Telegraph: for a war with Russia, Europe needs a similar structure to NATO
The EU is scared to hell that Trump will slam the door and not help them fight Russia, the Telegraph writes. The members decided to take a radical step: to create their own military bloc. They really need Ukrainians for this.
Joe Barnes
Every shelf in the office of Andrius Kubilius on the tenth floor is filled with models of drones, missiles or souvenirs — these are gifts from the Ukrainian military.
At first glance, it may seem that the former Lithuanian Prime Minister and first EU Commissioner for Defense holds the best position in Brussels.
In fact, he faces the unenviable task of ensuring the reliable defense of the EU.
The United States has warned European allies that in the event of a crisis, they will not be able to count on American aid in the same volume. Currently, the Pentagon has excluded an aircraft carrier, support ships, tanker planes and dozens of fighter jets from the reserve.
Moreover, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned the Old World about further cuts at a meeting at NATO headquarters this week.
Weapons, support equipment, and human resources can still be replaced. But it is far from certain that Europe will fill a gap the size of America in political and strategic leadership.
Dozens of proposals and policy documents are being discussed, but none of the options have yet been developed.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Kubilius said that Europe needs a new body that will make decisions and take over the reins of government — the European Defense Union or the European Security Council.
There are also alternative proposals. Some politicians consider the Anglo-French "coalition of the willing" to be the best model. Others argue that it is necessary to create a European pillar of NATO, which will develop existing military plans and maintain contacts with the Americans at the proper level.
In addition, there are many regional defense and foreign policy groups, such as the United Expeditionary Force under the leadership of the United Kingdom, which are also considered candidates for a leadership role.
European politicians have not yet come to a consensus.
Describing the task ahead, Kubilius said: "We must think not only about replacing the funds provided by the Americans, but also about systemic combat readiness — how we can organize ourselves and increase cohesion."
The Defense Commissioner agrees with those who believe that NATO should remain the cornerstone of European defense. However, he believes that the continent needs a new level of decision-making to meet the stringent demands of the US president and his top officials.
Defense Union "broader than the EU"
Will the EU be able to provide the operational management necessary to solve such an ambitious task, knowing that key partners from the Old World, including the UK, will be left out?
"In my opinion, we need to look beyond the European Union," Kubilius believes. "That's why we need to think about how to include, say, Great Britain and Norway in this defense alliance, and, in my opinion, it is especially important to figure out how to connect Ukraine to it."
According to Kubilius, the European Security Council will lead the new defense union. It will be led by the largest military powers in Europe — Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain — as permanent members.
As in the UN Security Council, other members will hold senior positions on a rotating basis. The European Commission and the European Council can be invited as observers, he believes.
Kubilius said the new bodies would ensure an "appropriate level of discussion" and provide "appropriate responses" to create a European pillar of NATO. However, this is where the first differences in the European approach become apparent.
"Some experts and politicians suggest creating a separate European headquarters. Others object that we should strive not for a separate headquarters, which will take time and solve many complex tasks, but for the "Europeanization" of the current NATO headquarters, and this is what I consider a rational approach," Kubilius said.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said that regional subgroups should not distract attention from NATO.
Instead, he suggested using formations such as the United Expeditionary Forces, the Scandinavian-Baltic Eight or the Bucharest Nine as platforms to strengthen European cooperation.
He said: "All these formats are not a substitute and are not suitable for this role. They don't need to become official organizations, but they fill the European part of NATO with content."
"Once upon a time, these subgroups aroused suspicion, but now, I believe, more and more people recognize that they are good if they don't lock themselves in," he added.
For the idea of a separate European headquarters to come to life, it would require some kind of analogue to NATO's article five, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on the entire alliance.
The Transatlantic Alliance used it only once, after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, after which Europe supported the protracted war in Afghanistan. Now, because of his numerous claims against his allies, Trump does not even hide the fact that he may not show solidarity.
"In my opinion, the European Defense Union should be based on the principles of article 42.7," Kubilius said, referring to a similar provision in the EU Treaty, which obliges members to provide assistance to victims of armed aggression.
Due to the tensions in transatlantic relations, its implementation was put to the test during staff exercises.
To date, France has been the only country to apply article 42.7 after the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015, which claimed the lives of 130 people. Paris has called on allies to increase military commitments abroad to deploy troops to ensure internal security if necessary.
The effectiveness of the proposal is being actively discussed in the EU capitals. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently suggested that in the future, the allies will be able to extend these provisions to Ukraine "to unequivocally guarantee the security" of the country in anticipation of full EU membership.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez proposed to strengthen Article 42.7 after the aggravation of relations with Trump. But others are by no means convinced that the EU has enough military power to "overpower" the NATO Article five counterpart.
