Future of EU Defense: NATO or the EU?

..With transcripts 

..

.The European Union has a mix of 17 kinds of tanks, 20 types of planes, and 27 different military offices. The U.S., on the other hand, has just one military headquarters and fewer kinds of tanks and planes. If European countries shared their military resources and worked together more, they might be stronger within NATO and less reliant on the U.S. So, the big question is: Should the EU team up for its own defense and foreign policies, maybe even start a European army? Or should it just stick to working within NATO?

Support the Channel: 💁‍♂️ Patreon:   / eumadesimple   ☕ Buy me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/EUMadeSi... 📷 Youtube:    / theeumadesimple   Social Media: 📷   / eu_made_simple   𝕏:   / eu_made_simple   📹   / eumadesimple   👥 Discord:   / discord   Other Languages: 🇬🇧 English:    / @eumadesimple   🇩🇪 German:    / @euleichtgemacht   🇫🇷 French:    / @luesimplifiee   🇮🇹 Italian:    / @ueinmodosemplice   🇬🇷 Greek:    / @ee_apla   🇵🇹 Portuguese:    / @auesimplificada   Sources: https://www.boell.de/en/2024/01/22/ne... https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niall... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdat... https://verfassungsblog.de/a-leap-tow... https://commission.europa.eu/about-eu... https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2... https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-la... https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/... https://www.academia.edu/26262466/Kis... https://www.euractiv.com/section/futu... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard... https://www.euractiv.com/section/futu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...)\ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/... https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex

.............

This is the European Union.

0:02

27 diverse countries that came together,  representing a colossal population of over 440  

0:09

million souls. To put that into perspective,  that's more than the United States. Yet,  

0:14

when it comes to military prowess,  the EU doesn't quite measure up.

0:18

But this doesn’t mean that EU Member States don’t  allocate resources to their militaries. In fact,  

0:24

EU Member States collectively allocated a  staggering 312 billion dollars for military  

0:30

expenditures in 2023. Now, that's substantial,  isn't it? When you stack this against Russia's  

0:36

109 billion dollars, you might find yourself  wondering, "Is Europe actually a military  

0:41

superpower?" Surprisingly, when we compare  EU military spending against other global  

0:46

heavyweights, it secures second spot,  trailing not too far behind China!

0:49

Yet, despite this large military spend, most  EU countries cannot deploy forces, run out of  

0:54

ammunition and spare parts when they fight,  and have shockingly low levels of readiness.

0:59

Especially Germany, the EU's  largest defence spender,  

1:02

is currently facing a significant military  crisis. In a striking interview, a former  

1:08

top German general described the German  military as being in its worst state ever,  

1:13

lacking the capability to defend both Germany  and its allies, and even posing a significant  

1:19

risk to itself. This situation has even led  to light-hearted but critical comments from  

1:24

NATO allies, like "Why are the Germans only  terrible at war when they are on our side?"

1:30

So should Germany spend even more?  Probably. But, we argue that the core  

1:35

issue with European defence isn't about  spending levels, which are substantial,  

1:40

but rather structural problems. Starting with  Limited interoperability and duplication.

1:45

During the 2011 NATO intervention in  Libya, European air forces struggled  

1:50

because their different planes, like  French Rafales, British Eurofighters,  

1:54

and Italian Tornados, needed unique care.  This made joint operations like refuelling  

1:59

and strikes hard, showing the need for more  standardisation in European military planes.

2:05

Today, EU militaries collectively  use over 17 different types of tanks,  

2:09

nearly 20 types of combat aircraft, and  more than 10 types of tanker aircraft. The  

2:15

variety of equipment complicates  joint training and operations,  

2:18

as different units require access to various  spare parts and components. EU members use  

2:24

a staggering 178 different major weapon  systems compared to the United States' 30.

2:30

Europe also faces higher defence costs due to  missed economies of scale. McKinsey reports  

2:36

that joint equipment procurements could save  Europe 30% in costs, about $15 billion annually.

2:43

So, what is the best way  forward for European defence? 

2:46

Should the European Union take a  bigger role? Or should we rely on NATO?

2:50

At EU Made Simple, we've put our heads  together and mapped out the various  

2:54

stages of military integration within  the EU into a four-tiered pyramid. The  

2:59

idea isn't necessarily to reach the top tier  as the ultimate objective but to consider it  

3:04

the highest level of integration that can  be achieved. If the EU doesn't integrate  

3:09

at all and stays at the bottom level of  the pyramid, it will continue to rely  

3:14

heavily on the U.S. But as we move up the  pyramid, our reliance on them decreases.

3:19

Foundation: Unified Foreign Policy The base of our pyramid is essential:  

3:22

all European countries must align on foreign  policy. This step is crucial, without it European  

3:28

countries will never reach consensus on key issues  such as military missions or defence budgets. 

3:34

Second Level: Cooperation As we move up the pyramid,  

3:35

the next stage involves deeper cooperation  within the EU in specific areas.

