In a nutshell, the EII members will maintain readiness to carry out missions together independently from the United States, the EU or NATO. A streamlined decision-making process will permit a quick reaction time while the smaller number of members will give more flexibility in comparison with the North Atlantic Alliance, where the process is based on consensus among 29 nations, or the EU, which has failed to deploy the four multinational military battle groups created as far back as 2007.

French President Macron said he wanted a “real European army” because “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.” “When I see President Trump announcing that he’s quitting a major disarmament treaty which was formed after the 1980s Euromissile crisis that hit Europe, who is the main victim? Europe and its security,” he told Europe 1 in his first radio interview since becoming president. Emmanuel Macron believes that “Europe can ensure its own protection against Russia and even, under an unpredictable President Donald Trump.” That’s how the US is viewed in Europe now. Not a defender but rather a threat.

“The goal: that our armed forces learn get to know each other and act together,” French Defense Minister Florence Parly tweeted on the occasion of launching the EII. “Thanks to exchanges between staff and joint exercises, we will create a European strategic culture. We will be ready to anticipate crises and respond quickly and effectively,” he commented on the final goal.

According to Stratfor, “the EI2's membership reveals that France is willing to go beyond the European Union in its quest for partners (as the United Kingdom will leave the bloc in 2019) and also outside of NATO (as Finland is not a member of the Atlantic alliance).”

The EU defense integration moves ahead at frustratingly slow pace. The 2017 “Permanent Structured Cooperation” (PESCO) defense agreement brought together 25 of the 28 armed forces. The UK, Denmark and Malta have decided to opt out of the voluntary system. Focused mainly on industrial cooperation, PESCO is not a great thing in real terms. It only offers a relatively small special fund to finance operations. It does not provide the EU with real joint fighting forces but rather offers a gradual integration at slow pace. The agreement has no provision on defense expenditure hike. The EU budget does not allocate money for creation of “European Army.” Besides, there are deep divisions between EU members states with different groups formed inside the Union. What sounds good on paper, may have little relation to real life. New smaller alliances are gradually being formed inside NATO and the EU – the blocs facing the threat of partition.

This and US President Trump overturning the treaties and putting into question the invocation of Article 5 prompted the formation of the new European defense alliance that is supposed to have real teeth and operate outside the EII’s control. The French-led initiative uniting EU and non-EU countries is especially attractive for Great Britain, which seeks a potential vehicle for post-Brexit defense cooperation outside the EU framework.

An independent military bloc will weaken NATO and reduce the Europe’s dependence on the United States. From this point of view, it will benefit Europe because its interests often do not coincide with that of the US. For instance, America cares little about the immigration, which is a far-flung problem for Washington, but keeping new migrants waves away is a matter of make it or break it for EU. In their turn, Europeans have nothing to do in Iraq and Afghanistan and have sent forces there only to demonstrate the transatlantic solidarity.

As one can see, Finland has found the EII preferable to NATO. But having joined the officially inaugurated new military alliance, it won’t be a neutral state anymore. It has become a member of the military organization, which openly says that Russia, its neighbor, is a threat to counter. This is a very significant change in the country’s foreign policy. Actually, the launching of the EII has attracted little media attention and undeservedly so, but the Finland’s EII membership has not gone unnoticed in Russia. Last year, Finland along with Sweden joined the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). It has allowed to use NATO forces use its territory during exercises, such as Trident Juncture-2018 – the largest NATO training event since the cold War.

The UK has always opposed the plans to create a European defense alliance, fearing it would be detrimental for NATO. Now it has done an about-face. It can continue to maintain special ties with US being a part of the new European defense alliance.

