The Inquiry Are we closer to a European army?
During a speech to the Spanish parliament earlier this year, the country's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez claimed there's one thing that would guarantee lasting peace in Europe.
His idea is the creation of a new army drawn from the 27 countries whose governments already work together as members of the European Union.
The concept isn't a new one - and NATO already exists, the military alliance which includes EU member states and other European countries.
But talk of a new military force is reappearing as the continent becomes more vulnerable to threats. Its ally the US is increasingly unreliable and unpredictable too.
Other European leaders are also backing the idea
This week we're asking - 'Are we closer to a European army?'
Contributors:
Dick Zandee, Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Security and Defence Programme at the Clingendael Institute
Dr Ulrike Franke, Senior Policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations
Oana Lungescu, Distinguished fellow with the Royal United Services Institute and former NATO spokesperson
Prof. Dr. Sven Biscop, Director of the Europe in the World Programme at Egmont.
Presenter: Charmaine Cozier
Producer: Daniel Rosney
Researcher: Maeve Schaffer
Editor: Tara McDermott
Technical Producer: Toby James
Production Coordinator - Tammy Snow
(Image Credit: FREDERICK FLORIN/AFP via Getty Images)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
38 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's ‘art of the deal' fails again outflanked by a wily Putin
EMBLAZONED on the podium's backdrop were the words, 'Pursuing Peace'. But just around the time that US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin were wrapping up their much vaunted meeting in Alaska on Friday, at least seven regions of Ukraine were under air raid alert. 'Elusive Peace' instead it seems was the prevailing message to come out of this the first meeting between a US president and Putin since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After nearly three hours of talks, there was a brief appearance before the media, during which Trump and Putin said they had made progress on unspecified issues, but offered no details and took no questions, from the journalists gathered. Trump, usually loquacious and ready to bat off reporters' questions, seemed to sense that he would be asked about his pre-summit threats of 'very severe consequences' if Russia did not end the conflict. Instead, the assembled global press had to settle for both men hinting at 'progress made,' 'points agreed on' and talk of a follow up meeting with a glum looking Trump insisting, 'There is no deal until there is a deal.' Trump's much sought after ceasefire deal it seems remains out of reach for now, but what followed the summit was a lengthy phone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy with the leaders of some NATO countries including UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, joining for part of the conversation. Trump and Zelenskyy also agreed to meet in Washington on Monday. It's long been recognised that successful diplomacy of any kind requires give and take on both sides, but for now that - in public at least – does not seem sufficiently forthcoming for any major breakthrough. (Image: Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire) So, what then does the outcome of the Alaska summit mean for both Trump and Putin. What too does it signify for Ukraine and its European allies in terms of the way forward? To take Putin first, the consensus among many observers is that the Russian president came out of the summit having achieved one of his major goals, which is the start of his rehabilitation as a world leader. The Alaska get-together with the powerful photo opportunity it presented, ended Putin's isolation from the West. Almost from the moment he stepped off his plane onto the red-carpeted tarmac, Putin will have been pleased with what the Kremlin will view as a triumph. Read more Tears and trauma: David Pratt in Ukraine DAVID PRATT ON THE WORLD: Whatever happens in Brazil's resentful and rancorous election, the result will have major repercussions for us all David Pratt in Ukraine: It's hard to comprehend this level of destruction David Pratt: Kremlin's protestations have a hollow ring as atrocities mount up War Criminal NOT only was the Russian leader – a man wanted by the International Criminal Court as a war criminal - greeted with applause from his host, Trump, but his welcome stood in marked contrast to the public humiliation that Trump and his advisers inflicted on Zelenskyy during his visit to the White House earlier this year. 'The meeting looks like a win for Putin,' observed Oleh Shamshur, a former Ukrainian ambassador to the US and now a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center. 'There was high ceremony and a warm reception -painful for Ukrainians to watch - a breaking out of diplomatic isolation, and a delaying again of a round of harsher direct and secondary sanctions. There was, in other words, quite a bit to sell his new 'victory' to the Russian public and to an international audience of both friends and foes,' Shamshur added. It helped Putin too that the Alaskan venue was rife with symbolism: the proximity of Russia and America across the Bering Strait, the sale of Alaska by Tsarist Russia to the United States in 1867; and the American lend-lease agreements that armed the Soviet Union to help it resist Nazi Germany (an important supply route ran through Alaska). Putin of course made the most of all this and in his closing speech recounted how, on arrival on the red carpet, he had greeted Trump with 'Good afternoon, dear neighbour.' But as the New York Times (NYT) noted, this was more than a photo op and move towards international rehabilitation for Putin. 