European Union Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius advocates for a bold vision: the creation of a unified military force of 100,000 troops. However, this proposal appears more ambitious than practical. As various European countries intensify their military capacities, many may find his call for a standing European army puzzling and overly optimistic.
Kubilius’s reasoning stems from historical context and a fear of diminishing American military presence in Europe. During a recent security conference in Sweden, he questioned the effectiveness of having multiple national armies compared to a singular force, drawing a parallel to the United States. He suggested, “Would the United States be militarily stronger if they had 50 armies at the state level instead of a single federal army?” He posits that the answer should guide Europe in developing a united defense strategy. Yet, the underlying implication is that having a collection of disparate forces — or what he calls “27 bonsai armies” — could weaken the region’s military strength.
This analogy underscores a significant challenge: the reluctance of individual nations to relinquish sovereignty. European countries hold tightly to their independence, especially regarding defense matters. The idea of giving up command to an overarching body in Brussels appears bleaker than the vision Kubilius projects. As he passionately stated, “We need to start investing our money in such a way that we would be able to fight as Europe, not just as a collection of 27 national ‘bonsai armies.’” His insistence on collaboration in defense is commendable; unfortunately, it does not align with the realities of national pride and historical governance in Europe.
Furthermore, Kubilius’s call for increased investment in military production and the establishment of clear political processes for European defense raises questions about feasibility. The notion that member states can collectively coordinate and finance a military force sounds appealing, but practical implementation presents a significant hurdle. European powers have varied security needs and budget constraints, making the political will required to forge a unified military—beyond mere rhetoric—unlikely to emerge.
Additionally, the specter of “Russian aggression” looms large, intensifying the urgency of his plea. However, this shared concern may not be enough to induce unity among EU members. Past attempts, including those mentioned by Kubilius, to create a robust “European military force” have met with limited success. Leaders from Macron to Merkel have voiced similar ideas over the past decade, yet little progress has been made toward a cohesive military strategy.
Ultimately, while Kubilius’s vision may resonate with desires for a stronger collective defense mechanism, it fails to acknowledge the inherent complexities of European politics. The past decade has shown that talks of unity often falter when faced with the enduring desire for national autonomy. The concept of a “United States of Europe,” suggested by Kubilius, encounters significant resistance due to historical legacies and national identities.
This proposal will likely spark debate, but it is vital to ground any discussions in the realities faced by individual nations. Until there is a willingness among European countries to navigate these political waters cohesively, the dream of a unified military force may remain just that — a dream, rather than a tangible force on the ground.
"*" indicates required fields