The formation of the EII shows how deep are the rifts dividing NATO and the EU into groups pursuing their own interests. These large organizations appear to have seen better days. They have become too large to be really united and strong. Like the empire of Alexander the Great, such large organizations have short lives. NATO and EU expansions were mistakes. It may never be said officially but the ten European nations have delivered a heavy blow against the US-led NATO. If the project does not gradually die away with all the ideas and initiatives swept under the rug being entangled in red tape, President Emmanuel Macron will go down in history as the architect of new large and powerful defense alliance to change the European security landscape.

The tensions and divisions between Europe and Russia are not forever and the EII and Russia don’t have to be adversaries, looking at each other through crosshairs. After all, they face common security threats. Sooner or later, cooperation in the field of security will be back on the agenda.

New waves of asylum seekers from Libya are a potential danger for Europe. Russia has influence in that country- it can help to prevent it. Joining together to restore Syria is another potential area of cooperation. The deployment of intermediate range weapons in Europe could be prevented with the INF Treaty not in force anymore if certain agreements were reached at Russia-Europe level even without US participation. The military activities can be discussed to ease the tensions. While the United States is preoccupied with the promotion of “America First” concept, the EII and Russia can talk. They could use the OSCE framework for it.

In August, President Macron called for strategic partnership with Russia. According to him, “I think that on matters like cybersecurity, defense, strategic relationships, we could envisage the outlines of a new relationship between Russia and the EU which is coherent with the direction Europe is headed in.” No improvement in the Russia-EU, Russia-NATO relationships is looming but it could be different regarding the ties between the EII and Russia. The options are a dialog and confrontation. Which of them will prevail? You never know. President Macron has said he prefers the first. 

The new force is to be much more efficient than anything else the EU has to offer, with a streamlined decision-making process that will permit a quick reaction time. Its relatively small number of members will give it more flexibility in comparison with the EU or NATO. For instance, the EU’s four multinational military battle groups that were created as far back as 2007 have never been deployed.

Its main mission is to offer a rapid response to crises that could threaten European security. The operations are to be conducted independently from US control. The UK will remain a member of this European defense entity even after it leaves the EU next year. Denmark, which retains a special opt-out status and has not joined PESCO, is a signatory to the EII. This is a step on the path to creating a real European armed force to unite non-EU participants with those who keep their distance from the European deterrent headed by Brussels. If the process gains traction, Norway, a NATO member that is outside the EU, plus Sweden and Finland, which are EU members outside of NATO, may consider joining the EII as well. Sweden and Finland are already members of the UK Joint Expeditionary Force.

Will it undermine NATO? To a certain extent it will. Any defense group outside the alliance that acts independently weakens it. At the same time, this gives NATO an opportunity to focus on the European theater of operations without being distracted by other hot spots. Any coin has two sides. Afghanistan is an example of NATO solidarity but is also an example of how a crisis that takes place outside of the alliance’s primary area of responsibility has weakened NATO’s standing in Europe.

Europeans have participated in the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, conflicts in which they have no interest, in order to please the US. The real threat to Europe comes from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The planned creation of migrant reception centers in Africa may require military involvement. Washington views Europe’s migrant crisis as a far-flung problem that does not directly impact its own national security interests. NATO forces Europeans to focus more on the so-called Russian threat that no one takes seriously, despite the fact that defending its own borders is a pressing issue.

Europe can never be truly independent without the capability to mount a robust defense on its own. For instance, the EU needs a joint border force to prevent illegal immigration, which is plainly a real threat. The interests of the new group and Russia are not in conflict. Far from it. If the Russian-backed Syrian government finally wins, the flood of refugees to Europe will significantly diminish. Some migrants may return home. Russia has an important role to play in Libya, another source of refugees. Those interests coincide, while conversely, the US is more interested in countering Iran, which will exacerbate tensions, prompting more people to move to Europe seeking refuge from war. If an international operation in Libya is approved by the UN Security Council, the EII and Russia may act together, unified by a common interest.

