What's the best course for European defence?
Trump is negotiating with Putin on the war in Ukraine and Nato is in an existential crisis as a result of current US policy. Against this backdrop, EU leaders are meeting today in Brussels to discuss European rearmament plans, joint defence and continued support for Kyiv. Europe's media examine the fundamental requirements for a new security model and the problems it poses.
Keep up cooperation with the US
Europe is still too weak to get by without the United States, writes Kristeligt Dagblad:
“Europe is simply not yet in a position where we can afford to reject the US. For some time to come we will have to rely on a two-pronged security policy. On the one hand we must rearm ourselves as much as possible to enable Europe to defend itself, and thus reduce our dependence on the Americans. On the other hand we must maintain US involvement in Europe for as long as possible, because despite Trump's obvious weakening of Nato cooperation that organisation still offers elements of deterrence.”
Involve the Ukrainian armed forces
Political scientist Alvydas Medalinskas offers the following advice in LRT:
“Because the UK is no longer a member of the EU and Turkey is bogged down on the way there, a new option is within reach. Ukraine is also striving to join the EU – and like Turkey, it has a large and powerful army. It is also the only army in Europe with real combat experience against Putin's Russia – and is highly motivated. Against this backdrop, Europe could begin to build a new common defence system. One that works in partnership with Washington but increasingly assumes independent responsibility for Europe's security – irrespective of EU membership. This is a new opportunity for Europe. ... And it's also a new opportunity for Ukraine.”
National defence industries must make concessions
The French industry must go European, Libération urges:
“It's all well and good to develop an aeroplane or a tank together with several players, but for some manufacturers it means giving up hard-won expertise in favour of a European partner. ... It's exactly that problem that led in the 80s and 90s to the demise of the European fighter jet project, which was to replace the French Rafale and the Italian-Spanish-British-German Eurofighter – two jets that have been competing with each other ever since. In France, the radar, missile, aircraft and engine manufacturers would have had to take a back seat, which is complicated when you're the market leader. Nevertheless, it's vital when it comes to getting stronger as a community.”
Clear conflict of interest
Business paper Handelsblatt criticises the reluctance of southern and western EU member states:
“The further away the Russian border is, the smaller the perceived threat. ... The second factor is the level of debt: the Mediterranean countries already have heavy debt loads and don't want to add to their mountains of debt by buying expensive weapons. Instead, they prefer to continue pocketing peace dividends. They seem to think that the EU partners in the north and east can take care of Europe's security. It's understandable that such an attitude is viewed critically among the Lithuanians and Poles, Danes and Dutch. ... The issue of defence will trigger the next major conflict of interests in Europe.”
Abrupt militarisation will lead to war
More than 2,500 scientists have signed an appeal against the EU plans for rearmament, republished by Corriere della Sera:
“As scientists - many of us involved in fields on which military technology is developed - as intellectuals, as citizens aware of the current global risks, we believe that today it is the moral and civic obligation of any person of good will to raise their voice against the call for a European militarisation, and urge dialogue, tolerance, and diplomacy. Abrupt militarisation does not preserve peace; it leads to war. .... The last thing we need today is the Old Continent to move from a beacon of stability and peace to becoming a new warlord.”
Joint European army unlikely
For Newsweek Polska, the creation of a joint European defence force is an unattainable dream:
“There are good reasons why the idea of a joint army seems attractive at first glance. Europe's defence is inadequate. With joint procurement we'd get much more bang for our buck. The creation of a European army would also send a strong political signal and be a major step towards unity. However, it's highly unlikely that such a project will ever see the light of day. The list of 'buts' is much longer. National interests and a deep commitment to sovereignty will probably always prevail.”
Well connected and resilient
Europe is finally discovering its own power, writes the Frankfurter Rundschau:
“The new closing of ranks between London, Paris and Berlin is a hopeful sign for the whole world. This is also the view of Japan, South Korea and Australia, who joined the rounds of talks to which the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had once again invited them over the weekend. ... Starmer is planning security guarantees in the event that a ceasefire signed by Ukraine is broken again by Russia. ... France flew an Awacs reconnaissance aircraft accompanied by two fighter jets over the Black Sea at the weekend. ... Astonishingly bad news is coming from Europe - for Putin and for Trump.”
Coalitions of the willing needed
The path taken by London and Paris is the right one, writes historian and writer Timothy Garton Ash in La Repubblica:
“Faced with the radical unreliability of Trump, we do need to think afresh about extending the reach of French and British nuclear deterrence. The EU is now becoming a significant player in the field of defence, especially in supporting Ukraine and for defence procurement. And because the EU and Nato both contain Putin-friendly blockers such as Hungary's Viktor Orbán, some of the cutting-edge defence commitments will require 'coalitions of the willing' like that for Ukraine on which the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, has been working closely with the French president.”
Spend more on defence but exit Nato
Eldiario.es calls for complete separation from the US in security matters:
“Europe needs comprehensive strategic sovereignty, including over defence. ... Simply increasing the defence budget without making any kind of decision about our relationship with the US won't change the problem because it won't make us militarily independent of the American empire. If anyone believes that spending two or three percent of GDP on defence will change anything in Spain, then their will is clouding their analytical abilities. ... Yes to more defence to secure strategic sovereignty and independence from the US, but in exchange for an exit plan from Nato.”