Hey fellow Europeans,
I’ve been toying around with the idea of a new European military alliance that explicitly does not include the US. Basically a replacenent for NATO. If such an organisation were to exist, how would you define its framework/scope?
Specifically:
- What would you call it? I like EDO (European Defense Organisation)
- Membership: EU-only vs. broader Europe (e.g. UK, Norway, Balkans… Canada?)?
- Command structure: centralized? federated?
- Thoughts on a possible nuclear doctrine?
- Funding through proportional contributions? Or rather a unified defense budget?
- Legal basis: treaty-based like NATO or integrated into EU structures? Both may have their advantages.
I am interested in hearing your thoughts and ideas on the topic.
It should invite everyone but the US, China, and Russia. Everyone. Hell, even North Korea should be welcome.
Make it a gigantic defensive pact against the superpowers, that requires some high supermajority (70%?) for compelled action. That’d be enough of a deterrent to keep signers from attacking each other, I think, and probably the superpowers from trying anything explicit.
I think the problem with this would be soft power. A super power just needs to expand its sphere of influence to pull 10-20% of the signed countries on it’s side. If a second super power does the same, the whole alliance is left paralyzed and unable to invoke anything. But I like the Idea of a world wide alliance.
Why limit ourselves? It’s better to have many friends than just a few. This Defense Initiative should be Global.
I like the idea! But I’d argue that such an alliance needs cohesion in order to work. And sadly, I can’t imagine a German soldier readily risk his life to defend the country of… say… Myanmar. Or Bhutan. Just as an example. Humans sometimes need to identify with a group in order to feel empathy for said group. Thats why I like the Idea of a centralized European Arme. It’s a possible source for cohesion.
If the US pulls out, NATO could continue existing with current members. I’d like to see a European Military Union (part of the EU) which in its turn is part of NATO, but NATO itself doesn’t need replacing. Let’s also hope the US will at some point return to democratic values and be a supporting member of international organisations again. I hope other countries (especially European) have learned that alliances have weaknesses, especially when you put all faith on one single country.
Call me a pessimist, but I doubt that the US will pull out of NATO. NATO grants them immense strategic leverage, and the ability to define the borders of its empire by placing troops in key countries. The ability to rapidly engage in conflicts and project its power. I highly doubt that the US will ever pull out - even if the angry orange shit stained child decides to. It would be a nail in the coffin, and the Pentagon knows it.
Your second point, of the US turning back to normal… I doubt it. You have 77M people who voted for this. They are openly hostile towards their enemies. I’d argue that hatred and fascism have already build a comfortable nest inside their heads. Back in the days, German fascism was most effectively ended by total and unconditional defeat + the following occupation. I don’t see a way how masses of people de-fascistify in a soft way. But then again: maybe I’m a pessimist.
Trump is president. I would not be surprised at all if the US is pulling out of NATO, even if it hurts them.
Call me a pessimist, but I doubt that the US will pull out of NATO. NATO grants them immense strategic leverage, and the ability to define the borders of its empire by placing troops in key countries. The ability to rapidly engage in conflicts and project its power. I highly doubt that the US will ever pull out - even if the angry orange shit stained child decides to. It would be a nail in the coffin, and the Pentagon knows it.
The orange shitstain has instituted quite some purges in the administration, but also in the military top brass. And his regime are drinking their own Kool-Aid. The Pentagon went along with drunken Pete’s unhinged “Deus vult” style crusade rhetoric before the start of this war. I think there is legitimate hope that they will do the World the favour of ridding it of a good part of their power projecting ability.
Your second point, of the US turning back to normal… I doubt it. You have 77M people who voted for this.
Here I have to agree. The Trump regime is just a symptom, and from the political establishment, even from the opposing party, there is little to no tangible push back. The orange shitstain going away won’t magically repair the underlying problems, as you said, ridding Germany of the most outrageous excesses of fascism took a total defeat followed by years of occupation and careful state crafting. And even there, a lot of the fascist shit survived under a thin veneer of democracy, (or, in East Germany, “democracy”) and is currently coming back, because the political caste is forgetting the lessons learned from history, and once more believe they can control and use the fascists as a tool for their own benefits.
A community command structure under the mandate of parliament and/or the commission, with the capacity to mobilize under its orders all national military assets when required but keeping them separate in the meantime and with some decision-making or coordination capacity over the purchases and developments of the national armies.
I think that would be enough in the short term.
With the urgency of the problem, I think we should take as much advantage as possible of any already existing structures, and use them as a starting point for something new and hopefully better
Something like NATO minus USA makes sense. Maybe the demented orange shit stain does us the favour of leaving NATO, which saves the effort of giving the thing a new name and legal framework.
But a purely military alliance based on geostrategic interests alone, like NATO, doesn’t cut it. The EU needs a serious own capability of defending itself, as well, as there is strong political, economical and ideological alignment and co-dependence within the EU. I’d strongly argue for it being a separate arrangement from whatever needs to replace NATO, because geostrategic interests can shift easily. (see USA)
Therefore, the EU as a whole needs to step up its defence cooperation and capabilities, both to deter any land grabs by any megalomaniac imperialist dictator, East or West, and to benefit from the economy of scale. As long as every European country is cooking its own soup defence wise, equipment will be (and stay) outrageously expensive, as it is only produced in limited numbers. This will require a unified EU defence policy, and ultimately should lead to a common military. I wouldn’t centralise it too much, though, as this adds a single point of failure. Maybe transitioning via turning the existing national militaries into the EU military’s regional commands could work. Likewise, even equipment produced under unified standards shouldn’t be made all in one place, but needs to be spread out somewhat across the EU, as a single factory is way too easy to put out of production. Also, this way, it’s possible that every member state gets to benefit economically from the defence industry.
