The Guardian view on an EU army: leadership and unity remain elusive
For all the political soundbites that rattle sabres with increasing confidence, Europe is probably no closer to fielding a unified military force than it was when the French rejected the European Defence Community in 1954. The problem is not one of capacity. Europe, including the UK, collectively boasts about 1.5m active military personnel, and some of the world's most successful defence firms. The problem, as ever, is politics. Or more precisely: who leads?
Germany, claiming a Zeitenwende (turning point), and asking the EU to exempt military investment from budget rules, might be the frontrunner. Poland is spending more as a share of GDP than anyone. The French would like to think they would be at the front of any queue. But their Gaullist, unilateral instincts run deep. Italy has industrial knowhow but lacks the economic heft. Post-Brexit, the UK is building bridges with the EU's military powers but it still sees itself as Nato's keystone. And the Baltic states? They want no European project that might scare off Washington.
Even defining a European army is difficult. Would it be a single force under the EU flag, combining the 27 national armed forces of the EU members into one common force? Or something looser, to keep Irish and Austrian neutrality intact? Could it be a smaller European intervention force? Or a joint effort by regional groupings in a new hat? The short answer is no one can agree on anything but disagreement.
Squabbling might not be the best response to an increasingly assertive, hawkish and unpredictable Russian giant. Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine made territorial defence a pressing concern. Suddenly, Europe remembered why armies exist.
Brussels pins its hopes of an industrial renaissance on a five-year rearmament plan that is meant to reduce reliance on US contractors. European firms like Rheinmetall and MBDA are scaling up, but the economies of scale found in the US military industrial complex elude the continent. Everyone wants to protect their local champion. No wonder the bloc has appointed a commissioner for defence whose role is about overseeing the companies making drones, shells and missiles – not the armed forces per se.
A Gallup poll in 45 countries last year showed deep ambivalence toward war among Europeans. Four of the five least willing to fight were in the EU – including Spain, Germany, and Italy, where only 14% said they'd take up arms. Even in frontline states like Poland and Lithuania, fewer than half were willing to fight. This pacifist mood reflects an EU integration designed to make war between member states unthinkable.
The irony is that the European army is seen as a symbol of independence from the US – while quietly relying on American satellites, command structures and munitions. Many European countries have upped defence spending, but they are not ready to go it alone. An integrated force would demand pooled sovereignty, unified command and a level of political consensus that don't currently exist. That may change. But for now, Europe continues to depend on Washington's capricious leadership – even as it dreams of 'strategic autonomy'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
Morning Bid: Trump moves to extend grip on Fed
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Rae Wee With U.S. President Donald Trump's nomination to fill a newly vacant seat at the Federal Reserve now out of the way, investors are awaiting a Senate confirmation to see if Stephen Miran would have a vote at the central bank's September meeting. Trump on Thursday picked the Council of Economic Advisers Chairman to serve out the final few months of an open spot on the Fed Board, following Fed Governor Adriana Kugler's surprise resignation last week. The news hardly elicited a response from markets on Friday, with Miran's chances of winning Senate confirmation still uncertain. The economist has called for a complete overhaul of the Fed's governance. But one thing's for sure - should Miran join the Fed, he would most certainly vote to lower rates. And even in a placeholder role, his appointment would give Trump a potentially more direct route to pursue his desire for easier monetary policy and sway over the world's most influential central bank. Trump also said that the White House continues to search for someone to serve in the 14-year Fed Board seat that opens February 1 and is also weighing options for a successor to Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose term ends May 15, 2026. Bloomberg News reported on Thursday that Fed Governor Christopher Waller is emerging as a top candidate to be the central bank's next chair and has met with members of Trump's team, who are impressed with him. In other tariff news, the U.S. government on Thursday promised to amend a presidential executive order to remove overlapping tariffs on Japanese goods, Tokyo's trade negotiator said, after talks in Washington to