3:40

Defense Budget: First, the EU could pool together resources  

3:43

for a joint defence budget to enhance military  capabilities and funding for joint exercises.

3:49

Managing Shared Military Assets: Second, the EU could oversee  

3:51

joint military assets such as  drones or transport aircraft,  

3:55

making them combat-ready and available  for both EU and NATO missions.

3:59

Industrial Cooperation: Third, the EU could encourage  

4:02

industries across member states to cooperate,  aiming to fortify Europe's defence sector.

4:07

Shared Procurement And Fourth, the EU could  

4:08

encourage shared procurement, with EU countries  buying together to leverage economies of scale.

4:13

Other There are  

4:14

many other areas of cooperation but  these are some of the main ones.  

4:18

A Step Further: An Army of Europeans The next tier introduces the concept  

4:20

of an "Army of Europeans." Think of this  as a collective force of let’s say 60,000  

4:26

soldiers from various EU countries, equipped and  training together. This force would complement,  

4:32

not replace, national armies, offering a  way for countries to blend some of their  

4:36

military capabilities into a larger EU effort  while still retaining their individual forces.

4:42

Top of the Pyramid: A Full EU Army Now reaching the top of our pyramid,  

4:44

we have the concept of a full EU Army. This  is about building a unified military from the  

4:50

ground up, drawing on the EU's population to  form a single, cohesive force. It's obviously  

4:56

a long-term vision that would require developing  new training regimes, strategies, and crucially  

5:02

EU structures. Initially, this would depend on  support from the militaries of member states,  

5:07

but the aim could eventually be to have one  single unified force representing all of Europe

5:13

By this point many of you are probably thinking  

5:15

that the EU is already active in  multiple tiers. And you are right!

5:19

The EU has agreements to try and align  foreign policy, PESCO for collaborative  

5:24

projects and a €13 billion Defense  Fund for R&D. And even in tier 3,  

5:29

there are the EU Battlegroups consisting  of 1500 soldiers for rapid crisis response.

5:35

It all sounds promising, right? Unfortunately,  there's a significant snag in how these  

5:39

initiatives are playing out in reality. The root  of the issue traces back to the foundational tier:  

5:45

achieving a truly unified foreign policy. Consider  the European Battlegroups, which were introduced  

5:51

in 2007, but guess what - they have NEVER been  deployed. There have been critical moments,  

5:57

such as the conflict in the Congo in 2008, the  upheaval in Libya in 2011, and the prolonged  

6:03

engagement in Afghanistan, where the deployment of  Battlegroups could have made a significant impact

6:09

The big problem? It's all about  unanimity. Every one of the 27 EU  

6:14

countries has to agree before any action can  be taken. And if even one country says no,  

6:20

nothing happens. This makes it really  tough for the EU to act fast or use  

6:25

rapid response teams, like the European  Battlegroups, even when they're needed.

6:29

This is why there is also a Tier that you  probably did not expect: Tier 0. reflecting  

6:34

the current predominant state of the EU: relying  mainly on national foreign policies and armies.

6:41

So what are the benefits of moving up the pyramid?

6:43

Firstly, it gives the EU more strategic  autonomy. This means that Europe can act  

6:48

independently when it's in its interest to  do so. Some geopolitical conflicts might  

6:53

be a high priority for the EU but not  for the US, so the EU should have the  

6:58

capability to act without US support.  For example, the situation in Ukraine.

7:03

Secondly, it positions Europe as a more robust  partner within NATO, equal to the United States,  

7:09

and makes NATO stronger and better equipped  to address global issues. A unified European  

7:15

pillar within NATO that spends 2% of GDP  on the military is much better equipped  

7:20

than 27 individual member states each  spending 2% of GDP on the military.

7:28

Thirdly, enhanced military integration can lead  to more efficient use of resources. By pooling  

7:34

military assets, research and development,  and procurement processes, the EU can achieve  

7:38

economies of scale, reducing costs and increasing  the effectiveness of its defence capabilities.

7:43

There are also drawbacks of moving up the pyramid.

7:46

Firstly, deeper integration might  lead to sovereignty concerns among  

7:50

member states. Some countries may be  reluctant to cede control over their  

7:54

national defence policies and military  decisions to a centralised EU authority.

7:59

Secondly, achieving consensus among all EU member  states on military matters can be challenging.  

8:04

Different nations have varying security  priorities, threat perceptions, and political  

8:09

landscapes, which can complicate decision-making  processes and delay timely actions.

8:15

Thirdly, there's the risk of  duplicating efforts with NATO,  

8:18

leading to inefficiencies and  potential conflicts of interest.

8:22

So which tier do you think the EU should move  towards? Stay at 0? Or move all the way to  

8:27

4? Let us know in the comments. Thanks  for watching! And you're interested in  

8:32

supporting our work, please subscribe  to the channel or consider becoming a  

8:36

patron on Patreon. Your help keeps us  going. Catch you in the next video!