European Defence Policy Research Articles

El océano azul de la política común de seguridad y defensa

The blue ocean of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union is the object of study of this research, from a basically policy-making approach, focused on policy design. As a starting point, it takes content from geopolitics and realism theories that analyse why the common European defence policy is so problematic. The study explains the blue ocean tool with the case study of the F-35 aircraft. Based on their understanding, the red ocean strategy is described against the blue ocean strategy, contrasting a Europe within NATO and dependent on the US against a Europe as A²E (strategic actor and strategic autonomy). Subsequently, the scheme of four actions in the construction of a common defence policy in Europe is elaborated. The blue ocean matrix is structured, where the construction of a common defence policy in Europe is analysed, presenting what should be eliminated from the defence policy, what should be reduced, what should be increased and, finally, what should be created to achieve a common security and defence policy of the European Union (EU). Then, the four organizational barriers to achieving a European Armed Forces and the three key components of the change to the European Armed Forces are considered.

The future of the European defense firm

The future European defense firm will be radically different, being determined by future threats, novel technology, and yet to come European defense policy. The immediate threat arises from the war in Ukraine, but longer-term European defense policy based on the Strategic Compass will provide the framework for the future European defense firm. Past developments offer some indication of the future and it is predicted that the defense firm has a future and will survive. The past trend of smaller numbers of larger defense firms will continue with firms being even more technologically-intensive—reflecting Augustine weapons systems, which are characterized by continuously rising unit costs and smaller volumes. There will be more mergers between European defense firms and more joint European projects developing and producing combat air and naval systems, tanks, and cyber systems.

European Defence Policy: Prospects and Challenges

ABSTRACT European defence policy offers opportunities for spending more and better where better achieves more from existing resources. Increased defence spending needs to be justified by the threats to Europe which have to be identified and defined. Higher defence expenditure usually focuses on inputs rather than final outputs in the form of greater peace, protection, security and the safety of a nation’s citizens. The task is to show the opportunities for applying economic analysis to the complexities of European defence policy and collaborative defence projects. Economic efficiency criteria identify the contribution of final outputs, substitution and competition to the formulation of European defence policy, but the final outcomes are likely to be determined by military-political factors rather than economic efficiency criteria. The paper provides a critique of European defence policy.

The Influence and Implications of the Ukrainian Crisis on European Regional Security

In this analysis, the theoretical framework is examined based on primary and secondary sources of research concerning the foundation of Russian-Ukrainian relations. Subsequently, the existing security environment is extensively analysed, at the international and regional level, while a critical overview of the political-military framework of security at the European level is also examined. Furthermore, an overview of the relations between Russia and Ukraine is attempted in two dimensions, regarding to the geopolitical role of Greece and its role in the European interaction, and the analysis of influence and the effects of the Ukrainian crisis in the field of Energy Policy of the European Union (EU) within its effect on the European defence policy. In this context, the key role of Greece and Cyprus and both mediation for energy sufficiency and Europe’s autonomy is thoroughly examined, as a consequence of the geopolitical and geographical factor that may affect the existing dependencies on Russian natural gas based on of the East Med area, hence the potential influence of forming a new field of interdependence at the energy level.

Editorial: Security Perspectives

Editorial: Security Perspectives

Differentiated Integration in European Defence Policy and the Economic and Monetary Union

Differentiated Integration in European Defence Policy and the Economic and Monetary Union

O strategickej autonómii a budúcnosti Európskej únie v Severoatlantickej aliancii

Tensions between the West and Russia, closely linked to the Ukrainian crisis,Tensions between the West and Russia, closely linked to the Ukrainian crisis,have further fuelled discussions on mutual cooperation between theEuropean Union and the North Atlantic Alliance in the area of defence. TheEuropean Union is the political and economic power base for the security anddefence of the European continent, as it is primarily its Member States thatset the overall strategy for European foreign and defence policy. On the otherhand, the member states of the Union, whether they are or not also membersof the Alliance, lag behind their alliance partners, especially the UnitedStates, in military capabilities and capacities. Therefore, through someEuropean Union initiatives, they are now seeking to build more militarycapabilities and capacities, thus strengthening not only the level of Europeandefence and security, but also the possibility of the Union's strategicautonomy. Therefore, the author uses relevant methods of scientific researchin this article to discuss the possibilities of European strategic autonomy andthe future of the European Union in the Alliance.

