The leap from a security system based on US forces to a system in which each European country would have to provide for its own defense needs and dissuasion of ill-intentioned people has been abrupt. It is also understandable that public opinion, especially in countries like ours, is rather confused. And unfortunately many parties try to exploit this confusion to gather a few votes. We want peace, certainly a supreme good to which everyone must aspire, but we often confuse it with surrender to the demands of the most powerful. We delude ourselves that in this way we will not be called upon to pay prices, while history teaches that when freedom is lost, material well-being also suffers, slowly vanishes. The new master will not think about the efficiency of the country, but simply about perpetuating his own power with necessarily increasingly coercive means.
The stakes are therefore very high. I would say existential. European countries put under pressure by Putin for some years now, and now suddenly and rudely, cornered by Trump, they find themselves having to rethink their way of being, their role in the world among the giants who are trying to divide it up according to spheres of influence. Europe risks being divided between Putin's Russia and some tolerated countries, rather than allies, to the US that will tolerate them only if they are small and obedient. To maintain a role in the world requires political capacity, but also an efficient military instrument that can give credibility to our diplomacy.
We talked about it with the General Vincenzo Camporini, Already Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Defence and already a candidate for Parliament first for +Europa and then for Azione, who explains that it is absurd to think that there is a contradiction between the efficiency of individual national armies and the prospective creation of a unitary European army.
"We all know - says Camporini - that every single European country is too small to equip itself with an armed force that is effective as a deterrent. So some countries, led by France and Great Britain, have moved to rally a group of other countries, even outside the borders of the EU, to start a process of strengthening the European defense system that is alongside and integrated with the one proposed by the European Commission of 800 billion to strengthen the armed forces of individual countries. I believe that Germany will soon join the leading group, having just eliminated the constitutional constraint that prevented it from increasing debt to strengthen its armed forces. Those who say that the European plan to strengthen individual countries is in contradiction with the aspiration to have a single EU army are wrong. At best, they are throwing caution to the wind; in other cases, they are making a fuss to postpone any decision, which is instead urgent and can very well be considered the first step towards a totally integrated army".
We know that Brussels' competences in this matter are limited, almost non-existent. For this reason, we are trying to act outside the EU schemes, as demonstrated by the involvement of Great Britain, which left Brussels with Brexit. But some are suspicious of Germany's rearmament because it brings back old memories. Should we be afraid of it?
“I really don’t think so. After the Second World War, the German mentality changed profoundly. There is no militarism like at the beginning of the last century, while the German armed forces need a strong injection of capital because they are understaffed, they don’t have adequate logistics, they are far from having good efficiency in their information systems. And then it is obvious that the armies of the various countries must be integrated with each other in order to act effectively”.
But with what command and control systems can we make the various countries act in a coordinated way?
“The model already exists and it is that of NATO which does not have its own troops but has both political and technical command bodies which from time to time, when operational decisions must be made, mobilise departments and means of the national armed forces which integrate on the field on the basis of operational specifications well known to all”.
Beyond the figures announced by Ursula von der Leyen that have impressed many citizens, one wonders how all this money will be spent. Are concrete plans being made in Italy and other countries to concentrate the funds on priority issues, avoiding waste and duplication with what other countries do?
“The Italian armed forces need strengthening. Especially the Army, which in the last three decades has concentrated mainly on missions of peacekeeping, neglected some armaments that were not needed in those theaters such as the so-called high-capacity ones (tanks, long-range guns and others). But now the new Chief of Staff of the Army, General Masiello, is working with determination and great ability to remedy these deficiencies”.
But if each country goes its own way, isn't there a risk of duplicating weapons systems and thus making this rearmament more expensive and also less efficient? Wouldn't it be better to focus everything on European industrial integration and a few large projects?
“Of course, we need greater industrial integration and rationalization of production, avoiding duplication. But it will take time. Of course, it would be good if politics regained the power to direct the armaments industries towards European integration, instead of often being subservient to the lobby of powerful industrialists who aim to remain national in the hope of winning the majority of the pie. But they are wrong. Because greater specialization of production would lead to an increase in quantities and also to a competitive position on international markets that should not be underestimated. Then there are fundamental and priority issues that will need to be addressed urgently at a European level”.
That means?
“I am referring to all the command and control structures and to intelligence. In short, those structures that create an information environment without which a modern army cannot operate. The capabilities in Europe exist but we need more resources, more satellites, more high-speed data transmission capacity. As they say in military jargon, we need to reduce the 'review' times, that is, the interval between the satellite's passage over the same terrain. So we need to send more satellites into the air. And we also need to have many other observation systems such as planes and demons. We have already foreseen in the European treaties structures that could constitute the so-called European leg of NATO in command functions. It is a question of strengthening them both for their operational capacity and for the setting up of projects for new weapons systems”.
In recent weeks there has also been talk of nuclear power, without which the deterrence of European armed forces would be scarcely credible. What do you think?
"This is a difficult and very delicate issue. Addressing it immediately would risk blocking the path of strengthening national defenses that is starting and that seems urgent to me. For us, atomic weapons are a strategic tool and not to be used tactically on the battlefield. Unlike the Russians, we have dismantled almost all tactical atomic bombs and today the strategic umbrella is offered by the United States, but also by France and Great Britain. We will see about addressing the issue at the right time."
Finally, a curiosity. Looking at the latest data on the economic situation in Russia that show inflation above 10%, the central bank's interest rates at 21% - even the bank governor said that they will have to freeze the savings held by Russian citizens for some time - it does not seem that their economic system can hold up for long. Even on the ground, it does not seem that the Army is breaking through the Ukrainian lines, which are defending themselves with great heroism and remarkable unity (in the face of all those who say that Ukraine is finished). So Trump's intervention came at the very last minute and is saving the Russian dictator from defeat. Is that so?
“I would say that Putin is definitely not winning. In recent months he has lost 400 men killed and wounded, that is, 1000 men for every square kilometer conquered. A bit much even for those who can count on fairly large reserves of human material. However, Putin's goals were much more ambitious. In February 2022, two days after starting the invasion, Putin appealed to the Kiev army inviting them to rebel against Zelensky and join the Russians. This confirms that his goal was to eliminate Ukraine. And so far he has not succeeded in this. While the Ukrainians have abundantly demonstrated that they do not want to end up under the boots of the Russians again”.
The risk is that now Ukraine is given to him by Trump, while for Europe, as was said on Thursday at the Paris summit, the rescue of Ukraine will be the litmus test for the entire world to evaluate the credibility of Europe as a whole. And countries like theItaly, who for now stammer and do incredible somersaults to keep the devil and the holy water together, will have to quickly choose which side to be on. And Meloni it will have to stay close to the main European countries.
