With war at Europe's doorstep and US support uncertain, the continent must focus on military readiness and strategic autonomy. RFI's David Coffey speaks with Serge Stroobants of the Institute for Economics and Peace on whether Europe can defend itself and at what cost.
The sharp decline in US-Ukraine relations has raised doubts about American support for Europe, as the continent assesses its ability to defend itself against a threat from Russia.
Donald Trump's decision to cut military aid to Ukraine this week signals a shift in US foreign policy and raises questions about America’s commitment to Europe's security.
From shortages in the number of tanks and the availablity of artillery, to the debate over a unified European army, leaders must decide whether to bolster national forces or embrace deeper military cooperation.
As France and the UK guard their nuclear arsenals and Russia tests Europe’s resolve, can the EU build a credible deterrent, or will it continue to rely on America?
The Director for Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa at the Institute for Economics and Peace, Serge Stroobants, explained to RFI that Europe lacks the capacity to react quickly to security threats, with defence procurement bogged down by fragmentation and slow production timelines.
As early as 2016, Germany’s defence industry acknowledged that no major projects would reach completion for at least six to eight years. Today the projections are even worse.
“If you want to invest quickly in the military – into defence, into new equipment and weapon systems – these need to be bought off the shelf outside of Europe," with the US, Turkey, and South Korea as key suppliers, he says.
Serge Stroobants on the Budapest Memorandum
Defence neglected
Beyond military upgrades, Europe faces a broader challenge as its entire economic and state system must adapt to meet modern security demands.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s recent pledge to cut red tape for defence procurement is a step in the right direction, Stroobants says, but it comes too late and under pressure from events rather than forward planning.
“The problem is – as is so often with the EU – we are doing this under the pressure of the events. We're not doing this in advance. We're not planning. We don't have a strategy."
Despite being a continent of 500 million people – and the world's third-largest economic and military power – Europe remains unable to ensure its own security due to a longstanding lack of strategic foresight and neglect of defence spending.
As it stands, a unified EU defence force remains a challenge due to Europe’s struggle to coordinate military policy alongside foreign diplomacy and development.
Stroobants explains that peace and security are based on three pillars – diplomacy, development and defence. “When you look at the EU, this has been done for almost 75 years, but if you are not able to integrate foreign policy and foreign development...and have common influence outside of European borders? Well, it doesn't really help to only unify just one of those three pillars," he said.
While the EU has made progress in development and soft power, true strategic influence for the bloc requires the full integration of defence and diplomacy to establish an undivided foreign policy and a stronger global presence.
'Europe must do the heavy lifting' in Ukraine, needs 'US backing': UK's Starmer
Reshaping Europe
“For 30 to 35 years now, we have been divesting from defence, but it's much more than defence. It's the entire society that has lived with the idea that we would live eternally in peace," Stroobants says.
He argues that to independently deter Russian aggression, European nations must go beyond bolstering their military capabilities – they need to rethink their entire strategic approach.
“If you want to be ready, you need to invest in defence...but you also need to reshape your society and your infrastructure,” he adds.
He also points out that with France and the UK as Europe's only nuclear powers, their cooperation on a nuclear umbrella remains uncertain. France insists its deterrent will stay national but may engage allies without losing autonomy. Both nations favour a "coalition of the willing" over an EU or NATO-led approach, prioritising national security.
"You can have 20,000 nuclear warheads, but if you have nobody who is strong enough to use them, they are not going to be a deterrent"
Standing alone: Europe's defence exposed as US 'drops' Ukraine
'Deterrance and power'
While Moscow takes America's military threat seriously and views European states as weak, Stroobants added, Europe must take concrete steps to change this perception and restore credible deterrence.
European security hinges on two key concepts: deterrence and power. Deterrence relies not just on military capability but on the will to use it – because, as Stroobants puts it, “you can have 20,000 nuclear warheads, but if you have nobody who is strong enough to use them, they are not going to be a deterrent.
"And that's exactly what's happening with the EU at the moment”.
True power – accroding to Stroobants – is essentially a combination of military, economic, and diplomatic strength,comboined with a clear strategy and the political will to act.
Britain holds back as France pushes for truce between Russia and Ukraine
While Europe possesses significant resources, it lacks a unified vision on how to confront Putin's Russia and define its role in an increasingly aggressive global order – leaving it strategically adrift and unable to deter adversaries effectively.
The absence of key nations – including the Baltic states – from a recent high-level security meeting in London only underscores the challenge of consolidating a unified European deterrent.
“After having lived in the military for 30 years, in Europe and under the NATO umbrella, not incorporating all the allies or member states [at high level meetings] is really strange," he said.
For Stroobants, Europe now is facing the disintegration of alliances that have taken over seven decades to build.