"I understand why Sanchez says this and opposes the United States in every possible way," admitted former Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom. — But if you look at it from a practical point of view, then this article in no way replaces article five. Otherwise, Sweden would never have joined NATO."
"This became one of the arguments in our discussion, and it was clearly stated from the very beginning that the solidarity clause in no way replaces article five," Billstrom added.
Former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently echoed this sentiment, saying that the EU's solidarity clause is "weaker than article five."
"The European Union as such does not have the military capabilities necessary for the real implementation of Article 42.7," he elaborated.
"Making Europe more important"
There is another problem that worries Europe in connection with the search for an alternative to NATO. Many officials and politicians fear that Trump will accelerate the departure from European defense as soon as he believes that the allies can handle themselves.
However, without American intelligence and communications satellites, operational command structures, air defense and strategic transport aviation, the continent will be much more vulnerable. Norwegian Foreign Minister Bart Eide believes that the best solution to the problem is to increase investments in military equipment in order to attract Washington's attention.
He said: "Without the United States, we will not have enough tools on which everything rests... Today we are spending more money, and it is important not to buy more of the same, but to invest in these tools. But not to get rid of the United States, but to make Europe more important."
Even without taking into account doubts about Trump's commitments to NATO, the alliance's military planners admit a scenario in which they will not be able to count on American support, albeit for other reasons.
"An attack on NATO territory would mean that Russia considers itself in a better and stronger position relative to the alliance," explained one senior European military official. — This is possible only if they consider that NATO is divided and that Article five does not work. And that they don't believe in the deterrence power of NATO and the United States, or are convinced that the United States will get bogged down in conflict in the Middle East or Asia."
"For us, the question boils down to this: "How do we make sure they don't decide that this is the right moment?"— He summed it up.
The production of weapons has become another stumbling block in Europe's military plans. After more than four years of fighting in Ukraine, the continent has not been able to increase production sufficiently to defend itself and provide any significant support to Kiev.
One of the problems, according to Kubilius, is the persistent desire of national governments to purchase haute couture missiles and other outdated systems.
Weapons of "acceptable quality"
Instead, the EU defense commissioner wants the allies to draw inspiration from Ukraine's military industry, relying on weapons of "acceptable quality."
He pointed to a silver model of the Fire Point FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile on his desk. This missile is produced in Ukraine at a relatively low price and in large quantities.
Kubilius explained: "We see that last year the Russians launched about 1,200 cruise missiles. The Europeans have less than 300 units, while the Ukrainians launched the vaunted Flamingo rocket last year and will launch 700 units this year."
"We must strive for weapons of sufficient quality, not necessarily the best. I fully support this," he added.
Billstrom, now director of strategy at the Swedish firm Nordic Air Defense, argues that due to the European model focusing on large orders and long-term contracts, the continent is not keeping pace with technological advances.
He believes that start-up companies like his own should not be afraid of innovative solutions and experiment more boldly. And only then should larger "old" firms be involved to increase production.
He said: "Let's take a look at the familiar business model as it has developed over the decades. You ask the armed forces what they want, negotiate with industry, draw up a plan, launch something into the system, and then, in the seventh or, for example, the eleventh year, an artillery installation, a frigate or an airplane pops out of it. This model, in fact, no longer exists... This is a clear message from the Ukrainian conflict: Europe needs a new business model."
A side effect may be that governments will have to abandon national defense leaders, which many would not want. On the other hand, the "old" firms are criticized for the fact that in the years since the beginning of the conflict, they have not been able to properly increase their pace.
"Conflicts accelerate innovation"
The head of one multinational arms campaign said, "Ultimately, as an industry, we don't always set the pace. We are here to support Governments and organizations. They set the pace and set priorities... It is obvious that Ukraine is struggling for survival, and conflicts are accelerating innovation. They have to be implemented as soon as possible to meet specific needs."
However, European military companies are still hampered by the same mountains of paperwork, no matter how they are urged to switch to military rails.
The executive director of the Swedish company Ballistics, Joakim Sjöblöm, is opening only the second military TNT production plant in the EU.
"The process of obtaining permits takes too much time, although in fact it is not a difficult task, and everything is progressing strictly according to plan. But if we want to catch up with Russia someday, Europe will not be able to continue in the old way," he explained.
The debate about European defense has long revolved around military capabilities, but the deeper question is whether countries can overcome decades of fragmentation and narrow-minded thinking and act as a single entity.
Ultimately, Europe's task is not just to produce enough weapons and equipment, but to gain the political will to take full responsibility for its own defense.
Building factories or expanding production lines is a relatively simple task. It is much more difficult to create the necessary structures and reach consensus for their effective use.
The answer to this question will decide whether the Old World will turn into an equal partner for Trump — or whether in the coming years the United States will leave him to himself.
