TEHRAN - In another sign of Europe distancing itself from reliance on the United States for security, EU leaders are focusing on how to achieve that goal independently. The European Union's foreign policy chief has issued a warning to the bloc that the time has now come to agree on an ambitious foreign military policy as the pillar for united military operations among the 27 members.

With America’s economy collapsing alongside recent military defeats setting the stage for Washington’s status as a super power on the decline, the European idea (not the first time It has been proposed) is now being seriously considered. 

One of the most important aspects of what Borrell wants is a rapid EU deployable crisis force. 

Speaking to reporters, Josep Borrell says he will present the first draft of the "Strategic Compass" to EU members (the closest the EU will have to a military doctrine that sets out the alliance’s goals) stressing it was crucial to the bloc’s security.

In the foreword of a document containing the full strategy that has been sent to the EU's 27 states for debate, Borrell says "Europe is in danger... we need to have rapid deployment capabilities.” 

Borrell’s proposal for the “rapid EU crisis force” will be comprised of some 5,000 military personnel. 

On Monday, both EU foreign and defense ministers are set to consider the idea with the goal of agreeing on a political document by March. 

European countries are said to have highly-trained troops and cyber, naval and air power, but resources are believed to be similar across 27 militaries and EU train-and-assist missions are reportedly modest in numbers. The member states also lack the logistics and command and control capabilities to make the force highly effective and reports indicate it cannot match intelligence-gathering like other super powers. 

The intention is to develop EU battle groups into powerful crisis reaction forces that could be deployed at short notice. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU has depriving the bloc of a military power; but also allowed others to step up to the plate, such as France and a Germany to push ambitions for a bigger EU military role. 

Borrell added, the EU with the world's largest trade bloc (the single market) has “a strategic responsibility. Citizens want to be protected. Soft power is not enough.” 

What Borrell wants is a rapid EU deployable crisis force. Since late 2017, some progress has already been made on building a common defense budget to develop weapons together. Despite this, the EU has yet to operate any joint battalion-sized battle group.

There are some obstacles that stand in the way. These include issues such the lack a common defense culture and vision among the various EU members and differences over which nations should be given priority for deployment.

In the foreword to the draft document, Borrell said "all the threats we face are intensifying and the capacity of individual member states to cope is insufficient and declining.” 

So where do these threats arise from? 

Earlier this year NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged that the European Union “cannot defend” the continent alone.

At the same time Stoltenberg highlighted problems within the North Atlantic Alliance saying "More than 90 percent of the people in the European Union, they live in a NATO country. But only 20 percent of NATO's defense spending comes from NATO EU members”

This mater was something repeatedly raised by former U.S. President Donald Trump. It led to strained relations with NATO’s European members and some analysts believe this is where EU leaders began to speed up plans of self reliance for security. President Joe Biden’s nuclear submarine deal with Australia behind France’s back didn’t exactly help either. 

Other analysts have raised questions as to where exactly this security threat that Borrell speaks about is coming from. Critics say Stoltenberg has played a role in raising fears and saber-rattling among EU members by repeatedly citing alleged threats from Russia. Moscow flatly rejects this arguing it is just an excuse to amass NATO forces along Russia’s borders near Ukraine in a wide scale effort to lesson Moscow’s growing powers. 

What really set alarm bells ringing was Afghanistan, and while Afghanistan’s invasion and occupation was led by the United States it wasn’t just America’s 20-year war. U.S. allies also played a role in the deadly crisis. 

Borrell noted that EU governments must push ahead with a rapid reaction force to be better prepared for future crises after what happened in Afghanistan.

In a previous interview with Italian media, he highlighted the mess in Afghanistan led by U.S. troops when the security situation seriously worsened showed the EU needed to accelerate efforts to build a common defense policy.

“This has been above all a catastrophe for the Afghan people. It’s a failure of the Western world and it’s a game changer for international relations,”

Essentially, European countries did not have the capacity or the ability to stay in Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrew. 

Privately, diplomats are reported to have companied that they weren’t fully consulted about America’s withdrawal plans, or raised doubts about the U.S. exit. However, once Washington made the decision to withdraw, that decision was also automatically made for approximately 7,000 non-American NATO forces on the ground.

Jana Puglierin is a senior policy fellow and head of the Berlin office at the European Council on Foreign Relation, he says for American allies like Germany “It showed, basically, how dependent we really are. Because then it was immediately clear that we needed to follow the American withdrawal, and withdraw, as well.”

As the security situation started deteriorating and the Taliban’s accelerated push through the country led to the collapse of the former Afghan army, it left European governments rushing to get their own nationals out.

The EU ambassador to the United States from 2014 to 2019 David O’Sullivan says “the immediate feeling around this whole situation is that perhaps there should have been more consultation and more joint planning about how to manage the exit strategy.” 

“The feeling is that this all kind of descended into something of a scramble,” he continued, “which is very difficult to manage, which put the European countries in a lot of difficulty — not only to get their own nationals out, but also to get out all the Afghans who are working closely with them, and were clearly at risk.”

Governments such as Germany and United Kingdom faced strong criticism for their failures to prepare and evacuate their citizens.

Borrell said "we need to draw lessons from this experience... as Europeans we have not been able to send 6,000 soldiers around the Kabul airport to secure the area. The U.S. has been, we haven't. We need to be able to act quickly."

At the time he said “I regret greatly the way in which things have gone, but no-one asked for the opinion of the Europeans.” 

“Some countries are going to have to ask themselves questions about an American ally which, as Joe Biden said, doesn’t want to fight other people’s wars for them.” 

“The Europeans don’t have a choice. We must organize ourselves to deal with the world as it is and not the world that we dream of.”

If anything, Afghanistan highlighted two important issues. One is that Europe is not militarily capable to deal with crises and secondly, as countries around the globe are slowly beginning to realize, you can’t depend on Washington. The former Afghanistan government and U.S. trained army (of 20 years) had to learn that lesson the hard way.