By Wang Wei'an
The EU summit recently concluded in Brussels, the capital of Belgium. Certain key issues including support to Ukraine, European defense, and the situation in the Middle East were discussed at the summit. Considering the high uncertainty regarding the security commitments of the Trump administration of the US to Europe, as well as the practical pressure imposed by the lasting Russia-Ukraine conflict and related spillover risks, the EU member states have reached a consensus on seeking European defense autonomy. The summit sought to shift the role of the EU in its own defense from "executor" to "decision-maker", thus enhancing the EU's say over European defense.
Of note is that the outcome document of the summit didn't clearly mention whether to approve or not the Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 (hereinafter referred to as "Roadmap") unveiled by the European Commission previously. It exposes doubts and differences haunting the Roadmap, which has only garnered "limited consensus" so far.
The Roadmap calls on EU member states to build "a sufficiently strong European defense posture to credibly deter its adversaries and respond to any aggression" in the following critical five-year period. It also proposes four prioritized "flagship" projects, including the European Drone Defense Initiative, the Eastern Flank Watch, the European Air Shield, and the European Space Shield, for the purpose of strengthening the EU's deterrence and defense in land, sea, air, cyber and outer space, and other domains.
Notwithstanding the continuous expansion of defense spending of many European countries, due to historical and practical factors, the progress of European defense autonomy is "idealistic in theory but harsh in reality", with the implementation of the ambitious Roadmap vision doomed to multiple challenges.
The internal cause of the differences primarily comes from interest gaming within the EU. As an issue concerning national sovereignty, defense integration has always been sensitive in the EU. Some EU member states are concerned that the European Commission and other institutions are attempting to interfere in their national defense policies through the Roadmap. The European Commission had to emphasize in the Roadmap that "member States are and will remain sovereign for their national security and defense." Southern European countries such as Spain and Italy expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the "flagship" projects prefer mainly the eastern part of Europe. France, Germany, and other major countries strongly oppose the usage of various European defense funds to subsidize the concept of "drone wall" for Eastern European countries. The European Commission had no choice but to compromise, emphasizing the "pan-European" nature and the "360-degree approach" to fund allocation of the projects.
The funding restraint and technical bottlenecks constraining the implementation of the Roadmap also lead to sparse proponents of the initiative. The Roadmap will only be implemented through substantial financial support. As such, many EU member states will see a further rise in their already high debts, which will cause potential social contradictions and even political unrest. Moreover, significant gaps exist in Europe's technological buildup and industrial support in space defense, drone and counter-drone, and other fields. Since the feasibility of the "flagship" projects in the Roadmap is still to be verified, they are highly likely to remain on paper in the short term.
Another major barrier facing the EU's pursuit of defense autonomy stems from pressure and control imposed by the US. Indeed, the EU is unlikely to remove and eliminate its reliance on the US and NATO in defense. The Roadmap emphasizes defense autonomy on the one hand, and requires every project to "ensure maximum coherence and mutual reinforcement, while avoiding unnecessary duplications" on the other hand. Europe not only has developed the subjective policy logic and psychological tendency of enjoying NATO's security benefits, but also suffers long-term objective reliance on and control by NATO in command structures, conventional weapons and equipment, and even nuclear deterrence, to name a few.