(17 September, 2024 – EU Institute for Security Studies)
Moderator:
- Steven Everts, Director, EUISS
Elevator pitches by EUISS Analysts:
- Bojana Zorić on “Building strength through gradual integration – A blueprint for EU enlargement.”
- Jan Joel Andersson on “Rethinking CSDP missions and operations – Where to go and what to do?”
- Giuseppe Spatafora on “Training soldiers in Ukraine – Creating conditions for a just end to the war.”
Reactions to the ten ideas:
- Stefano Sannino, Secretary General, EEAS
- Ben Hall, Europe Editor of The Financial Times
- Sophie in ‘t Veld, former Member of the European Parliament
In a world of increasing geopolitical tension and competition, Europe finds itself losing ground economically, politically, and strategically. As Mario Draghi described, the continent risks a slow and painful decline if it fails to act decisively. Europe is not occupying the position it should on the global stage, facing external challenges from rising powers like China and Russia, while its own competitiveness diminishes. The sense of fatalism – a resignation to Europe’s perceived decline – has made its way into the psyche of its leaders and citizens alike. However, this must not lead to inaction or passive witnessing of its “slow agony”. The real question is: what can Europe do to reverse this trajectory? To define the problem, the European Union must face the reality that its traditional tools and strategies are no longer sufficient to cope with modern geopolitical and economic challenges. These range from territorial conflicts to technological competition, and the rise of alternative powers questioning the liberal world order. The EU’s capacity to act is currently hindered by internal fragmentation, slow decision-making processes, and outdated frameworks for engagement with global actors.
The proposed solution made in a report by EUISS centers around three sets of ideas that call for a profound transformation in the way Europe thinks, works, and acts. By embracing new approaches in these areas, the EU can reposition itself as a global leader capable of defending its interests and values.
Building strength through gradual integration – A Blueprint for EU enlargement
Bojana Zorić proposed a gradual approach to EU enlargement by progressively integrating candidate countries into the Union’s security and defense policies. This strategy of “gradual integration” would allow non-member states, such as those in the Western Balkans, to actively participate in joint defense initiatives before they formally join the EU. This would create a smoother transition toward meeting European standards. Zorić explained that this approach would strengthen the political and security capacity of these countries while also stabilizing the region, which is critical in the Balkans, where historical tensions remain.
As described in the report, Western Balkan countries like Serbia, Albania, or North Macedonia could be invited to participate in joint military exercises with EU member states, share intelligence data, or contribute to peacekeeping missions. This would align their political objectives with those of the EU. It would contribute to their gradual integration and help build the political « maturity » necessary to face challenges like terrorism and regional instability, thereby enhancing stability within the EU. Zorić emphasized that this process would prevent these countries from turning to other global actors like Russia or China to fill the gap caused by a rigid accession process. By allowing for gradual integration, the EU could stabilize its periphery and strengthen collective security while ensuring that candidate countries progressively adopt European values.
Rethinking CSDP missions and operations
In a second part of the exposé, Jan Joel Andersson called for a reform of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions to make them more relevant and effective in the current geopolitical context. He criticized the fragmentation of EU resources across missions that do not have a direct strategic impact on Europe. Andersson highlighted the importance of focusing efforts on missions that protect the EU’s strategic interests, such as maritime security, regional crisis management, and the protection of critical infrastructure. Andersson suggested that the EU should place greater emphasis on maritime security in the Mediterranean, a crucial area for European trade, and in places like the Gulf of Aden, where vital sea routes for European commerce were threatened by piracy and regional conflicts.
He also stressed the need for the EU to intensify its crisis management efforts in unstable regions like the Sahel, where armed groups, terrorism, and political conflicts have already posed a direct threat to Europe’s security. In this reform, Andersson underlined the importance of reducing the dispersion of European forces to minor or purely humanitarian missions in favor of a more focused approach on critical geopolitical interests. For example, the EU’s current missions in the Sahel region should be strengthened, as this area is a “major source of migration and security instability”, which directly impacts Europe.
Training soldiers in Ukraine – Creating conditions for a just end to the war
Finally, Giuseppe Spatafora argued that the EU must go beyond simply providing weapons to Ukraine in its war against Russia. For Spatafora, the real issue is training the Ukrainian armed forces so they could effectively defend their territories and secure a just and lasting peace. He emphasized the need for intensive support in terms of military training, not just to improve the soldiers’ fighting ability, but also to prepare them for the reconstruction of their country once the conflict ended. Spatafora highlighted the importance of equipping Ukraine with skills in critical areas such as drone warfare, urban combat, and logistics operations, which were essential for reclaiming and maintaining control of occupied territories. By training Ukrainian forces in these modern techniques, the EU played a direct role in strengthening Ukraine’s resilience against Russian aggression and creating the conditions for a durable peace.
Reactions of experts
Stefano Sannino, Secretary General of the European External Action Service (EEAS), emphasized the necessity of EU enlargement as a response to the current geopolitical crisis, particularly regarding Ukraine. According to Sannino, enlargement has become a security imperative for Europe, beyond just a political ambition. Actively supporting Ukraine’s integration into the EU is crucial because it sends a strong signal to Russia and other authoritarian powers that the EU is ready to defend its values and partners. He also highlighted the risks of moving too quickly without deep reforms within Ukraine and stressed the importance of not leaving Western Balkan countries behind. A prolonged stagnation in their accession process could lead to increased Russian and Chinese influence in the region.
Sophie in ‘t Veld, former Member of the European Parliament, took a critical stance on the current governance of the EU. In her view, the EU is hindered by outdated structures, particularly the European Council, which – she argued – slows down the EU’s ability to act effectively in an increasingly volatile international context. She called for the end of the intergovernmental system within the European Council, which she claimed prioritizes national interests over a shared European vision. She pointed to the Council’s inability to quickly agree on crucial issues, such as the EU’s response to the war in Ukraine, where divergent national interests – especially regarding energy sanctions against Russia – have slowed collective action. She also criticized the slow progress toward a truly integrated European defense. Despite talk of a common defense policy, the EU is far from having a unified military force, as seen in the divisions over arms purchases and cooperation with NATO. To overcome these obstacles, in ‘t Veld proposed a more federal approach, where foreign and security policy decisions are made by qualified majority voting, not consensus.
Ben Hall, Europe Editor of the Financial Times, raised concerns about the lack of clear strategies from the EU, particularly regarding Ukraine and China. On Ukraine, Hall emphasized that while the EU has consistently pledged to support the country, it has not clearly defined what “support Ukraine for as long as necessary” actually means. He questioned the EU’s real goal: is it to help Ukraine reconquer all occupied territories, or to prepare it for a negotiated peace with Russia? Hall warned that a lack of clarity on this issue could weaken the EU’s position on the global stage. Hall noted that without an independent strategy, the EU risks simply following the decisions of the United States. On China, he argued that the EU has not yet developed effective tools to influence China, largely due to internal divisions over trade and industrial policies. For example, Spanish President Pedro Sánchez’s recent visit to Beijing, where he lobbied against European tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, underscores how national interests can undermine a common EU stance on China.