José Luis Calvo Albero: ‘It will be years before the EU has a single army’

In recent days, there has been so much turmoil that European leaders only talk about defence, military spending and Russia as a major existential threat.

The invasion of Ukraine, now more than three years old, has meant that, under the leadership of President Volodymyr Zelensky and in the face of Trump's contempt for the European Union (EU), Europeans have no choice but to run to defend themselves. 

‘A war we thought would never return to Europe has returned,’ José Luis Calvo Albero, director of the Division of Coordination and Security and Defence Studies at the Spanish Ministry of Defence, told me in an interview.

In the voice of the Spanish colonel, Europe is going through a very difficult moment that will change the conditions of European security inherited from the Second World War. Recently, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, declared that Europeans are at a crossroads. 

Since Trump returned to the Presidency of the United States, something new happens every day here in Europe, and the decisions are bizarre: on 9 May, Von der Leyen announced the creation of a College of Security Commissioners made up of the twenty-seven EU member countries.

We asked one of Spain's most prestigious military figures if he thinks it is possible to quickly achieve the longed-for common European army: ‘I think so, but it won't be easy. There are many steps: having more investment in the military industry; providing common training, for example, fighter pilots would be trained in 3 or 4 countries instead of 17 different countries; there would have to be large training academies, as well as a single headquarters and command structure for the European force... it's a whole logistical structure. It could take decades... I might not see it happen’.

There is a kind of feeling of orphanhood among the traditional European allies towards the new vision of security and defence prevailing in US policy under Trump's leadership. 

‘Right now, it's not so clear. We think that, although President Trump is very exuberant in his speech, the old rules of American strategy are still there... that is to say, we are still allies; although, his public statements do not reinforce this feeling’, Calvo Albero commented.

On the subject of Ukraine, the military man emphasised that Spain's position is very clear: ‘No country can modify borders by force, it is something we are opposed to... it cannot become an instrument of international relations because it would give rise to wanting to appropriate your neighbour's borders. Spain has always argued that borders are modified by agreement between the parties; right now we have not recognised Kosovo’.

I understand that Europe does not want to repeat the mistakes made during Hitler's time and fall into the naivety that Trump pretends to have with Putin, what can happen now?

For decades, Europe has been thinking about having a certain strategic autonomy, developing its own common defence policy and security framework; this is probably the moment to achieve it. This decision will be good for us and also for Washington... they will no longer see us as a hindrance that always has to be worrying about us, so yes, this is the moment for Europe to give us a joy and develop that common security and defence policy.

People think this is only about Ukraine, but in reality, Colonel Calvo Albero, what we have is Russia reconfiguring its zones of influence. What do you think about it?

Yes, indeed, Putin's Russia has always tried to recover the status of global superpower that the Soviet Union had and one of those conditions is to re-establish its sphere of influence; and, to do so, it would first recover its former Soviet republics.

Putin, adds the military man who has been at NATO's Rapid Deployment Headquarters, will do everything possible to regain his country's strategic relevance: ‘There will come a point when we will once again seek a security balance with Russia that allows us to live in peace, both of us; we don't know when it will come, but it can in no way be at the expense of others, or dictating to their neighbours what they should do’.

In this reconfiguration of zones of influence, we see Trump accompanied by a powerful oligarchy increasingly obsessed with blocking China but keen to get closer to Russia... 

We think that behind all this exuberance is the strategic idea of separating Russia from China so that they do not form a bloc that could jeopardise US interests.

And what about this disdain for the EU? 

Trump doesn't like the EU. The US has always distrusted the EU because it sees it as a potential economic competitor and if it achieves a greater degree of unity, also a political or even military one. This is something that we Europeans have tried to discard and, what's more, to convince Washington that we are not a competitor, but an ally. And, if we are united, it will be better for the United States and for Europe. 

However, Calvo Albero points out, Trump always ignores the EU by conducting bilateral negotiations and he does so by bypassing the European authorities.

President Trump is criticised for his short-sightedness in geopolitical matters while he and his team are more motivated by economic ambition. The way in which he intends to impose an economic agreement to exploit Ukraine has raised a wave of criticism from most European leaders. But for the moment he is still waiting for Zelenski to sign it. 

‘It is forcing his interlocutors so much that it unleashes unintended consequences. This administration must understand that alliances are an essential part of American power and that, if in the end it is aggressive and despises its allies, in the end they will look for another way and it will affect the United States in a negative way... this country, no matter how big it is, cannot exercise power without that whole network of alliances; we are not a burden, we are quite an important support,’ says Calvo Albero.

Trump, who is a businessman, a merchant, is punishing the world with his tariffs and demanding that NATO spend more of its GDP on defence, not 2% but 5%. Does he want more weapons to be bought from his country? 

Yes, we suspect that this is his desire: for NATO to spend more on defence, but essentially on US weapons. The problem is that this would lead to an increase in our dependence... if we want to have a certain strategic autonomy we have to develop our own defence industry. Of course, Trump is a businessman and he would certainly like US companies to sell more weapons, but in any case the idea is to develop our own European military industry more.

At the moment we see how countries are hastily talking about rearming, Spain has voluntarily called up men and women for its army and Germany will debate the reimposition of compulsory military service, are there enough forces for the European army? 

We have almost two million soldiers in the European Union spread across many different countries. The idea is to have a common army and it won't be easy; indeed, the war in Ukraine has reminded us of the importance of reserves. With the casualties suffered by Russia and Ukraine in the conflict, they need replacements and in Europe we have little of that. 

The first thing, says this military expert, is to increase the effectiveness of the Armed Forces: ‘There will be some countries that will resort to compulsory military service... in Spain, I see it as difficult; but we need reserves and I don't know if they will be voluntary or compulsory, but we need those replacement units. These millions of soldiers will have to be better organised and even better paid, a constant complaint from many soldiers not only in Spain, but also in other parts of Europe. 

The United Kingdom, France and even Turkey have shown their willingness to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine once the ceasefire is in place. Do you see that as plausible? 

It's possible, but it depends on the mission and how many forces are involved. It's not the same as the forces being deployed as a buffer between the combatants, which would be very dangerous and would require a lot of forces; as, for example, deploying as a guarantee of security for Ukraine... they wouldn't be on the front line, but in the rearguard. I repeat, it depends what those forces are used for and, in any case, it is a difficult decision for other countries because in that case they could find themselves drawn into a war.