There is no doubt that the war in Ukraine, which will enter its third year on February 24, 2025, has unequivocally confirmed that Europe suffers from clear security vulnerabilities. What I mean here is the collective security of a group of nations and the ability of that security framework to achieve deterrence—a concept that simply means sending a message to the adversary that they will suffer immense losses if they undertake an uncalculated action that threatens the national security of a state or a group of states. This deterrence was not achieved in the Ukraine war, as there was no NATO or European force that prevented the invasion.
This underscores the significance of the trilateral summit held on February 3, 2025, in Brussels between the European Union member states in an “informal summit,” the British Prime Minister, and the NATO Secretary-General. This meeting reflected three key observations:
- The meeting was exclusively dedicated to discussing defense matters.
- It did not include all NATO countries but rather the 27 European Union states, noting that 23 of these are also NATO members.
- The participation of the United Kingdom marked its first involvement in such a meeting since its exit from the EU under the Brexit agreement in 2016.
In reality, Europe’s ability to defend itself is constrained by several persistent challenges:
- First, the European Union was not originally established as a defense organization like NATO but rather as an economic integration project. While the EU has developed in structure and policies, and there have been proposals to establish a security identity for the union, European nations have ultimately failed to create a security alternative to NATO capable of achieving deterrence within their collective security framework.
- Second, European countries heavily rely on the United States for security, as the U.S. leads multiple military alliances to protect European interests, including securing energy supplies from regions such as the Arabian Gulf and the Horn of Africa, where three coalitions have been formed for this purpose.
- Third, the overlapping membership of European countries in both NATO and the European Union complicates matters further.
Beyond these structural challenges, additional issues arise from differing perspectives on security responsibilities among the three key players: Europe, NATO, and the United States. The U.S. has long accused European nations of being “free riders,” benefiting from security without shouldering the financial burden. This has been a major demand of former President Donald Trump, who insisted that NATO’s European members allocate 2%—or sometimes even 5%—of their GDP to defense. While some nations complied, others have yet to fulfill this obligation.
Additionally, while some European states support the idea of a unified European army, not all countries agree, especially smaller nations that fear Russian threats and view NATO as their primary security guarantor. Estimates suggest that Europe would need around 500 billion euros in defense investments over the next decade.
At the same time, the U.S. contributes a significant share to NATO’s budget, influencing the alliance’s policies. Moreover, Trump’s imposition of tariffs on major U.S. trading partners has raised concerns about the cohesion of both the EU and NATO. However, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte reassured during the aforementioned meeting that “the threat of trade wars posed by President Trump will not affect the alliance’s deterrence capabilities.”
While reaffirming the deep link between NATO security and that of the European Union, Britain’s participation in the meeting—despite being a NATO member but not an EU member—suggests that the world may once again divide into two major blocs: Western and Eastern. This division will not be based on ideological Cold War lines but rather on diverse political and economic alliances. This shift stems from Western nations’ growing concern over Russia’s rising power and fears that a conflict similar to the Ukraine war could unfold in the future on the territory of a smaller European state, especially given that the war in Ukraine continues to tilt in Russia’s favor.
Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.
Source: Akhbar Al Khaleej
Dr. Ashraf Keshk, Senior Research Fellow