What is the future of European defense? The case of a European Army.
- Nick Hermes
- Jun 3
- 6 min read
Updated: Jun 5
by Nick Hermes
US Vice President J.D. Vance shocked his audience at the Munich Security Conference, identifying not Russia or China, but the lack of democracy and free speech, as the largest threats to Europe, and questioning the value-based cooperation between Europe and the US. President Donald Trump estranged Europe’s leaders by pursuing peace talks with Putin over the heads of Ukraine and Europe, even calling Ukrainian President Zelensky a dictator and blaming Ukraine for the war. Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that a ceasefire in Ukraine should be guaranteed by European troops alone, independent of NATO and without US involvement or security guarantees. A fundamental disagreement on the nature of Western values is emerging. The liberal, multilateral world order is being threatened by its once biggest proponent.
European and NATO leaders knew that a second term of US President Donald Trump would not be without difficulties regarding transatlantic relations. The US has also signaled repeatedly in the past that it wants to focus its resources more on the Asia-Pacific region, as it sees China as its main geostrategic adversary. In his first presidency, Trump already questioned the presence of US troops in Europe, stating that Europe should be responsible and – most importantly – pay for its security. They were expecting fierce debates about military spending, perhaps paying more for the presence of US troops. Today, most European countries already meet NATO’s 2% goal and pay about 34% of the operating costs of US bases in Europe. That the US wants Europe to step up and take more care of its security is not a new development. What is unexpected is that the very foundation of the alliance and the transatlantic cooperation is being put into question. As the commitment of the USA to NATO and its willingness to defend Europe is becoming more and more unreliable, Europe must answer some important questions. How should European defense be organized? Can Europe guarantee its security independent of the US? A European army could be the solution.
The history of it all
This discussion about a European army is not new. French President Charles de Gaulle, very famously, in the 1960s advocated for a European defense policy independent from the US, entertaining the idea of a European army. A proposal which has been repeated by Emmanuel Macron in 2018, both falling on deaf ears. France has uniquely kept operational independence from the US, as opposed to Germany, which has historically always relied heavily on its transatlantic partner. NATO has arguably been the biggest hindrance to a European defense union. The primacy of NATO meant that historically, there was little room for European foreign and security politics vis-à-vis the Soviets, independent of the US. The presence of US troops in Europe guaranteed stability, protection, and, crucially, ensured that Western Europe would remain safely in the American bloc, benefiting the US politically and economically. European leaders were afraid to estrange the US and saw no use in creating double structures. These reservations are becoming less relevant as NATO is now unilaterally being challenged by the US.
Because of the US’s solo effort, Europe finds itself confronted with the reality that it may have to guarantee and protect a peace in Ukraine on its own. As it stands, Europe does not have the military capabilities to guarantee this protection. Most countries have neither the available manpower and resources nor the political will to offer this protection without American guarantees. This assessment is disastrous, but it also provides the opportunity for greater European defense integration. European defense without US security guarantees has two main problems: it is ridiculously expensive[1], and coordination requires constant effort, mediating the different interests of 28+ states. A strong European Army at the core of a European Defense Union could solve these problems.
The facts of it all
In 2024, the military spending of EU countries combined totaled 326 billion euros. According to a recent study by the IISS[2], Russia’s defense spending overtook Europe’s in 2024 for the first time, reaching 456 billion dollars adjusted for purchasing power. Truthfully, Russia is getting a much more effective conventional military for its money, for a variety of reasons. Currently, Europe’s defense spending is much less effective and suffers from fragmentation. Europe has six times as many weapon systems as the US, including 16 different main battle tanks.[3] A lot of costs could be cut by making increased use of economies of scale, pooling of resources, and standardization. A European Army would significantly alter the demand side, forcing the military industry to adapt. Better cooperation within the military industry, void of national particular interest, would be beneficial for all. A European Army would result in more effective and efficient military spending, making sure that Europe gets the best defense for its money. Decision-making processes could be streamlined, enabling proper strategic planning and the formulation of a European grand strategy. A European army would mean common funding, a common chain of command, as well as common headquarters and operations. It would enable the EU to position itself clearly on international issues and have the power to back up these positions. A divided Europe is not taken seriously internationally. Trump and Putin, wanting to decide the fate of Ukraine on their own, are demonstrating this very clearly.
The reality of it all
How would a European army look in reality? It would most likely have tiers of involvement. At its core should be a strong, fully integrated force, consisting of the most willing and able military powers. When a European Army was first discussed in the 1950s, the French-led proposal called for a common army of the “Charlemagne Six”: France, Germany, the Benelux, and Italy.[4] Today, this would at least have to include France and Germany to function, but could include others like the Benelux, the Baltics and Poland. At the next tier, countries would integrate parts of their militaries into a European army but retain some independence. At the lowest tier would be countries that retain full operational control over their militaries, closely allying themselves with the other partners. In accordance with defense integration, there must follow political integration - out of necessity, to ensure central funding of the army as well as operational independence, but also to maintain democratic control.
States will be reluctant to give control of their militaries to Brussels, as it is a matter close to the heart of national sovereignty. Currently, the European Union is far from being united on the issue of defense and relations with Russia. Most notably, it will be difficult to get the Russia-friendly anti-European governments of Slovakia under Robert Fico and Hungary under Viktor Orbán to agree to such measures. However, there is potential for a “coalition of the willing” to form, consisting of the Paris-Berlin-Warsaw axis, the Nordics, Baltics, and Benelux, as well as Italy. The European treaties could allow for a Defense Union inside the framework of the European Union without everyone involved, similar to the monetary union. As military and defense are exclusive powers of the member states, decisions would have to be made unanimously in the Council. I believe a European Army should be an EU initiative at heart. However, if a broad consensus within the Union cannot be reached straight away, bilateral action between France and Germany and like-minded countries may be necessary as a first step. The door to join this defense Union should be left open, however. First steps towards a European army could be increased standardization of equipment and further cooperation in arms production and development. A possible next step could be the expansion of common military brigades such as the Eurocorps.
A question that remains is how to incorporate European non-EU states into this architecture. The UK has signaled its willingness to be part of a European partnership protecting a ceasefire in Ukraine. Perhaps there is an entryway for the UK to come back to the “European family”. The overall dissatisfaction of the British public with Brexit and the gravity of the current situation may just be what the UK government needs to reconsider its relationship with the EU.
As the times are becoming more and more turbulent Europe is well advised to come closer together. If the EU does not want to be swept to the sidelines, doomed to have its fate decided by other great powers, it must back up its claims to a liberal, multilateral world order with a strong military. The current situation provides a unique opportunity for Europe to unite on the matter of defense - it should take it.
[1] Estimated 150$ billion more and 300.000 troops to protect peace in Ukraine https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/europe-would-have-to-mobilize-300000-soldiers-to-defend-itself-against-russia-without-the-usa/
Nick Hermes is a master’s student in political science at Stockholm University, taking part in the double-degree program with LMU Munich. He specialises in International Relations and his academic interests lie in European defense policy and integration.
Comments