Designing the renewed European defence policy through permanent structured cooperation. Why?

ABSTRACT As the COVID-19 crisis has evidenced, Europe is currently facing non-traditional, hybrid threats and challenges to its public order and security that question traditional, stand-alone responses. Conscious of this, during the last decade the European Union (EU) has developed several tools to deal with those security threats and challenges jointly by making full use of the Lisbon Treaty provisions. Indeed, in addition to the strengthening of the policies and instruments of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), the EU has particularly boosted European defence cooperation within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) since 2016 through initiatives such as the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PeSCo). The aim of these defence initiatives is twofold: on the one hand, to complement AFSJ instruments to protect the EU homeland and its citizens; on the other, to enhance its response to international crises and contribute to international peace and security. A matter of future concern will be, nevertheless, to sustain the political momentum after the COVID-19 socioeconomic crisis and to show the positive externalities of enhancing defence cooperation in fighting non-traditional threats and challenges, notwithstanding the many difficulties that it will encounter in its uncertain path.

The Polls—Trends

Abstract Since the last review of public opinion on European defense policy and NATO concluded that Europeans wanted both European defense integration and a continuing commitment to NATO, the EU has almost doubled in size and new initiatives have been launched to develop a Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). We reexamine these issues and trace public opinion trends in all 28 EU member states from 2000 to 2019. With little variation across countries, general support for CSDP and NATO remains substantial. While Europeans, especially in continental Western Europe, believe that the EU should take a more independent approach from the United States in security and diplomatic affairs, large segments of the publics show no clear opinion on whether European defense should mean a transfer of decision-making power from the state to the EU level and the end of NATO. Cross-country differences are more pronounced when it comes to the creation of an EU army and its deployment.

European defence policy at a crossroads – Germany preserving the status quo and France seeking change?

ABSTRACT The combination of an increasingly assertive Russia with growing uncertainty over long-term US commitment to Europe's security has resulted in calls for new efforts to be made in European defence cooperation. Post-Brexit, France and Germany become the two remaining significant defence actors within the EU policy framework. Given this reconfiguration, an important question to has to be answered. Which state, France or Germany, is currently gaining more influence in European defence cooperation? A critical conceptual framework is utilised to explore the nature of Franco-German rivalry and to determine which nation is likely to obtain more influence in this policy area. Firstly, the article explores the clash between France's desire to direct European defence cooperation towards the stabilisation of Europe's southern neighbourhood with Germany's preference to minimise its own military involvement outside Europe. The article then focuses on non-EU defence solutions separately proposed by France and Germany, those being the European Intervention Initiative and the Framework Nations Concept respectively. The article finds that Germany's preferences are a considerable obstacle to attempts to create a more autonomous form of European defence cooperation and that dependence on US military strength and NATO structures continues to be an unavoidable reality.

For Queen and Country! National Identity and British Post-War Use of Military Power

British post-war security policy and use of military power is not subjugated by the structures of or interaction in the international system. Rather, British use of military power is strongly influenced by a territorially sovereign identity and an institutional balance between Crown and Parliament. British national identity originate in the historical struggle to maintain cohesion and political stability in Britain. From the Glories Revolution to the Second World War territorial sovereignty and institutional independence have defined Britain as an international actor and framed its security policy. Consequently, the territorially sovereign identity and institutional balance between Crown and Parliament continuously influence British security policy. The post-war use of British military power from the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the European Security and Defence Policy, thus, primarily recovers an internal institutional balance. An institutional balance that also played an underlying role in the British withdrawal from the European Union.

How do Crises Fuel European Defence Policy?

