An EU army offers no lasting salvation for Ukraine
If the recent history of European military cooperation is anything to go by, Moscow has little to fear from the proposed deployment of a motley collection of European troops to safeguard Ukraine's security.
In their desperate efforts to curry favour with US president Donald Trump, various European leaders have mooted the idea of sending some, as yet undefined, military contingent to keep the peace in the event of a lasting ceasefire being implemented between Kyiv and Moscow.
Sir Keir Starmer's attempts to apply a sticking plaster to the edifice of Britain's crumbling Armed Forces on the eve of his visit to Washington, by diverting funds from the foreign aid budget, was clearly designed to give him a veneer of credibility before his meeting with Trump.
Having pledged UK support for any future military operation to guarantee Ukraine's security, he needs to reassure the sceptical Trump administration that our Armed Forces still retain the ability to conduct such a role. French president Emmanuel Macron is similarly keen on the idea of dispatching a European force to Ukraine, telling Trump this week that he was working with Starmer to send troops to the region.
'Not to go to the front line, not to go in confrontation, but to be in some locations, being defined by the treaty, as a presence to maintain this peace and our collective credibility,' the French leader told Fox News.
Several European countries have expressed reservations about the Starmer/Macron peace initiative, not least their vagueness about the role such a force would fulfil.
Of equal concern should be the dismal record of Europe's military powers of working effectively together on major security challenges – as was evident the last time the European powers contributed to a major overseas military operation, in Afghanistan.
At its height, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan, set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to bring some semblance of stability to the war-torn nation, comprised significant contributions from all the main European powers.
The total number of British forces eventually reached around 10,000, in support of the US-led operation. Germany sent 5,000 troops, Italy nearly 4,000 while the 4,000-strong French contingent included large numbers of special forces.
The total Nato forces operating in Afghanistan – which is roughly the same size as Ukraine – reached a peak number of around 130,000. But the ability of the different forces – especially the Europeans – to work together to achieve the same policy objectives was virtually non-existent.
From the outset, the Italians were hampered by constraints imposed by the their country's government, which prevented them from participating in the battle against the Taliban-led insurgency, while the German group was so risk averse it rarely ventured out of its heavily defended base in the northern district around Mazar-i-Sharif. The French, meanwhile, fulfilled a peripheral role until their then president Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally ended their involvement, thereby precipitating the collapse of the entire mission.
Is there any evidence that the Europeans are better equipped now for a Ukraine mission?
With no guarantees that the Trump administration will authorise US involvement in such an operation, the onus would be on the Europeans to provide their own command and logistics infrastructure, something that is badly lacking given their pre-Trump disinclination to take their defence responsibilities seriously.
While Nato has made significant efforts in recent years to improve operational inter-operability between the armies, navies and air forces of the alliance's European members, it remains questionable whether they could function without the support of the American military.
Concerns about Trump's long-term commitment to Nato, though, have prompted some to argue in favour of the European Union resurrecting its plans to establish its own defence and security operation to rival the Transatlantic alliance.
If we can no longer rely on Washington to protect our interests, then the EU should take on the role – or so the argument goes.
This is short-sighted. Trump is a challenging ally but that does not mean the EU should turn its back on Nato and establish its own military force.
Trump's criticism of Europe is based on its failure to take seriously its defence obligations, both in terms of financial contributions and military effectiveness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Diplomatic breakthrough elusive as Israel-Iran war stretches into second week
Hours of talks aimed at de-escalating fighting between Israel and Iran failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough as the war entered its second week with a fresh round of strikes between the two adversaries. European ministers and Iran's top diplomat met for four hours Friday in Geneva, as President Donald Trump continued to weigh U.S. military involvement and worries rose over potential strikes on nuclear reactors. European officials expressed hope for future negotiations, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he was open to further dialogue while emphasizing that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the U.S. while Israel continued attacking. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy if aggression ceases and the aggressor is held accountable for its committed crimes,' he told reporters. No date was set for the next round of talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel's military operation in Iran would continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and arsenal of ballistic missiles. Israel's top general echoed the warning, saying the Israeli military was ready 'for a prolonged campaign.' But Netanyahu's goal could be out of reach without U.S. help. Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered to be out of reach to all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Trump said he would put off deciding whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran for up to two weeks. The war between Israel and Iran erupted June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multitiered air defenses, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Worries rise over the perils of attacking Iran's nuclear reactors Addressing an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. 'I want to make it absolutely and completely clear: In case of an attack on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment,' said Rafael Grossi, chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog. 'This is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences could be most serious.' Israel has not targeted Iran's nuclear reactors, instead focusing its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Grossi has warned repeatedly that such sites should not be military targets. After initially reporting no visible damage from Israel's Thursday strikes on the Arak heavy water reactor, the IAEA on Friday said it had assessed 'key buildings at the facility were damaged,' including the distillation unit. The reactor was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so the damage posed no risk of contamination, the watchdog said. Iran previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal with the U.S., France, China, Russia, Britain and Germany in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60% — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% — and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but it is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60%. Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear weapons program but has never acknowledged it. Israel says 'difficult days' ahead Israel said its warplanes hit dozens of military targets across Iran on Friday, including missile-manufacturing facilities, while an Iranian missile hit Israel's northern city of Haifa, sending plumes of smoke billowing over the Mediterranean port and wounding at least 31 people. Iranian state media reported explosions from Israeli strikes in an industrial area of Rasht, along the coast of the Caspian Sea. Israel's military had warned Iranians to evacuate the area around Rasht's Industrial City, southwest of the city's downtown. But with Iran's internet shut off — now for more than 48 hours — it's unclear how many people could see the message. The Israeli military believes it has destroyed most of Iran's ballistic missile launchers, contributing to the steady decline in Iranian attacks. But several of the roughly three dozen missiles that Israel said Iran fired on Friday slipped through the country's aerial defense system, setting off air-raid sirens across the country and sending shrapnel flying into a residential area in the southern city of Beersheba, a frequent target of Iranian missiles where a hospital was hit Thursday.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Israel-Iran conflict: Fresh attacks as Trump sets two-week deadline for U.S. action
What we know NEW WAVE OF STRIKES: Israel and Iran continued to exchange strikes today, a week into their war. Israel's military said it targeted areas in western Iran, while a building was hit in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba. EUROPE-IRAN TALKS: Iranian Foreign MinisterAbbas Araghchi will be in the Swiss city of Geneva today for talks with his British, French, German and E.U. counterparts in an effort to end the conflict. The U.S. envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will not attend. TRUMP CONSIDERS U.S. ACTION: President Donald Trump said he was still considering a U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear sites. 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' he said yesterday, according to the White House. HUNDREDS KILLED: Israeli strikes have killed at least 639 people in Iran since the conflict began a week ago, The Associated Press reported, citing a Washington-based human rights group. The Iranian health ministry says more than 2,500 people have been wounded. The death toll in Israel from Iran's retaliatory strikes remains at 24.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump approval rating tanks as Americans oppose GOP agenda
It's summer now, and the report card has arrived. Americans give Trump a failing grade on the budget, trade and immigration. That's tough to swallow for a politician who gauges everything on public perception. Trump, being Trump, is now pivoting to distractions, touting a military parade that flopped as an expensive boondoggle and then flipping from diplomacy with Iran to potentially ordering air strikes on that country. Take our poll: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? | Opinion Americans disapprove of budget bill slashing Medicaid Let's start with Trump's budget, which Republican leaders in Congress call the "one big, beautiful bill" in honor of their continuing deference to whatever he wants and the dereliction of their duty to serve as a coequal branch of our government. The version that narrowly passed the House slashed federal safety net programs to boost tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Some senators, seeking to make things even better for the rich at the expense of the poor, want bigger cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other programs. Opinion: Trump lied about the LA protests so you wouldn't see what he's really doing A batch of recent polls shows Americans reject that: A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found that 53% of American voters oppose the budget bill, while 27% approve it. Nearly half of the voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while 40% said it should stay the same and just 10% wanted it cut. A June 16 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid, while 31% say we spend enough and just 18% say we spend too much. Forty-five percent of Americans think we should spend more on food and nutrition assistance, while 30% say we spend enough and 24% say we spend too much. A June 17 KFF Health Tracking Poll found that 64% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Trump's budget bill, while 83% of them hold a favorable view of Medicaid. Republican support for the bill came in strong at 61% at first, but then dropped by 20 points when the Republicans polled heard details about how the legislation would force millions off their health care plans. Polling finds Americans disagree with Trump on immigration, economy, border security This much seems clear: The more Americans learn about Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the more they find it small-minded and ugly. That explains the artificial deadlines. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to wrap this up by July 4. But Republican infighting - moderates who fear it goes too far, far-righters who complain it doesn't go far enough - will make for a contentious Congress for at least the next two weeks. While we wait, Trump is seeing his support on immigration - once his strongest issue - melt away in the summer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The Quinnipiac University poll found 54% of the registered voters surveyed opposed his approach to immigration, while 43% approve and 3% had no opinion. Trump campaigned in 2024 on reviving America's economy. But his trade wars, which have hit our country's international allies just as hard or harder than our geopolitical foes, are unpopular. Quinnipiac found that just 38% approve of Trump's trade policy, while 57% disapprove and 6% had no opinion. The AP-NORC poll found that 32% of Americans think we spend too much on border security, while 37% think we spend the right amount and 29% think we spend too little. Trump's approval rating continues to tank. Does it matter? In this time of divisiveness, a majority of Americans can agree on one thing: Trump is disappointing them as president. Just 38% of the votes surveyed by Quinnipiac approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove. Opinion: Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim. That tracks with a Pew Research Center poll released June 17, which found that 41% of those polled approve of Trump's performance while 58% disapprove. Pew noted that Trump has lost ground in his approval rating since he was sworn into office again on Jan. 20. Don't expect Trump to spend too much time worrying about what Americans tell pollsters. He has a long history of touting polls when they hold good news for him and dismissing them when they don't. He also suggested just before the 2024 election that releasing poll results he didn't like "should be illegal." Here's what you can expect: more distractions from Trump as the Republicans fights it out on which version of his budget bill passes or fails in Congress. If they listened to Americans, they would kill the bill and start from scratch. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