With the EU still unable to bring its plans to fruition, the project led by President Macron stands a very good chance of creating a European group that would become an independent global player. NATO and the EU are being torn apart by internal conflicts while the EII is not. That group will be able to stand up to real threats, not imaginary ones.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, as NATO and the EU defense initiatives are failing to meet the interests of European security, forcing those nations to seek other alternatives, such as the EII. The threat of the Russian bogeyman has failed to paper over those differences. The quest continues. Whatever is in store for the newborn alliance, this is very bad for NATO, as this news is coming just a couple of weeks before the summit that may break up the alliance and consign the much-vaunted concept of “Western unity” to its grave. 

President Trump has his own reasons to shred the Iran deal, but he needs Europe to strong-arm Tehran into signing a “better” agreement. Were it to do so, the US administration would make it look like a big victory. Washington does not shy away from threatening its allies with punitive measures but the EU is standing tall, deepening the rift. As European Council President Donald Tusk put it, “With friends like Trump, who needs enemies?” According to him, the US president has “rid Europe of all illusions.” Mr. Tusk wants Europe to “stick to our guns” against new US policies. Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the EU Commission, believes that “Europe must take America's place as global leader” because Washington has turned its back on its allies. Washington “no longer wants to cooperate.” It is turning away from friendly relations “with ferocity.” Mr. Juncker thinks the time is ripe for Europe “to replace the United States, which as an international actor has lost vigor.” It would have been unthinkable not long ago for a top EU official to say such things and challenge the US global leadership. Now the unthinkable has become reality.

The process of shifting away from America does not boil down to just words of indignation and open defiance. Plans are underway to take practical steps. For instance, the EU is to ditch the use of the US currency in its payments for Iranian oil. It can be done. Russia and Iran have already launched an oil-for-goods exchange program in order to leave the greenback behind. The bloc plans to activate a 1996 law (the blocking statute), which bans European businesses from compliance with US sanctions on Iran. The legislation protects "against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country."

The EU-Iran discussions have already been held. And it is America’s closest ally who is to deal the first powerful blow against US global dominance. This is a demonstration of the “no retreat, no surrender” spirit before the not-yet-unleased war is in full swing.

True, this applies to only a relatively small sector of business activities, and Iran’s $400-billion market can’t be compared to the $18-trillion US market, but the important factor here is the show of political will to stand up to America’s challenge. This rift is taking place amid a looming trade war over aluminum and steel, the US withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, the relocation of the embassy to Jerusalem with no regard for the allies’ opinion, and the controversy over Europe’s NATO spending.

On May 15, the EU defense heads gathered at a meeting of the European Union Military Committee to discuss deeper integration and an independent defense policy, which envisages greater efficiency to reduce expenditures, given the US demands to increase those outlays under the auspices of NATO. The PESCO agreement is the backbone of the EU defense policy and it’s purely European.

Sandra Oudkirk, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Energy, has just threatened to sanction the Europeans if they continue with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project to bring gas in from Russia across the Baltic Sea. That country is also seen by the US as an adversary and its approach is by and large the same – to issue orders for Europe to adopt a confrontational policy, doing as it is told without asking too many questions.

Iran and Nord Stream 2 unite Moscow and Brussels in their opposition to this diktat. On May 17, Iran signed a provisional free-trade-zone agreement with a Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) that seeks to increase the current levels of trade valued at $2.7 billion. The deal lowers or abolishes customs duties. It also establishes a three-year process for reaching a permanent trade agreement. If Iran becomes a member of the group, it would expand its economic horizons beyond the Middle Eastern region. So, Europe and Russia are in the same boat, both holding talks with Iran on economic cooperation.

President Donald Trump has just instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to prepare a list of new sanctions against the Russian Federation for its alleged violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This is the agreement the US has so egregiously and openly breached. But nobody in Europe has announced that they want US nuclear-tipped intermediate- range weapons on their territory that will be a target for a potential retaliatory strike by Russia. It’s an example of yet another European problem with having the decision-making process located in Washington.

