May 22, 2026
By Yanis Varoufakis
Some claim that the threats Europe is facing, especially after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, can create the momentum toward political union that the euro crisis and then the pandemic failed to generate. Right or wrong, one thing is clear: a functional defense union requires political union, and NATO’s existence is inimical to it.
The idea of a European Defense Union is gaining ground across Europe. But so long as NATO continues to dominate Europe’s security, the prospect of building its own effective defense union will remain elusive. To become sovereign in defense matters (and more generally), Europe must terminate NATO—a prospect as unlikely as it is necessary.
The Shifting Security Landscape and the Call for European Defense
The geopolitical tremors of the 21st century, particularly Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, have reoriented strategic thinking across the European continent. This seismic event, following years of simmering tensions and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, has brought the specter of conventional warfare back to Europe’s doorstep. In response, a long-dormant discussion about a European Defense Union (EDU) has resurfaced with renewed urgency. Proponents argue that the existential threat posed by Russian aggression, coupled with the perceived unreliability of certain key NATO allies and the limitations of a fragmented European defense posture, necessitates a more unified and capable European security architecture.
The rationale behind this resurgence is multifaceted. Firstly, the war in Ukraine has exposed significant gaps in European military readiness and industrial capacity. While individual European nations have ramped up defense spending, the collective effort remains hampered by a lack of strategic coherence, duplication of capabilities, and insufficient interoperability. Secondly, the discourse surrounding the future of transatlantic security, particularly in light of potential shifts in US foreign policy, has amplified calls for greater European strategic autonomy. The prospect of a future where the United States might reduce its commitment to European security has lent considerable weight to the argument that Europe must be capable of defending itself.
However, this burgeoning interest in an EDU faces a formidable obstacle: the entrenched role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). For over seven decades, NATO has served as the primary security guarantor for much of Europe, a military alliance built on the principle of collective defense. While NATO has been instrumental in maintaining peace and stability in Europe during the Cold War and beyond, its very existence and operational primacy present a structural impediment to the development of a truly sovereign European defense capability.
NATO’s Dominance: A Historical Perspective and Contemporary Challenge
NATO was established in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism. Its core tenet, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, mandates that an attack against one member state is considered an attack against all. This commitment has fostered a high degree of military integration and interoperability among its members, largely dominated by the military might and strategic direction of the United States. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded eastward, incorporating many former Warsaw Pact nations, a move that has been a consistent point of contention with Russia.
Despite the end of the Cold War, NATO’s relevance has been periodically reaffirmed, most recently and forcefully by the conflict in Ukraine. European nations, even those advocating for an EDU, have significantly increased their contributions to NATO and participated in joint exercises and deployments under the alliance’s umbrella. This continued reliance on NATO for collective defense creates a paradox for proponents of European defense integration. How can Europe build its own robust defense union while simultaneously operating within and often deferring to an alliance whose strategic priorities and command structures are largely dictated by non-European powers?
The argument that NATO’s existence is inimical to a European Defense Union is rooted in the inherent tension between collective alliance security and independent strategic autonomy. A truly sovereign European defense capability would necessitate independent strategic decision-making, a unified European command structure, and potentially the development of independent military-industrial complexes. These elements are difficult to reconcile with NATO’s existing framework, which often prioritizes burden-sharing and interoperability within the alliance, rather than the development of distinct European strategic assets that might operate outside of NATO’s direct purview.
The Elusive Path to Political Union: Lessons from Crises
The proponents of a European Defense Union often link its realization to a broader goal of political union. The argument is that a genuine defense union, capable of responding effectively to external threats, cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a unified political will, a common foreign policy, and the ability to make difficult strategic decisions without the encumbrance of divergent national interests or the veto power of external actors.
History, however, offers a cautionary tale. The European Union, despite its deep economic integration, has consistently struggled to forge a truly common foreign and security policy. The euro crisis, which erupted in the late 2000s and threatened to unravel the single currency, exposed deep divisions among member states regarding fiscal discipline and economic governance. While the crisis ultimately led to some reforms and a greater degree of coordination, it did not precipitate a fundamental shift towards political union.
Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in early 2020, initially saw a fragmented response from EU member states, with border closures and nationalistic approaches to vaccine procurement. While the EU eventually mobilized a collective response, including joint vaccine purchasing and a recovery fund, the experience highlighted the persistent challenges in achieving genuine solidarity and unified action in the face of major crises. These events underscore the difficulty of translating shared challenges into the kind of deep political integration required for a functional defense union.
The current security crisis, catalyzed by Russia’s aggression, is seen by some as a potential catalyst for the political union that previous crises failed to deliver. The argument is that the shared threat is so profound and the need for collective action so evident that it could finally overcome national hesitations and push Europe towards greater integration in defense and, by extension, in political decision-making.
