1. WHAT FUTURE FOR EUROPEAN DEFENCE?

in Baltics 2017 · Conflicts 2017 · Crisis 2017 · Economics 2017 · Europe 2017 · Faith · Finance 2017 · Germany 2017 · Nation 2017 · NATO 2017 · Person 2017 · Politics 2017 · Skepticism 2017 57 views / 4 comments
          
84% посетителей прочитало эту публикацию

GEOMETR.IT

Earlier this year, the European Leadership Network sought the opinions of some of its membership about the future of the European defence project. The ELN Caucus represents a diverse group of 45 individuals from 16 countries and all the major regions of the Euro-Atlantic area. Its members are former, present and emerging political, military and diplomatic leaders. They responded to our questionnaire and the following is an analysis of their views. The key findings of the ELN Caucus reveal a wide diversity of opinion among Europeans on several issues:

• There is no common view on the greatest threats facing Europe;

• Disagreement persists over the level of ambition for EU-NATO relations and the meaning of EU ‘strategic autonomy’. At the same time, we found greater convergence of views on a number of topics:

• There is significant backing for the increases in national defence investment and closer collaboration on military-related research and development;

• The Caucus sends a clear message of support for better EU-NATO coordination;

• A clear majority supports the EU developing limited capabilities for external crisis management, while relying on NATO and national militaries for defence;

• and Strong support exists across the entire continent for Theresa May’s vision of a “deep and special” security and defence relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit.

Political events across Europe and beyond in 2016 gave Europeans much needed impetus to examine and engage with the issues threatening the security and defence of Europe from within and outwith the continent. Even though the sense of urgency has increased in parallel with the developing threats and dangers, the way forward remains unclear.

Questions about the role of the two main security stakeholders in Europe, the European Union (EU) and NATO, have been at the forefront of policy discussions, alongside such issues as the division of labour between the two organisations and the various priorities of individual member states and Allies. The complexity and fluidity of current domestic and international politics on the European continent, uncertainty about US foreign policy following the election of Donald Trump and the increased wariness about Russia’s activities in Europe and the USA present both a challenge and an opportunity to transform and improve the architecture of Europe’s security and defence.

1.1 No common view on the greatest threat

If Europeans want to improve their own security, one of the biggest challenges they will have to overcome is bridging divisions over what constitutes the greatest danger to the continent. Without consensus on the main priority (or priorities), it will be difficult to adopt and implement policies that deliver meaningful change. The largest group among our respondents cited regional instability as the single biggest danger to Europe.

Uncontrolled migration followed closely in second place. Each of these issues collected over and under a quarter of all responses respectively. Financial volatility and terrorism each shared just over a sixth of the votes. It is important to note that all these phenomena pose significant risks to the entire Euro-Atlantic space and may be interrelated.

However, the ways in which they must be addressed require different strategies and tools, dependent on the capability and resources of individual states. Such multidirectional splits on priorities will permeate decision-making across such critical areas as the strategic direction of EU-NATO collaboration, investment in defence and technological development. As a result, consensus will be more difficult to achieve.

The threat of state aggression in Europe was highlighted in a small portion of the overall responses, which illustrates further nuances in European perceptions of the gravest dangers to their security.

1.2 Support for developing CSDP further, but no backing for full EU strategic autonomy Over the past nine months the EU has articulated a view of security that directly stems from the concept of strategic autonomy as its stated level of ambition.

Part of the proposed implementation plans designed to meet this level of ambition encompass greater defence investment, restructuring of institutional arrangements, engagement with the European Commission and the re-evaluation of the forces and capabilities that the Union can utilise. When asked about the relevance and sufficiency of such measures, nearly half the respondents agreed that these priorities were set correctly.

A further third supported the spirit of the initiative, but regarded it as not ambitious enough. Importantly, only a small group rejected the need for EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as such. Just over a fifth of the people surveyed did not take a position on the matter, which may indicate that more effort should be directed at explaining the current developments and plans for the CSDP to European publics and politicians.

Further, when prompted to elaborate on their vision for the EU’s contribution to security and defence, three quarters of all respondents expressed the opinion that the Union should only develop limited capabilities for external crisis management. Such a majority shows a clear preference for the EU to focus its ambitions towards external crisis management, not defence.