If Europe is resolved to fend off US attempts to dictate its policy on Iran, why should it reconcile itself to the pressure to keep the sanctions against Russia intact? May 17 marked a turning point in the US-European relationship. Europeans joined ranks to resist a policy that encroaches on their right to decide their own fate. It’s Europe, not the US, who is negatively affected by the punitive measures, creating deep divisions within the EU at a time when that group is faced with many problems. The time is ripe for Brussels to stop this sanctions-counter-sanctions mayhem and stake out its own independent policies on Russia, Iran, defense, and other issues, that will protect European, not US, national interests. May 17 is the day the revolt started and there is no going back. Europe has said goodbye to trans-Atlantic unity. It looks like it has had enough.

The Scandinavian visitors claimed this was just a starting point for a more mature relationship. The agreement emphasizes the countries’ combined joint exercises and streamlines the procedures that have been established to manage them.

Other issues covered by the SOI include regular trilateral meetings at all levels, the exchange of information (including about weapons systems), increased practical interaction, cooperation in multinational operations, improved communications, and the promotion of the EU-NATO strategic partnership. The latter issue will transform the Scandinavians into a connecting link that will eliminate the chance of any European deterrent that could operate with any real independence from its North American “big brother.”  Washington wants to make sure that the PESCO agreement will not protect Europe’s defense industry from US companies.

Sweden hosted the Aurora military exercise in September 2017, the largest such event on its soil. The US supplied most of the visiting troops. The American military has also taken part in a number of drills in Finland recently. That country will host a large-scale NATO exercise as early as 2020 or 2021. The US has already been invited. The militarization of the Scandinavian Peninsula is moving full speed ahead.

The recently signed SOI actually transforms the bilateral agreements into enhanced trilateral cooperation.  For Stockholm and Helsinki, joining NATO is not an option for domestic political reasons. At least not for now. Instead, a new US-led defense alliance has emerged. 

The increased tempo of exercises anticipates a larger US presence. It has far-reaching implications. With American military personnel rotating in and out of Sweden and Finland, any offensive action against one of those states would officially be an attack on a NATO member.  It would trigger a response as envisaged by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Russia considers any American military presence there as provocative. The US is not a Scandinavian country. If an incident took place that resulted in a clash between Russian and US forces, the two Scandinavian nations would be pulled against their will into a conflict they may have nothing to do with. The American soldiers on their soil will never be under the control of their national commands. More US presence means less sovereignty and more risk.

Actually, since they are EU members they don’t even need Article 5, because Article 42.7 of the EU treaty also contains a binding mutual-assistance clause. France invoked it after the 2015 Paris terror attacks.

Last year Sweden and Finland joined the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).  All other participants in the nine-nation formation are NATO members. It means that in an emergency their armed forces will operate under NATO command, becoming parties to a conflict they could avoid if they were really neutral.   The two also cooperate with Washington through the Northern Group (NG), which consists of 12 countries, although Sweden and Finland are the only non-NATO participants. That organization holds its own dialog with the US. Another venue is the five-nation Nordic Countries group, that includes these two non-aligned members.

In reality, Sweden and Finland have already joined NATO through other groups and agreements.   They did so informally, avoiding referendums and the relevant parliamentary procedures at home. This should be viewed as part of a broader picture. In early April, the first-ever US-Baltic States summit took place in Washington. It was an unprecedented event that somehow was kept out of the media spotlight. 

The leaders of NATO’s “frontline states” called for a permanent US military presence in the region. They want that to be much larger than just American participation in multinational battalions. They are asking for a permanent presence on a much wider scale.  Washington, which already has forces deployed in Norway and Poland, is considering rotating American troops through the Baltic nations as well. Poland and the Baltic states are a focus of NATO’S bellicose preparations. One might as well forget about the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997), which states that no substantial forces should be deployed in the proximity of the borders. That document has already been breached by NATO.

