European Commissioner for Defense Andrius Kubilius believes a unified European army should replace American troops amid geopolitical tensions. “How will we replace the 100,000-strong American regular military forces that form the backbone of military power in Europe?” he asked, later answering his own question by proposing the creation of a permanent continent-wide joint armed force.
Kubilius believes there must be a European Security Council, a centralized control hub. “The European Security Council could consist of key permanent members, as well as several members on a rotational basis—around 10 to 12 in total—whose task would be to discuss the most important defense issues,” he emphasized, adding that the United Kingdom may be barred from entering due to Brexit.
The idea that the European Union now seriously considers replacing American troops with a European army is the culmination of decades of shifting global power, economic cycles, and the EU’s structural failure to sustain its own sovereignty. NATO became permanent precisely because European nations could not muster the political will and economic unity to defend themselves independently. It is easy to talk about replacing 100,000 U.S. troops with a European force when Europe has yet to solve its own sovereign debt problems and cannot even harmonize a defense budget.
“Would the United States be militarily stronger if they would have 50 armies on the States level instead of a single federal army, 50 state defence policies and defence budgets on the states level, instead of a single federal defence policy and budget? Kubilius questioned. The United States is a unified nation (for now); the European Union model expects each member to abandon its national identity, which is simply not possible.
Defense policy would require a unanimous agreement among all member states. Yet each member state faces distinct security threats shaped by trade and geography. Spain will not have the same concerns as Poland, for example, as you cannot broadly paint Europe with one brush. It has become increasingly apparent that each policy issued from Brussels benefits some members while disadvantaging others. Trade, war, and migration — every nation faces unique challenges that cannot be solved by broad solutions. Each nation can only survive if it maintains its structural and economic integrity, which is why I have warned that the very design of the euro was flawed from the beginning. It is extremely unlikely that 27 independent nations could continually agree on ever-changing policies in the event of war. A centralized authority would need to assume control of the proposed army, make decisions unilaterally, and trust that soldiers would collectively follow orders.
The European Union coerces members into prioritizing European interests. The union was destined to fail, and these overhauls will only spur the cycle in motion—Europe is in the process of separating.