fix what he called a "regrettable" oversight. In those discussions, Ryosei Akazawa urged U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to ensure that a 15% levy agreed last month on Japanese imports was not stacked on goods, such as beef, that are subject to higher tariffs. The removal of the tariff overhang lifted stocks in Tokyo and sent the Topix index climbing above the key psychological mark of 3,000 points for the first time on Friday, further buoyed by a streak of strong earnings reports. Shares of SoftBank Group (9984.T), opens new tab rose nearly 11% after the technology investor reported a swing back to profit in the first quarter. Key developments that could influence markets on Friday: - St. Louis Fed President Alberto Musalem speaks - Under Armour Q1 earnings Trying to keep up with the latest tariff news? Our new daily news digest offers a rundown of the top market-moving headlines impacting global trade. Sign up for Tariff Watch here.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
If the Greens in Germany move towards the centre, they can become a real force again
The German Green party, Die Grünen, was once the envy of its sister movements across Europe. In the spring of 2021 it was the most popular party in the country, with a predicted vote share of close to 30%. The world's press even began to ask whether the next chancellor would be Green. Fast-forward four years and you find a party in crisis: divided, out of power and stagnating at just above 10% in the polls after losing 33 seats in February's federal election. The party is now searching for a path back to the mainstream – not a moment too soon given the rapid erosion of Germany's political centre. One of the Greens' key problems is personnel. At their peak in 2021 they had two lead figures in Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck, who were widely regarded as pragmatists – a prerequisite for effective government in Germany's compromise-oriented system. After the 2021 election, Baerbock became foreign minister in Olaf Scholz's SPD-Green-liberal 'traffic light coalition', and Habeck vice chancellor and minister for economic affairs and climate action. After the collapse of that government, the Greens lost a million votes and fell into fourth place in this year's elections. Key personnel are departing en masse. Habeck wants to move to Denmark; Baerbock is now president of the United Nations General Assembly. Meanwhile the entire leadership board of the party's Green Youth wing quit the party altogether. In theory, this should have opened an opportunity for a reset. The party elected a new leadership duo – Franziska Brantner, 45, and Felix Banaszak, 35 – and new Green Youth leaders: the climate activist Jakob Blasel and the self-proclaimed 'leftwing radical' Jette Nietzard. But far from being a reboot, this setup has highlighted deep internal divisions. Since the Greens emerged out of the anti-nuclear, environmental and peace movements of the 1980s and became a serious political player, there has been a rift between the party's pragmatists, known as Realos, and its fundamentalists, or Fundis. These old ideological faultlines have reappeared with a vengeance, and follow generational lines. You could practically hear the collective sigh of relief at the top of the party when Nietzard announced that she wouldn't run for the Green Youth leadership again this autumn. She has repeatedly alienated the centrist voter groups the Greens are trying to win back, appearing in clothing imprinted with the anti-police acronym 'ACAB' and the anti-capitalist slogan 'Eat the rich'. Last month she pondered whether resistance to any future government coalition containing the far-right AfD should be 'intellectual or perhaps with weapons'. Those may be positions shared by other German leftwingers, but that space on the political spectrum is already occupied by Die Linke, which has recently made gains by taking a more stridently combative position against the right. People as far to the left as Nietzard are more likely to vote Die Linke than Green. The two parties are now neck and neck in the polls, with 10-12% each. The new Green leadership is determined to resolve the party's split personality and find its way back to the centre, and to power. Banaszak wants to put clear blue water between his party and the radical left. He told the German press that 'it wasn't a secret' that he and Nietzard 'mostly held different opinions'. With her gone, the new leadership is hoping to restore a Realo-dominated party. To this end they are using the parliamentary summer recess to travel to areas of Germany where the 'atmosphere is heated', as their campaign put it, especially working-class strongholds in the industrial Ruhr region and the former East Germany. The pair were ridiculed for this initially, especially when Banaszak ensured he was photographed sitting on the floor of a train, even though German politicians have unlimited use of first class. But if the trip helps