The US guests have provided advice on how to promote American influence (they call it “democracy”) in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, the members of a newly formed anti-Russian alliance. And it’s not just the defense sector. Last year, Lithuania began importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America. Poland has also built an LNG terminal to expand the shipments of American gas to Europe, which compete with Russia’s energy supplies.

The withdrawal from the Iran deal is not the only time a US position on an issue has been opposed by the leading European nations. There are many more points of disagreement. Old Europe is gradually creating an independent deterrent.  A rift between the EU and the US is deepening. But as one can see, Washington is building another pro-American alliance on the continent. It does not mean it will replace the North Atlantic alliance. Certainly not. On the contrary, it will strengthen the US position in the bloc.

But aside from NATO, Washington also leads an informal alliance of “frontline states” that are intimidated by a nonexistent threat. The idea of the Russia bogeyman is being exploited by the US in order to reach its foreign-policy goals. Northern Europe is being turned into a hornet’s nest, with its good-neighbor policy gradually being replaced with confrontation that benefits the US but makes the region less secure. 

President Donald Trump announced on March 1 that he would impose stiff tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to protect American manufacturers. The move would deal a heavy blow to the EU’s alliance with America. There is the risk of retaliation from major US trade partners like Europe, China, and neighboring Canada that would hurt US carmakers. The warnings have already been issued. Brussels is already preparing a list of $3.5 (€2.8) billion worth of US goods, such as Harley Davidson motorcyles, that would then be subject to a 25% tariff imposed by Europe. This would breach no agreement – the planned measures would comply with WTO rules. So, a tit-for-tat trade war is brewing that will turn these Western allies into belligerents. Some commentators compare this new American policy to Brexit. Meanwhile, Washington has been engaged in a futile dispute with Canada, a NATO ally, as well as Mexico, over amendments to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

America has reason to be concerned about Europe’s defense plans, especially the program known PESCO, which may diminish NATO’s role. It is viewed as “a protectionist vehicle for the EU.” US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison openly expressed concern about the program at last month’s annual security conference in Munich, which revealed the widening rift between America and the EU over the independent military might of Europe. Germany and France said the EU should not be dependent on a NATO that is dominated by the US.

The idea of creating an independent EU defense force has been backed by Germany’s new coalition government. The plans are to be implemented in partnership with France. European influence worldwide could grow at the expense of the US.

The US has reason to worry, because PESCO and the creation of an EU defense fund could potentially lead to joint purchases of European defense products, which would hurt American arms exports. This is a serious bone of contention. The disagreements will probably escalate. It’s really hard to see how these diverging interests could be aligned. Last May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Europe can no longer rely on the US and the UK. It needs to build its own future independently.

The US and the EU have opposing views on Iran. It has become clear that Washington is close to tearing up its nuclear deal but Europe wants to keep it intact.  This is a very serious rift. The US insists the deal should be renegotiated or nullified if changes are not accepted by Tehran. The EU is standing firm and rejecting the idea. If the US walks away from the Iran deal and Europe does not, which is a very likely scenario, the West as we know it today will find itself deeply divided over a major international issue. This brings to mind the split between NATO allies before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with Germany and France in open opposition to the adamant American and British plan to unleash war. This time it’ll be worse because Europe has significant economic interests in Iran.

Europeans are well aware that whatever Washington says or does, that nuclear deal will remain in effect, due to the fact that any changes require the consent of the other signatories: Russia, China, and Iran.

The EU is far from being united. The bloc is torn apart by divisions of all kinds. Those are going to be exacerbated as a result of the Italian election held on March 5, in which “populist” parties scored big. The Visegrad V4 group, which is sticking to its guns on immigration and other issues, is just one of the alliances within the alliance. The popular concept of a “multi-speed” EU will certainly drive the last nail into the coffin of European unity.