Comparing the overwhelming majority in favour of increasing Europe’s crisis management capabilities to those who saw the EU’s current priorities as correctly set, it becomes clear that there is a tension between the EU stated level of ambition (‘strategic autonomy’) and the rather narrow set of the military tasks (crisis management) that a significant number of respondents would endorse.

An even more controversial issue is the proposal to develop joint EU civil-military headquarters. Despite the fact that the Union recently agreed to establish the military planning and conduct capability, it appears that the more ambitious suggestion to run EU operations from a single commanding structure may not be accepted. Only a third of the respondents supported this proposal and a critical majority did not agree with its suitability, for a variety of reasons: some saw the current set up as sufficient, some favoured establishing new regional structures, and others feared it would duplicate NATO’s functions.
http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org

GEOMETR.IT

* * *

2017.TOP 15 MARCH

Они ничего не поняли и ничему не научились? Украина – 01.03.2017

Бабель и маркиз де Сад — паровые котлеты Русской революции – 01.03.2017

Заговор Великих Князей – 03.03.2017

Как мы теряли Крым. Воспоминания Турчинова — 10.03.2017

Павел Милюков. Англофил на русском поле – 10.03.2017

Пенсию нужно заработать, но дожить до 60 лет не просто.Свежа украинская мысль! – 10.03.2017

Чем украинские РЕФОРМЫ отличаются от европейских ? – 10.03.2017

Америка. НЕ С ИНТЕЛЛЕКТАМИ придеться иметь дело Московии – 13.03.2017

Что происходило В ФЕВРАЛЕ 1917 года? – 13.03.2017

ЕС. Германия — главный член предложения. Остальные — второстепенные? – 14.03.2017

Генерал разведки и МЗДА УКРАИНСКАЯ – 17.03.2017

Европа — зад Запада. Мюнхен – 31.03.2017

Польша — гнилой скотомогильник. Прощай, подмытая Европа! – 31.03.2017

Как выжить В ЭПОХУ ТРАМПА? – 31.03.2017

Ле Пен в лицо Меркель: МАДАМ, Я ТЕБЯ НЕ ПРИЗНАЮ! – 31.03.2017

* * *

02.05.2014 Ukraine. Masks of revolution — 28.04.2017

02.05.2014 Ukraine.Odessa. Masken der Revolution — 28.04.2017

02.05.2014 Украина. Одесса. Маски революции. Документ. фильм П. Морейра. — 28.04.2017

АПОСТОЛ. Первая серия. 1 — 28.04.2017

Мы лежали, тесно прижавшись друг к другу, и, целуя ее… — 28.04.2017

Frankreich. Die Stärke des Front National — 28.04.2017

1. Frankreich wählt — Deutschland denkt — 28.04.2017

Troubling parallels between WWII and today’s world — 28.04.2017

Benjamin Barber. The One Who Saw the Future — 28.04.2017

СЕМНАДЦАТЬ МГНОВЕНИЙ ВЕСНЫ. Первая серия. 1 — 28.04.2017

Czy grozi nam „polexit“? — 28.04.2017

GEOMETR.IT 

4 Comments

  1. With ten countries committed to our HQ, Eurocorps has demonstrated that it is possible to carry effectively out multinational cooperation in the field of defense. This unique attribute provides Eurocorps with the necessary international legitimacy, which is key to the success of most of today’s operations. The door is always open to any EU member state that would like to join this initiative.

  2. Currently, the five Eurocorps framework nations – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain, which share the same prerogatives, responsibilities, and duties – make all decisions by consensus. In addition, soldiers of Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, and Turkey have joined Eurocorps with the status of “Associated Nation”.

  3. Facts are Eurocorps is currently highly involved in EU operations. By the end of 2017 and for more than one and a half years, it will have contributed three contingents to EUTM RCA and two contingents to EU Battle Group rotations.

  4. Those challenges affect every European country without distinction. And no country, however powerful it may be, can afford to face the dangers that emanate from a world in deep transformation. This fact implies that multinational cooperation is mandatory.

Добавить комментарий

Your email address will not be published.