bring the Green leadership closer to Germany's political realities, it could be more than just a publicity stunt. On a recent visit to Thuringia, an AfD stronghold in the former East Germany, Banaszak was told by the teenage son of a Green mayor that 'people here think of the Greens as radical climate activists', but if they see that Green politicians can bring improvements – if 'life is breathed back into a village, roads are repaired' – then their reputation might be restored. In the West German industrial town of Duisburg, Brantner pondered whether the Greens lost young male voters by failing to offer a positive place for them. Whenever the concept of masculinity was mentioned, she suggested, it was preceded by the word 'toxic'. Such self-criticism is new and important. The AfD strategy for coming to power is to provoke a Trump-style polarisation of politics. The Greens will play into their hands if they move further to the left, abandoning the centre ground the AfD seeks to destroy. There is plenty of room for a mainstream Green party in Germany's political landscape. They could become the country's foremost centre-left force if they play their cards right, strengthening moderate politics overall. Part of their potential is that they can work with conservatives. The southern state of Baden-Württemberg has been led by the Green Winfried Kretschmann since 2011, and he is popular even with conservative voters, running a coalition with the centre-right CDU – a model that could also work on the federal level. Like it or not, there is a conservative majority in German society looking for an expression of its views on the political stage. The CDU has vowed never to work with the AfD, but this binds them to an increasingly unpopular Social Democratic Party (SPD). Adding a CDU-Green coalition to the range of options would strengthen the centre, and in doing so strengthen a democracy that is under attack. Not to mention that it would also restore environmental concerns to a political culture that appears to have sidelined them. Whether the new Green leaders can take a deeply divided party with them on their path to pragmatic progressivism remains to be seen. But try they must – not just for the sake of their own party, but for the sake of German democracy. Katja Hoyer is a German-British historian and journalist. Her latest book is Beyond the Wall: East Germany, 1949-1990
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's first 200 days make him 'most important president' in a century. In the next 100 he faces a reckoning even he can't stop
It has been a first 200 days that experts say is the most consequential start to a presidential term for 92 years. That was when Franklin D, Roosevelt set out to save America from the Great Depression and get the country back to work. When President Donald Trump entered the White House on January 20, 2025 he faced a struggling economy, an immigration disaster, and brewing trouble in Europe and the Middle East. Trump dealt with it all by throwing the political rulebook out the window - he abandoned free trade, upended relations with America's allies, eviscerated his own government bureaucracy, and bombed Iran. All of those measures, according to the naysayers, should have led to disaster. Instead, Trump's supporters are doing victory laps and he is forging ahead at breakneck speed. 'You've not seen anything like this in almost anyone's lifetime. You have to go back to March 4, 1933 (the inauguration of Roosevelt) to have an administration so active and aggressive, and successful in promoting its agenda,' high-profile pollster Frank Luntz told the Daily Mail. ''John Kennedy getting elected in 1960 was a very big deal, but nothing compared to what Trump has done in his first 200 days. He really has remade the governing process. Trump has reset what is acceptable in American politics. It's not that he's played the game better, he's changed the game. He's changed the world. We've never had anyone like him.' For allies the tone was set by J.D. Vance's speech in Munich on February 14 during which the norms of the transatlantic alliance were, as one eminent European put it, 'smashed to smithereens.' Trump, through Vance, demanded America demanded the Europeans step up their own security and take responsibility for their own back yard. At home, Elon Musk frenziedly came and went from the White House, taking a chainsaw to government departments. After 200 days, USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are gone, and the Department of Education is on the way out. It happened so quickly that Musk himself is already out the door. Meanwhile, in Congress, despite small majorities, Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' incorporating his tax cuts, made it over the line into law by July 4. And, as high-profile deportation raids escalated, the number of migrants crossing the border into the U.S. plummeted to levels near zero, which not even Trump's biggest supporters had dared to predict. 