There are so many smoldering conflicts dividing the West and they are close to breaking through to the surface. The unity of the West is a myth. It is about to break apart and thus alter the global political landscape. The anti-Russian policy has failed to unite the countries of the West and makes no sense, given the deep divisions undermining them. It would be wiser to concentrate on the burning problems challenging the West’s very existence, rather than inventing enemies. The “West vs. Russia” paradigm is no longer viable. This confrontation is at odds with the West’s own interests and is a distraction from the real issues that need to be urgently addressed. This would be an opportune time to recognize this new reality.

EU officials welcomed the PM’s initiative, emphasizing the need to separate this issue from Brexit. On Feb. 16, the spy chiefs from the UK, France, and Germany urged the EU not to jeopardize their data-sharing agreements when Britain terminates its EU membership. And they made this request openly in a press release!

Theresa May wants the new pact up and running by 2019, when Britain is to pull out of the EU, and perhaps sooner, if possible. There are just 10 months left to reach an agreement – a tall order. But Ms. May insists that she is in a hurry. She claims there is no need to wait until the Brexit deal has been finalized to get this signed.

In a nutshell, UK forces will continue to take part in EU missions, weapons will be developed jointly, London will continue to contribute to foreign aid programs, anti-terrorist activities will be coordinated, and international problems related to security will be handled cooperatively. In practice, this means all the parties will synchronize their foreign policies, as all problems are always related to security in one way or another.

Although the idea of forming a defense pact outside of NATO has been a matter of concern for Washington, no US representative at the forum spoke against it. This sudden change in the American attitude is striking. Prior to the conference the US had expressed grave concern over the Permanent Structured Cooperation on defense (PESCO), warning it could undermine NATO.

Heralded as a turning point, PESCO emerged in late 2017. The UK, along with Denmark and Malta, has not joined. The pact commits its signatories to using the European Defense Agency for the joint development of any new weapon systems. This means that missions from the EU will have priority over those from NATO. The US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, warned there could be serious consequences for the EU if it shuts US defense companies out of PESCO projects.

Europe’s push for an independent system of defense is gaining momentum. An idea that had been mere words for some time has now taken shape as PESCO – a tangible step on the path toward a joint European armed forces.

Not every conflict that the Europeans have gotten mixed up in has been in their best interest. It was the US and the UK who invaded Iraq in 2003, although Germany and France opposed the move. The rationale for sending European troops to Afghanistan was to demonstrate support for America. The recent decision to launch a NATO train-and-assist mission in Iraq, which was made at the Feb. 15 meeting between the alliance’s defense chiefs, forces Europe to join the US in its confrontation with Iran – a country that is offering lucrative contracts to European companies.

Europe can never be truly independent without the capability to mount a robust defense on its own. For instance, the EU needs a joint border force to prevent illegal immigration – which is plainly a real threat. But NATO obliges Europeans to spend their resources deploying more forces to counter Russia – an imaginary threat no one takes seriously.  A border force would bolster EU security while an unneeded confrontation with Russia would weaken it.

Russia and the EU naval task forces worked together to fight Somali pirates. In 2008, Russia sent four helicopters and 200 soldiers to join the EU operation in Chad. Security is an area in which Moscow and Brussels could be cooperating instead of confronting each other, were it not for the Americans.

A robust EU defense policy runs counter to the interests of NATO, while meeting the interests of European independence. The transatlantic relationship has been frayed enough with President Trump in the White House. Opposing the concept openly is too risky.

So the US has decided to maintain its control over the process “with a little help from its friends.” For Americans, the UK has always been the friend in Europe they could rely on in a pinch. With Great Britain becoming a leading member of this new European alliance, US interests will be well protected while the existence of an independent European force will remain a pipe dream. 

The UK, which is scheduled to leave the EU in 2019, is not part of PESCO. Until Brexit, London had opposed the idea of European Defense Union or European Army, saying it would undermine NATO and the UK alliance with the US. Denmark, which has a special opt-out status, is not expected to participate. Ireland, Portugal and Malta are still undecided whether or not to join.

