 Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ευρωγραμμία για την Πολισία Βασίδης, όπως θα είναι η αρχή και ουφητική τίταλ, έχει been the talk of the town during the last months. And when I say town, I do not refer only to Brussels. Town refers to all the 28 capitals of the EU member states. Towns even means beyond the borders of our small continent, because this endeavor is of great importance. As a consequence, equally great are the expectations people have from it. Here I am to offer you the military view on the European Union's global strategy for foreign security policy. I will start with a question. Why a new security strategy? From the military point of view, the obvious answer is because we live in 2016. And it is not just the time that has gone by that dictates the review of the strategy. It is because the world has changed dramatically since 2003. The European security strategy of 2003 referred to a totally different geopolitical environment. The military was completely written off. That environment has no resemblance to the contemporary one. It was written at the time when Europe enjoyed an unprecedented state of prosperity, security and freedom. And it was its opening statement. You remember that, but hardly the case anymore. The European Union was not adequately prepared or equipped to face this new difficult and threatening reality. Not caught quite off guard. The institutional framework in the form of European External Action Service was already in place with a task to shape and express a unified European voice and to participate in the international original efforts for crisis management. Furthermore, a wide range of tools were already in the disposal of the European Union, tools that are indeed used today to implement European policies and advance European interests. Unfortunately, there was a profound lack of an overarching guiding institutional document that would steer the individual efforts in a more structured way, maximizing thus the outcome. To quote Sunjoo, strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. But tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. The existing document in the form of security strategy of 2003 was not relevant anymore in a geopolitical landscape totally alien to the one it was written. And therefore we were performing at the tactical level without strategy reflecting reality. It was the noise before defeat. So a new strategy for the military side of the house was of paramount importance. This explains why Madam Mogherini decisions to draw or redraw if you will, the lines within which Europe sees and operates in the contemporary globalized connected and contested environment attracted so much attention. Because the endeavor to formulate the security strategy that will address the challenges and threats against 28 nations in a comprehensive way will affect the future of areas far beyond the European borders. This endeavor and the resulting product will path the way to the future for the European Union that despite all its internal problems, disagreements, and shortcomings it continues to be a global actor with significant dimension and might, especially in the diplomatic and economic fields. Moreover, the pursuit of the European interests require a concerted use of foreign security and defense policies alongside trade development, migration, energy, climate, cyber, science, and more. To fulfill each one of its priorities the EU requires a joined up and tailored made mix of instruments and policies. So the global strategy will define first of all the EU's vital interest in foreign and security policy, the interest that need to be promoted and protected. These are namely the physical security and the sustainable prosperity of the EU, the resilience of EU democracies and living up to our core values the promotion of a rules-based order. The first three interests are essentially internal with strong external implications. The promotion of a rules-based order is external and at the same time it is a precondition for the other interests to be fulfilled. To serve this interest the EU has also to have some principles to guide its external action, engagement to begin with because we cannot turn ourselves away from the problems and pretend they do not exist or that they are irrelevant to us. In a globalized and interconnected world this is not an option and even more this is not a responsible policy for a global actor such as the EU. Responsibility means to assume the burden that comes with the role you reserve for yourself. It is the responsibility of getting involved in the efforts to shape the evolution of the global geostrategic environment instead of possibly watching it evolving quite possibly in a way that is not to your satisfaction. And this leads to another guiding principle which is working together. Today it is clearly understood that no actor in the global geostrategic environment regardless of its actual or presumed strength can effectively address the contemporary challenges on its own. I believe that this is a unique opportunity for Europe to regroup, to clearly define its interest and make the European idea attractive again. The global strategy can offer that narrative. I also believe that we have to stand by our principles and values being at the same time pragmatic but not cynical towards a world that is not governed by idealism. Furthermore, a clear and a brand new level of ambition for the military has to be set up, coupled with a clear set of priorities. In a time of limited or even scarcer sources coupled with multiple and multi-faceted challenges and threats, we cannot afford the luxury of chasing not clearly defined goals. This level of ambition will lead us to clearly define the military capabilities needed. This procedure will transfer the global strategies narrative into a real-world effort and achievement. Before further proceeding, I would like here to say that, to explain to you that from the beginning there was a fight to include in the global security strategies in order to be able to achieve to include in the global security strategy a well-defined chapter related to defence and security. We decided in the military, 28 member states in the military committee that it would be of great importance if we were providing to the drafting team some key messages, some key messages that could be used in the main text of the global strategy as hooks from where the drafting team and therefore us after that we could link a sub-strategy that could be developed immediately afterwards. So this is exactly what we did. We agreed in the military committee at 28 a number of key messages related to what we think on security and defence and we forward that to the drafting team and we are waiting now to see them