Germany Poland And The Common Security And Defence Policy

A comparative analysis of an old and new EU Member State's perceptions of and contributions to EU security and defence. This book focuses on change and continuity in both countries' defence policies and where convergence and divergence has occurred. This has important implications for the EU's effectiveness as an international security actor.

This book accounts for transformations in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)during fifteen years of operations (2001-2016), and argues that the EU evolved into a softer and more civilian security provider, rather than a military one. This learning process was driven by transnational communities of experts and practitioners, which acted as engines of change. Giovanni Faleg analyses two innovative concepts introduced in the EU security discourse since the late 1990s: security sector reform (SSR) and civilian crisis management (CCM). Both stem from a new understanding of security, involving the development of non-military approaches and a comprehensive approach to crisis management. However, the implementation of the two policy frameworks by the EU led to very different outcomes. The book explains this variation by exploring the pathways by which ideas turn into policies, and by comparing the transformational power of epistemic communities and communities of practice. “/p>

Given the Ukraine crisis, Russia’s resurgence and the burning crises in the South there has never been a better time to discuss European defence. From November 2014 to March 2015, the online magazine European Geostrategy published a number of excellent essays on the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), all from a national perspective. You can now read all of the essays in this one neat publication. Indeed, in this essay collection jointly published by European Geostrategy, the Egmont Institute and the Institute for European Studies, a host of leading experts give their national perspectives on the present state and future of the EU’s CSDP. Each of the thirty-four essays focuses on the continued relevance of the CSDP when compared to the security challenges facing Europe today. Some essays give a bleak picture of the future, whereas others see grounds for optimism. Either way the essays are bound to provoke reactions of all kinds.

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) program can be seen as a lens for examining the larger security policy debates in Poland and Germany. This documented briefing traces the recent evolution of the security debate in each country, and notes how each has adapted PfP to suit its security policy needs. The research reveals that both Poland and Germany view PfP as the first step on a path to NATO membership for at least some of the partner countries, most of all Poland. Germany and Poland are making maximum use of the program to solidify their military cooperation, and both are hopeful that the United States takes a similar view toward PfP implementation. The main difference between the two countries relates to Russia: the Poles fear that Germany may bend its PfP policy of extensive cooperation with Poland to reach agreement on security issues with Russia. The briefing concludes with a discussion of the implications of the Polish and German interpretations of PfP for the United States and for the U.S. Army.

This book analyses whether the EU’s drift towards European strategic autonomy presents a challenge or a window of opportunity for its small member states to advance their security interests. The volume presents small states’ perceptions of European strategic autonomy, highlighting their expectations and concerns. The chapters focus on the depth and breadth of European strategic autonomy, national security considerations, assessment of the impact on transatlantic relations, the expected outputs, and its potential impact on the EU’s institutional structure. It also shows how systemic circumstances and the interests of powerful states, either belonging to the EU (France, Germany, and Poland) or having a significant say in European security architecture (the US), establish opportunities and constraints for the small states to shape European strategic autonomy. In particular, the study focuses on the diverging interests of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, and the Netherlands. It demonstrates that, in most cases, European strategic autonomy is perceived not as an alternative to NATO but as a supplementary element that could facilitate the development of national military capabilities, indigenous defence industries and resilience to non-military threats. Ultimately, the book suggests that national approaches towards European strategic autonomy mainly stem from pragmatic national security and foreign policy considerations, while largely ignoring grand strategic ideas. This book will be of much interest to students of European politics, security studies, and international relations. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

A comparative analysis of an old and new EU Member State's perceptions of and contributions to EU security and defence. This book focuses on change and continuity in both countries' defence policies and where convergence and divergence has occurred. This has important implications for the EU's effectiveness as an international security actor.

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) program can be seen as a lens for examining the larger security policy debates in Poland and Germany. This documented briefing traces the recent evolution of the security debate in each country, and notes how each has adapted PfP to suit its security policy needs. The research reveals that both Poland and Germany view PfP as the first step on a path to NATO membership for at least some of the partner countries, most of all Poland. Germany and Poland are making maximum use of the program to solidify their military cooperation, and both are hopeful that the United States takes a similar view toward PfP implementation. The main difference between the two countries relates to Russia: the Poles fear that Germany may bend its PfP policy of extensive cooperation with Poland to reach agreement on security issues with Russia. The briefing concludes with a discussion of the implications of the Polish and German interpretations of PfP for the United States and for the U.S. Army.

This book explores the political and social dynamics of the bilateral relations between Germany and Poland at the national and subnational levels, taking into account the supranational dynamics, across such different policy areas as trade, foreign and security policy, energy, fiscal issues, health and social policy, migration and local governance. By studying the impact of the three explanatory categories – the historical legacy, interdependence and asymmetry – on the bilateral relationship, the book explores the patterns of cooperation and identifies the driving forces and hindering factors of the bilateral relationship. Covering the Polish–German relationship since 2004, it demonstrates, in a systematic way, that it does not qualify as embedded bilateralism. The relationship remains historically burdened and asymmetric, and thus it is not resilient to crises. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of European and EU Politics, German politics, East/Central European Politics, borderlands studies, and more broadly, for international relations, history and sociology.