This is the first time ever EU member states legally bind themselves into joint projects as well as pledging to increase defense spending and contribute to rapid deployment. Member countries will submit an action plan outlining their defense aims. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, EU military chiefs and the European Defence Agency will evaluate whether the plans agreed on are being respected. Those not living up to their commitments could be kicked out of the group.

PESCO is intended to reduce the number of different weapons systems in Europe and to promote regional military integration. It is also intended to establish joint training of military officers. The jointly developed European military capabilities will enable the EU to conduct operations separately or in coordination with NATO. Formally, the North Atlantic Alliance backs the project, aiming to benefit from stronger militaries.

Federica Mogherini called the deal a “historic moment in European defense.” According to her, PESCO is complimentary to NATO, in which 22 of the EU’s 28 countries are members. The EU, she said, has tools to fight hybrid warfare — the use of conventional weapons mixed with things like propaganda and cyber-attacks — that the military alliance does not have at its disposal. German Foreign Minister Gabriel praised the agreement as “a great step toward self-sufficiency and strengthening the European Union’s security and defense policy — really a milestone in European development.”

Under PESCO, EU countries will commit to increase military spending. The pact is to be backed by a 5-billion-euro defense fund for buying weapons, a special fund to finance operations and money from the EU’s common budget for defense research. Joint efforts will reduce duplication and waste. More than 50 joint projects in the fields of defense capabilities and military operations have already been submitted. The UK and other states, which have not become parties to PESCO, can take part in some if they are of benefit to the entire EU.

The European Commission also proposed on Nov.10 a series of measures often called a “military Schengen” to facilitate the movement of forces and defense equipment between member states. The moves dovetail with the goals set by the EU strategy document titled European Union Global Strategy that the bloc should look to create greater military autonomy from NATO. «As Europeans we must take greater responsibility for our security. We must be ready and able to deter, respond to and protect ourselves against external threats», the paper reads.

An independent EU military capability will weaken NATO and put an end to Europe’s dependence on the United States. Sweden and Finland, EU members outside NATO, might find an EU alliance preferable to the North Atlantic alliance. After all, European states got entangled in the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan due to solidarity with the United States, not because the European interests were involved. These two examples alone are enough to give precedence to European, rather than transatlantic, security interests. Quite often these interests do not coincide. Today, a joint border force to keep away refugee flows, not forces deployed to counter Russia, is the real priority for Europeans.

The US views Europe’s migrants’ crisis as a far-flung problem that doesn’t affect its direct interests. It has other priorities, such as containing China and opposing Iran, the country where European businesses have great economic interests. Many common Americans question the need to pay for European «free riders». They strongly believe that the Europeans should do much more to enhance their own security. It’s only natural that the EU, a powerful international entity with 28 members accounting for more than 20% of global GDP, strives to acquire the capability to conduct independent military operations.

The idea of creating an independent European defense potential has its pros and cons but one thing is indisputable – only a truly European force – not an assortment of national armies operating under the auspices of US-led NATO – can really protect European interests. Europe has just made a big stride towards moving away from the reliance on the United States to its greater independence and ability to set its own priorities.

The idea to create a European defense structure independent from NATO had been floated for some time. It was a topic for discussions but no concrete steps have been taken to make it come true. It appears to be changing now after US President Trump apparently made no mention of Article 5 or collective defense during the May 25 NATO summit to stun his European allies. «Trump Leaves NATO» was the Carnegie Endowment’s assessment of the event. No such thing ever happened before. It provides a powerful incentive for the Europeans to push ahead with plans to convert the words into deeds. German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Europeans “to take our destiny in our hands” and warned that the United States was no longer a reliable partner. Her words marked a turning point.

The first thing German, French defense chiefs did right after the summit was to launch a joint initiative to create a European security force. The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is at the core of the effort. PESCO is a mechanism allowing willing countries to launch joint security projects without requiring all EU member states to agree or participate. The Initiative has been supported by the EU executive branch of power.