included or at least part of them together with other inputs to be there and this will allow us to develop immediately afterwards a sub-strategy or white paper or I don't know the name that we will agree that will give us the opportunity to be explicit in all the defence and security issues we want to include in this strategy. So this is where we stand now. We are waiting to see the text and this will appear, will be presented by the higher representative within the next months and then to see the hooks from where we will link, we will tie our sub-strategy. So this is the practical part of how we expect the situation to be developed. I mentioned before the need for the global strategy to examine the balanced use of each and every tool that is available to the union. Allow me to elaborate a little bit on that. From my standing point at my position as the chairman of the European Union Military Committee I expect that in the final text of the strategy the need for a better use of the military instrument will be clearly reflected. By saying better I do not refer to the effectiveness of the military. I refer to an increased use of the military in order to achieve a more balanced mix of the instruments currently used. Why increased? I expect that this strategy will result in making the European smart power smarter. Until now I argue that the European Union was very much dependent on its soft power when trying to advance its political and financial objectives. The role and the usefulness of the military not as defense but as a security provider were pretty much neglected. This is the hard power we are talking about and we are the hard power. We consider the contribution of hard power in the whole comprehensive approach also known as smart power to be low. Why? Because the political will to use this capability was absent. And yet the military represents the most flexible, versatile, available and deployable tool in the European toolbox. I'm sorry to say that but writing money checks to bring stability once seemed the easy way out and it was easy. It has been done successfully sometimes. But it turns out that the only thing money can buy it's time and sometimes not even that. So recognizing the necessity of applying hard power in a balanced and well calculated mix with the elements that constitute the soft power mainly in order to provide security to our people and to our investment it will only improve the results of our policies. By this I don't mean that we will be a defensive organization. Our intention is not to be a NATO light or something like this but I see a significant margin for increase of the hard power in the whole smart power mix. The new threats to the east and to the south make this increase necessary. In the security domain I have to admit that we are much more advanced than anyone else. In most of the cases in our missions we do not provide security. It would have been easy for us to establish safe and secure environment by using our forces, the European forces. And then what? The moment we leave the country, we leave the place the situation will be exactly the same. So for us there is a different way to do the job. We provide training for the local armed forces or the local law enforcement to provide security by themselves to standard their own feet and to do the job alone. We try to create a safe and secure environment not by using our own troops but by building this country's capacity to take care of their own security. This is what I mean by increasing the hard power. I mention this because it is very political 21st century long term security related vision of the European Union of which I am extremely proud. The moment we will have in the countries we are dealing with we will have established a well established safe and secure environment this will be our success, our success story. This will be our achievement not by threatening them with our forces with our armed cars in the area and our helicopters but by leaving them alone to provide security for themselves. This will be our success and this is the thing I am extremely proud of. Ladies and gentlemen I strongly believe that choosing to be actively involved with high expectations in the contemporary international arena and not reserving an important role for your military and for security and law enforcement is oxymoron and counterproductive. The world of Thikki Didis the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must are today as relevant as ever and unfortunately although cynical they are still here. It is the beginning, you know better than me it is the beginning of geopolitics this phrase and unfortunately still here. The most challenging and pressing problems the union faces today they do have a strong military element that they should be dealt with accordingly. And here I ask for your attention I definitely do not argue that the European Union should transform itself as I said before its nature and become some kind of a European NATO or NATO light. This is pointless and it would mean that the European Union would sacrifice this multi-dimensional character which is its comparative advantage vis-à-vis any other international cooperation. What Europe could and should do instead is to be more active and more determined in protecting the investments exporting its know-how in building security institutions and helping nations develop ownership of an upgraded stability and security level. This will be our transition strategy and the political objective in itself. Here there is an important note I talked before about investments I don't want to be misunderstood by using the word investments I'm not talking strictly on financial terms in some of these countries we don't do this thing at least yet. The definition of effort political or diplomatic capital human or other resources is an investment in the future of the receiving country and of Europe as well that has to be protected and nourished. Watching in the TV the refugee flows I understood that this effort of ours in distant countries is outstanding. I refer to the operations in Africa and in the Indian Ocean that you mentioned before. By operating or training people some thousand kilometers away from Europe were equally extending our borderline trying with the use of soft power and security to create favorable conditions for the local population to stay home. We create therefore a new far away from us borderline which we defend not by walls and fences and bunkers building security and prosperity by restoring hope and providing growth. In the past we failed to do so. We left the pain, the poverty, the despair and all the war related problems to reach our physical borders in southern Europe, in Italy and Greece and we discovered that we had been overtaken by the