Against whom is the idea of ​​creating an EU army more directed - against Russia or the United States?

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who has headed the EU executive board since last autumn, detonated an information bomb and gave political scientists food for comment. In a Sunday interview with the German Welt am Sonntag , he announced the need to create an "EU army".

Juncker's initiative arose under the influence of the Ukrainian crisis and the growing fear of Europeans about the establishment on the continent of a different system of values ​​than the one that successfully developed during the Cold War years under the cover of the American nuclear umbrella. Their hopes of the early 1990s that Russia would become a liberal, democratic, similar to Europe, and not an imperial-military power, faded away.

Juncker does not believe that NATO's capabilities are sufficient to protect European interests and values. He does not reject the role of the alliance as the main guarantor of Atlantic security, but he is sure that the EU's armed forces would be an important addition.

Arguments include the resurgence of Russia as a nationalist military power, ISIS and other threats to European serenity, and the need to strengthen the global role of the EU, which remains an economic colossus without military muscle.

The idea is not new. It arose even before the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance, in which the United States plays the first violin. Then it faded away and revived under the influence of new circumstances. Its adherents believe that

NATO's capabilities are difficult to use in situations that America does not consider essential for its security.

The idea was widely heard in the early 1990s, when isolationist sentiments were strong in the US political elite: they say, why, after the disappearance of the threat from the USSR, should American taxpayers spend money on pacifying some Balkans?

Experts are arguing over whom this idea is more aimed at - against Russia or the United States? In any case, this is yet another attempt to affirm the significance of a united Europe. According to Juncker, the EU army would confirm to the world that there can never be military conflicts between the EU countries, would reinforce the common foreign policy of the union and its responsibility for the fate of the world. It would be useful in the Ukrainian crisis. With its own army, the EU could confidently respond to threats to peace in the countries of the union and neighboring states, Juncker said. Last but not least, cost savings due to defense cooperation.

“The European army is not needed in order to use it immediately. But a common army for all EU countries would make it clear to Russia that we are serious when it comes to protecting the values ​​of the European Union,” Juncker said.

The European Union has a joint armed forces with the participation of all 28 EU members on a rotation basis. On paper, this is a rapid reaction force that could get involved in the settlement of a conflict that affects the interests of the EU, without involving the heavy-lifting NATO mechanism.

A conflict that doesn't really affect the Americans, but is important to the Europeans. In practice, these forces have never been used.

Skeptics are sure that the idea of ​​a European aircraft will die, stumbling into the same obstacles as before. Why have your own army to protect European values, if the same values ​​are guarded by NATO? Why duplicate spending on a military capability separate from the alliance? In general, 22 of the 28 EU countries are members of NATO.

For a comment, I turned to former NATO Secretary General, former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Javier Solana. On Monday, the working group of the Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS) he chairs presented a report entitled "More Alliance in European Defense" in Brussels. Its main provisions fit into the framework of the idea expressed by Juncker.

Solana told Novaya Gazeta that the group is sounding out the opinions of politicians by touring EU countries. It is not always convenient for current politicians to speak publicly on such issues. But in private conversations, there were more pros than cons, he said. The financing problems that opponents put forward as the main argument "against" can be solved if the EU countries manage to agree on a common security strategy. While it is different in Germany, Great Britain, France ...

Javier Solana to Novaya Gazeta:

I envision a much closer union of EU countries in the field of defense

Does Juncker's proposal have any real prospects?

- This cannot be called a proposal, it is a phrase released into the public space that provides a long way to the future. Probably, I will not see the result in my life, but it is good that people have begun to seriously think about such an opportunity. This is a change in consciousness. I do not think that we are talking about an army with well-known attributes - banners, battalions. I envision a much closer union of EU countries in the field of defense. And this will be an achievement not only for the EU, but also for NATO and, I think, for Russia. These things are not done in twenty-four hours. This is an idea that has been expressed before, but has not been overgrown with arguments, as it is today.

- Why did the old idea come up now?

— The crisis has changed the mood in the EU, our expectations, the world itself has changed, the line between internal and external security (international conflicts plus their reflection in internal affairs) has almost disappeared. It is difficult to determine what is an external threat and what is an internal one. All this makes those who have power or have influence on power think.

Juncker mentioned the Ukrainian crisis as one of the factors that sparked this idea. But how could a European army behave in such a crisis?

“Let's imagine for a moment that tomorrow in Minsk they would decide that it is necessary to deploy peacekeeping forces on the line of contact. Today this is very difficult to do in practice. This is just one example. One can imagine another dramatic development of the situation in, say, Nigeria.

— In your report, you mentioned the Georgian crisis of 2008 as an example. What was wrong then done by the EU?

- From the point of view of the EU, everything that we did to resolve, if not the problem, then at least the military crisis, was right. Russia withdrew its troops from Tbilisi ...

- If hypothetically now there would be a European army, could it somehow intervene in the Ukrainian conflict?

— The Ukrainian conflict is in the process of being resolved through diplomacy. I would not like to give the impression today that I prefer other paths. What will happen next - we'll see. But now our diplomatic and political energy is directed to the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The process should take at least a year. While he is walking, a military solution is ruled out.

- That is, Kyiv calls for the deployment of international peacekeeping forces in vain?

— I don't think that today it would not be worth discussing with the UN Secretary General the fundamental possibility of deploying the Blue Helmets. But this is very difficult to do in practice. We must be aware of the realities of the UN. Russia in the Security Council will never agree to this.

“But the EU also opposes the supply of lethal weapons to Kyiv.

“I can't speak on behalf of the EU today, but now we need to focus energy on diplomacy, which should be supported by sanctions. Today it is a balanced position. There is no military solution to the Ukrainian crisis today. Therefore, I do not think that arming one of the parties would be the right move. We, the EU, cannot send troops there, so we limit ourselves to sanctions.

It is difficult to say what the next idea of ​​creating the EU armed forces will result in, but it is already clear that the signal sent from Moscow “We are not Europe” is perceived and conclusions are being drawn from it.