'In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO - a perennial Russian goal - and postponed Mr. Trump's threat of tough new sanctions,' the newspaper said. 'Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Mr. Putin did not commit to a cease-fire by last Friday, he would punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas.' the NYT added. It went on to cite Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs as saying, 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit.' According to the independent Russian online news portal Meduza, even before the start of Friday's summit the Kremlin had issued instructions to Russia's state-controlled media on how to cover it. The guidelines says Meduza told pro-Kremlin outlets to emphasise that Putin spoke to Trump about 'Kyiv's unwillingness to negotiate,' that Moscow is 'ready for various scenarios in the talks,' and that the Russian president 'sets the agenda for Russian-American relations.' Meduza detailed how a media strategist working with the Kremlin's political team had told them told them that pro-government audiences were being prepped for the possibility that the summit 'may not lead to a pause in fighting.' 'It's a warm-up to keep expectations low -and avoid disappointment,' the source said. 'The main point is dialogue with the US for the sake of dialogue. Putin and Trump are working on an agreement, and it's Putin who sets the terms of that agreement.' Economic Pressure IN short, Putin got to share the stage with the US president and proffer enough flattery and meaningless talk of respecting Ukrainian security to stave off further immediate sanctions and economic pressure. Some observers say the Alaska summit was a stark reminder of their last infamous encounter in Helsinki in 2018. Back then by the time Trump came out of the room after his one to one meeting he looked dazzled by the Kremlin leader. Asked at a press conference about the conclusions of the US intelligence community that Russia had interfered in the US elections, Trump said: 'President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it should be.' Fiona Hill, Trump's senior Kremlin adviser on the US national security council, later said that she had considered pulling a fire alarm or faking a medical emergency to end the press conference such was the extent to which Putin had embarrassingly put one over on Trump. Putin's negotiating abilities of course are a point of record. In his 2020 memoir, A Promised Land, former US president Barack Obama in an assessment of foreign leaders, told how when his aide David Axelrod asked him his impression of Putin, he responded that he 'found him strangely familiar, 'like a ward boss, except with nukes and a UN Security Council veto.' 'Putin did, in fact, remind me of the sorts of men who had once run the Chicago machine or Tammany Hall (a historical New York City political organisation) -tough, street-smart, unsentimental characters who knew what they knew, who never moved outside their narrow experiences, and who viewed patronage, bribery, shakedowns, fraud, and occasional violence as legitimate tools of the trade,' Obama wrote. It might have been an unflattering characterisation, but many agree on its accuracy nonetheless. This weekend despite trying to put considerable spin on the outcome of the Alaska summit, Trump appears to have once again been outmanoeuvred by Putin's cunning and uncompromising tactics. As the Financial Times (FT) and others see it, Trump's lacklustre performance they say resulted in a political backslash on his return to Washington. The newspaper cited a number of political figures uneasy with the outcome. On the Democrat side, Illinois congressman Mike Quigley said: 'Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin - literally - and he walked away with a green light to continue his conquest.' But it will be criticism from his fellow Republicans that will bother Trump most. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, said it was time to reckon with one conclusion: 'This simple fact remains: true and lasting security can only be achieved with our allies - most importantly with Ukraine - at the table.' (Image: Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire) Europe's Relief BUT it is in Europe that there will be a certain cautionary relief that Trump did not announce a deal with Putin that he would then present to them as a fait accompli. Trump's pre-summit talk of 'land swaps' had left some with frayed nerves. Many in Europe remain concerned about Trump's willingness to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy. It was significant then that almost immediately in the wake of the summit in a moment of coordination, European leaders put out a joint statement pushing for three- way talks between the US, Ukraine and Russia. In a statement, Keir Starmer - clearly in part designed to flatter Trump - insisted that 'President Trump's efforts have brought us closer than ever before to ending the war in Ukraine.' He went on to reiterate that the next steps must involve Zelenskyy and that peace cannot be decided without him. Clearly the uncertain outcome of the summit, with nothing agreed on paper, has bought the Europeans and Ukrainians time to try and shape Trump's future thinking. 