On June 7, the European Commission proposed a new common defence fund to reverse billions of euros in defense cuts to let governments club together to develop and buy new helicopters and planes at lower costs, also opening the door to new drones, cyberwarfare systems and other hi-tech gear. The measure would help Europe stand alone as a global military power while the ties with the US get more strained.

The EU executive is mobilizing €39 ($43, 8) billion by 2027 to support the joint development of military capabilities. Together with national contributions, the Commission expects to mobilize €5.5 ($6, 2) billion per year after 2020. National governments will identify jointly with the European Defence Agency what military capabilities should be prioritized.

The EU estimates it loses up to a €100 ($112, 3) billion a year on duplication, leaving it with far fewer capabilities than the US. Europe has 37 types of armoured personal carriers and 12 types of tanker aircraft compared to nine and four respectively in the United States, according to EU analysis. For the future, an idea of a common European defence bond for joint purchases is floated, though no decisions have been taken so far.

The Commission also presented a reflection paper that hopes to kick off the process of articulating a political vision on three possible scenarios for the development of nascent cooperation on defense. One of the options foresees a mutual assistance clause to respond to external attacks, sharing the cost of expensive military assets, and the EU’s «high-end security and defence operations» with a greater level of integration of national defence forces. It envisages the creation of «pre-positioned permanently available forces» for rapid deployment «on behalf of the union,» as well as a European border and coast guard relying on joint intelligence assets, such as remotely piloted aircraft systems or satellites. All these measures would enable the bloc to run high-end operations in hostile environments.

The European Union’s defense fund idea, which still needs to be approved by governments and the European Parliament, is part of an emerging network of proposals that EU leaders are set to consider at a summit in Brussels on June 22-23. The European Union is setting up a military headquarters – the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) – for training missions abroad. It wants to make it easier to use its EU battlegroups that have never been put to action.

The 13 battalion-sized battle groups were envisioned as small, collective defense forces ready for rapid response to developing crises anywhere in the world. Declared fully operational in 2007, they have never deployed due to political and financial considerations. In 2013, European leaders drew up plans to send a battle group to the Central African Republic to help avert the developing civil war there but the UK strongly opposed the idea to make it be swept under the rug. The plans will be revived when Estonia assumes the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU on July 1. The Estonian government says one of its main priorities will be securing common funding for the battle groups. Today, the nations comprising each battle group cover their own costs.

Actually, the new decisions dovetail with the Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy adopted a year ago when Brexit hit headlines meaning the staunchest opponent of the European defense was leaving the bloc, paving the way for implementation of the European defense concept. The document says it is highly desirable for Europeans to build foreign policy, security, and defense capabilities instead of relying solely on the United States for protection and global services.

The meaning is obvious – the EU must develop the capability to carry out its own military operations without Americans. Allocating military resources to an independent European structure will greatly weaken NATO. But the idea of a European military independent from the US is gaining traction. If the idea goes through, arrangements could allow Norway, a NATO member outside the EU, to contribute, while Sweden and Finland, EU members outside NATO, might find an EU alliance preferable to one that crosses the Atlantic.

In the past, EU members have been dragged into conflicts, like Afghanistan and Iraq that had no relation to European security in order to demonstrate solidarity with America. If implemented, the European defense concept will allow to give priority to European, rather than transatlantic, security interests. For instance, creating a EU border force to counter the refugees’ problem. Europe is facing multiple threats in its strategic neighborhood, while the US is moving to Asia. Better relations with Russia would be an additional bonus for a EU security alliance independent from US-dominated NATO. United by common threats to the European continent, the two could more easily reduce tensions and mistrust.

With the US and Europe apparently going separate ways, NATO will be weakened and a new pattern of European security will emerge. This process has been launched and it’s hardly possible to stop it.