15:50 GMT01 December 2020
Listen Live
    Get short URL

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Moscow believes that the explanation offered by European states for increasing military spending on the need to constraint some "illusory potential aggressor" is far-fetched, the Foreign Ministry said on Saturday.

    "We consider it equally far-fetched to try to find an 'external enemy' and, clinging to false historical parallels, to justify building up military spending by opposition to an illusory 'potential aggressor,'" the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

    READ MORE: European Commission Backs European Army Idea

    It drew attention to attempts to "draw more than dubious parallels" between the current situation in Europe and the periods before the two world wars, according to which the rise of nationalism was a catalyst for conflicts.

    "In this regard, we are forced to recall that World War I was the result of the desire of the great powers at that time to establish European and global hegemony, to redistribute spheres of influence, and not at all about upholding state sovereignty," it added.

    While concluding, the ministry stated that it was unacceptable to put an equal sign between the protection of national interests and nationalism, between the struggle for the right to preserve identity, loyalty to traditional values and war.

    The ministry's comments come after French President Emmanuel Macron said on November 6 that the European Union should have a "real European army" independent of the United States to be able to defend itself. In addition, he noted that the bloc must defend itself against China, Russia and even the United States. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also supported the idea of creating a European army.


    Macron's European Army Idea: The View From Poland
    Macron's EU Army Idea Indicates 'Emerging Crack in NATO' – Turkish MP
    Trump Launches Massive Twitter Crusade Against Macron Amid EU Army Row
    European army, World War I, Russian Foreign Ministry, Macron, Angela Merkel, Europe
    Community standardsDiscussion