'We are clear that Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,' the European leaders said in a statement. 'No limitations should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to EU and NATO,' they said. According to two EU diplomats cited by Politico magazine, an extraordinary meeting of ambassadors representing all 27 member countries was convened yesterday morning to discuss the bloc's next steps. Envoys were asked to meet in 'restricted format,' without aides or telephones to minimise the risks of information leaking. Trump's remark that the US might get involved in guaranteeing Ukrainian security will be music to the ears of Kyiv's European allies and something they will want to build on in moving forward. But this being Donald Trump means that things remain unpredictable If Trump himself is unhappy and the unsatisfactory outcome of the summit eats away at him with his prospect of securing that coveted Nobel Peace Prize vanishing, then there is no guarantee he will end up directing his ire at Putin. There is always the fear too that Trump will walk away and be involved only from the sidelines. 'Now Trump seems to be shifting most of the responsibility to Kyiv and Europe but reserving some role for himself,' observed Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in the wake of the summit. All eyes now will turn to tomorrow's talks at the White House with Zelenskyy. 'If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved,' insisted Trump yesterday still hinting that the Alaska talks went better than they appeared to. Trump's Motives FOR his part the Ukrainian president will doubtless be on his guard given a certain previous encounter at the White House, and also because back home most of his fellow Ukrainians remain equally wary of Trump's motives. As an editorial in the Kyiv Independent noted about the summit; 'If the two presidents failed to reach an agreement, it means that, despite all the chumminess on display, Trump didn't approve of Russia's absurd demands for Ukraine - demands that amount to Kyiv's capitulation.' If Trump went to Alaska with a degree of optimism as to striking a deal then he clearly he left disappointed. For his part Putin meanwhile no doubt went home with a smile on his face. In all, the summit turned out to be strange affair and there remains a prevailing sense that something surprising might yet come of it. If nothing else it certainly underscored the challenge of bringing this the biggest war in Europe since 1945 to a just and peaceful end.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Cooper says Palestine Action ‘more than a regular protest group'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has labelled Palestine Action more than 'a regular protest group' as she defended the group's proscription as a terrorist organisation. She said protest and free speech remain 'an important part of our democracy' which will 'always be protected', but argued Palestine Action has carried out 'an escalating campaign'. Writing in The Observer, she said: 'Some may think it is a regular protest group known for occasional stunts. But that is not the extent of its past activities.' Ms Cooper said counterterrorism intelligence showed the organisation passed the tests to be proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act with 'disturbing information' about future attacks. 'Protecting public safety and national security are at the very heart of the job I do,' she said. 'Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, the government would rightly be condemned for not acting sooner to keep people safe.' She said only a tiny minority of people who had protested in support of Palestinian people since the start of the war with Israel had been arrested. 'That is why the proscription of this group is not about protest or the Palestinian cause,' she said. 'In a democracy, lawful protest is a fundamental right but violent criminality is not. The Metropolitan Police said on Friday more than 700 people have been arrested since the group was banned on July 5. The force said a further 60 people will be prosecuted for support of Palestine Action, while Norfolk Police said on Saturday 13 people were arrested at a protest in Norwich. Last week, the Met confirmed the first three charges in England and Wales for offences under the Terrorism Act relating to Palestine Action. The three people charged were arrested at a protest in Parliament Square on July 5. More prosecutions are expected in the coming weeks, and arrangements have been put in place 'that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary', the Met said.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
The Trump administration wants to end the UN peacekeeping in Lebanon. Europe is pushing back