Supporting Data and Trends in European Defense
The urgency for a European Defense Union is underscored by several key data points and trends:
- Defense Spending: Following Russia’s 2022 invasion, many European nations significantly increased their defense budgets. Germany, for instance, announced a €100 billion special fund for its armed forces and committed to meeting NATO’s defense spending target of 2% of GDP. By the end of 2023, several NATO members in Europe had surpassed or were on track to surpass this target, a notable shift from previous years where only a handful consistently met the benchmark.
- Military Capabilities: Despite increased spending, a 2023 report by the European Council on Foreign Relations highlighted persistent gaps in European military capabilities, particularly in areas such as air defense, long-range strike capabilities, and strategic airlift. The reliance on US assets remains significant in these domains.
- Fragmented Market: The European defense industrial sector remains highly fragmented, with multiple national companies often producing similar systems. This leads to inefficiencies, higher costs, and a lack of economies of scale compared to consolidated industries in other major powers. The EU has been attempting to foster greater cooperation through initiatives like the European Defence Fund (EDF), but progress in consolidating the market has been slow.
- Interoperability Challenges: While NATO standards promote interoperability, differences in national equipment, doctrines, and command structures can still impede seamless joint operations. A unified European defense would require overcoming these lingering challenges.
- Public Opinion: Polls conducted across various European countries in 2023 and early 2024 indicated a growing public support for increased European defense cooperation and a stronger, more independent European security capability, particularly in countries bordering Russia. However, the depth of this support and its translation into concrete political action remain to be seen.
The Unlikely Necessity: Terminating NATO
The core argument presented is that a truly sovereign and effective European Defense Union is fundamentally incompatible with the continued primacy of NATO. This assertion stems from the inherent nature of NATO as an alliance led by a non-European power, the United States, whose strategic interests, while often aligned with Europe’s, are not identical.
To achieve genuine strategic autonomy, Europe would need to:
- Develop Independent Strategic Planning: This involves defining European security interests, threat assessments, and defense objectives without being primarily dictated by NATO’s strategic concept.
- Establish a Unified European Command Structure: A functional EDU would require a dedicated command and control apparatus capable of planning and executing European-led military operations. This would inevitably create friction with NATO’s existing command structures.
- Foster a Self-Sufficient Defense Industrial Base: Europe would need to significantly bolster its own defense industry, ensuring the capacity to develop, produce, and maintain a full spectrum of advanced military capabilities, reducing reliance on non-European suppliers.
- Forge a Common European Foreign Policy: Defense capabilities are an instrument of foreign policy. Without a unified European voice and decision-making process on foreign policy matters, a defense union would lack the political direction and coherence necessary for effective action.
The proposition of terminating NATO is, as the author acknowledges, "as unlikely as it is necessary." The alliance represents a deeply embedded security framework for its member states, providing a security umbrella and a forum for political consultation that many European nations value highly. The economic and political implications of dismantling such a powerful and established institution would be immense.
However, the argument suggests that for Europe to truly ascend to a position of strategic sovereignty, it must eventually move beyond its current security dependence. This does not necessarily imply an immediate or acrimonious dissolution of NATO, but rather a gradual evolution where European defense capabilities and political integration become so robust that the reliance on NATO diminishes, potentially leading to a redefinition or even supersession of the alliance by a stronger European security architecture.
Broader Impact and Implications
The pursuit of a European Defense Union, and the fundamental question of its relationship with NATO, carries profound implications for global security and the international order:
- Transatlantic Relations: A move towards a more independent European defense could reshape the transatlantic relationship. It might lead to a more balanced partnership, with Europe taking on greater responsibility for its own security, or it could create friction if perceived as a weakening of commitment by European allies.
- Global Power Balance: A stronger, more unified Europe capable of projecting its own security interests could alter the global balance of power, potentially creating a more multipolar world order.
- NATO’s Future: The continued existence and relevance of NATO would be directly impacted by the success or failure of European defense initiatives. A robust EDU could lead to a more specialized role for NATO, focusing on collective defense against existential threats, or it could see its influence wane.
- European Sovereignty: Ultimately, the debate over a European Defense Union is a debate about European sovereignty. It questions whether Europe can truly act as an independent global player or if it will remain reliant on external security guarantees.
The path forward is fraught with challenges. The entrenched interests within NATO, the diverse national security perspectives of European states, and the sheer complexity of achieving deep political integration are significant hurdles. Yet, the escalating geopolitical threats and the evolving nature of international security suggest that the conversation about Europe’s defense future, and its ultimate dependence on a more unified political and military front, is no longer a theoretical exercise but a pressing strategic imperative. The question remains whether Europe possesses the political will to navigate the difficult choices required to achieve true strategic autonomy, even if it means fundamentally re-evaluating its long-standing security alliances.
