Why doesn't the EU create an alternative to NATO?

BrusselsDonald Trump's threats to invade Greenland and, therefore, to attack another NATO partner As is the case with Denmark, such measures would signify the end of the very purpose of the military organization: mutual protection and deterrence, both internally and against third countries. In this context, increasing the European Union's military autonomy from the United States and seeking alternatives to the security offered by the Pentagon through the Atlantic Alliance is once again one of the main debates in European institutions.

One of those exerting the most pressure in this regard is the same European Defense Commissioner, Andrius KubiliusAt a conference in Sweden this week, the former Lithuanian prime minister proposed creating joint armed forces at the European Union level and, for example, replacing the 100,000 US troops stationed at bases across the European continent. Kubilius has repeatedly pointed out that the EU must increase coordination and unite its member states' militaries to achieve a truly strong military force, and stop depending on the Pentagon and NATO. Large-scale rearmament and increased military spending are not enough. As former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell had previously indicated, the defense commissioner advocated for moving away from having "27 bonsai armies" and achieving a large European military force.

"Would the United States be militarily stronger if it had 50 state armies instead of a single federal one? The answer is no. So, I don't know what we're waiting for," said the European Commissioner for Defense. He also proposes the creation of an EU Security Council that includes close allies, such as the United Kingdom—the second largest military power in Europe—Norway—key to Arctic security—and the European Commission and the Council of the EU, the EU body that represents the member states.

Despite the forcefulness of Kubilius's words and the importance of the proposal, no leader of a member state government has taken up the challenge, at least not publicly. Defense is an extremely sensitive issue, and member states are very reluctant to cede powers in security matters.

In fact, the European Commissioner himself recalls that this is an idea that was already launched about ten years ago by the then German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, and the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. Although NATO was already in crisis and talk of European military sovereignty was beginning, the proposal came to nothing. Nor have the European Commission's more recent attempts to take initial steps toward creating common military forces been successful.

However, in the midst of the crisis in transatlantic relations, it seems that the EU wants to try again. Shortly after Kubilius's remarks, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced this Thursday that she will present a new EU security strategy in the coming days in a context of Russian expansionism and Trump's threats against Greenland.

Industrial and technological dependence

Von der Leyen has not given details of the new defense strategy she wants to promote. Brussels has only wanted to make it clear that its objective is not to compete with or encroach upon NATO's role. However, why, even in a time of crisis for the Atlantic Alliance like the present, is the EU not considering an alternative?

Beyond the lack of military unity among member states, which ultimately weakens the EU's capabilities, the defense expert from think tank European EPC Paul Taylor points out that, since World War II, US and European defense have been highly interconnected, and European allies "still depend" on the Pentagon's "key capabilities," such as satellites, intelligence, air defense, reconnaissance and control systems, and nuclear weapons. "These are the main capabilities that European allies, on their own, cannot afford and that take longer to develop," Taylor states in the ARA. For this reason, and this is the majority view of experts and leaders in Brussels, the EPC researcher believes it will be difficult for the EU to create an alternative to NATO in the short or medium term, and without the Atlantic Alliance, its defense and deterrence capabilities would be reduced. "NATO's defense strategies and command structures, as well as joint operations, cannot be replicated within a decade in the EU," the expert notes.

Beyond military capabilities, European allies also have a heavy reliance on the US arms industry and technologies. This was made clear once again in Von der Leyen's proposal this week. on the €60 billion loan that the EU will deliver to Ukraine in the spring to purchase weapons. Although some member states, such as France, wanted to completely veto the acquisition of US weaponry, Brussels has opened the door to allowing Kyiv to resort "occasionally" to the US market because there are military resources, such as the Patriot missile systems, that European industry cannot manufacture, at least at the moment.

It is because of this context of dependencies that Brussels seeks to gradually gain autonomy, but without leaving NATO or calling into question the purpose of the organization, at least for now. Taylor also argues that the best thing for Europe is to gain military autonomy while remaining within the Atlantic Alliance, and sees it as a priority that European allies increase their power and influence in the transatlantic military entity, both with military resources and by holding increasingly higher command positions.