OPINION: Urgent: Strengthen European Defense Capabilities Now!

At this week’s informal summit, EU leaders discussed European defense and how to enhance defense capabilities. Before considering possible solutions to the present security situation, however, the EU urgently needs to agree on the scale and scope of the challenges facing Europe.

In the words of President António Costa to the members of the European Council: “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has brought high-intensity war back to our continent – violating the core principles of international law and threatening European security – coupled with growing hybrid and cyberattacks on Member States and their economies and societies. Peace in Europe depends on Ukraine winning a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. This geopolitical context, which is also marked by the situation in the Middle East, will remain challenging in the foreseeable future.”

His assessment is as correct as it is flawed. The text itself is great. Its omissions, however, are diplomatically understandable but still highly problematic.

Firstly, President Costa did not mention the orange “elephant in the room.” Since his inauguration, US President Donald Trump has asserted an extremely aggressive foreign and trade policy against the US’s closest allies.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently said that Trump does not believe in “win-win situations” in multilateral cooperation. He is convinced that there is always only a winner and a loser. He believes that allies have taken advantage of the US by under-spending on defense and “free-riding” in the shadow of its military power.

Other Topics of Interest

Belarus Moves to Limit Public Signs in English to ‘Protect Patriotism’

Belarus could restrict signs in English and other foreign languages as part of a move to protect the “national cultural space” and shape “patriotic attitudes.”

On Jan. 20, the president stated that he may impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico while promising punitive measures on other countries as part of a new US trade policy. Trump claimed an early victory for a coercive foreign policy based on tariffs and hard power after announcing Colombia had backed down in a dispute over migrant repatriation flights.

Trump has suggested that Canada should be incorporated into the US. He recently declared his intention to take the Panama Canal and Greenland by force if necessary. His statements have triggered a flurry of high-level meetings across the EU. As a result, the head of the EU’s military committee, Austrian General Robert Brieger, has aired the possibility of deploying European troops to Greenland.

Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Mexico, and Panama are some of the US’s closest allies and most important trade partners. Still, they have become the subject of its aggression. The US no longer has partners and allies, only national interests.

Europe has recently questioned the US commitment to European security according to the Washington Treaty. President Trump has deteriorated the situation by putting the US on the path to becoming a potential adversary.

President Costa’s statement that Europe needs to assume greater responsibility for its own defense must be seen in this context. It is not only an issue about collective defense and US troops in Europe but also the consequential uncertainty related to common command and control, intelligence, resilience and sustainability. Europe is no longer guaranteed to receive the military equipment it has procured to defend itself. Nor is it ensured that NATO would respond to its call for military support. Europe must consider threat scenarios that would have been completely unthinkable before Jan. 20, 2025.

European ambition must be stated without any limitations. Europe needs to assume full responsibility for its own security and defense. Period.

Secondly, the letter did not mention the “enemies within.” Both the EU and NATO’s ability to respond to a quickly changing security situation is limited by a decision-making process built on consensus. No proposals will be adopted unless all member states are in agreement.

The discord on Ukraine’s future NATO membership is one example of this. The US, Germany, Hungary and Slovakia oppose it – for now. Similar challenges have repeatedly arisen while deliberating the level of defense budget targets and strategy, and defense aid for Ukraine, or even defining the ongoing Russian hybrid war as just that: a hybrid war.

Several pro-Russian countries – Hungary, Slovakia and perhaps Turkey – are also NATO member states, effectively blocking, delaying or watering down all attempts to establish robust measures to deter and stop Russia.

The EU is facing identical problems. The pro-Putin far right is on the march. With far-right parties on the rise across Europe, the future cohesion of both NATO and the EU is at risk.

Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico’s recent visit to Moscow for talks with Putin made him the third EU head of state to meet the Russian president since the start of the full-scale war. Additionally, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer have broken ranks with their EU counterparts to travel to Moscow. Their relationship with Putin has an impact on their EU policy. Hungary and Slovakia, have weaponized their consent for political leverage.

Neither the EU nor NATO can function as intended with pro-Russian agents embedded in their decision-making process.

Thirdly, the ambitions are being restrained by existing structures. President Costa’s letter states that Europe “needs to become more resilient, more efficient, more autonomous and a more reliable security and defense actor. In so doing, it will also become a stronger transatlantic partner, including in the context of NATO...”

As I have argued, NATO faces several fundamental challenges from a defective decision-making process to “the enemies within.” I have also offered advice to remedy some of them. Ref. my articles “Will NATO survive the war?,” “Why NATO deterrence doesn’t work,” “The dark truth behind NATO’s fear of Russian escalation, ” “Nine reasons NATO cannot afford to say ‘no’ to Ukraine,” “NATO must abandon ‘Russia-Ukraine War’ delusion” and “NATO must reform or be dissolved.”

According to NATO, “We will reinforce our unity, cohesion and solidarity, building on the enduring transatlantic bond between our nations and the strength of our shared democratic values. We reiterate our steadfast commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty and to defending each other from all threats, no matter where they stem from.”

The statement is, unfortunately, no longer valid.

The 32 member states no longer share common values and are not fully committed to the Alliance. It consists of full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and pro-Russian countries. That is not a viable military alliance.

NATO has in a sense become a liability, presenting member states with an excuse to not invest in defense under the pretext that NATO will come to their rescue. The Alliance is, however, made up of 32 countries, 31 of which arguably cannot defend themselves and consequently, have limited ability to come to the support of others. The slow and incremental inflow of defense aid for Ukraine stands as a testimony to this fact.

