The President of the Government has become a relevant figure in the international community. Since that handshake with Donald Trump in Egypt, Pedro Sánchez has decided to take the initiative and cause unexpected turns.
For example: refusing to allow the United States to use the Morón and Rota bases for its campaign against Iran. He has also criticized Israel for its bombing of Lebanon and has even asked to send a military mission to Gaza. In his last appearance he asked that the European Union should take charge of its own security and create a “European army.”
A project that has been on the table since the economic community was born, but that has never been able to be carried out.
Today, the EU is no longer the regional power it once was. The geopolitical landscape has radically transformed in recent years. Surely this began to be perceived with Trump’s first presidency and has been developing after the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022, the conflict in Gaza promoted by Israel and, now, due to the return of the Republican candidate to the US administration.
Trump’s return has been a true 180-degree turn for European politics, as the president has directly threatened his allies with tariffs, occupying Greenland and now with dissolving NATO, all for not supporting him. What’s more, the North American president has been clear that Europe should no longer depend on the United States for its defense. This has caused many within the EU to begin to rethink things.
The United States has been Europe’s umbrella and shield since the Cold War. The multiple bases equipped with missiles were at the time the culmination of the guarantee that the defunct USSR was not going to launch a military campaign towards the West.
Now that umbrella seems to have been filled with holes and is no longer useful. The EU’s defense and security policy must therefore be modified. That is where Pedro Sánchez’s request to create a European army comes.
However, the idea, although it seems launched from a feeling of brotherhood with the rest of the members, is it really possible? Well, from the perspective of Spain, the country that has been responsible for launching the idea, it is complex to say the least due to multiple factors.
The concept of an integrated armed forces of all EU member countries is attractive to many politicians in Brussels. This would mean that the Twenty-Seven would have an army to act wherever they had interests, to defend the integrity of the nations that form it and, above all, to eliminate dependence on the United States, China or other states that have proven (or may) be unreliable as partners of this category. Now, and as we anticipated, the proposal entails quite a few difficulties. Proof of this is that this issue has been on the table since at least the 1950s.
Since then there have been threats such as the creation of the so-called Eurocorps in 1990, which had legitimacy to act on behalf of France and Germany.
But, in reality, the topic is part of a cyclical debate that always ends up coming up. What are the factors that complicate its development? Assuming Spain’s position, there are several: investment, industry, number and quality of forces and, above all, strategic interests at the international level.
Building a European army would require a heavy initial investment. This brings us to the second point: the arms industry. Today Spain has increased defense spending reaching more than 2 percent of GDP that NATO requested. The increase has continued and it is true, as some military associations say, that the Government “has showered the industry with millions”, but not in an intelligent way.
In general, there has been a commitment to continue acquiring American design systems, which maintains dependency. If you want a European army, it and its national forces should use 100% European technology and material.
If not, the idea will not flourish. That said, the real investment would exceed more than the 2 percent that has already been achieved, since replacing American equipment with another will not be cheap, although the benefits are evident: industrial independence, technological sovereignty and avoiding dependence on uncollaborative allies. Would citizens accept that enormous budget for military issues? Here is another obstacle.
Regarding the number and quality of forces, Andrius Kubilius, European Commissioner for Defense, has evaluated the proposal to create a permanent army of at least 100,000 troops. Those tens of thousands, it is assumed, will come from all members. What quota will be assigned to Spain? And more importantly: under what conditions?
Sailor and troop associations have harshly criticized Spanish government agencies for increasing investment in technology, but not in human resources. Salaries are not rising and the tension, although silent, is becoming stronger. Will the European army have better conditions? What will its recruitment be like? Inevitably, if Spain wants to provide thousands of troops who will guard the EU’s borders and its interests, it will have to improve the status of its soldiers within the national army.
That being said, and it cannot be left uncommented upon, there is the issue of the 100,000 soldiers that Kubilius mentions. According to their analysis, the figure is based on the number of US soldiers deployed on the continent.
Now, this is an erroneous analysis, because the important thing about those thousands of soldiers is not their number, but who they belong to: a global empire equipped with nuclear weapons.
That leads to another question: Will these forces have access to a nuclear arsenal? Spain is one of the EU countries that could develop them if it so proposes.
Of course that would require more investment, but it is essential to enter the game where the map is full of powers that have them.
It remains to analyze the strategic interests of each of the members. This is surely the biggest obstacle for the project. Whatever they are, each EU country has a way of seeing things and that should be ordered if we want to have a common army.
Spain cannot allow, for example, France to continue arming Rabat. Debates on the EU’s position vis-à-vis Israel should be resolved. Germany is an ally of Tel Aviv, while Italy and Spain are more critical. France has interests in Africa that others do not.
Likewise, there are the central and eastern countries that maintain an ambiguous relationship with Moscow while Brussels is against negotiating with it.
All these issues must be organized and have an order, because otherwise it will be impossible for the “European army” that Sánchez wants to become a reality.
The questions surrounding a future European army are broad and full of obstacles that must be overcome.
For our part, we will be awaiting any new relevant information. Will this idea become something real or will it be turned into borage water again? We’ll see.