Europe’s joint task: proving the bloc can defend itself without US
In a former British Army camp in northern Germany, tanks are on manoeuvre. Officers watch from a metal gantry as orange flashes light up the heath and the sound of live firing reverberates in the distance.
The German army is training on the latest upgrade of its Leopard 2 battle tanks, but this is no ordinary military unit. The crews operating the tanks are a mix of German and Dutch soldiers all operating under a single command, in what has been called a German attempt to create a European army.
This is no mere joint-training exercise. The Dutch soldiers are fully integrated into the German army’s 414 Tank Battalion, and live and work with their German counterparts. Dutch soldiers take orders from German officers, and vice versa.
If you ask the senior officers what their mission is, you get the official statement: it’s the “defence of Germany and the Netherlands within the framework of Nato”. But if you ask the tank crews, you get a simpler answer. “It’s the defence of Europe,” says Capt Alexander Läufer, who leads a platoon of four tanks.
The renewed threat of Russian aggression under Vladimir Putin is a concern. Russian war games taking place this week – involving some 300,000 troops and in collaboration with China – show Mr Putin is keen to flex his military muscles.
And then there’s Donald Trump’s ambivalence about the US role as the continent’s protector. Now EU governments and generals are beginning to ask whether the bloc can defend itself.
Europe alone, and underfunded
Ask any military analyst and the short answer is that the EU cannot protect itself against Russia. German Nato troops recently simulated a Russian attack on a forward unit in training. According to one source, the “Russians” overwhelmed European Nato forces in just 18 minutes. And given Mr Trump’s mixed messages on Nato, that’s troubling. Mr Trump issues strong words of condemnation but is not ready to commit troops or risk a nuclear war. As Russian forces continue to advance westward, Europe is left to rely on its own militaries.
While Russia is holding its largest war games since the Soviet era, decades of budget cuts have left Europe’s armies under equipped.
During the Cold War, the West German Bundeswehr was Europe’s first line of defence, with 3,787 tanks and almost 500,000 active troops. Today it has 179,000 troops, and in February it emerged that only 95 of its 244 remaining Leopard battle tanks were operational.
In 2014, the German army was so short of guns that soldiers had to train with broomsticks, while the Netherlands scrapped its last remaining tanks in 2011.
Stronger together?
Unable to make up the shortfall alone, governments are looking to share the burden through military cooperation. “International cooperation is the sine qua non for the development of powerful armed forces today,” says Lt Gen Jörg Vollmer, the Germany army’s chief of staff.
Last year, to great fanfare, the European Union announced Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco), its new military integration framework. But the scheme has been hamstrung by infighting among member states over what its focus should be.
Frustrated by the slow pace of Pesco, France has launched its own European Intervention Initiative to build a rapid-reaction force that can be deployed to trouble-spots abroad.
Poland, nervous at Russian intentions on its eastern flank, is pushing for its own bilateral agreement with the US to base American troops permanently in the country outside Nato and has indicated it is willing to invest up to €2 billion (£1.8 billion) in the project.
Romania and the Czech Republic are planning to follow in the Netherlands’ footsteps and integrate a brigade each into the German army.
“We want to become more European, but we also want to remain transatlantic. Joint action strengthens European countries and the transatlantic alliance,” says Lt Gen Vollmer. “Whether at the end of this lies a European army or an army for Europe, I cannot say,” he adds. “That is a political issue for governments.”
But there is no mistaking that 414 Tank Battalion is a showcase for the scheme. There is a steady stream of visitors to the former British Camp Hohne, including the King of the Netherlands, who showed up in uniform and drove a tank.
“We’ve shown what can be done in terms of integrating soldiers from different national armies. Now it’s up to the politicians to decide where to go with it,” says Lt Col Marco Niemeyer, the battalion commander.
A European army… and a British ally
The German and Dutch militaries have been integrated up the chain of command, with Lt Col Niemeyer reporting to the Netherlands 43rd Mechanised Brigade, which reports to Germany’s 1st Panzer Division.
But the battalion is more than just show. It contributes a company of tanks to Nato’s spearhead VJTF rapid response force, founded in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine.
“For the Netherlands, the obvious benefit was we got to have tanks again,” says Major Chris Sievers, the battalion’s Dutch second-in-command. All we brought are our uniforms and our good looks.” In fact the Dutch brought a state-of-the-art battle computer system for the tanks.
There are provisions for each country to operate its crews’ tanks independently if it chooses, and the soldiers wear their own national uniforms and are under the disciplinary control of their officers.
“Look at places like Afghanistan. We work together there,” says Cpl Simon Könecke, a German shell loader. “If we can do it on a mission, why can’t we do the same thing here in Europe?”
Though he is German, Cpl Könecke speaks English with a strong Sheffield accent. His father is British, and met his mother while he was serving with the British army in Germany.
“We’d like to see more cooperation with the British Army,” says Lt Col Niemeyer. “Maybe not full integration, but we always feel good when we see the Brits back here for Nato training.”
