The European Union is a political and economic union without an army to defend its members. The concept of such an army has been in discussion as early as the 1950s However, several concerts and factors - such as sovereignty concerns, difference in defence cultures of the union-members, difference in economic strengths, and the difficulty of developing a command structure that can make appropriate decisions in front of a threat - prevented the integration of the European armies. Moreover, the existence of NATO made an EU army redundant.

The US is the strongest member of NATO with its strong military–industrial complex that is able to ramp up its military production quickly without stretching its economy. On the other hand, EU countries have a commercial civilian industry. Their arms industry is capable of producing expensive weapons with advanced technology but lacks the production capacity for a military build-up.

Their complacency in depending on the US, led to neglecting to commit 2% of their national income on defence. In return, this negligence prevented their military industry from naturally developing its capacity to accommodate the demands of a crisis. Their mistake was first  criticised by President Obama in 2016 as ‘free-riding’ but only the threats of Mr. Trump could wake the EU leaders from their slumber .

Today, even though the combined GDP of the EU members is 10 times greater than Russia they lack the industrial structure and know-how to convert their commercial-civilian production to the armament production.

Their complacency was visible from the beginning of the war. Underestimating the Russian threat to the West, aid to Ukraine came incrementally, never in time and in appropriate scale. The fear of Russian escalation delayed provision of any equipment that would change the balance heavily in favour of Ukraine. When Western tanks and missile systems eventually arrived in Ukraine, Russia had already established its nearly impenetrable fortifications.

Although the need to ramp up military production even if just to support the Ukrainian military was obvious, two precious years were spent with the pompous rhetoric of ‘being to the end beside Ukraine’. As a result, the EU alone is unable to provide even enough ammunition for the continuation of war. Recently it was reported that only half of the promised one million artillery shells could be sent by March 2024, while Ukraine needs at least four times more of it for this year.

Although to assess the seriousness of the Russian aggression took quite long, the possibility of losing the US as a reliable defence partner and its consequences sank, rather quickly. However, to fix the deficiencies of their military industry might take longer than the endurance of Ukraine. This comprehension revealed the  importance of the survival of Ukraine.

In the absence of the EU army and considering that Ukraine is not a NATO member, the only possible move to support Ukraine was bilateral defensive pacts. Indeed an avalanche of bilateral security agreements began to be signed between Ukraine and France, Germany, Italy, Denmark and even overseas with Canada. While the Netherlands and Norway are in the process of concluding similar agreements, French President Macron announced that sending Western troops to Ukraine is not out of the question.

Although, countries like Sweden, Czech Republic and Poland said that they are not considering sending troops to Ukraine, as it is not relevant for NATO at the moment, it reflects exactly the importance of these bilateral defence agreements which do not depend on the alliance.

Indeed, still Sweden may continue in its trust to NATO as a newcomer, but old members realise that the truth may be otherwise. From shying off sending advanced weaponry to Ukraine for fears of initiating WWIII, to signing defence agreements with a country that is under invasion and even pronouncing the possibility of sending troops show that EU is quitting its comfort zone.

Without solving the main problem which is the deficiency in the armament industry, defence pacts have not much to give. However, it can be expected that these pacts are the beginning of policy changes that will open the avenues for the European military industry to develop their capacity and also will help to increase the public awareness about the threat and prepare them to accept serious changes like raising the defence budget and conscription laws. Indeed the other most important inherent problem of Europe is the lack of manpower that would serve in the army.

Greedy pays twice. The demand for the armament inflated the prices. Today while spending more, less will be achieved. Countries will decrease their social expenditure, and the increase in inflation will further reduce living standards. If the EU spent 2% of the GDP over the years, their military–industrial complex could develop naturally, with less pain. Eventually European people are required to be convinced of the necessity of the new policies. To implement the changes won’t be either easy or cheap.

‍

‍