The dynamic restructuring of global politics – from the tactical agreements of the US administration in the Persian Gulf to the irreversible shift of Washington’s focus to the Indo-Pacific region – requires Europe to finally abandon the status of a security ward (and thus dependency).
Read more The alarm bells are ringing: 150 million euros – straight into the trash can
As the conventional pillar of the Alliance today, consolidating industrial and financial resources, this union is necessary. However, its prospects and real weight depend on one fundamental factor – the ability to separate strategic pragmatism from emotional messianism.
The main architectural mistake of the current project and the greatest legal deadlock, in my opinion, is the straightforward pushing of Ukraine’s membership, especially at the initial stage. The tragedy of Ukraine cannot annul cold state logic. It is precisely the desire to include a warring or frozen territorial conflict state into the new defense structure that makes this idea politically toxic for the major European Union capitals.
From the perspective of Berlin, Paris, and The Hague, straightforward integration of Ukraine into the defense union means nothing else but the automatic activation of Article 42.7 of the EU Treaty (mutual assistance clause). This clause is legally even stricter than NATO’s Article 5. The major players fear a legal obligation that would unilaterally involve them in a direct conventional war with a nuclear state. The result is obvious – by pushing the maximalist option, the project will simply be blocked behind the scenes, and Europe will be left without any real defense instrument.
Moreover, it is necessary to openly assess industrial-economic egoism. The major donor countries want hundreds of billions of euros of joint borrowing to remain within the EU and strengthen their own industrial giants, rather than be directed towards the integration of sectors beyond current borders. Excluding straightforward Ukrainian participation, the major capitals would endorse this project within a few months, as it would serve their own economic security and allow maintaining flexibility in future global negotiations.
The Ukraine problem in foreign policy once again becomes a litmus test separating slogans from reality. The correct and effective path is to create a strong, functioning European Defense Union based on existing EU members and closest partners (UK, Norway).
Only by becoming a real, financially stable, and predictable military entity can Europe, if it deems necessary, provide support to warring Ukraine. Attempting to build a common security roof on burning foundations is nothing but creating another institutional illusion, locking Europe’s maneuvering freedom in a cage from which the authorities themselves will later not know how to exit.
I understand the moral, and perhaps other, commitments of the idea’s driver, Euro-commissioner A. Kubilius, to Ukraine since the Maidan times, but it would be desirable for rational intentions to be realized rather than remain at the level of ideas. Europe needs security, not another confrontation entity.