The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has split the United States and its European allies, raising implications for security in the Middle East and becoming the latest snag to vex relations between the U.S. and key partners like France, Britain and Italy. At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah. The multinational force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year, but has drawn criticism from both sides and numerous U.S. lawmakers, some of whom now hold prominent roles in President Donald Trump's administration or wield new influence with the White House. Trump administration political appointees came into office this year with the aim of shutting down UNIFIL as soon as possible. They regard the operation as an ineffectual waste of money that is merely delaying the goal of eliminating Hezbollah's influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces that the government says it is not yet capable of doing. After securing major cuts in U.S. funding to the peacekeeping force, Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed off early last week on a plan that would wind down and end UNIFIL in the next six months, according to Trump administration officials and congressional aides familiar with the discussions. It's another step as the Trump administration drastically pares back its foreign affairs priorities and budget, including expressing skepticism of international alliances and cutting funding to U.N. agencies and missions. The transatlantic divide also has been apparent on issues ranging from Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to trade, technology and free speech issues. Europeans push back against a quick end to UN peacekeeping in Lebanon Israel has for years sought an end to UNIFIL's mandate, and renewal votes have often come after weeks of political wrangling. Now, the stakes are particularly high after last year's war and more vigorous opposition in Washington. European nations, notably France and Italy, have objected to winding down UNIFIL. With the support of Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Lebanon, they successfully lobbied Rubio and others to support a one-year extension of the peacekeeping mandate followed by a time-certain wind-down period of six months, according to the administration officials and congressional aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. Israel also reluctantly agreed to an extension, they said. The European argument was that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit. The French noted that when a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in. With the U.S. easing off, the issue ahead of the U.N. vote expected at the end of August now appears to be resistance by France and others to setting a firm deadline for the operation to end after the one-year extension, according to the officials and congressional aides. French officials did not respond to requests for comment. The final French draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, does not include a date for UNIFIL's withdrawal, which U.S. officials say is required for their support. Instead, it would extend the peacekeeping mission for one year and indicates the U.N. Security Council's 'intention to work on a withdrawal.' But even if the mandate is renewed, the peacekeeping mission might be scaled down for financial reasons, with the U.N. system likely facing drastic budget cuts, said a U.N. official, who was not authorized to comment to the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. One of the U.S. officials said an option being considered was reducing UNIFIL's numbers while boosting its technological means to monitor the situation on the ground. The peacekeeping force has faced criticism There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000. Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel and sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol. Israel, meanwhile, has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's military activities in southern Lebanon and lobbied for its mandate to end. Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst and founder of the Israeli think tank Alma Research and Education Center, said UNIFIL has played a 'damaging role with regard to the mission of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon.' She pointed to the discovery of Hezbollah tunnels and weapons caches close to UNIFIL facilities during and after last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, when much of the militant group's senior leadership was killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Hezbollah is now under increasing pressure to give up the rest of its weapons. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL continues to discover unauthorized weapons, including rocket launchers, mortar rounds and bomb fuses, this week, which it reported to the Lebanese army. Under the U.S.- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese army taking control in conjunction with UNIFIL. Israel has continued to occupy five strategic points on the Lebanese side and carry out near-daily airstrikes that it says aim to stop Hezbollah from regrouping. Lebanon supports keeping UN peacekeepers Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country's cash-strapped and overstretched army is not yet able to patrol the full area on its own until it. Retired Lebanese Army Gen. Khalil Helou said that if UNIFIL's mandate were to abruptly end, soldiers would need to be pulled away from the porous border with Syria, where smuggling is rife, or from other areas inside of Lebanon — 'and this could have consequences for the stability' of the country. UNIFIL 'is maybe not fulfilling 100% what the Western powers or Israel desire. But for Lebanon, their presence is important,' he said. The United Nations also calls the peacekeepers critical to regional stability, Dujarric said. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said deciding on the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the U.N. Security Council. 'We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission's mandate and we're waiting for the final decision,' he said. ___ Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.
