This modern warfare, and the protection of Europe, can only be effectively realised through NATO. This is why the U.S. is deploying combat brigades, equipment caches and sophisticated anti-missile missiles across Eastern Europe. There is nothing in the prospect of a European Army that even approximates this capability. European air power, for example is puny and at best fourth-generation. Air dominance and control is at the heart of modern warfare. The largest and best equipped air force in the world is the U.S. Air Force; the second largest air force in the world is the U.S. Navy Air Force; the third largest air force is the U.S. Army Airforce. The thought that Putin and the Russians will quake in fear at a European Army without U.S. power behind is not even a funny joke.
The creation of a European Army is the natural step for those proceeding towards a federal Europe. It is a political statement, not a statement based on self-sufficiency or capability. Angela Merkel said that Cameron's negotiation on reforms of the EU were dependent on him allowing her to promote an ambitious blueprint to integrate Europe's armed forces. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, said Britain would get a deal if it gave the green light to a raft of powerful new EU institutions. He stated "If you want favors, you have to give favors. If Cameron wants a 'flexible Europe', he must let other members integrate further. Yes - opt out, opt out, opt out - and then shut up." This was raised repeatedly in the negotiations in Brussels.
So, if Cameron is crowing about opting out of further integration in the EU he has conveniently forgotten that the Europeans are happy to integrate their armies without the British Army. Britain would be marginalised within NATO, and the U.S. would have to turn to Berlin and Paris for its NATO allies. [vi] This is what Barack Obama was complaining about when he criticised Brexit. He didn't want to have to reply on the Europe-an Army as his first line of defence. Equally the Poles and the Baltic States have rigorously objected to an integrated European Army because, for them, their national security requires real deterrence; something not likely to be provided by a European Army. The experience of European failure, vacillation and impotence in the Ukraine makes the case against it compelling.
It is a false and dangerous argument to make that Brexit will leave the UK isolated (let alone Cameron's assertion of a Third World War). It will be Europe that will be isolated and insecure. Years ago there was a wonderful headline in the British press, before it joined the EU. It said "Fog In The Channel -- Continent Isolated". It presaged the current state of European defence.
[i] George Allison, "Study finds UK is second most powerful country in the world" ,UK Defense November 4, 2015
[ii] Dr. Jorge Benitez, Alliance at Risk Strengthening European Defense in an Age of Turbulence and Competition. Atlantic Council February 2016
[iii] Fraser Nelson, "America is tired of being the world's protector. We have been warned", Telegraph 6/6/16
[iv] Justin Huggler,,"German army forced to lay down weapons due to 'overtime limits', Telegraph 10 April 2016
[v] Dave Majumdar, France's Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier: The Good, the Bad and the Nuclear, November 18, 2015
[vi] Peter Foster and Matthew Holehouse, "Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation", Telegraph 12/9/15
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
