The EU’s highest military officer: ‘It is an illusion to think that you will ever have units with soldiers from 27 member states’

Lieutenant General Michiel van der Laan walks in battle dress through an anonymous office building in the European district of Brussels. The military leadership of the European Union is conducting an exercise: a fictitious country has requested help from the EU because it is being attacked by terrorist groups. For the first time, the EU is deploying its Rapid Deployment Capacity (RDC), an expeditionary force of up to 5,000 soldiers.

For the time being, the battle only takes place in the computers of the soldiers participating in the exercise. But in 2025, the force must be there in the flesh, ready to intervene in a major crisis that threatens European interests.

Thursday is Europe Day, the annual commemoration of the speech in which French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman unveiled his plan for a European Coal and Steel Community on May 9, 1950, the forerunner of the European Union. After two world wars, European unification began as a peace project to overcome enmity in Europe. But in a world of conflict and increasing geopolitical rivalry, there are increasing calls for a strengthening of the EU’s military role.

The Dutchman Van der Laan is head of the EU Military Staff and commands the European military headquarters. He advises European diplomats and civil servants on military matters. He also has highest command of EU military missions, including in Somalia and Mozambique, and of the training mission for Ukrainian soldiers.

European missions often have a limited mandate of force. EU soldiers train, inspect or maintain the peace. But as part of Operation Aspides, the EU recently sent frigates to the Red Sea to use their weapons against Houthi attacks on shipping. Van der Laan: “The EU decided to do this quickly and unanimously. The ships are fully equipped with weapon systems that can also be deployed. That is a huge step forward.”

It remains a defensive mission against incoming missiles. Unlike the Americans and the British, the EU does not attack Houthis positions.

“There has been discussion about offensive actions. That was still a step too far. But if this operation is a success, we may be able to do more on the next occasion. I expect that the EU will develop into a mature one security provider.”

Why should the EU be able to intervene militarily? We have NATO, right?

“The collective defense of Europe will always remain a matter for NATO. But the EU also has its own interests. If we want to maintain our standard of living, economic and physical security is essential. The attacks on shipping in the Red Sea cost Europe 200 to 300 million euros per day.

“In addition, more and more countries in Africa are unstable. Other actors are gaining ground, such as China and Russia, with Wagner and other mercenaries. This has consequences for our access to raw materials and for the control of migration.

“On these types of issues we still rely heavily on our partners, the Americans. But when I talk to American ambassadors in Africa, they say: Africa is mainly your problem. The same applies to the Balkans. Or the Red Sea. If the passage of shipping is blocked, the Europeans have the most to lose, not the Americans.”

Act yourself in crisis

The RDC must give the EU the ability to act itself in a crisis. The idea is not new. Since 2007, the EU has had two ‘Battlegroups’, units of 1,500 people each, to be supplied on a rotating basis by the Member States. However, they have never been deployed. In 2011, Van der Laan himself was commander of such a Battlegroup, and it was a frustrating experience.

“I had high expectations for it. There was plenty to do, Libya and Sudan were playing then. But after I had given a passionate speech to the ambassadors of the Member States, I received zero questions. At the time, the need for military deployment was not recognized. That has really changed. For the first time in years I also see that the rosters of the Battlegroups are well filled. In the past, there were always gaps in those rosters, because member states did not want to give up soldiers.”

Isn’t the whole concept of intervention outdated after the failures in countries like Mali, Iraq and Afghanistan?

“You never know what would have happened if the French had not intervened in Mali. But I think that as an EU we are also going through a learning process. Priority number one should be: what does a country to which you send soldiers want? We have said for a long time: we are the EU, we have our interests and we come to tell you what is good for you. That does not work.

“With an intervention you have to think carefully about what you want to achieve. You must have a request for help from a country, or a UN resolution. Military efforts alone will never lead to success, and a political process must also start. But you want to avoid being in a situation where you have to say: we wanted to do something in this crisis, but we can’t. You must have the option to act, that is worth a lot.”

How far will military integration within the EU go? Will there ever be a European army?

“It is an illusion to think that you will ever have units with soldiers from 27 member states. That would be nonsense, logistically, but also in terms of culture and language. But you can get groups from countries that are geographically and culturally close to each other, such as the Netherlands and Germany have formed a joint army corps. Nevertheless, sovereignty will always remain with the Member States. The deployment of soldiers is a national responsibility, in which parliament has an extremely important role.”