This article analyses how crises may open policy windows which, when properly seized by policy entrepreneurs, made European defence policy a priority on the EU’s agenda. The article compares two periods which can be considered as critical junctures for European defence: the periods of its birth in 1998–1999, and its relaunch in 2016–2019. The analysis is based on the Multiple Stream Framework (msf) and considers European defence as a public policy shaped by policy actors. More precisely, the main hypothesis is that in both contexts policy actors from France and Germany took advantage of focusing events – the Kosovo War in 1998–1999, and Brexit extended by the election of Trump introducing turmoil within the transatlantic partnership in 2016–2019 – to advocate a policy solution to answer security challenges faced by the EU. The article also assesses how British policy actors played decisive yet inverse roles in both contexts. The first part of the article explains how the msf is used and why it is a stimulating agenda to study European defence policy. The second part of the article analyses the policy entrepreneurs taking advantage of the policy windows opened in both cases, and how they coupled the three streams underlying European defence by exploiting the British variable. The last part of the article focuses on the means used by the policy entrepreneurs to make it a policy priority on the European policy agenda in both the late 1990s and 2016–2019.

DIFESA EUROPEA E NUOVO ORDINE MONDIALE

Non disponibile.

The European Defence Policy and Transatlantic Cooperation in Times of Obama and Trump Administrations

The purpose of the study is to analyze the development of the European common security and defense policy during the Obama and Trump administrations by determining the specifics of its formation, trends and causes. It is observed the preconditions and principles for the formation of European CSDP; tendencies of its evolution in the post-bipolar era are considered; the EU CSDP is explored as a part of transatlantic system in the times of Obama administration; the trends and changes in the CSDP are examined in correlation with NATO policy under the Trump administration. The research emphasizes a significance of the European defense policy, which has been creating in two following ways: as a united force within NATO and as a unique initiative in parallel to the transatlantic cooperation (mostly, after the destruction of the bipolar system). However, the Euro-Atlantic defense ties never crashes, despite the periodic abatements. The article notes that Europe has substantially strengthened its positions at the end of the era of bipolarity, demonstrating its intention to create the own security system. It was found that in 2010–2016 there was a tendency weakening of American influence on the European community defense integration. According to Western European researchers, the EU defence initiatives became a matter of concern to both American presidents. However, during the Obama period, European governments failed in realizing their intentions (despite the desire to create their own army) due to the lack of mutual understanding on the issue and unwillingness to bear the additional costs of implementing the CSDP. However, such an opportunity has arisen during Trump’s presidency. It is stated that the foundation of a new stage of European defence integration was laid in 2016. Since 2017, European countries have taken new steps by creating the European Defense Fund (EDF) and starting the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). In addition, the article notes that in 2017–2018 there was an increase in the participation of national contingents in NATO. Moreover, the EU considers its defense system as «autonomous», but not absolutely independent of existing and effective structures. It is concluded that transatlantic relations matter and the further cooperation between European governments and the United States could be enhanced.

Flexibility and Differentiated Integration in European Defence Policy

Cet article traite de la flexibilité et de l’intégration différenciée dans le domaine de la politique de sécurité et de défense commune (PSDC). La plupart des recherches sur la flexibilité et l’intégration différenciée partent par défaut du principe de non-différenciation, ce qui vaut principalement pour l’ancien premier pilier de Maastricht, en raison de son caractère supranational et avec comme principal moteur le modèle communautaire classique pour garantir le bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur. Une telle uniformité n’a jamais été le critère principal dans le domaine intergouvernemental de la PESC/PESD, dont la flexibilité et la différenciation font partie intégrante. Tout d’abord, l’article examine et développe les recherches récentes sur l’intégration différenciée, afin de mieux orienter les concepts utilisés vers l’analyse dans le cadre de la PSDC. Par la suite, les pratiques de flexibilité et de différenciation dans le domaine de la PSDC sont cartographiées, avant de déboucher sur quelques remarques en guise de conclusion..

CSDP: A Balancing Strategy against the United States?

