German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, in his annual address, warns that the continent must “assert itself” to safeguard peace and prosperity was not rhetorical flourish, but a recognition that Europe has drifted into a dangerous illusion: that security can be managed by process rather than power, and by institutions rather than states.
The threats confronting Europe are no longer abstract. Russia’s war against Ukraine grinds on, not merely as a regional conflict but as a sustained challenge to the post-Cold War order. Across the continent, cyber-attacks, sabotage of energy infrastructure and undersea cables, industrial espionage and foreign interference have become routine. Mass migration is increasingly weaponised by hostile regimes, while global trade fractures under protectionism and strategic rivalry. In such an environment, peace is not preserved by good intentions alone. It must be defended.
Merz’s intervention is notable because it cuts against years of complacency in European capitals. He acknowledged what many privately concede but rarely say aloud: Germany and Europe are “not at war, but no longer living in peace”. That grey zone — between war and peace — is precisely where Europe’s adversaries operate most effectively. And it is precisely where the European Union’s current machinery is least effective.
The uncomfortable truth is that the European Commission cannot solve Europe’s security crisis. It never could, and the last few years have proved it. The Commission has no armed forces, no intelligence agencies, no ability to deter or retaliate. Its reflexes are bureaucratic where Europe’s enemies are ruthless. It excels at regulation – albeit often unwanted and unneeded – but regulation does not stop tanks, cyber-attacks or sabotage.
The migration crisis exposed its paralysis; the early months of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine revealed its strategic confusion; and its chronic inability to compel meaningful defence spending underlines its lack of authority.
This is not an argument for European disunity. On the contrary, Europe’s survival depends on cohesion — but cohesion between sovereign states, not deference to supranational process. Security has always rested with nation states, because only they possess the legitimacy and capability to make grave decisions quickly: to deploy troops, secure borders, fund intelligence, and accept the risks inherent in deterrence. Pretending otherwise has cost Europe time it no longer has.
Merz is right to warn that prosperity, too, is at stake. Europe’s economic model rests on stability, open trade and secure supply chains, all of which are now under strain. Dependence on imported energy and raw materials has been exposed as a strategic vulnerability. Trade tensions with both China and the United States threaten Europe’s industrial base. Without security, economic confidence evaporates; without economic strength, security becomes unsustainable. The two are inseparable.
Yet strategic autonomy cannot be conjured by declarations from Brussels. Europe’s defence remains fragmented, underfunded and unevenly prioritised. Some states spend generously and think strategically; others free-ride while invoking European solidarity. This imbalance is corrosive. An assertive Europe cannot be built on the assumption that a few will act while others hide behind institutions.
The only viable path forward is one of hardened cooperation between states willing to act. That means binding commitments on defence spending, genuine military interoperability, shared intelligence and rapid decision-making among capitals. NATO remains indispensable, but it cannot function as Europe’s permanent substitute for responsibility — particularly when American politics grows more unpredictable. If Washington’s attention wavers, Europe must already be capable of standing firm.
When Europe has acted decisively in recent years, it has done so not because of Commission leadership, but because national governments chose to lead: cutting dependence on Russian energy, sending weapons to Ukraine, reinforcing eastern borders. When it has hesitated, responsibility has been blurred and accountability diluted. Institutions do not bear costs; states do. And it is states, ultimately, that must decide whether Europe will be defended or merely administered.
Merz’s call to assertiveness should therefore be understood not as a plea for more Brussels authority, but as a demand for political courage in Europe’s capitals. Power unused is power lost. In a world where strength is once again tested, Europe cannot afford to confuse procedure with protection.
This is a defining moment. Europe can continue to shelter behind technocratic comfort, hoping that regulation will substitute for resolve. Or it can accept reality: that peace and prosperity endure only when nations are willing to act together, with clarity and strength. The European Commission may facilitate cooperation at the margins, but it cannot provide security. That responsibility lies, as it always has, with sovereign states — and with their willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder when it matters most.
Rethinking Europe: Disestablishing the European Commission to Restore Sovereignty and Democracy
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