For nuclear doctrine, firstly, there needs to be sufficient capability. Unfortunately that means enlarging the nuclear arsenal. Currently, the EU’s only nuclear deterrent is the French nuclear arsenal, which was designed to have the ability to deliver a retaliatory strike powerful enough to make a single nuclear superpower think twice before attacking France itself, because they risk losing all their major cities over it. Now there unfortunately are three nuclear superpowers with potentially hostile intents towards the EU. In the remainder of NATO, there is another nuclear arsenal, that of the UK, which was designed around the same idea as the French one, and is sized similarly, but unfortunately, relies on US made delivery systems with shared maintenance arrangements, (Trident rather than domestically produced SLBMs) so it useless in the long term as a deterrent against an increasingly hostile USA, because they can render the missiles inoperable by ceasing delivery of spare parts. The British warheads also were developed in close cooperation with the US, so there might be a possibility of some spare parts also relying on US supply chains.
As a deterrent, why would it make a difference if there is one or three nations that need to be deterred? The entire idea is that if you have to use it you lost already.
Because the only place you can strike all three countries from with the current French missiles is the Arctic Ocean. That means it is easier to find them and you also know the general direction of a French strike. That matters, because each submarine only carries 16 missiles and all three countries have at least some systems, which can intercept them. Namely Thaad for the US, HQ-19 for China and S-300VM for Russia.
Mostly irrelevant as submarines are mobile and not all three potential enemies pose the same threat at the same time.
That still means that the two submarines will launch at different times, making interception easier and if the submarine has to be moved, it can be found and destroyed.
The problem is the size, and the resulting vulnerability of the deterrent.
Both the French and the British strategic retaliatory capability consist of a fleet of 4 missile carrying submarines each. Because that’s how things work, of those fleets, at best two submarines can be out at sea at once, with the others undergoing scheduled maintenance and/or training. That might be reliable against an adversary with limited naval capabilities that is located sufficiently far away. But with an adversary that has the largest navy of the world, that deterrent, whose survivability depends solely on staying undetected, suddenly becomes very vulnerable. (Apart from having a large navy, the US operate a global hydrophone network for submarine detection) Additionally, the range of submarine launched missiles is somewhat limited due to size constraints, so they cannot be easily aimed at every possible adversary at once, leaving the submarine vulnerable to detection and destruction when transiting to a suitable launch area.
Also a purely (or largely) strategic deterrent lacks a credible escalation path from conventional war to one all-out strategic nuclear countervalue strike. Especially a submarine based deterrent, because if a missile submarine fires only a single missile, it risks detection, and therefore potential destruction, before it will be able to launch again, so it’s more an all or nothing approach. Which nuclear superpower is going to believe you that you’ll risk your entire anihilation as a response to a small scale conventional attack on a minor ally?
The first point is a general issue unrelated to the number of adversiaries, and would also be the case if there was only one with similar capabilities.
The second part is the entire point of a nuclear deterrent. Strategic uncertainty with possible MAD is what you want. If the enemy falsely believes that they can have a limited nuclear exchange with tactical nuclear weapons only, they are much more likely to use their tactical nuclear weapons. And a nuclear deterrent is never going to deterr a conventional attack, that isn’t the point of it.
Most important, lose Hungary first, as they expose everything to the Russians
The EU already is a defensive alliance. The main issue is the lack of a large enough military command structure. There already is one with the MPCC, but it is only able to command 2500 soldiers, which is obviously not even close to enough. Honestly I would built up a dual structure. A central EU military structure, which contains the highest military command able to coordinate all EU militaries, and some strategic assets like nuclear weapons(and means to use them like missiles, submarines, bombers etc), anti ballistic missile, AWACS, SIGINT and other really expensive strategic assets. Those would be funded by the EU. The member countries then also have their own militaries, which contribute similar to NATO with certain assets.
The good part is that the EU can do things, which are not military in nature, but defense related. Energy is a very obviou field as are sanctions. That makes the EU a much better bases for a follow up NATO than NATO without US.
Exactly, but what I would like to see is a joint procurement program, where all EU members bundle their military investements. That needs to be spread out so that all countries profit a bit and no one gets preferential treatment. Basically what Perun proposed and calculated a year ago.
Some investements are too much for any military in Europe to solely fund effectively. Such as surface warships, missiles or next gen fighters. Some projects would have massive logistical benefits, such as a joint MBT, IFV, assault rifle…
Doesn’t the EU already have a military defense pact built in? Under the Mutual Defense Clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union), all EU members are required to defend each other is directly attacked. The Common Security and Defence Policy guides military cooperation. There are transnational brigades and everything.
We need to do better in that regard but we already have a lot of what you’re proposing. Chuck in an alliance with Canada and we’d have most of NATO’s functionality covered.
I think a more fitting name would be Prolific European Defense Organisation (PEDO) since it is more fitting to Western values in general. Thank you.
… 😂