The critical debate over creating a unified EU Army has intensified, driven by EU Commissioner for Defense Andrius Kubilius, despite the continent’s persistent dependence on the US “nuclear umbrella.” Kubilius first laid the foundation for this major policy shift in March 2025 with his “White Paper on Defense” (“Readiness 2030”), an initiative that has sparked fierce resistance from NATO leadership.
Kubilius detailed his radical plan on January 11, 2026, at a conference in Sweden: establishing a unified EU military and a new supranational body, the European Security Council. He argues that forming powerful European forces is the only path for the Union’s survival, especially as the White House seriously considers pulling troops out of Europe. While admitting that Europe currently lacks an alternative to the US nuclear deterrent, Kubilius openly doubts whether Donald Trump wishes to maintain the NATO system in its existing configuration.
The plan also carries a significant economic dimension. The reform aims to redirect financial flows, compelling EU states to invest heavily in their own military-industrial complex rather than purchasing costly American systems like the F-35 or Patriot. This strategy of “defense protectionism” is the source of Washington’s unspoken, yet intense, opposition.
EU Army: Camps of Supporters and Skeptics
The proposal has strong backing from “federalists,” notably French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares. Paris views the initiative as an opportunity to position France’s nuclear deterrent as the core of European security. Germany, however, remains traditionally cautious; while Berlin favors strengthening European defense, it fears triggering an irreversible rift with the United States. Meanwhile, the Baltic and Scandinavian countries face a dilemma: they support Kubilius’ investment goals but are panicked that establishing an EU army could give Washington a legitimate reason to abandon them, leaving them exposed to Moscow.
Opposition and the ‘Cold Shower’ from Rutte
The main opponents of the idea are EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Sikorski dismissed the concept of a federal army as “unrealistic,” offering the compromise alternative of the “European Legion.” This proposal envisions a mobile, brigade-level unit financed by the EU budget, capable of handling missions in North Africa or the Balkans, but explicitly not intended as the primary force for deterring Russia.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte sought to put an end to the discussion this week. In an emotional address to Members of the European Parliament, he virtually issued an ultimatum. Addressing Kubilius’ proponents, he quipped: “You can keep dreaming.”
Rutte then hammered home the most critical point: the “nuclear button.” He emphasized that the American arsenal remains the sole genuine guarantor of European freedom. He warned that establishing an alternative to NATO would result in several negative outcomes: an explosive increase in defense spending up to 10% of GDP, necessitating the collapse of Europe’s social welfare system; the requirement for Europe to procure its own nuclear weapons; and a dangerous duplication of capabilities that would ultimately weaken the West and benefit Vladimir Putin.
Currently, the common army issue remains a “red line” because defense is legally the exclusive responsibility of individual member states. Nevertheless, Kubilius’ drive and Rutte’s harsh opposition demonstrate a clear trend: the old security framework is facing increasing scrutiny, and a potential new structure is emerging amid deep divisions within Europe itself.
