Three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe’s leaders are facing a critical question: how to finance their increasingly urgent defence needs.
As they gather in Brussels, the discussion is more pressing than ever, with Donald Trump returning to the White House and clearly already shifting U.S. foreign policy away from European security concerns.
The war in Ukraine shattered many long-held beliefs about European security. The European Union, originally conceived as a peace project centered around economic cooperation, has found itself scrambling to bolster its defence posture.
Defence spending has increased across the continent, reaching an estimated $340 billion in 2024—a 30 percent increase from 2021. Most of NATO’s 32 member states now meet or exceed the alliance’s target of 2 percent of GDP on defence spending.
But the question remains: is it enough? NATO’s upcoming summit will likely set new spending benchmarks, with Trump insisting on a staggering 5 percent of GDP. Ironically, the United States itself spends only about 3.4 percent, raising questions about the feasibility of such demands.
The Trump Factor: U.S. Policy and European Defence Independence
Trump’s return to the White House can fundamentally alter NATO dynamics. As the largest military supporter of Ukraine, the U.S. has played a crucial role in the war effort, but Trump has suggested he may rapidly withdraw this aid, leaving Europe to shoulder the burden alone. This has led to renewed efforts among European nations to develop a more self-sufficient defence strategy.
At the heart of the Brussels meeting is the question of how to finance these growing military needs. One proposal under discussion is issuing common EU debt to fund defense spending, similar to the approach taken during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, such a move is politically contentious, as it could complicate individual member states’ efforts to meet NATO’s increasing budgetary demands.
The Role of Britain: Post-Brexit Security Cooperation
A significant moment in the summit is the attendance of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, marking the first time a British leader has joined the EU’s 27 leaders in Brussels since Brexit. His presence underlines the recognition that a credible European defence must include Britain, a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Starmer has emphasised security cooperation as a way to rebuild ties with the EU post-Brexit. Given Europe’s security challenges, pragmatic collaboration in defence e and intelligence-sharing is likely to take precedence over political divisions.
NATO’s New Strategic Imperatives
The NATO alliance is also evolving in response to Russian aggression. General Christopher G. Cavoli, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, has set new capability targets for the first time since the Cold War. These targets include requirements for equipment, force levels, and response strategies in case of a Russian invasion.
One of the major challenges facing Europe is its reliance on U.S. military assets. Analysts point out that Europe lacks key components such as integrated air and missile defences, long-range precision artillery, satellite capabilities, and sufficient air-to-air refuelling tankers. Sourcing these systems independently could take a decade, highlighting the urgent need for cooperation and strategic planning.
Streamlining European Defence: A Necessity, Not an Option
One of the major inefficiencies in Europe’s military support for Ukraine has been the lack of standardisation. Ukraine has received at least 17 different types of howitzers, many requiring different ammunition, creating logistical nightmares.
Reducing such fragmentation is a key goal for European defense policymakers.
Joint procurement and production will be a central focus of discussions in Brussels. European leaders aim to streamline their defense industries, enhance efficiency, and increase collaboration to ensure interoperability among their forces. These measures are seen as vital in reducing reliance on the U.S. while strengthening Europe’s own military capabilities.
The Greenland Controversy: A Symbol of Changing Alliances
Another unexpected topic to have landed on Monday’s agenda is Trump’s revived interest in acquiring Greenland. The autonomous Danish territory has long been of strategic interest to the U.S., but Danish and Greenlandic leaders have firmly rejected any suggestion of a sale.
The mere discussion of such an idea illustrates the shifting dynamics in transatlantic relations, where Washington appears increasingly willing to apply economic and military pressure on allies.
The Greenland issue exemplifies broader European concerns about U.S. foreign policy unpredictability under Trump. While Europe seeks greater strategic autonomy, it also recognises the importance of maintaining a strong NATO alliance.
Balancing National Interests and Collective Security
Europe’s security landscape is complex. While there is broad consensus on the need to strengthen defense, diverging national priorities and budget constraints make cooperation challenging. Countries on NATO’s eastern flank, such as Poland and the Baltic states, are particularly concerned about maintaining strong U.S. engagement in European defense. For them, Washington’s commitment remains indispensable, despite efforts to build a more independent European security framework.
Meanwhile, nations with traditionally lower defense spending, such as Germany, face political resistance to significant increases in military budgets. The balancing act between meeting NATO obligations and investing in collective EU defense structures is delicate and requires careful negotiation.
The Road Ahead: Building a Unified European Defence Strategy
Monday’s summit is just the beginning of what will be a long and difficult process. The discussions will help shape the priorities for Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, and Andrius Kubilius, the new defence commissioner, as they craft a more concrete roadmap for European military development.
The meeting carries not just practical significance but symbolic weight as well. It signals to both allies and adversaries that Europe is taking its defense responsibilities seriously and is committed to reducing its reliance on the U.S. While the road ahead will be challenging, the increasing urgency of the security threat posed by Russia—and the uncertainty surrounding America’s future role—leave Europe with little choice but to act.
A Defining Moment for European Security?
Europe stands at a crossroads. The security environment has changed dramatically in the past three years, and European leaders must adapt quickly. While NATO remains essential, the continent must develop its own defense capabilities to ensure long-term stability.
The Brussels summit is a crucial step in this direction, setting the stage for greater military cooperation and financial commitments. However, significant challenges remain. Diverging national interests, political resistance to higher defense spending, and logistical hurdles in procurement and standardization all pose obstacles to a truly unified European defense strategy.
As Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer of the German Marshall Fund aptly put it: “They don’t have a choice, because war is taking place on their own continent.”
The decisions made in Brussels—and the actions that follow—will potentially shape Europe’s security for decades to come.
Images/Video: European Council Newsroom.
