“Increasing military spending in individual countries without raising the issue of a common European defense means wasting a historic opportunity.” He sees it that way Marco KappatoHistorically radical and nonviolent leader who supports arms sales to Ukraine on the one hand and is skeptical of the House of Representativesapproved agenda to increase defense investment to 2% of GDP in the coming years as planned, on the other hand, a joint statement released in 2014 by NATO leaders was signed. “The war shows NOT the need to increase military spending, but the need for European defence, the elimination of duplication and inefficient spending drugged by state war industries (often in business with Putin) and the worst dictators of the world last years)” tweeted the club’s treasurer Luca Coscioni.
The war does NOT show the need to increase military spending, but rather the need for European defence, reducing duplication and inefficient spending drugged by state war industries (which in recent years have often dealt with Putin and the worst dictators). were set.
Marco Cappato (@marcocappato) March 20, 2022
However, the Atlantic Alliance commits us to increasing military spending.
When NATO asks for a share of GDP to be dedicated to defense, it is not out of accounting habit but to ensure the effectiveness of the military pact: I am setting you a standard because I want to see that you mean business. If the European Union as a whole were to spend even less than 2%, but for a more effective common defence, the goal would still be achieved. So far, however, the Member States have not shown any signs of wanting to initiate a synergy. In fact, while military spending is increasing, cooperation projects are decreasing. Thus, in every country, the giants of the war industry like Leonardo and Finmeccanica are the masters, increasing their power and earning a lot of money. From her point of view, that is correct: companies pursue their own interests. What is missing, however, is the policy that should enforce a European citizen logic, as we are trying to do in the area of energy autonomy.
How should the EU countries behave then?
The tragedy of war is an opportunity to establish a new panEuropean model of foreign and common defense policy. A model that also includes nonbelligerent solutions, so based not only on weapons which will continue to be necessary but also on instruments of nonviolent defense and conflict prevention, such as peacekeeping forces or information issuance: let’s imagine how important it would be to be independent to bring information to Russia. Instead, we limit ourselves to increasing military spending, albeit in a situation of scarce economic resources, without facing the problem of forming a common front or even integrating national military systems.
However, a joint European army would challenge the USA as NATO’s hegemonic power. How would you take it in Washington?
It depends on what America we’re talking about: Biden is no longer that of Trump’s “America first,” which was all about defending his own interests. We should propose a common path to the United States and other overseas democracies such as Canada, Japan or Australia: in this way, the common European defense could even be supported by the White House, because it would not be a challenge for them, but a contribution to strengthening international democratic Front. Maybe then someone in the internal debate in the US would continue to see it badly, but it would be their problem, not ours. In the long term, I envision a European military alliance as an integral part of NATO and NATO as an alliance of western democracies that can, for example, take clear positions on the autocratic degeneration of Erdogan’s Turkey.
Let’s talk about us instead: would the European military powers be willing to give up their armies?
If the initiative is left to the law firms and apparatuses, the answer is certainly no. But if citizens were involved, I believe integration would come naturally: imagine we were to give Europeans the choice of reducing military spending while achieving greater defense efficiency and keeping everyone their own army. I don’t think people would be ready. The issue is political, even democratic: let’s not let this opportunity slip by.