Europe can’t establish strategic autonomy within the framework of NATO or the EU. It needs a new structure founded on common interests, shared values and a steadfast commitment to European security.

What to do?

For years the West assessed Russia based on how it wanted it to develop and not what it became. We closed our eyes to the realities for too long. European foreign and defense policy must be based on the political realities. When a country starts a global trade war and threatens its allies, we must put “hope” aside and act according to the threat implied. The same applies to countries that court autocracies.

To deter and build partnership, Europe must speak a language Russia and the US understand: that of resolve and strength.

Europe must establish a defense structure outside NATO and the EU as not all of their members are eligible for membership. To be able to fully defend itself, the countries need to dramatically increase their defense budgets. They urgently need to close military capability gaps and reestablish deterrence. It immediately needs to rebuild and strengthen its Defense Industrial Base.

Acknowledging that this process will take years, Europe needs to diversify its foreign defense procurements and seek new partners. As the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, US weapons and equipment come with huge caveats as to how, when and where they may be used. Washington will always prioritize its national interests before its “allies.” Europe must consider other markets, including Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific area. Reducing the dependency on the US must be stipulated as a strategic aim.

Europe needs to introduce a sense of urgency. The US has irrevocably changed. The Russian war of aggression on the continent has been ongoing for 11 years already. It is waging a hybrid war in Europe. UK intelligence believes the West is already in a state of undeclared political war with Russia. According to the German Foreign Intelligence Service, countries supporting Ukraine are perceived as enemies and, therefore, in direct conflict with Russia. It is no longer deterred by NATO and European officials fear a military conflict between NATO and Russia in two to five years and we can no longer trust the US to uphold its pledge to fight alongside its allies.

The US is – in the words of former President Joe Biden – sliding into an oligarchy. Worse still, it has become a kakistocracy, introducing an unprecedented level of unpredictability to international politics.

On Feb. 2, the US launched a trade war against Canada, China and Mexico, imposing grueling tariffs. Trump has sworn to launch a trade war with the EU. Worse still, he has also threatened a land grab from one of its closest allies by military force. Consequently, the US can no longer be regarded as an ally. European security and defense policy must reflect the implosion of transatlantic trust. It can no longer afford to be affiliated with a country at “war with the world,” stepping away from its international commitments and discarding international law. It needs to maintain the moral standard the Alliance was founded upon.

There is of course no imminent threat of military aggression. During the Cold War, George Kennan, best known as an advocate of a policy of containment of Soviet expansion, described the challenge the US faced and the objectives it sought as political rather than military. The Soviet Union was never expected to swiftly occupy Western Europe. He argued that the threat was political as over time, the entire continent could slowly slide into the Soviet sphere of influence. The same situation applies to the present-day Indo-Pacific areas. The danger is that China over time might achieve political domination over East Asia. Europe needs to assess the “new” US through the eyes of the US diplomat George Kennan.

Europe must be prepared to defend Ukraine because its destiny is directly linked to European security and stability. If Ukraine loses, we lose. The Prime Minister of Poland has stressed that “decisions on the war in Ukraine can neither be made over the heads of Ukrainians nor Poland.” “He stressed that no one wanted Ukraine to grow weak or surrender under any circumstances, as this would be a fundamental threat to Poland and Polish interests.” The statement applies to the rest of Europe. In the words of Finnish Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen: “There is a war going on in Ukraine for the future of the whole of Europe.”

On Nov. 9, 2024, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced plans to meet with the French president, UK prime minister, NATO secretary general and Nordic and Baltic leaders to discuss transatlantic cooperation and the war in Ukraine. This is an economically and morally robust group of countries that share a common set of values and principles. It consists of both EU and non-EU members. The group should also include Iceland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria and possibly Germany. Even more crucially, Ukraine must be immediately integrated into the European defense structure.

As highlighted in the article “Nine reasons NATO cannot afford to say ‘no’ to Ukraine,” Ukraine will help establish a European strategic autonomy. With more than one million men and women under arms, a vibrant, state-of-the-art defense industry and a population of around 32 million, Ukraine would fundamentally and immediately strengthen European security. Europe – with or without the US – would be able to deter future Russian aggression.

In essence, Europe must decide whether it will continue as a client to the US or aspire to be an equal partner with the ability to decide its own fate.

A future military alliance – within or outside NATO or the EU – must be based on commonly shared values and principles. Its member states must consist of full democracies only. Members must be vetted based on past merit (e.g., political will and courage, support for Ukraine, commitment to 2% of GDP for defense, bilateral relationship with Russia, etc.).

It must have a mechanism to kick out members if they undermine the Alliance. The “membership fee” must be absolute. Failure to meet the defined percentage values as a share of GDP must trigger an automatic expulsion. A two-thirds vote of members must be introduced to ensure the Alliance can respond resolutely to all evolving risks and threats.

“The future of European and global security depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. I am deeply concerned about the security situation in Europe. We are not at war, but we are not at peace,” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, said on Jan. 13, 2025.

The future of European and global security, therefore, depends on Europe urgently reestablishing European strategic autonomy. This is impossible unless Ukraine is seen as a part of the solution.

Europe needs the courage to acknowledge that institutions that have served it well for decades, no longer serve its interests. They might be beyond repair and reform.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.