EU’s naivety is deepening its security crisis

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

The European Union faces a major security crisis unimaginable even a decade prior. With the war in Ukraine raging on, the risk of military spillover became almost unavoidable

Drones, allegedly belonging to Russia, have violated the airspace of Poland, Romania, and other European states numerous times.

Another concern is the gradual erosion of the U.S.-Europe military alliance. The imposition of trade tariffs and statements from American politicians underscoring the “America first” approach suggest that Europe needs to become the master of its destiny.

Despite this urgency, Europe seems to be unable to overcome its own security challenges. Multiple factors explain the inability of the EU to respond effectively to foreign security threats.

Europe’s overconfidence

Part of the reason why the EU finds itself at a historic crossroads stems from the inability to learn from history. For far too long the bloc has relied on the protection of external military power.

After the reunification of Berlin and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, European politicians became complacent. From their perspective, the biggest existential threat for the EU was eliminated. The newly formed Russia lacked the economy and military capacity to threaten the EU, especially considering a very shaky domestic situation.

Since early 2000s trade between the EU and Russia blossomed. Moscow became a supplier of much needed energy resources, gradually gaining leverage and influence over the bloc and individual member-states. The EU’s energy deals have not been diversified sufficiently, making the bloc highly dependent on a single supplier.

European leaders assumed that the high levels of trade with Russia would deter Moscow from hostile policies. The logic is simple – Russia would have lost more from such hostilities by jeopardizing relations with a stable trading partner. This line of thinking cost the EU a lot.

Flawed foreign policy philosophy

This assumption highlights a crucial issue: a flawed foreign policy approach. European leaders underestimated the strategic importance of Russian resources, critical for the functioning of European economies and armies. Consequently, Moscow had a better position compared to the EU, as the latter needed the Russian fossil fuels to ensure energy security. Simultaneously, European money enabled Moscow to invest in rebuilding its military.

Consequently, Russia consistently benefited more from this arrangement, increasing its relative power vis-à-vis the EU. Eventually, Russian foreign policy became more assertive, diminishing the bloc’s position. Yet, the European Union was slow to adapt.

The 2014 conflict in Ukraine should have become the wake-up call that forced the EU to reshape its security strategy. Instead, complacency prevailed, further endangering the bloc’s interests.

The core issue is not dealing with Russia or depending on the U.S. for security. The biggest foreign policy mistake that European politicians have made is that they forgot how to think in terms of both domestic and foreign security.

While domestic problems are a part of a different issue, more nuanced and related to mainstream political school of thought prevalent in Europe, the foreign policy challenges illustrate that European decision-making bodies suffer from the inability to adapt.

The EU misread the warnings and overestimated the pacifying effect of trade, neglecting the crucial role of military strength in guaranteeing security. The failure to adapt underscores the need to rethink the EU’s security strategy and cohesion.

What is next for the EU?

There are several issues that the bloc needs to work on to eliminate the most pressing security issues and challenges.

The first challenge is the lack of internal cohesion within the Union. This supranational organization consists of a variety of sovereign states, each with their own interests, positions and needs. The veto privilege further complicates cohesion within the EU, as member countries have a right to block decisions on foreign affairs, enlargement and budget impacting their national interests. Consequently, European bureaucracy prevents the EU from reacting promptly and with a united perspective to security challenges.

The second issue is chronic underinvestment in military and defence, particularly in times of large-scale crises in neighboring regions. In 2008, after Vladimir Putin’s Munich Security Conference speech and the Russo-Georgian war, EU member states allocated 218 billion euros. From 2008 to 2014 military expenditure steadily declined. It was not until 2019 that defence budgets barely surpassed 2008 levels, reaching 224 billion euros, underscoring Europe’s sluggish response in the face of growing threats.

Although EU member states collectively spend 343 billion euros on defence, the figure remains insufficient given the scale of the challenges. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of a unified strategy. Military configuration of EU member states varies significantly, making coordination more difficult.

With the U.S. demonstrating decreased interest in playing a key role in NATO, the EU needs to step up and take control of its security.

Is there a way out?

There is no easy way for the EU to reestablish control over its security. The bloc has limited tools to shape the outcome of the war in Ukraine. In transatlantic affairs, European influence also seems to be rather limited.

The EU needs to reassess its vision of foreign policy and transition to a security-centric perspective. Embracing the fact that the EU is facing the most serious security crisis in decades and that it cannot rely on external assistance will be the first critical step.

The EU also needs to achieve cohesiveness in political and security matters. Modifying decision-making mechanisms can alleviate the problem. However, even if the bloc can achieve this, varying visions on key policy matters will prevent the individual member states from working together as a single unit.

From a military perspective, the EU needs to carefully study the war in Ukraine, redefine its approach to developing a military that can become a capable force for modern warfare.

The European Union also needs to develop an approach to addressing asymmetric and hybrid threats. The drone incursion incidents exposed the gaps in European defence. Shooting down cheap drones with expensive missiles and military jets is impractical and will expose deeper vulnerabilities in the long run. The alternative “drone wall” initiative seems like a credible response on paper, but it is likely to take a long time to develop and implement.

Europe is no longer in a position to continue outsourcing its defence to external parties. In the face of elevated risks from asymmetric and hybrid threats, the EU has limited time to bolster its military capabilities. The belief that economic interdependence prevents conflicts must be re-evaluated. It is imperative for Europe to reinvent its defence strategy. Otherwise, the EU will be unable to protect its interests in a fast-evolving, hostile world. 

Copied