The irony is that before the Brexit referendum, the possibility of a European army was largely seen by the British political establishment as a threat, but attitudes have softened in the past year as the international security situation has changed.
“We’ve gone from being sceptical about a European army to being in many ways the cheerleaders for European defence,” says Prof Anand Menon of King’s College, London.
When Emmanuel Macron, the French president, proposed his new European Intervention Initiative, the UK was one of the first countries to sign up. But Prof Menon remains sceptical about Europe’s ability to defend itself. “I think Libya was a salutary lesson,” he says. “Libyan forces are not that good. And yet for all the Americans said about leading from behind, their commitment ended up longer than anyone else’s.”
Shared weapons without a shared enemy
Without the US, Europe has serious gaps in its military capabilities, Prof Menon says. “To act together you need to agree on a threat. Italy is looking south while the eastern Nato flank countries are looking east towards Russia. And European states vary dramatically in their attitude to the use of force.”
The EU’S attempts at a common defence policy have been hobbled by the different aims of member states, says Claudia Major of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWR).
While Poland and the Baltic states are focused on territorial defence against Russian aggression, France is more concerned with the threat from Isil and Islamic extremism, she says. That’s why Mr Macron wants a European intervention force: to project force beyond the EU’S borders in North Africa.
Prof Menon holds out little hope for Pesco, the EU’S military integration scheme. “I still see fundamental differences in approach between member states,” he says. “France talks about sending soldiers to places where people are firing at us, while for Germany the debate about defence is essentially a proxy for debate about political union.”
But he says there is a role for the EU in defence alongside Nato. “There are specific advantages the EU has.
Because it’s an economic and political union it finds it easier to do full spectrum response than Nato, which is a purely military alliance.”
Cyber attack: the real threat
One area where you might expect Europe to be better placed to defend itself is against hacker attacks that could disrupt transport networks, power grids and communications.
On a virtual battlefield, where troop numbers and weapon stocks don’t count, you might think Europe would be able to go it alone without the US. But that’s not the case, according to Lucas Kello, director of the centre for technology and global affairs at Oxford University.
“It’s difficult for European nations to operate independently of the US because of the vital role intelligence plays in cyber defence,” says Dr Kello. “In Europe, only large nations such as Britain and France have such intelligence gathering capabilities, but even they rely on close cooperation with the US intelligence community, which in turn relies on us.”
Europe faces a “grave cyber threat”, according to Dr Kello. Until now, the focus of cyber security policy has been on protecting basic infrastructure such as power grids and stock exchanges. But increasingly there is a new focus on information security and the threat from coordinated fake news campaigns designed to undermine democratic society.
“The greatest weakness in European cyber defence is also the greatest virtue of our political systems: their openness,” says Dr Kello. “Autocratic nations such as China and Russia manage their information spaces with heavy-handed surveillance and censorship. Such measures, however, are contrary to liberal values.”
Nato has taken steps to confront the cyber threat in recent years, setting up a strategic think tank in Tallinn, and an emerging security challenges division at its Brussels headquarters.
“A severe cyber attack may be classified as a case for the alliance,” Jens Stoltenberg, the secretarygeneral, said recently, implying it would be grounds to invoke Nato’s mutual defence clause.
Dr Kello predicts the EU will become a significant player in cyber defence in coming years. “The European Commission is pursuing a bold plan to establish a ‘digital single market’,” he says. “Greater digital integration will necessitate greater cooperation and even centralisation.”
It’s not what you spend, but where you spend it
Military budgets remain a serious issue. More countries are now meeting Nato’s target of spending two per cent of GDP – a target the UK has hit for many years. But Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, is still lagging behind. Angela Merkel’s government pledged to raise its defence budget by 80 per cent earlier this year, but still only committed to increase military spending to 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2024. Mrs Merkel has said Germany will reach two per cent in “future years” but has given no firm date.
Prof Menon says just throwing money at the problem isn’t enough. “The UK is spending enough. The question is, is it spending on the right stuff? I get little sense of a coordinated strategy around Europe … It all seems to be decided on a bit of an ad hoc basis, when the government decides it needs to help the defence industry.”
In the face of the spending gap, Europe’s militaries have little choice but to cooperate, said Ms Major of the German SWR. “The Germans and the Dutch aren’t cooperating because they want to. It’s because they have to. The smaller states aren’t being forced by Germany to join the framework nations concept. They want to because they get something out of it.”
But she says there is “no replacement for Nato” at the moment. “If you’re talking about an old-style conventional war, Europe cannot defend itself without the US,” she says.
“You can’t replace the US nuclear deterrent. France has made it clear you cannot share nuclear decisionmaking and does not believe in a European shield. And Britain is unlikely to do any differently.”
All of which leaves little answer to the nightmare scenario of a Russian attack on Nato’s eastern flank and a US refusal to commit troops. But Prof Menon is sanguine. “I think Europe would have a chance. I remain convinced Russian forces are a lot weaker than they claim. The Nordic forces are strong. Europe might be able to defend itself without America.”