Recently, there have been quite a few rumors, articles, or rumors about the formation of a hypothetical large European army. Although it seems (at least at this moment) that they are alternatively rumors and fantasies, 1 should thin over the subject. erstwhile I think of the European army, I have 2 historical formations: Napoleonic Grande Armée and German Wehrmacht (with Waffen-SS). It is ironic that both armies, in their modern and well-proven times, lost first to Russia, incapable to conquer Mackinder's heartland1. This is ironic due to the fact that a hypothetical European army, or more specifically, an army of the European Union, would besides be created to fight “the heart of Eurasia”. They should not be specifically identified with the hypothetical task of the 21st century and indicate its inevitable failure with “the invincible Russia”.
To make a distinction: the EU army would be a national army – there are no illusions about it. It is clear that if the Union had an army, associate States would lose their sovereignty. After all, their present sovereignty is that, despite their submission to a higher authority, they are not subject to obedience in this relationship. Yes, the Union can impose sanctions, collect funds, and the European Parliament can even (about horror!) condemn the disobedient state. However, there is no strength here, there is no army that could pacify this country. Thus, if specified armed forces would erstwhile have emerged, it is likely that the Union will be understood no longer as a union of states and as a state.
The aforementioned armies – Napoleonic and Nazi – were not armies of what could be described as a European state. Geographically, both the German Reich and the Empire dominated the vast areas of the continent, but their armies first gained more lands, and only then expanded to include the inhabitants of these lands, whether it was the introduction of a conscription, whether it was ideological or even national liberation incentives. They are so armies of powers whose aim was to expand.
The European Union is alternatively a political contract between countries. It seems intuitive that the national task army has a better chance of success than the “expanding power” task army.
The Union has not incarnated any associate State in the expansion process, and the States are associated with it voluntarily – possibly and have been prompted to do so for economical reasons or for any another reason, but no 1 outside has imposed this on them. Thus, it is thought that an army created by members who will voluntarily want to transfer their resources to build it will be possibly more powerful. specified reasoning is not meaningless – the German army during planet War II had to usage a large condition of its forces and resources to occupy conquered lands. There is no specified problem in the EU's hypothetical armed forces. The German Army besides recruited comparatively fewer foreigners. The European Union would have no problems in these aspects. The EU troops would have a much bigger problem – deficiency of will.
Napoleon was expected to say that a man cannot be killed for half a penny a day or a tiny distinction, and his soul should be moved. The question should so be asked: Is anyone able to die for the European Union? Of course. utilizing the expression quantifiable “someone” makes it adequate for us to have only 1 specified person. And surely throughout the European Union specified a person. The question is, how many are there? possibly hundreds, possibly even thousands. However, it is reasonable to uncertainty that these are hundreds of thousands so needed to supply the ranks of the hypothetical army. There is no social will to implement specified a project. Thousands of soldiers of both parties are killed across the east border of the Republic, whose societies are more or little willing to sacrifice their lives. Reichs of Ukrainian refugees in neighbouring countries and the European Union as a full and NATO's invaluable contribution (e.g. through the transfer of military equipment) to sustain existence Ukraine seems to deny it at first glance. It is said that Ukrainians do not want to fight and the war would have ended long ago if it had not been for abroad support. Perhaps, but there is individual left to fight with Western weapons.
The European Union is not able to impose on society the operation on the political axis: friend – enemy2. This is mainly due to the fact that something like European society does not exist. Rather, the citizens of the associate States are politically loyal to their own nation and state. Even a large part of them can, for example, be cosmopolitan and consider themselves “citizens of the world”. This does not change the fact that human masses do not feel any work or peculiar loyalty towards the Union due to the fact that European society simply does not exist.
In addition to the problem of social will, the deficiency of political will besides seems to be an crucial issue. The elites of the European Union, despite the considerable power they have over the associate States, are not sovereign. They are not decision-making on the most crucial policy issues. Ursula von der Leyen does not represent this peculiar political “will of power”. It is besides not typical of the “unitary” government which Napoleon attributed to Hegel3. It seems that the European Commission does not express any real (or even potential) power, apart from all the elements which it deals with with with peculiar enthusiasm, specified as climate policy. The EU's political elite is improbable to be able to conduct abroad or even interior policies on crucial issues, leading to a sad conclusion for the supporters of the European federation: the European army will not emergence due to the fact that there is no will that can carry out specified an undertaking.
There is neither a social nor political will to implement the plan of the European armed forces. The only option seems to be interference in the current structure, in the sense that any associate State's statesman would decision on to Brussels, the commissioners would arrest and take power in the Union. With force or persuasion, he would gotta convince the remainder of Europe that opposition is pointless and that it is essential to comply. He would become the fresh Napoleon. specified an option, however, seems grotesque to me today.
It is not fair to believe that the European army will never rise. It's not definite. However, in view of the current condition of the European Union, it seems that it is incapable to implement specified a project. This condition may undergo extremist change, but its current condition prevents any reasoning in terms of the European empire, due to the fact that that is what it should be called if it had its own troops.
Jakub Frąckiewicz
1 See H. Mackinder The geographical axis of history, idem. Democratic ideals and reality.
2 See C. Schmitt The concept of politicalism.
3 G.W.F. Hegel Lectures on past Philosophy, crowd. A. Zieleńczyk, Warsaw 1919, Gebethner and Wolff, p. 468.
