Without Germany, unity and US: Weak links in Europe's defence Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Europe once again demonstrated its limited independence and inability to take effective action—this conclusion arises from observing how the EU tried to take on military support for Kyiv and failed. It is clear that Ukraine cannot do without the help of Washington. At the emergency defense summit of the EU on March 7 in Brussels, the leaders of the member states also failed to reach a unified position. Countries such as Hungary and Slovakia follow their own paths, and Brussels is unable to find common ground with them due to its rigid and often ultimatum-driven policies.

As a result, the summit participants merely took note of the proposal to create a credit fund of 150 billion euros, which is intended to strengthen Europe's defense capabilities. Hungary once again opposed providing aid to Ukraine, which led to the publication of a separate document signed by 26 EU countries instead of a unified resolution. However, this document lacks full legal force and is largely symbolic in nature.

Will the EU manage to go through its stage of "maturation"—learning to negotiate internally, freeing itself from dependence on the U.S., and building its own security system capable of responding to external challenges? Or will it remain a fragmented, disoriented, and indecisive player on the world stage? These questions were raised by the correspondent of Caliber.Az with German and Ukrainian political scientists.

German political scientist Yevgeny Kudryats believes that after U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference, it became clear: Europe must act independently, without relying on Washington's support. EU leaders have realized that the situation has changed, and now it is necessary to build a joint but independent strategy.

"Especially since Trump has repeatedly stated the possibility of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO or, at the very least, halting support for countries that, in his view, do not contribute enough to the alliance. This causes serious concern in Europe, as the scenario could become absurd: if, for example, one of the countries that has not paid its required contributions is attacked by Russia, the U.S. might refuse to support it. Such uncertainty jeopardizes the entire European security system.

In this regard, various peacekeeping plans are already being discussed. One of them is a report by experts from the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, which proposes the creation of a buffer zone stretching 1,200 kilometers long and 10 kilometers wide. However, the key issue lies in Russia's position, which insists on the right to approve the composition of peacekeeping forces in this zone. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized that he considers the presence of NATO troops on neighboring countries' territories unacceptable—even if they operate 'under a foreign flag, under the EU flag, or under national flags.'

For the EU, all this means the urgent need to restructure its strategic approach. Overall, there is a growing understanding in European capitals of the importance of collective action. French President Emmanuel Macron has been proactive, involving the United Kingdom in the process despite its exit from the EU. However, Germany is still unable to take a leading position, as the new government will officially begin work only in April—the country is currently undergoing a political 'transition' phase.

Moreover, there are still countries in the EU that oppose a unified course. In particular, Hungary and Slovakia openly demonstrate sympathy for Vladimir Putin. Given that key decisions in the EU are made by consensus, Hungary regularly blocks important initiatives, using its veto power.

The situation could change once the new government is fully formed in Germany. With the chancellor taking office, Berlin will be able to play a more active role in resolving these issues. This, in turn, could significantly impact the coordination of efforts within the EU and the development of a unified position," concluded Kudryats.

Ukrainian political scientist and international relations expert Maksym Yali believes that in the short term, uniting Europe around a unified security policy will be extremely difficult. In his opinion, this will require not only the development of new approaches but also a change in political elites that are unaccustomed to working in the face of such serious and systemic challenges.

"We are seeing significant divergences in the positions of European countries on key issues—such as ensuring Ukraine's security and providing it with military aid. This is especially evident in the positions of Hungary and Slovakia.

The main problem lies in the very institutional structure of the EU. All decisions are made solely on the basis of consensus. This allows individual countries, such as Hungary, to block Brussels' initiatives.

Nevertheless, European leaders have not yet demonstrated sufficient political will to address these systemic issues. Without a full institutional reform, which has been repeatedly called for—particularly a shift from consensus to qualified majority voting (two-thirds of votes) on foreign policy and security matters—such initiatives will continue to stall. As long as this situation remains unchanged, it is extremely difficult to talk about the development of a unified, coordinated, and effective security policy for the EU," concluded Yali.