facts and overwhelmed by the situation. And then we tried as we do today to find solutions by using warships, fences and army patrols. Too little, too late. Within this framework our relationship before going into NATO I just want to stress exactly this problem. We are trying to make these people staying home but we will not make them staying home by putting fences around them. We are trying to provide to make them standing at their own feet to provide security to their own people and then investments will come. Because most of these countries they have the assets, they have the resources they will improve their quality of life by their own if they have security and this will make them to stay home. As we discussed the morning and we usually discussed with your chief Admiral Mellon and we usually discuss in Brussels these countries we are talking about they are demographic bombs that they have population with the average age of 16 years old and they have families with the average number of children 6 to 9 Συμπλε μαθαματικς in 10 years time these countries will have triple their population their resources will not be times 3 will be less because of the climate change and then got all these angry youth will do they will try to find some probably some ideological or religious facades and they will create some kind of ganks criminal or ideological or religious and they will attack their neighbors or they will move up to the north to come to Europe Why they will come to us a story they were telling me on one of my visits in these African countries isolated areas in Africa where they hardly survive people with the average age life expectancy 35 years old they have satellite TV they watch satellite TV they see how people live in Dublin in Paris in New York if they understand that if they stay home then they will die in 10 years time and they will die probably from from feminine so solution go away go another place to live more years to live better and then what happens when when they will start this adventurous trip a lot of them will die in the middle I have collected myself a lot of bodies in my previous job in the greek in the greek military yes but some of them unfortunately will die and it's sad, very sad a young pakistani man to die somewhere abandoned in a frozen river in Greece in a place that he he didn't even know that existed before but some of them will survive they will reach our societies and then they will understand that they are not qualified for anything they don't have the education they don't have the training they don't have the skills some of them will try to achieve these skills and they will go somewhere to work with others they will start from scratch some of them will not do that they will join the criminal gangs because this is their only opportunity and in all this situation I described there will be some political effects the political effects will be that our citizens will be frightened of this unprecedented situation and this probably will give some rise in the right-wing political parties extra, I'm not talking about right-wing I'm talking about Nazi parties that they have started emerging in european countries Nazi, ultra-right, xenophobic nothing good can go out of this and probably in the near future we will have a solution to our refugee problem but the ultra-right xenophobic parties will remain in our political scene so as you understand there are domino effects in all these issues and that's why we are trying to address all this in this comprehensive way now we are not living alone therefore in the global security strategy our relation with NATO has to be strengthened and has to be first of all a prominent position and has to be strengthened with 22 out of the 28 member states of the european union being also NATO members it makes absolutely no sense not to pursue this goal with a year's strategic pivot to Asia gradually taking place europe has to assume its fair share of its own security burden this means developing capabilities of its own capabilities that will put some flesh to the bones of the european strategic autonomy that will give us that will give a thrust to the european defense industry and the economy let's be honest and that would at the end of the day complement the ones currently possessed and offered only by the united states i believe that the forthcoming global security will satisfy all these expectations and set the path for a genuine deepened cooperation with NATO while at the same time set the momentum for a european military coming into adulthood three important things here first of all any strategy is only as good as the tools designed to implement it the existing tools related to security and defense need to be tested for efficiency and relevant under the new prism and adopt as and if necessary second without capabilities and the political will to use them strategy and policies remain empty shells and third sufficient funds have to be invested if this strategy is to deliver results otherwise it is doomed to be a dead letter to paraphrase the old saying if you think defense is expensive try not defending ladies and gentlemen the higher representative has admittedly assumed a very challenging task putting together a global strategy that orchestrates all the different tools and instruments of the european union to play the same tune is very ambitious especially under the current geopolitical situation within and around the union and all of us that were engaged in this project we know that the world watches and waits the time remaining until june is not much but june will not be the end of the effort june 2016 will mark the beginning of more intense work and should mark the beginning of more intense work and hopefully a change in mindset as the strategy itself will be an overarching document we expect that it will not be lengthy or exhaustive covering every detail of the mechanics of CSDP it will also make evident the need for additional more area focus documents to be produced as the sub strategy or white paper i mentioned before in order to be relevant these implementation documents have to be produced in a timely manner they also have to be interconnected and interwind vertically and horizontally and our plan is to have a document like this by the end of the year but this is related to the time that the strategy itself will be noted or approved this would not be an easy task and we are not living but we are not living in easy times either Ladies and gentlemen we in the military we expect a strategy that will give us clear guidance on where we are heading to and what is required by us a strategy that will stop the noise before defeat we are not trained for that and we will not be defeated anyway thank you very much for your attention