Is a European Army Necessary for the Future of EU Security?

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

When I first thought about the idea of a European army, the phrase sounded a little bit like a political catchphrase, something that politicians use without actually having a plan in the background.

Nevertheless, I began to view the issue differently in the last few years, particularly while I was working on the Global Bridges podcast at the Social Research Center. I started to realize how urgent the issue of European defense is after speaking with political scientists, analysts, and diplomats like former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, Sebastian Schaffer of IDM and John Lough.

I don't want to come across as though these individuals gave me predetermined opinions—they didn't—but the conversations did influence my thoughts and caused me to consider Europe's security from a far more sobering perspective.

In the past, the United States and NATO have been crucial to Europe's defense. This made sense after World War II since Europe needed both a security umbrella and economic integration to rebuild. For several decades, it seemed almost unnecessary to have a European army.

There was NATO, and the American assurance seemed solid. However, crises like Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and its annexation of Crimea in 2014, along with political shifts in the United States, began to cast doubt on this assumption. Europe was suddenly forced to consider the possibility that we might not always be able to rely on others.

According to some experts I spoke with, this is more about making sure Europe can take action in the event that NATO is momentarily unavailable or if American priorities change than it is about seceding from NATO. Steven Pifer frequently emphasized that Europe would require a credible means of defense in the event that American focus shifted to other regions, such as Asia or the Middle East. That stayed with me. When you stated it aloud, it seemed apparent, but I hadn't given it much consideration beforehand.

The Numbers Tell a Story

I looked at EU defense spending because I'm a data-driven kind of person. The total amount spent by EU nations in 2023 was approximately €227 billion, which is more than the majority realize. It is roughly 1.3% of GDP, and it has gone up in the past ten years.

Yet, it is visible the difference when you contrast that with the US, which spends about 3.5% of GDP. Europe has the funds, but they are dispersed among 27 different armies, all of them with its own priorities, logistics, and equipment. Coordinated action is challenging because of this. In an army building procedures coordination is the most valuable key to make the idea work.

The inefficiency of disjointed defense systems—basically, having too many cooks in the kitchen. Europe spends a lot of money on defense, but a lot of that money doesn't result in wider capability because so much of it is duplicated across nations. In their own words, a number of experts echoed this sentiment, pointing out that Europe could become much stronger through shared equipment and training without necessarily increasing its financial expenditures.

Europe's political divisions make a single army complicated, but not impossible. While southern states may be more worried about instability in North Africa, nations like Poland or the Baltic states view Russia as the primary threat. Although balancing these priorities is difficult, small steps like shared logistics or multinational brigades may help.

During my interviews and a brief career as a journalist I always thought it was interesting—and perhaps a little refreshing— to realize how intimate these discussions felt. The lectures weren't dull. We debated NATO's role, talked about news from Ukraine, and occasionally disagreed. It helped me realize that trust, common experience, and political will are more important to European defense than numbers or treaties.

European army is required for three main reasons: credibility, efficiency, and autonomy.

Autonomy: Europe can't always depend entirely on outside forces. The United States' priorities may change, crises may arise in other places, and Europe must be able to take decisive action within its own borders.

Efficiency: At the moment, money is wasted due to overlapping national systems. Multinational response coordination is slow, command structures vary, and equipment is incompatible. Reducing waste and increasing readiness could be achieved by a unified force, or even one that is semi-integrated.

Credibility: A European army would demonstrate to the world that Europe takes its security seriously. Ironically, it might also make NATO stronger by enabling the United States to depend more on Europe to better manage its own region.

Challenges Along the Way

The concept is not without its challenges. The most important one is national sovereignty; nations are inherently defensive of their armed forces. Politics is also a complex field. Perceptions of threats vary throughout Europe. It would cost a massive amount of money to build a shared army. In any case armies are the most expensive things in the world. Estimates indicate that tens of billions more annually would be required for integrated forces, even if the EU could put its resources all together.

In these complicated milestones public opinions are the most important things for decision-makers. According to a 2022 Eurobarometer survey, only 47% of EU citizens were in favor of a single European army, with others fearing needless militarization or a loss of national sovereignty. That served as a reminder to me that defense is about citizens and legitimacy as much as it is about experts and governments.

It is evident from Ukraine that Europe can offer assistance, but there is still a lack of rapid ground deployment. Although money, advisors, and weapons are flowing, the soldiers on the ground are not European. That reveals the limitations of the EU.

Another point is demonstrated by EU activities in Africa, such as EUFOR Chad-CAR and missions in Mali. Although these missions have proven successful in providing humanitarian aid and stabilization, they are not large enough to handle high-intensity conflicts. Europe needs a force that can take swift, decisive action if it hopes to gain credibility.

Some fear that NATO might be weakened by a European army. Now I see it differently. According to the majority of experts I spoke with, it would enhance NATO rather than rival it. A more robust European capability guarantees better support for NATO missions, lessens the strain on the United States, and allows Europe to act independently when necessary. Naturally, coordination would be necessary, but the possible rewards seem worth the work.

In a realistic scenario, Europe begins with multinational brigades, develops shared logistics, and then progressively expands interoperability. A fully operational European army could work over decades as political agreement grows and equipment standards are standardized. It would be an important process rather than an abrupt change.

These discussions seem so important to me as someone watching from outside the EU. Europe is attempting to balance politics, history, national identity, and contemporary security requirements. After hearing from experts and considering the data, I believe that the European army is evolving into a strategic necessity rather than merely a policy option. The politics are tricky, the path is complicated, and public opinion is divided. However, the consequences of doing nothing could be far more severe.

Conclusion

I think a European army is not only desirable but also required after looking at the numbers, thinking back on discussions with experts, and assessing recent conflicts. It would boost credibility, increase efficiency, and increase autonomy.

Politics, sovereignty, finance, and public support are all obstacles, of course, but small steps like multinational brigades, shared logistics could set the groundwork. These kind of steps might also turn out like a test for this project. It is quite natural to call this idea a revolutionary vision, which will require a lot of political unity among the nations.

Europe cannot continue to depend entirely on outside forces or NATO. “Entirely” is the most important point here.  A well-constructed European army over time would strengthen current partnerships while enabling Europe to take decisive action when necessary. The question is not only whether Europe can accomplish it, but also whether there is the political will to do so.
 

Copied