Security has surpassed the stage of being a concept, it has become an imperative. Strategies that have been lying on the drawing boards in times of peace must now be overhauled and re-thought from the ground up. Perhaps more than at any time in the past 80 years, we are confronted with existential questions. Two of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are waging or supporting - partly together with other countries heavily sanctioned by the UN system - a brutal war of aggression against Ukraine and are further extending their hegemonic ambitions. These actors systematically erode the guardrails of international law established after World War II.
These tectonic shifts represent a severe stress test for the foundations of European security, foreign policy and our democratic system. While a new era shaped by conflict has begun, we often remain stuck in patterns of thinking and policy instruments rooted in previous times of peace. In many areas, decisive course corrections are required.
We are living in the midst of a European war with increasingly global dimensions. Iranian drones, North Korean missiles and Chinese military equipment are being used against Ukraine. Moscow’s deployment of North Korean soldiers or Yemeni mercenaries illustrate how geographical boundaries are increasingly dissolving.
Instead of a rules-based international order, we are witnessing - both in Europe and globally - an order increasingly enforced by threats and violence. Authoritarian nationalist actors are united in their rejection of Western liberal democracy and the existing international order. At the same time, important partners of our foreign policy—such as New Delhi, Ankara or Brasília—are strategically expanding their trade relations with Moscow in areas subject to sanctions.
Multilateral institutions and international law are also under pressure due to the actions of some of our closest partners. In the Middle East conflict, UN instruments built up over decades have been caught between the fronts; potential US sanctions threaten the future of the International Criminal Court. The de facto American withdrawal from a number of international organisations and agreements will significantly reduce the effectiveness of multilateral institutions. As the US was among the largest contributors to the UN system, we will have to prioritise how we can step in politically and financially.
Established formats such as the G7 are also under strain due to expected US disruptions, domestic political instability and pivotal elections. At the same time, explicitly “non-Western” formats such as BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are gaining
appeal - even for NATO partners such as Turkey. While these formats have so far led neither to deep economic nor security integration, shared objectives and initial signs of coordinated action are becoming visible.
For the European Union, this means that we must act more robustly and in flexible coalitions in order to defend multilateralism and international law and to strengthen global governance. Long-overdue UN reforms are necessary, as are initiatives to strengthen international law, for example by expanding the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to include the crime of aggression.
The European Union is facing existential challenges. In the East, Russia is escalating its war against Ukraine; in the West, the course of the new US administration is unpredictable. Trade conflicts, attempts at bilateralisation and internal competition among EU member states threaten to undermine our unity.
An end to US support for Ukraine or a “frozen conflict” imposed over the heads of Ukrainians would strengthen Russia and endanger Europe’s security. States on NATO’s eastern flank view such scenarios with deep concern. Europe must act jointly to ensure that Ukraine retains agency over its own fate and that European security is not shaped without Europeans.
At the same time, the EU is facing internal pressure. Populist and Eurosceptic forces are gaining influence, Russian interference is increasing, and Europe risks falling behind technologically. We must restore European competitiveness in strategic areas, but domestic political blockages are slowing implementation. Europe is at an “either-or moment”: either we rise to the challenge - especially in security and defence policy - or our future will be decided elsewhere.
Europe has made significant progress over the past decade in taking more responsibility for its own security. With defence initiatives such as PESCO, the European Defence Fund, the European Peace Facility, the European Defence Industrial Strategy and the Capability Development Plan the EU has put concrete instruments in place to strengthen its defence capabilities.
Within the European Union, our focus must lie on interoperability, readiness and capability. To achieve this, we have to procure jointly and in an integrated matter. Industrial fragmentation and national prestige projects still slow down EU defence readiness.
Jointly, the European Union is prioritising the four pan-European flagships: the European Drone Defence Initiative, the Eastern Flank Watch, the European Air Shield and the European Space Shield. In particular, the European Drone Defence Initiative is central to closing urgent capability gaps in anti-drone and air-defence systems across the Union.
War in the 21st century is comprehensive, involving military, technological and societal aspects. Security affects all areas of life. Significantly higher defence spending is required, along with strengthened civil protection and disaster response, greater societal resilience, and renewed debates on models of conscription and national service. Nordic “total defence” and “whole-of-society” concepts provide useful examples. The European Union has recognised the new environment - we must now take decisive steps to acclimatise.
Author: David McAllister is a Member of the European Parliament for the EPP Group and has chaired the Committee on Foreign Affairs there since 2017.
Russland - Venezuela - Taiwan - Grönland: Diese Stichworte reichen, um deutlich zu machen, dass sich die Entscheidungsgrundlagen für alle Sicherheitsstrategen fundamental ändern. Was sind die Leitlinien für eine künftige Sicherheitsstrategie? Worauf müssen wir uns geopolitisch einstellen? Und welche Rolle spielen Innovation, Industrie, Resilienz und Bündnisse dabei?