<em>In the aftermath of the Second World War, European integration progressed rapidly. Despite economic performance, the European community is far from playing a major role in security and defense. The catalyst for a European defense policy is the war in Yugoslavia, which shows that Europeans are dependent on Americans. Thus, the EU has the CSDP and has conducted many military and civilian operations. Yet a new wave of academic studies, launched by proponents of American neorealism, argues that the EU is engaged in an attempt to “balance” the US by exploiting the CSDP. By studying European history in terms of security, we find that the balancing theory can not be justified.</em>

European defence policy and subsidiarity: The imperative of the EU level

Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, defence policy, across Europe, has traditionally been the preserve of the nation state. That remains the default situation today, despite over two decades of movement towards a common EU security and defence policy. European leaders, ever since the 1980s, have insisted that the EU level is the most appropriate for this policy area, and public opinion appears to agree with them. Yet, despite many developments in the direction of a ‘European army’, and despite the launch of dozens of EU overseas missions, defence planning and procurement, as well as the deployment of forces, remain the preserve of the EU’s national governments. Since 2016 we have witnessed an intensification of the move towards the EU level. This article argues that it is still too soon to determine whether a genuine shift away from the nation-state level is now in progress.

The year of Macron and Merkel. What are the achievements of the German-French partnership?

Współpraca między Francją i Niemcami ma kluczowe znaczenie dla przyszłości Unii Europejskiej. Osłabiona po wyborach w 2017 r. długotrwałymi negocjacjami koalicyjnymi kanclerz Merkel spóźniła się z udzieleniem odpowiedzi na propozycje reform w UE prezydenta E. Macrona. Wprowadzono zaledwie kilka poprawek dotyczących europejskiej polityki obronnej i dyrektywy w sprawie delegowania pracowników. Ważniejsze tematy, w tym europejska polityka finansowa, są wciąż żywo debatowane. W obliczu obecnych trudności i silnych zastrzeżeń ze strony konserwatywnej części CDU i CSU dla polityki europejskiej rządu, wydaje się, że Merkel jest na dobrej drodze do osiągnięcia pragmatycznego kompromisu z Francją.

IMPLEMENTATTION OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS MILITARY ASPECT

This paper examines the importance and specificities of the common European security and defence policy. The realization of the common European security requires the establishment of a joint European defence. The national security and defence strategies of EU member states are an expression of a concrete implementation of a pan-European policy vision in this area, refracted through the national features of each country. The common stance and purpose of the different countries presuppose cooperation and joint action in the fight against international terrorism, and by virtue of the tasks they perform, intelligence agencies are called upon to play a leading role in this fight.

ПОЗИЦІЯ ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОГО СОЮЗУ У ГРУЗИНСЬКІЙ ВІЙНІ 2008 Р.

In the article explores the reasons for the military conflict in Georgia in August 2008, which arose with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Georgia’s proclamation of independence. As result of the armed conflict between 1992 and 1993, Georgia actually lost control of two regions – Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which de facto were independent under the Russian military support. The position of the European Union regarding this conflict was analyzed, which from the beginning of the Russo-Georgian armed conflict, made significant diplomatic efforts for its speedy settlement. In particular, France has developed six points for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It was clarified what kind of assistance the EU provided in the termination of Russian-Georgian war. The activity of the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia has been analyzed, which started its work on October 1, 2008 and is currently in operation. The EUMM is unique among the missions under the overall European Union security and defense policy, she does not provide counseling, does not conduct training or training, she only observing and reporting on the situation in Georgia to allow EU member states to develop a policy towards Georgia. It was concluded that thanks to the creation of the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia, the EU’s weight in resolving the conflict in Georgia has increased significantly. Despite some technical problems in the initial implementation phase, the Mission is a success for the EU’s Common Security and Defenсe Policy. The Mission continues to make an important contribution to stabilizing the conflict situation in the region, especially after the termination of the OSCE and UN Mission in Georgia. Noted that during the Russo-Georgian War in August 2008, the European Union has developed its own strategy for settling conflicts in the South Caucasus.