'Honestly, I would give the guy A plus,' said Republican strategist David Urban. 'This Trump. 2.0 is incredibly efficient and incredibly efficacious. They're just knocking out of the park at so many different fronts. It seems like almost an entire presidency has occurred in this first 200 days. Amazing. The velocity at which things traveled in this second term is just unprecedented. 'Whether you like the President or not, there's one thing that's undeniable, that he is the most consequential president in our lifetime.' Urban added: 'He's basically reshaped NATO. He's basically reshaped trade. He's reshaped immigration. I mean huge, huge issues which impact so many people on a daily basis. The President's done what most people thought could not be done. 'There were so many prognosticators of doom on the other side who have been affected by TDS (Trump derangement Syndrome,) who said that if the President does X, then Y is going to happen and the sky will fall. The President has done X, and not only has Y not happened, there's been a positive outcome. However, as Trump hits the 200 day mark, he faces a new potential showdown with Vladimir Putin and uncertainty over his trade war with China. And another problem looms over everything - the specter of Jeffrey Epstein. Urban believes the brouhaha will pass, like similar frenzies over the JFK assassination and UFO sightings. 'I think there's no there, there,' he said. 'I don't believe there's some magical list that's people who drink children's blood that's going to satiate anybody.' But the issue threatens to cast a shadow over the next 200 days as Democrats look set to up their attacks on Trump for not releasing the full 'Epstein files,' leading to wild conspiracy theories relating to the late pedophile billionaire. "Well, the Democrats have to. What else are they going to have to propel them back to power?' Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told the Daily Mail. 'What else do they have unless the economy goes into recession, or has a significant measurable slowdown, or there's stagflation. They have to continue to criticize and they want to take a subject that people seem to care about, that they think this is dividing the MAGA base. 'And it is on that issue. But then Trump's base comes right back together for anything that Trump tells them they should be for. It doesn't change their votes, doesn't change their determination to see him succeed in everything he wants to do.' The Epstein issue is resonating with voters but not impacting Trump's support, he suggested. 'I've already had so many people write to me and say to me in a grocery store, "Look, I'm very upset that they're not releasing all that, shame on Trump for not doing it." But then the next sentence is "I just love this guy, he's been the greatest president of my lifetime." They don't care. So what?' Sabato said the solidity of Trump's base means he will usually poll above 40 percent and that is 'plenty good to run a presidency. You don't need to be over 50 percent.' 'In terms of energy and achievement I would rate the 200 days very highly compared to other presidencies. Now, the other scale would be very, very different, say, wisdom or attention to the Constitution and the customs and traditions that have made America work. And I would give it an F minus. 'Almost every day, we seem to be taking another step down the road to the most extreme polarization we've had since the Civil War.' Trump's success, while celebrated by his supporters, has also created a potential problem for Republicans down the road. according to Luntz, who conducts weekly focus groups with voters. It has resulted in two hugely divergent views of his presidency. Many Republicans are almost euphoric, but many Democrats are more alienated than ever. 'It has been a tale of two presidencies. Those that voted for Donald Trump are ecstatic. He's done everything he promised to do and more. He's done it in a bold and way, and they approved of just about everything,' said Luntz. 'For those who didn't vote for him, it's even worse than they were expecting. They've come to realize that everything he said, he meant.' Trump is a '49 percent president' because he has not added to his support in office, Luntz said. 'This is the difference between him and Ronald Reagan. Reagan was elected with 50 percent of the vote. Trump was elected with 50 percent of the vote. Reagan went out of his way to expand it, and he was successful in doing it. Trump is not seeking to expand his coalition.' That doesn't matter for a president who will not be seeking reelection, but it matters a lot for his successor, and also in the 2026 midterms. 'There is blowback, and that blowback is significant, and the pendulum, when it swings back, is going to swing back with velocity,' Luntz said. 'Eventually, when it's the other side that will win, because it will happen, there's going to be a level of retribution that we haven't seen, that I think is very dangerous for the political system.'
