By Simone Galimberti*
KATHMANDU, Nepal | 10 March 2025 (IDN) — Was the emergency meeting of the European Council, held on the 6 March in Brussels, a real “watershed” moment for Europe? The President of European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen defined it as a day in which “history has been written”.
Considering the chaos and unpredictability of the United States now that Donald Trump is back at the White House, the EU missed a real opportunity to assert itself and raise to the occasion.
Especially, because the leaders in Brussels did not focus on speeding up the reinforcement of their already existing military structure that, though feeble comparatively to other super powers, already enable multiplemilitary and civilian missions around the world.
At least, the gathering managed, despite Hungary’s formal dissent, to re-emphasize the EU’s common stance towards Ukraine. A united approach based on solidarity with Ukraine’s pursuit of a just peace with its aggressor, Russia, was successfully reaffirmed.
It is a formula centered on the fact that no agreement can happen without the full involvement and consent of Kiev. On the other hand, the summit tried to show member states’ readiness in their ambitions to increase their military spending.
Here, the final agreement is centered on the ReArm Europe plan that was presented just few days earlier by Ms. von der Leyen.
What about a European army
Yet this package potentially worth EUR 800 billion, is actually based on a new instrument that would allow the member states to borrow EU 150 billion for defense investment. At best, a generous interpretation of the summit would make the “glass” half full only.
A more objective reading would offer a different and sober assessment of what was decided and of the many options instead left out. A truly “watershed” summit would have decided on a much more ambition set of actions.
To start with, the European Council did not even refer to the recent call of Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine of creating a European army. Nor it decided to appoint a Special Envoy for what appears to be the upcoming peace negotiations.
Even if such negotiations might not occur as early as Mr. Trump would wish, the EU should have played, embracing a terminology dear to American President, a strong “card” in nominating a well-recognized and undisputable leader that would have represent the Union.
For example, Mario Draghi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, could have been an excellent choice. He is vehemently pro Ukraine and pro a stronger and more integrated EU.
Draghi would also be very well versed, considering his background, in dealing effectively with the Americans.
In short it would be hard for the Trump Administration to bully him because Mr. Draghi is no pushover. Then the financial package presented by Ms. von der Leyen is far from what the EU really needs.
A transformative summit would have called for truly powerful financing tools. It did not happen and this is perhaps the biggest disappointment, the fact that no decision was taken in supporting a true common debt instrument, the so called “Defense Bonds”.
Reference to Macron’s proposal missing
Another transformative feature missing is any reference to the proposal made by President Emanuel Macron of France to broaden Paris’s nuclear deterrence to whole EU. While no one would have expected a full and unconditional endorsement, the leaders should have at least acknowledge this new proposition.
A bolder summit would also at least have mentioned the so called Niinistö Report, a groundbreaking study named after the former Finnish President, proposing practical ways to turbo charging the EU common defense.
Let’s remember that the EU’s military dimension is not starting from scratch. It has already several institutions and mechanisms but they must be exponentially strengthened and streamlined.
The Niinistö report is vast and ambitious and it is centered on the idea that the EU must become much more assertive in order to be respected. Among many of its recommendations, several are truly ambitious and indispensable.
There is the call for at least 20% of the overall EU budget to contribute to the EU’s security and crisis preparedness and the proposal to truly build a common intelligence framework.
It is important to note there is already a so called “Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity” under the authority of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The summit should have explicitly called for speedy strengthening of the SIAC which includes a civilian and one military dimension.
Lastly the leaders in Brussels should have remembered to mention the Rapid Deployment Capacity that by the end of 2025 will be composed by 5000 troops from the member states.
This is not an EU army but rather an evolution and upgrade of the never utilized EU Battlegroups with very limited operational scope, like humanitarian crises, evacuation situations or stabilization force before the deployment of better forces.
Even if it will operate in hostile enviroments, it is not a defense force. And we should not forget that the concept of the RDC was established in a European Council meeting held Helsinki in 1999.
At the time, it was decided that the force would have been between 50,000-60,000 persons capable of the full range of tasks.
These figures, now well forgotten, are closer to the concept of military ambition. At the minimum the emergency summit in Brussels should have called for a review and strengthening of the EU military “governance” now in place, creating more effective defense mechanisms and institutions.
For example, Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) of the EU, the brain and engine of any effective common defense established in 2017, should be a top priority.
Europe needs someone missionary like Mr Macron
There have been also criticisms towards President Macron who has been taking the lead not only in dealing with Mr. Trump but also in setting the tone for the emergency summit.
As I am writing, France is scheduled to hold in the coming days a meeting with the chief of defenses of the most important EU members and one with the minister of defenses of the same.
Ideally the EU institutions in Brussels should host such meetings but it is safe to say that whole Europe needs someone visionary like Mr. Macron.
For the sake of Europe’s future security, Ms. von der Leyen and Antonio Costa, the recently appointed president of the European Council, should raise their ambition. They must push for a truly common European defense that, without doubt, one day, should also include a real European army.
*Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations. [IDN-InDepthNews]
Image: Special European Council meeting in Brussels on 6 March 2025.
