The greatest risk for Europe, in addition to the increasing political, economic, and social destabilisation of the continent, is the emergence of lines of fragmentation along competing geopolitical interests of the external actors. /1
The divergent
goals of key actors (US, China, Russia, Turkey, etc.) further divide European members & institutions on geopolitical issues. As a result, the 🇪🇺 has less & less room for manoeuvres in increasingly contested areas in its immediate neighbourhood to the South & East./2
goals of key actors (US, China, Russia, Turkey, etc.) further divide European members & institutions on geopolitical issues. As a result, the 🇪🇺 has less & less room for manoeuvres in increasingly contested areas in its immediate neighbourhood to the South & East./2
Other regional actors not only have combat experience but also do not shy away from the use of force. The geopolitical gaps that are opening up in the Middle East, North Africa & Eastern Europe will be filled by these agile regional actors, further exacerbating the EU’s stance./3
In the age of increasingly active private security companies (eg in US, Russia, China, Turkey), the 🇪🇺 must be able to exer- cise “hard power” quickly and efficiently in its immediate neighbourhood. Only in this way can the EU & its members be perceived as a geopolitical actor./4
A public-private partnership can be responsible for this type of rapid reaction force & decisions on necessary operations can be made quickly & effectively. The area of operations can be limited to the southern & eastern neighbourhood & the mandate can rotate 2-3 times per year/5
The composition can be multilateral, similar to the French Foreign Legion, with the strike force composed exclusively of soldiers from the EU member states, the candidate countries from the Western Balkans, & associated countries in Eastern Europe, recruited on voluntary basis./6 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
