Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository Theses and Dissertations 1. Thesis and Dissertation Collection, all items 2019-06 EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Bohnsack, Heiko Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/62796 Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Heiko Bohnsack June 2019 Thesis Advisor: Donald Abenheim Second Reader: Uwe Hartmann Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Form Approved OMB REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) June 2019 Master's thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 6. AUTHOR(S) Heiko Bohnsack 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND 10. SPONSORING / ADDRESS(ES) MONITORING AGENCY N/A REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. A 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) As a NATO member since 1999 and an EU member since 2004, Poland contributed to several military endeavors of both organizations. Participating with the status of “Associated Nation” already since 2009, Poland applied to become a “Framework Nation” (FN) of Headquarters (HQ) Eurocorps in 2011, seeking to share greater responsibilities and enjoy equal prerogatives with the other five FNs (Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, and Luxembourg) by 2016/2017. Poland invested significant resources in the HQ and its support units. In December 2016, however, Poland declared on the working level, that it no longer sought FN status and would instead reduce its contribution. It confirmed this in an announcement on political level in 2017. Based on qualitative research, the case study presented examines Poland’s decision, which unfolded amid a discussion about the need for better defense capabilities to strengthen the European pillar of NATO and visions of building a European Army. Although Warsaw cited scarcity of resources as the official reason for the reversal, the author examines competing explanations, including renationalization and a shift in threat perception and in preferences for alliance relationships, which culminated in the proposal to build “Fort Trump” for a permanently stationed U.S. armored division in Poland, as the real trigger for the highly symbolic decision to reduce participation in HQ Eurocorps. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF Polish Security Policy, Headquarters Eurocorps, Framework Nation, “Fort Trump,” PAGES re-nationalization, multinational military integration, European NATO pillar, Alliance 115 cohesion, Poland 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Heiko Bohnsack Lieutenant Colonel, German Army Dipl.-Päd., Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, 1994 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN SECURITY STUDIES (EUROPE AND EURASIA) from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 2019 Approved by: Donald Abenheim Advisor Uwe Hartmann Second Reader Afshon P. Ostovar Associate Chair for Research Department of National Security Affairs iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT As a NATO member since 1999 and an EU member since 2004, Poland contributed to several military endeavors of both organizations. Participating with the status of “Associated Nation” already since 2009, Poland applied to become a “Framework Nation” (FN) of Headquarters (HQ) Eurocorps in 2011, seeking to share greater responsibilities and enjoy equal prerogatives with the other five FNs (Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, and Luxembourg) by 2016/2017. Poland invested significant resources in the HQ and its support units. In December 2016, however, Poland declared on the working level, that it no longer sought FN status and would instead reduce its contribution. It confirmed this in an announcement on political level in 2017. Based on qualitative research, the case study presented examines Poland’s decision, which unfolded amid a discussion about the need for better defense capabilities to strengthen the European pillar of NATO and visions of building a European Army. Although Warsaw cited scarcity of resources as the official reason for the reversal, the author examines competing explanations, including renationalization and a shift in threat perception and in preferences for alliance relationships, which culminated in the proposal to build “Fort Trump” for a permanently stationed U.S. armored division in Poland, as the real trigger for the highly symbolic decision to reduce participation in HQ Eurocorps. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 A. A SECURITY ENVIRONMENT CALLING FOR AN INCREASED EUROPEAN EFFORT .....................................................3 B. RANGE AND CHARACTER OF SOURCES FOR THE STUDY .......7 C. POLISH STRATEGIC CULTURE UNDER DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS ......................................................................................8 D. INFLUENCE OF THE UNITED STATES .............................................9 E. REALISM IS NOT ENOUGH ................................................................10 F. CURRENT POLISH SECURITY POLICY AND ITS POSSIBLE IMPACT ON THE BIGGER PICTURE ..........................12 G. HYPOTHESES ........................................................................................14 H. A WORD ABOUT THE SCHOLARLY METHOD ............................16 II. HQ EUROCORPS ...............................................................................................19 A. OLD AND NEW SECURITY CHALLENGES ....................................21 B. BRIEF HISTORY OF EUROCORPS ...................................................23 C. NATO AND EU COMMITMENTS .......................................................26 D. ORIENTATION TO EU OR TO NATO? .............................................28 E. GOVERNANCE AND DECISION-MAKING......................................31 F. CHAPTER SUMMARY ..........................................................................35 III. POLISH SECURITY POLICY ORIENTATION AND DETERMINANTS UNTIL 2015 ........................................................................39 A. GEOGRAPHY AND “STRATEGIC CULTURE”: NIC O NAS BEZ NAS ...................................................................................................41 B. THE TRANSATLANTIC LINK AS THE CENTRAL IDEA .............44 C. POLAND AS A “CONSTRUCTIVE EUROPEAN” ............................47 D. CHAPTER SUMMARY ..........................................................................53 IV. A NEW POLISH GOVERNMENT SPARKS UPHEAVAL ...........................55 A. A THEORETICAL SKETCH ................................................................56 B. THE OCTOBER 2015 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN POLAND, THE PIS, AND INDIVIDUALS ..........................................58 C. “EUROPEANIZATION,” REEVALUATION, AND DE- EUROPEANIZATION ............................................................................61 D. FORT TRUMP OR EUROPEAN MILITARY INTEGRATION? .....................................................................................71 E. CHAPTER SUMMARY ..........................................................................75 vii V. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................77 APPENDIX. EXTRACT FROM TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EUROCORPS STEERING BODIES .................................................................81 LIST