February 16, 2025 - 3:30pm
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference yesterday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for the creation of an “army of Europe” to challenge Vladimir Putin. Presumably, this would resemble a Europeanised Nato, to which Zelensky would expect an invitation. Later in the day, Poland’s Foreign Minister swatted away the idea.
Zelensky obviously feels slighted by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s remark earlier this week that “the United States does not believe that Nato membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.” Yet Hegseth was being honest in recommending that Ukraine — after decades of Western toying with Kyiv’s Nato hopes — spend its negotiating time on other goals, rather than accession to the alliance.
The concept of an “armed forces of Europe”, Zelensky’s imagined consolation prize for not being welcomed into Nato by its most powerful member, is an equally unhelpful point of focus for Ukraine. Such a project is improbable for the same reasons that Nato in its modern form is inherently unstable.
The original aim of the alliance, to be a bulwark against the expansion of world communism from the Soviet Union, might have created a sense of unity and solidarity among its members, injecting credibility into Nato’s Article 5 of collective defence. However, as that particular threat has receded, most states have slipped back into the old nationalist paradigm — whether openly or merely tacitly.
Indeed, if today’s Russia — itself animated by national interest rather than any political conviction — were to attack a Nato member, that state would have to rely primarily on cultural affinity and historical bonds to receive military aid from other countries. Ukraine therefore cannot expect to automatically be defended within a wholly European military structure – even in the unlikely event that countries, as Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte urged yesterday, massively boost defence spending to correct a 40-year-old trend of disarmament.
Given the disintegration of shared interests within Nato, its members also interpret international events differently. The increasingly politicised function of the position of secretary-general attempts to maintain (Atlanticist) ideological uniformity, but there is obviously no consensus on, for example, the need to arm Ukraine against Russia or how to respond to recent European election trends. It is worth asking, then, how this would be any different in an “army of Europe”, whose very creation would be contested by countries such as post-Brexit Britain and Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.
Zelensky, in launching his proposal, invoked Friday’s conference speech by JD Vance, in which the US Vice President said that the countries of Europe need to “step up in a big way” on continental security and deterrence after decades of American leadership. Yet the heart of Vance’s speech offered a rebuke against the Ukrainian President’s vision.
Vance scolded the victorious European powers of the Cold War for behaving like “the side in that conflict that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that cancelled elections” in continuing their unpopular policy of mass migration. He also observed that it “is the business of democracy to adjudicate these big questions at the ballot box”. While his warning against elitist technocracy was far from warmly received in Munich, Vance was entirely correct, and his critique may even be extended to security policy.
For the first time since Russia’s 2022 invasion, arms support for Ukraine will be a major issue in a European national election when Germans go to the polls a week from now. Across the Left and the Right, voters are increasingly flocking to growing antiwar political parties, suggesting that the general population is not aligned with the establishment position on Ukraine. An “army of Europe” would therefore be another step down the road towards a governance of thin mandates.
Johan Wennström is a Research Fellow at the Swedish Defence University, currently writing a book about Sweden’s stay-behind network during the Cold War.
johanwennstrom
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI think it’s a bit rich for Vance to question European democracy while he’s working for a man who flat out refused to recognise an election result and has sacked numerous people he perceives to be political enemies.
Although the imbecile is merely a the latest in a long line of Americans using underhand tactics to try and change an election. Clinton’s impeachment, Bush II having to go to court to have the result confirmed, the birther movement against Obama (Trump again), the protests against Trumps first win and then the toddler whining for 4 years about electoral fraud with no evidence, the Europeans look decidedly healthy in comparison
No they absolutely don’t. Prior to attempts to reverse or water down the Brexit result, there had been examples of EU member states being asked to “think again” by the European Commission when an anti-EU result occurred, the most egregious example being in Ireland.
Then we have Romanian elections dismissed when a result unfavourable to the EU occured. The EU Commisioners (Commisars) are unelected.
Trump’s questioning of potential voter fraud pales by comparison.
You make good points, my wording was perhaps poor in regards to calling it healthy but I stand by my assertion that it’s the pot calling the kettle black to be lectured by the Americans on the subject
The main issue at hand is that the suppression of Free Speech is the main threat to democracy. Only the Democrats have used this playbook in the US.
As usual, virtually all of the EU and U.K. blob are trying to deflect the conversation away from this.
Yes free speech is the bedrock.
I disagree, I think Trump refusing to concede the election is equally as dangerous personally
I would not agree with Europe’s comparative health. Our problems are different, but no less grave.
I would agree there was a hilariously large dose of the kettle calling the pot black.
Agreed, it was poorly worded on my part. I was attempting to reference the hypocrisy rather than promote European democracy
The “pot” was the “Democratic Party” so not really hypocritical.
You get a Monopoly on Democracy Lectures. Everybody else has to just shut up and listen.
Europeans emphatically reject ballot harvesting but simultaneously demand Americans quietly accept the results of a ballot harvesting election without complaint.
