO creates, according to Germany’s intention, creates an opportunity for them to maintain economic and technological dominance, ideological and management of the entire superstate.

The purchase of military equipment must be carefully considered because the outcome of a potential war depends on the synchronization of actions using it. Purchases are made depending on the expected opponent and the capabilities it has, so defining potential aggressors is necessary. Meanwhile, we remember Berlin’s reaction to Russian aggression against Ukraine: first, the German authorities waited for a quick victory for Russia, and then took sham actions in order to disturb the aggressor as little as possible. Now, however, they want the European Union they control to have the right to command EU troops, with the heads of member states automatically waiving this prerogative.

Of course, someone could argue that the document does not say anything that member states could not maintain their own military. The problem, however, is that if command competences were transferred to the EU level, the entire army would have to be subordinated to them, because none of the countries could afford to pay the national army and the EU army at the same time. Moreover, the document refers directly to the Ventotene Manifesto, in which Altiero Spinelli wrote about a superstate in Europe: “It will be a stable federal state with a European army instead of national troops”. Including it in the report means political will to liquidate the armies of the member states and replace them with one common army constituting a tool “enabling the enforcement in federalized states of resolutions aimed at maintaining a common order”.

A significant problem is the huge hole in the EU budget. During the last meeting of the European Council in Brussels, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, in a dramatic speech appealed to the heads of government to supplement the revenues of the 7-year EU budget, because “our resources are stretched to the limit”. The EU has no money either to service the debt incurred under the Reconstruction Fund or to implement crazy “green” revolutions. Even less so would it find money for the army, which, given the lack of finances, would be a mere fiction. It cannot be ruled out that Germany, which is proposing these changes, has calculated that it will develop the Bundeswehr – which it is currently doing very intensively – so that its army will be stationed in each of the member states, guarding German interests more than security against external threats. This scenario is completely real and constitutes a serious threat, especially since the mentioned report refers directly to the Ventotene Manifesto and Altiero Spinelli’s concept, according to which the European army would be used to suppress rebellions within the European Union, and not to defend its borders.

Particularly noteworthy is the amendment tabled by co-rapporteur Helmut Scholz, who, who while taking note of the COFE (Conference of the Future of Europe) proposals on establishing an EU Defence Union and qualified majority, i.e. the majority of votes in the CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy), expresses reservations regarding the amendments covered by paragraphs 20 and 21 of the resolution. He believes that an EU Defence Union must be built on a comprehensive, multi-layer and non-military concept of security underpinned by unanimity of all EU Member States and requiring full parliamentary scrutiny both at Union and Member States’ level. Co-rapporteur Helmut Scholz intends to introduce proposals for a revised CSFP (Common Security and Foreign Policy) and CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy) during the Convention that is called for. He underlines in particular the Union’s responsibility for contributing to international peace and security in accordance with international law, fostering active engagement for disarmament, particularly of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Restructuring of EU Member States’ military capacity into EU wide structures should, in his view, be based on the principle of structural non-aggression capabilities. “As most Member states are also members of NATO, any treaty change, in his view, must rule out a duplication of military capacity and budget expenditure. Treaty change must therefore be accompanied with steps towards a de-coupling from NATO” – concludes the Raport.

After a thorough analysis of his position, we will notice that it is nothing more than a disarmament plan and preparing the ground for Russia’s entry into the eastern territories of the European Union. Let us remember that, firstly, none of the German politicians has withdrawn the German-Russian plan to create a common economic zone from Vladivostok to Lisbon after Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and secondly, current German aspiration maps clearly indicate that the “German lands” are on the west of Vistula, while Germany is ready to hand over all lands on the east of this river to Russia. It was probably no coincidence that during Donald Tusk’s government, the defense strategy prepared was on the Vistula line. Despite German rhetoric that appears in the media from time to time, the authorities in Berlin still do not perceive Russia as a threat, but as a partner for their interests. In this context, plans to create a common European army are nothing more than a method to disarm the Member States and paralyze their ability to defend themselves. It is no coincidence that a German politician demands that they secede from NATO – this way it will be even easier for Russia to enter these territories and do business with Germany, because American troops will not be stationed there and by committing an act of aggression, the Kremlin will not automaticaly enter into armed conflict with the USA.

Institute of Schuman’s Thought

Skip to content