Speaker #0Hello everyone and welcome to Les Clés du Monde, the podcast that explores major issues in law and geopolitics. Today we are going to talk about a topic that has become central in European debates, defense. What is the European Union doing to protect its citizens and should we imagine one day a common European army? Before looking at the European mechanisms, We first need to understand the international context in which Europe operates. First, there is the question of the United States' role in NATO, because any discussion about European defence begins there. Today, most European countries rely primarily on NATO for collective defence, and 23 EU member states are also NATO allies. The EU aims to complement NATO, not replace it. With Donald Trump back in the White House, uncertainty has returned. Washington could reduce its military engagement in Europe to focus more on the Indo-Pacific and its strategic rivalry with China. This raises a difficult question for Europeans. Can they count on the United States in the years ahead? Then, the war in Ukraine has reminded us that armed conflicts can still erupt at Europe's doorstep, but this trait is not perceived the same way everywhere. In the Baltic states or Poland, it feels immediate. In other countries, it seems more distant. These differences reflect each nation's military history, defense spending, and even long-standing traditions of neutrality, like in Ireland or Austria. Other tensions also shape Europe's security, like the instability in the Middle East, cyber attacks, disinformation, and the sabotage of critical infrastructures. And even if we talk about it less, technological changes like drones, artificial intelligence and space capabilities are profoundly transforming how states must prepare their defense. All of this happens while many European armies face personal shortage, which explains renewed debates about military service in France, Germany or some Nordic countries. And despite Brexit, the United Kingdom remains a major military actor on the continent. Legally, defense is protected by Article 346 of the TF-EU, which allows each country to safeguard essential security interests. But over time, the European Commission has found ways to support the sector indirectly through industrial policy, internal market rules for dual-use goods, and funding programs like the European Defense Fund. This is how the EU has gradually built a role in defense without replacing national sovereignty. In short, Europe is not starting from zero, but it must adapt quickly. Let's now look at what the EU has already put in place to respond. Member states are investing more in their armies, coordinating purchases and funding research. But there is a key legal point. Defense remains primarily a national competence. This means countries decide how to protect sensitive information and produce their own weapons. The EU cannot create a single army or impose military spending, but it can help when equipment isn't strictly military, making cooperation and transfers easier between countries. Over the past decades, new EU rules have opened the defence sector a bit. They make it easier for countries to collaborate, share equipment, and found joint projects while still respecting national security. The European Defence Fund has been created to finance research and development in key areas like drones, cyber defence or autonomous systems. On the operational side, the EU also conducts civilian and military missions abroad, for example in Africa, the Balkans or the Middle East, and these missions are carried out by national troops under an EU mandate, often in coordination with NATO. Legally, the Common Security and Defence Policy allows the EU to move towards a common defence, only if all member states agree. And since 2017, some countries have chosen to go further through Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO. They develop shared projects, common training, and sometimes joint equipment programs. In parallel, the EU has also created new tools to make defence production faster and more coordinated. The idea is simple. When countries buy or produce things together, it costs less and it goes quicker. For example, EDIRPA is a mechanism that helps member states purchase equipment jointly in emergency situations. So instead of each country buying a lot of equipment, loan and waiting months, they can place a single joint order and receive material more quickly. Then, after the start of the war in Ukraine, the EU launched the ASAP program to increase ammunition production across Europe because many armies were running low on stocks. And more recently, in 2025, the EU created SAFE, a new financial tool that can provide up to 150 billion euros in long-term loans. Its purpose is to help European defense factories invest, expand, and produce more rapidly when demand suddenly increases. Together, these instruments don't replace national armies, but they give them the means to react faster and coordinate better. So, why do some people argue that Europe should one day build a common army? Well, their reasoning often starts from the tools that already exist, like PESCO or the European Defense Agency. And they imagine what these initiatives could become if countries weren't even further. First, there is a question of efficiency. Today, each member state has its own army, its own equipment, its own systems. And sometimes these systems simply don't work well together. A European force could coordinate purchases, avoid duplication, and make better use of Europe's resources. In other words, do more, but spend less. Then comes strategic autonomy. If the international situation becomes unstable, or if some allies like the United States decide to take a step back, Europe will need the ability to act on its own. A European army will give the Union more freedom and the capacity to respond to a crisis without depending entirely on others. There is also the question of international influence. Speaking with one voice and with a single common structure, will naturally increase Europe's diplomatic weight. It will show that the EU can protect its interests abroad and shape global security, not just react to events. Finally, many insist on solidarity. A shared force will send a strong message that Europeans stand together in the face of threats. It will be a concrete expression of the mutual assistance clause in Article 42, paragraph 7 of the treaty . The idea that an attack on one is an attack on all. Put all this together, efficiency, autonomy, influence and solidarity, the idea of a European army can seem both logical and attractive. But of course, its creation doesn't depend on technical tools or military structures. It depends above all on the political will of the member states. And for now, that political will is still divided. Of course, While a European army could bring efficiency, autonomy, solidarity and international influence, there are also real challenges that explain why some member states are cautious. First, national sovereignty remains a key concern. Defense is still one of the most sensitive areas of state power. Decisions about deploying troops or using force are deeply tied to national security, and many countries are not ready to transfer that authority to a European command. Second, strategic cultures and threat perceptions differ across Europe. Eastern countries like Poland or the Baltic states see Russia as the main threat, while southern countries focus more on the Mediterranean and Africa. Some states, such as Ireland, Austria or Malta, have traditions of neutrality. These differences make it difficult to agree on a single approach or common priorities. Finally, there is the question of decision-making in crisis. Even with a European army, joint action will require agreements among all participating states. In a real emergency, reaching unanimity could slow down responses. Of course, this is not meant to question the value or potential of a European army. Rather, it's important to approach the topic with a clear and balanced perspective. I've presented some key arguments for and against, but there are many more. This is only a starting point for understanding a complex issue. So, will Europe have a common army anytime soon? For now, the answer remains uncertain. Defense is still primarily a national responsibility. Major decisions require unanimity. Member states have different strategic priorities, and Europe continues to rely heavily on American technologies in key sectors. All of this explains why progress is slow and uneven. At the same time, treaties like Article 42 of the TEU and Protocol 10 provide frameworks to strengthen cooperation, even if they don't guarantee a unified army. And we can already see encouraging signs. Defense budgets are rising in several countries, cooperation on joint projects is increasing, and concrete initiatives in research, production, and training are gradually building common capabilities. So, perhaps the real question is not should Europe have an army, but rather, how can Europe create a defense that truly protects its citizens, while respecting the diversity and sovereignty of all 27 member states? The truth is, European Defence is a long-term project. It's built step by step through cooperation, shared projects and voluntary engagement. Even without a single command or a fully integrated army, these efforts already make Europe stronger and more resilient. In the end, European Defence is not just about armies or budgets. It's about trust, coordination and the ability to act together in a complex world. And that alone is a real achievement. This was Les Clés du Monde. Until next time, stay informed, stay critical and keep asking questions about the world around you.
