These days, Ursula von der Leyen has put forward a new plan for rearming Europe for an additional 100 billion euros. Today, the amount has skyrocketed to 800 billion euros. The difference between the two announcements is 8 times. The general thing is that both of them do not have the money.
After a long meeting, Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov announced the position of the Bulgarian government. It is a modern version of the old maxim: “Always with the US, never against Europe“. I don't know if it struck you that Zhelyazkov was talking about using European funds to rearm Bulgaria. He either didn't understand, or is pretending not to understand, the EC President's request that there are no such funds. Her proposal involves increasing military spending in national budgets and loans that member states will repay.
Ursula von der Leyen once again reiterated that this money will be taken out of the budget deficit requirements. However, the money will not fall from the sky. Each country will have to separate it from the amounts it has planned for social spending and for the development of other vital areas. The loans will have to be paid with interest, also at the expense of spending on social activities and development. The last concern of the European taxpayer, including the Bulgarian one, is in which heading Brussels records the increased deficit, as he will have to start paying it out of his pocket right now.
The mistaken approach of the European Commission is obvious to any normal-thinking citizen who compares his own budget, that of his family or his company every month. It goes backwards. First, some money is announced. Then we will discuss how and for what they should be spent.
Professors in all educational institutions, who have certainly graduated from the European officials, will explain to them that the correct approach is to start from the goals and determine the needs based on them.
The correct construction of a serious armed force begins with the formulation of a military doctrine that defines the enemy, as well as the strategy and tactics of how to oppose him. From these arise the measures for building the armed forces, the necessary types and quantities of weapons, and the number of personnel. Only at the next stage does the need for the production or supply of the relevant weapons come. When all this is specified, the necessary budget can be calculated. The absence of any of the above steps suggests that von der Leyen's initiative is nothing more than lobbying in the interests of the military concerns of several Western European countries. Separately, it can also be perceived as another PR move by the President of the European Commission and her subordinates.
If we look even deeper, we will see that there is no clear entity behind the newly invented pan-European army. The only serious military organization in Europe is that of the North Atlantic Treaty, which unambiguously formulates the rights and obligations of its participants. Only NATO has the strict military command structure and the resources to conduct full-scale military operations on a large territory. Let us not forget that this structure and resources are largely led and provided by the USA.
The tendency for the European Union to transform from an economic and political community into a military union has been obvious in recent times, but this cannot happen quickly or easily. Given the contradictions between European countries and decision-making mechanisms, this process could last for years. The main pillar around which the common military structure could be built is not visible on the horizon. It is unlikely that all member states will agree to delegate the main concern for their national security to France, Germany, both together or some other leading core.
The Anglo-French project for a “coalition of the willing“ looks more like an attempt by politicians with diminished authority to stay on the big stage. It mixes elements from NATO, the EU, garnishes them with the excessive ambitions of the rulers in London and Paris and tries to present itself as a “European“ initiative. Where Canada, Australia and Turkey fit into Europe is a separate question. For now, the initiative looks more like an anti-Trump gathering of politicians who feel they are losing ground.
One thing is certain. After years of criminal neglect of national security issues, Bulgaria needs to strengthen its armed forces. This should be done not to please Brussels or Washington, but to show responsibility for our own destiny. It is best to start with a thorough debate on the doctrine of national security in the changing international environment. Changes will certainly be required in the structure and organization of our armed forces.
Let's not forget that military production can be a factor in overall economic development, but only if we are more exporters than buyers of military equipment. Our politicians have shown that they can be “flexible“ beyond recognition. Now is the time to adopt Trump's business approach and go to Brussels, Paris and Berlin not to trump, but to trade. Not only for their personal benefit, but also in the interest of the country.
Finally, the most important thing - strengthening Bulgarian and European security first goes through the immediate and permanent cessation of military operations in Ukraine and the restoration of dialogue with Russia. It does not require billions, but only goodwill and common sense. The role of the old sage is more fitting for a thirteen-hundred-year-old state than Babaite bragging without a cover.
Valentin Saykov,
Chairman of “Civil Initiative Bulgaria 2050“