The Commission published its White Paper on European Defence. It brings together several important initiatives: clear investment priorities to address European capability gaps, concrete measures to support Ukraine, efforts to strengthen military mobility, and strong wording on the threat posed by Russia. However, it falls short when it comes to the crucial question of strategic realignment. The geopolitical reality has changed. The United States can no longer be considered a reliable partner – yet Europe remains dependent in key areas. We now need an honest reassessment of the transatlantic relationship and this dependency, rather than continued calls to deepen partnerships with like-minded countries around the world to tackle shared security threats.
Together or Each on Their Own?
Given the current geopolitical climate, a clear commitment to a common European defence would have been essential. Instead, the White Paper remains vague. While it states that Europe’s defence capabilities can only be strengthened together, it simultaneously reaffirms that responsibility continues to rest with the Member States. This contradiction runs throughout the document. An open discussion about the growing uncertainty of the U.S. security guarantee and Europe’s dependency in critical areas is long overdue. Those who are serious about building a European defence must also be serious about establishing European competences – yet the White Paper makes no proposals in this direction. Read more in articles from Frankfurter Rundschau, WELT, and Deutsche Welle.
Financing: No New Money, No Democratic Involvement
The financing approach proposed in the White Paper offers no real solution for Europe’s long-term security. It merely repeats existing ideas from the ReArm Europe initiative. There is no new funding – only new debt mechanisms, which may benefit some Member States, but bring no real change for many others.
The plan to reallocate cohesion funds for defence spending is also misguided – social cohesion and economic development must not be sacrificed for security. A sustainable, long-term financing strategy is missing. The creation of a dedicated European Defence Bank would be a meaningful step, as would a serious debate on defence Eurobonds or a genuine reform of the Stability and Growth Pact.
Union Preparedness Strategy
With the launch of its new Union Preparedness Strategy last week, the EU took another important step in defining security more broadly than just military capabilities. It aims to ensure that our societies are better prepared to respond quickly and in a coordinated manner to future crises – whether pandemics, natural disasters, or hybrid threats. The strategy contains many good points: clear investment priorities, enhanced civil-military cooperation, and a proactive rather than reactive approach. It accurately identifies challenges and action areas and sends important signals, such as the push for dual-use capacities and early warning systems. Yet, like the White Paper, the Preparedness Strategy remains vague on key issues. Its emphasis on national competences once again blocks a truly integrated European approach. This risks leading to 27 Member States developing their resilience separately, rather than building it collectively across borders. It also remains unclear how the strategy will be funded. And crucially, it lacks a clear plan for integrating new structures with existing tools to avoid duplication and increase both efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
