Is it possible to set up “European Army”?

Last week, at the radio station -- Europe 150 -- French President Emmanuel Makron spoke of the need to create a true European “military, to face the Russian threat, and to emancipate Europe by its dependence on the US.

US President Donald Trump considered <x0fyes” this proposal, while Russian President Vladimir Putin said it is a <x2-positive> ” development. Has a new strategic debate started? Since the failure of the French project for a European Defence Community in 1954, the idea of a European army seems to be little more than an unrealistic dream.

Okay, from Makron to Orban? The idea of a European army is now mentioned by all. Although generally mentioned in a vague way, without specific deadlines or objectives, the concept has been regularly quoted by leaders and very different political wings. In 2015, it was European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker who opened the debate declaring that the EU needs an army to withstand the danger coming from Russia.

The Germans remembered on this occasion that the concept of such an army was part of their ruling coalition programme. The most unexpected was support from conservatives and European-Ilindom Eurosceptics, such as Czech President Milos Zaman and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. In Great Britain, the idea of a European army was even presented as a short - term perspective during Brex's campaign.

How, though, can we explain this intense debate? After slogans, motives change. For example, for the European Commission, the purpose has largely been to legitimise an incubation in the field of defence, which has long been an exclusive area of member states. This encouragement began recently with the establishment of the European Defence Fund.

For the German government, the goal was to prove its commitment to European integration from a political rather than military perspective. For Czechs and Hungarians, it is more an issue of EU postponement, towards militarizing its borders against immigrants.

For Britons who support the country's departure from the EU, mentioning the prospect of a European army was a way to distance brilliant voters from the EU. As far as Makron is concerned, he is seeking to underline his European commitment, several months before the EU elections, which he is much invested in.

Recently, the American and Russian presidents saw in this discussion the possibility to remind all of Trump's distrust of alliances, and Putin's desire to separate Europe from the US. The fact that leaders experience the concept of a European army is also a symptom of strategic evolution.

In the face of the Russian threat to the east, and the jihadist threat in the south, in a context in which the US intends to reduce its military commitment and focus on China, Europeans now realize they need each other more than ever.

And yet, integration in the field of defence is a major obstacle. While eastern and northern countries focus mainly on the Russian threat, southern European countries, including France, are looking more toward the Mediterranean and Africa.

Ukraine or the African Central Republic?

This eastern-south dilemma has damaged the EU's cohesion more than once, as in 2014, when Eastern European countries in Ukraine provoked the Ukraine crisis to reject sending troops to the EUFOR mission that called for France to the Central African Republic.

However, some recent examples show that this geostrategic dilemma can potentially be overcome. Few people commented on a key element of President Makron's statement: it did not justify the idea of a European army from the need to intervene in Africa, what would be France's traditional approach.

Rather, he cited the Russian threat that we should read as a step towards the involvement of France's eastern and northern partners. It should also be stressed that the recently promoted Initiative for European Intervention, which France has recently promoted to predict and plan future military operations, includes countries such as Estonia, and soon Finland, in other words, says they are not France's natural military partners, and that they are much more east-oriented than African missions.

Meanwhile in responses, Estonia has clearly proved its willingness to position its strategic culture closer to France, sending troops to the Central African Republic and finally to Mali as part of Operation “Barkhane”.

While these initiatives have not created a European army, they have proved it is possible to move towards increasingly widespread experiences, and perceptions of threats between different European armies. Experts often view the concept of a European army as unrealistic.

But political leaders will continue to use this concept, as it carries a major advantage: stimulates the imagination of citizens. Because of symbolic and psychological importance, no one is indifferent to this idea, and never fails to promote public debate.

Whatever option Europeans may choose for their future protection, popular support will be a crucial factor in that decision.

Maybe that's the true nature of the “European Army”. More than a dream, a slogan, or a long-term horizon, it is an invitation to debate democraticly, on the future of our security.

Note: Pierre Haroche, is a researcher on European security at the Institute for Strategic Research (IRSEM) in Paris.