You are, have and will always meddle in our internal politics. You just don’t think others should be able to infringe on your Judgment Monopoly.
US politics has always been more “robust” than is generally recognised, from “vote early, vote often” to Joe Kennedy (allegedly, but almost certainly) buying votes to ensure his son won the Presidency. It really is par for the course.
Of course the UK can no longer pretend to be perfect eg the current seeming misuse of postal votes, and having to impose ID checks at the polling stations..
I think a significant part of the problem in regards to the European approach to defence is that, whilst they decided that the scenarios for any conflict have moved on from those of the mid/late 20th century and hence focused on 21st century conflict preparations, they forgot to tell Russia. Hence when Russia instigated a 20th century type conflict Europe pretty much had no significant answer.
Territory can be gained by bombs, drones, missiles, cyber attacks but ultimately it can only be held by mobile armour, artillery and most importantly overwhelming boots on the ground.
It’s been that way for millenia (substitute catapults, siege engines, undermining, etc for the above) and it still holds true.
NATO promised not to expand eastwards, then did so. The duly elected President of Ukraine was driven out in a CIA coup. The Minsk Agreements are admitted by Merkel as not having been in goid faith. And all that after Putin warned that a new security structure for Europe was needed. But Russia instigated it…yeh, right.
The West believed that it could feast on Russia as it had done under Yeltsin but miscalculated. Europe went along with the Neocons in that miscalculation but obviously forgot that the resultant clusterf**k would be right on its doorstep. So whilst being voluble with bellicose pronouncements they weren’t, and aren’t, prepared to back them up with their own treasure and people.
Apparently that was for Uncle Samuel to do. Well Uncle Samuel has more pressing, and important, difficulties which rightly take priority.
Ukraine had a peace deal which it rejected. It will now have to settle for a less favourable result.
Russia signed a treaty promising to respect Ukrainian sovereignty…..how did that age?
The same as the Agreements others gave..
The problem was that the treaty in question was signed by Russia, and Russia (and Russians) cannot be trusted.
Or Americans of the USA kind,or Brits of the oyvey kind.
Nailed it.
Could you explain to me the difference between leftists who declare the West eternally guilty of racism and colonialism, and you who declare the West guilty of Russian aggression against Ukraine.
I’ll be honest, a significant portion of local UnHerd readers are not one iota smarter than the psychopaths who read the Guardian.
I just say it as I see it.
It’s called “free speech”…seems to have come back into fashion lately…
As well as I say as I see you
No it hadn’t. Not real free speed.
It’s a little more nuanced than that of course. Russia has agency and is responsible for invading Ukraine. The U.S. and NATO, at the minimum, should have assured Russia that Ukraine would not join NATO.
The U.S. and NATO, at the minimum, should have assured Russia that Ukraine would not join NATO.
.
This is probably the only option now, since Western Europe, including Britain, represents zero military force and the US has more important problems.
This war could have been prevented, but not with the help of Obama and Biden, or rather, the happy globalist idiots.
It was always the only option because western (particularly American) support is always conditional on usefulness and a cost benefit analysis (in this case russian deaths vs money spent), not “shared values, democracy and freedom”. Ukraine was never going to defeat Russia because of numbers, logistics and the fact that it’s an existential matter to the Russians (aka nukes).
For all the talk of “globalists and leftist elites” on this forum, a massive amount of readers/commenters went right along with the propaganda those exact people were pushing and let themselves be herded into the situation we’re in now.
Maybe next time around consider that spending hundreds of billions to kill & displace millions in a region that isn’t even of strategic interest to the west isn’t a great position to take, considering what happened after nearly every intervention in the last 30 years.
It’s weird you’d make that comparison since the Guardian is completely on board with the Ukraine war and has contributed to the brainwashing of western audiences, which has in turn contributed to the clusterf**k Europe is in now (by following the Americans blindly into a quagmire once again).
Maybe you should consider what it says about you that you’re aligning with those “Guardian psychopaths”.
I’m struggling to understand how – in the eyes of Russia – Ukraine joining the EU while it is developing an EU Army, differs from Ukraine joining NATO.
Can the downvoter please explain their position – as I would genuinely like an answer.
I would guess it would depend on whether the EU blindly followed the US into proxy wars created to keep rhe profits of the US military industrial complex rolling in.
Thanks. I wonder whether would that change Russia’s perspective in any way.
An unrealistic dream? Not according to Starmer who is sad he might have to be putting Britons in “harms way” to defend the borders and democracy of Ukraine.
Stamer won’t defend Britain’s border.
Are you saying Starmer would sit by if Russia invaded?
Well he’s stood by as half the third worlds rejects invaded so probably yes.
He’d no doubt support the Russian troops right to a family life in the UK, backed up by the Supreme Court and the ECHR.
An army of Europe would be more likely to take bits out of Ukraine on its western side than anything else.