The European Union's defence policy: Questions raised by the Ukrainian crisis

Written by: Olivia Blanchard

17th March 2022 (Thursday)

11:00 – 12:30

Speakers:

- Félix Buttin, a member of the Centre for Analysis, Forecasting, and Strategy of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France

- Pierre Haroche, Research Fellow in European Security at the Institute for Strategic Research (IRSEM), France

- Lucia Yar, Acting Editor-in-Chief at EURACTIV, Slovakia

- General Pavel Macko, former Deputy Chief of General Staff of Slovak Armed Forces, who was highest ranked Slovak in NATO structures, Slovakia

Led by: Alena Kudzko, Vice President of GLOBSEC & Director, GLOBSEC Policy Institute, Slovakia

Meeting Abstract

Speakers were invited to reflect on the very concept of the Strategic Compass, where it is now and how relevant is it and how it all relates to the current security environment.

You can watch the discussion here.

On the European Strategic Compass

Reflecting on the very concept of the European Strategic Compass, the speakers were asked to comment on its contribution to the European defence system and how it correlates to the current security situation of the war in Ukraine. According to Yar, it “is not a bulletproof strategy, as the current war shows”.

Within the original plan of the Strategic Compass, NATO has a special place within the partners and will be involved in several areas of the Compass. NATO is the partner taking over the territorial defence of the EU. The Strategic Compass will be much more proactive in the context of the Ukrainian war and will be the base document for the EU to face future challenges.

According to M. Buttin, there are three notable changes:

1. There is a change in the world’s security order and there must be more consideration for the neighbouring countries outside the EU’s border.
2. The Russian invasion of 02.24.2022 has come as a “shock for the public opinion worldwide, and domestically in the European Union and has triggered a strategic awakening of EU member states”.
3. The EU has acted, not only verbally but also by implementing sanctions with instruments at its disposal.”

On the latter, Buttin took the example of the first use of the European Peace Facility which was designed just a few months ago. Insisting on the fact that the EU has acted “swiftly, within hours unlike in 2014 when it took weeks if not months.” According to the expert, the EU has acted in “a unified fashion and in close coordination with its partners such as NATO, the USA and a surprising rapprochement with the United-Kingdom”.

General Macko agreed with Mr Buttin and added that the extensiveness of CEE’s economic relations with Russia, which was expected to foster cooperation with Russia, did not Bring Russia closer to the West. Indeed, Putin is not far from going “past the point of no return, attacking a neighbouring European country and bringing a major war on the European continent”.

It also appears to Macko that there is no concrete alternative to NATO. Yet Europe must make choices and increase its defence and security capacities: "The Russian regime sees us as weak and tries to change the global balance. However, it is not as effective as they expected.” For, Haroche back at the beginning of the crisis, the question was “will the EU be involved in some way?” In accordance with Macko’s opinion, for Russians, the EU is not such a “relevant or respectable interlocutor […] and wants to deal with giants like the United States”.

Firstly, for Yar, the implementation of the tools, incentives and structure being presented within the compass highlight that there is a challenge about how the money is going to be spent and distributed, as larger countries would benefit most from these packages. Secondly, it does not seem like there are many discussions on taking it a step further and making it a European implementation in the sense of ‘buying European’.” However, Yar highlighted that it is not currently a priority and that now could be a moment to push European technology forward despite the lack of incentives.

What is to be done of this new reality and changes?

All the speakers agreed that the new Russian reality is taken into consideration and that the EU builds on the strategic awaking brought by the war. EU’s reaction was cohesive unlike what Russia expected. The use of the European Peace Facility (EPF) is remarkable: a few years back, “the idea that the EU could provide lethal equipment to a third-party country was very controversial”.

The EPF has not always been making consensus and there are examples of the EU refusing to provide material for military operations abroad. This stance has changed today, illustrating the significance of the situation. It is the moment for the EU “to assess, decide and to act with partners whenever possible and on its own whenever necessary”, according to Macko, which the Strategic Compass will help with.

According to General Macko:

• The Strategic Compass must be reviewed against the new context, although its structure remains valid. There is a need for a profound military and strategic assessment and forecast of the war’s consequences on a short-, mid-and long-term basis.
• The EU must define its ends, ways and means to face adversity as a Union, and change its way of doing business.
• A European headquarter for military planning and political assessment must be established: It will allow acting quickly in case of imminent threats. “The Eastern flank of NATO is much more demilitarized than what Russia claims. Thus, we need to come up with measures that allow us to move assets from one side of the continent to the other one, to face current and future challenges.”

In the current context, Haroche believes that it is a turning point for the EU’s defence to go beyond its current abilities and facilitate military operations. Besides, there are legal constraints such as Article 41.2 which bans the use of the EU’s budget for military operations.

The experts suggest that the possibility for the EU to provide weapons for its own member states should be opened. This would allow the Council to provide exceptions such as the European Union’s possible providing of weapons for its member states. Such a strategy would allow for the funding of “military structures along the frontlines for instance and contribute to deterrence, facilitating the position of troops in the region and financing of logistics.” A model that could be replicated in various regions of the world, for Haroche.

Mr Buttin, highlighted that the Strategic Compass is a process that started under the German Presidency, and which was taken over during the French Presidency. Besides “the war has proven that the Strategic Compass is relevant”. For General Macko, “strategy is strategy”: Thus, it should be implemented as soon as possible. It is more useful to provide leaders with a more general strategy than awaiting an extremely detailed plan.

Following the statements of the speakers, the French Ambassador His Excellence P. Le Deunff, stated that “the conflict in Ukraine underlines the urgency for the European Union to be able to make decisions and have the capacity to defend itself.”