European Defence

Crunch Time: A Pivotal Moment for Europe’s Defence

Europe faces a historic challenge: geopolitical tensions are mounting, the economic situation remains strained, and political instability is hindering urgently needed defence policy reforms. Russia’s war against Ukraine has served as a wake-up call for the continent, yet steps toward a coherent European security strategy remain hesitant.

A Geostrategic Balancing Act

The European security landscape has undergone drastic changes. NATO remains the bedrock of collective defence, with territorial protection and deterrence as top priorities. However, significant gaps persist in military capabilities and the defence industry. Supply shortages in munitions and air defence systems, along with outdated procurement policies, underscore Europe’s urgent need for action.

In light of these pressing challenges and to develop a detailed picture of Europe’s defence capabilities, the analytical series EDINA – European Defence in a New Age has continued. More than 20 European countries were analysed, covering threat assessments, procurement practices, and industrial capabilities. This comprehensive review provides a clear picture of Europe’s defence landscape, identifying not only key challenges but also actionable pathways to strengthen Europe’s position. The complete findings and insights are available in the publication.

EDINA IV Offers In-Depth Insights

The findings draw on reports from more than 20 European countries, including Germany, France, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. These reports assess the geostrategic landscape, security and defence policies, and industrial capabilities. The insights are summarized in the publication EDINA IV – CRUNCH TIME / TIME CRUNCH FOR EUROPEAN DEFENCE, offering a detailed analysis of the challenges and opportunities for Europe’s defence.

Phases of Change: From Reaction to “Crunch Time”

Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Europe has undergone various stages of recalibrating its defence posture. Now, the continent faces a critical phase where decisive decisions must be made under significant time pressure:

1. 2014–2016: Initial Reactions
   Multinational battlegroups and NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe were early steps but had limited impact.
2. 2017–2021: Strategic Autonomy Debates
   Pressure from the Trump administration for Europe to take on more responsibility led to initiatives like PESCO and the European Defence Fund – with mixed success.
3. 2022–2024: The “Zeitenwende”
   Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered accelerated rearmament. The focus has shifted to sustainability and securing ammunition supplies.
4. 2025–2030: Crunch Time / Time Crunch
   The decisive phase: domestic instability in key states like France and Germany coincides with potentially shifting U.S. policies. Europe must build sustainable defence capabilities and reduce strategic dependency on the U.S.
5. Post-2030: Strategic Consolidation
   The long-term goal is to consolidate structures and establish a coherent, autonomous defence strategy.

Europe’s Security Turnaround: Challenges, Failures, and Pressure to Act

The war in Ukraine has unified Europe’s threat perception and accelerated rearmament efforts. However, regional differences in the sense of urgency remain. Another finding is Europe’s lag in developing a “Total Defence” approach – integrating military, economic, and civilian components. Countries like Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic states are leading the way, but many EU nations are falling behind. Additionally, geopolitical risks beyond Europe, such as in the Middle East, are often underestimated.

Pressure is mounting: NATO warns of a realistic threat of Russian aggression. By 2030, Europe must be capable of self-defence. Critical decisions on industrial capacities, technological investments, and strategic partnerships can no longer be postponed.

The Path Forward

Europe has the opportunity to emerge stronger from this “Crunch Time.” This requires pragmatism, enhanced multilateral cooperation, prioritizing the expansion of defense production, and strategic autonomy. The EU must reduce its dependency on external actors like the U.S. Without decisive action, Europe risks losing its strategic relevance – a vulnerability that adversaries could exploit. However, the chance to establish a more coherent and robust security strategy is within reach. The clock is ticking.

The Way Ahead

• Focus on existential crises: Europe must concentrate on critical regions, especially Eastern Europe and the Middle East, where conflicts in Syria, Iran, or Israel could detract from the focus on Ukraine. These regions require a strategically interconnected approach, given the colliding interests of the U.S., China, Russia, and Iran.
• Support for Ukraine: Long-term assistance, expansion of European defence industries, and targeted collaboration with the U.S. defence industry are essential to closing capability gaps and sustaining support for Ukraine.
• Clear division of responsibilities: A defined allocation of roles between the EU, NATO, and individual nations is crucial. While NATO sets military guidelines, the EU should align its structures accordingly. Flexible approaches like ESSI (European Sky Shield Initiative) and ELSA (European Long-Range Strike Approach) demonstrate that pragmatic collaboration is more effective than lengthy planning.
• Prepare for external shocks: Europe must be better equipped to handle shifts in U.S. policies. Fair burden-sharing based on measurable outcomes can prevent internal conflicts. Priority areas include missile defence, deep strike capabilities, and the necessary infrastructure – projects like ESSI or Twister offer promising solutions.
• Overcome fragmentation in the defence sector: The European Commission should address artificial fragmentation, e.g., by harmonizing legal and industrial frameworks. The current model, which excludes major industrial players like Norway, the U.K., and Turkey, is inefficient. A ten-year moratorium could enable equal treatment of all NATO countries, expand markets, foster competition, and better enforce EU standards. Without adjustments, the existing framework risks being circumvented. Greater inclusion would strengthen Europe’s security and reduce institutional fragmentation.