According to European media reports, the recent exposure of the specific plan and timetable for the formation of the "European army" has aroused great concern of international public opinion and different reactions from all parties concerned. On the whole, constrained by multiple factors, the "European army" is facing many severe challenges, and the prospect is not optimistic. EU rapid response force peacekeeping mission Exposure of confidential documents The term "European army" can be traced back to the 1950s. Under the background of the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, France proposed to establish a "European army" under the command of the "European Defense Community". In 1987, France and Germany established a mixed brigade, and the EU joint force began to take shape. In 1992, the Franco German summit announced the expansion of the Franco German mixed brigade into a European Corps. In 2002, the EU announced the establishment of the European Union army to coordinate EU joint military operations, but the standing force is only more than 1000. In May this year, France, Germany and other 14 EU Member States proposed the establishment of a European rapid response force for the first time, and began to draft a "strategic guide" to seek agreement on the construction of joint military forces. On November 15, EU foreign ministers and defense ministers debated the relevant contents of the "strategic guide" in Brussels and announced that the final contents would be finalized in March next year. According to Reuters, a 28 page confidential document accidentally leaked from the EU shows that the EU is considering establishing a 5000 person rapid response force by 2025 to intervene in various crises and get rid of its dependence on the US military. The force is composed of land, sea and air forces and can be cross deployed according to the situation of crisis. The confidential document believes that Europe needs "faster, more robust and more flexible forces" to undertake all-round military crisis management tasks, while responding to imminent threats or responding quickly to crisis situations. The report said that this force does not require the participation of all EU Member States, but any deployment must be agreed by all Member States. The attitudes of all parties are very different Judging from the media reports, there are great disputes among the parties concerned about the establishment of the "European army" by the EU. On the one hand, many countries in the EU have expressed positive attitudes. Borrell, EU high representative for foreign and security policy, said that EU Member States generally have a positive attitude towards the plan. Borrelli hoped that EU countries would promise to "provide relevant assets and necessary strategic support". He also revealed that the EU currently has nearly 60 weapons development and other joint military projects. French defense minister Florence Paley said: "the 'Strategic Guide' reflects the ambitions of all countries, puts forward specific and operable suggestions, and has reached a good balance." Italian defense minister Lorenzo guirini said that the formation of the "European army" will complement the North Atlantic Treaty and strengthen the transatlantic partnership. In addition, Eastern European countries such as Poland, Estonia and Lithuania also expressed support for the formation of a "European army". On the other hand, the outside world raised warnings and doubts. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said: "we welcome the EU's efforts to strengthen its own defense construction, but the EU's establishment of a rapid response force can neither occupy NATO resources nor replace NATO." Turkish President Erdogan said that the idea of the EU's establishment of a "European army" is not a plan that can be implemented smoothly. Many EU member states are also NATO members, and they may not support this idea. The feasibility is in doubt On the whole, the main purpose of the EU's acceleration of the formation of the "European army" this time is to focus on the increasingly severe terrorist threat and refugee crisis, learn from the "lessons learned" of the US military's treachery in Afghanistan, and change its dilemma of "economic giant, political dwarf and military dwarf" by strengthening the construction of independent defense capacity. Looking forward to the future, the "European army" is facing many practical challenges. First, NATO does not agree. EU leaders agreed to form a force of 50000 to 60000 as early as 20 years ago, but it has never been implemented. One important reason is that NATO led by the United States is unwilling to make the "European army" bigger and stronger. Next, the NATO factor will remain the insurmountable "gap" between the "European army" and the military. Second, internal disunity. France and Germany, the EU's "twin engines", have different views on the formation of a "European army". France has made a lot of efforts to inform and contribute to the formation of the "European army", while Germany is relatively cautious in its position and action based on historical and other factors. When there is no joint force within the EU, it is bound to be difficult for the "European army" to be successfully promoted. Third, strength does not support the bottom. At present, the command and control, mission objectives, force allocation and logistics support of the "European army" are not clear. It is generally believed that the symbolic significance of the 5000 person "European army" is greater than the substantive significance, which is difficult to effectively deal with the current realistic threat facing the EU, and even if it becomes an army, it is likely to become a "chicken rib". (outlook new era)