Building a European Army in three steps: its naïve to be against!

This piece explains Volt's vision for the integration of our armed forces. For our broader position on the future of European Defence, such as the defence industry, please read here.

Feb 18, 2026

We have talked before about why we need a European Army. NATO, which keeps us safe from outside threats, doesn't work without the US. But the US is currently unreliable at best, and an enemy at worst. If Greenland or the Baltics were attacked tomorrow, Europe would not be prepared with 27 divided little armies. Europe is a peace project, and peace must be defended. To protect our shared freedom, prosperity, and a positive future, we need to deter those who want to destroy it. In the long run, integrated armed forces would also save hundreds of billions of euros from fragmentation, make our forces more effective in the field, and solidify Europe's geopolitical position in an increasingly unstable world. 

A growing majority of Europeans now want a European Army instead of national armies.

The European Commissioner for Defence has said that Europe needs 100,000 common troops and a ''big bang'' on how defence is governed: not 27 little armies but one defence force that can keep us all safe. Some Member States, like Spain, are also openly in favour.

So European citizens, experts and officials agree that we need a European Army.

But how would such a European Army actually look like?

Let's first see what we need to achieve. Experts agree on the three most critical urgencies to replace the US role in NATO and build the European defence autonomy:

  • Leadership. We lack a unified command and control structure that can direct our forces with homegrown infrastructure, doctrines, and exercises.

  • Forces. We have a gap of around 300,000 soldiers that are actually ready to respond to any aggression, with harmonised equipment, culture and training.

  • Capabilities. We lack the key capabilities, so called ''strategic enablers'' to make those troops fight effectively, like intelligence, surveillance and logistics.

This is not a choice between NATO or a European Army. We want to make sure NATO works properly with a European pillar, which is best achieved through an autonomous European Defence Union. Think of it this way: the US currently provides most of its contributions to NATO under US European Command. We want to build a European counterpart to that.

Finally, the EU cannot do this alone. Ukraine in particular can fill critical gaps in our readiness with its large, battle-hardened military, and innovative technologies. Partners like the UK, Norway, Canada and EU candidate countries will also be essential. How do we get this in order, the quickest, sustainable and most effective way possible? Let's take it in three steps, from most urgent to most future-proof: NATO, EDU, and the European Army.

Step one: Make NATO Trump-proof through European leadership

We have to accept that we cannot immediately replace the US security umbrella. But we need an emergency plan in case the US suddenly leaves NATO. You don't want to order a brand-new fire extinguisher online when your house is on fire; you want to use the old and ugly one, even if you need to fix its missing parts with duct tape. NATO has decades of experience in organising collective defence in Europe. If we start from scratch, Russia will exploit the transition period to strike Europe while it's disorganised. Besides: NATO will continue to be the best framework for a future autonomous European Defence to work together with our allies. So, what can we do to make NATO work better for us?

  • Replace NATO's Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR), and its operational and tactical component commands, with European officers. This process is already underway but needs to be accelerated. NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) should also be staffed by more European personnel.

  • Replace US situational awareness and battlefield management systems with our own, for example by scaling up Ukraine's ''DELTA'' system. This applies to all the digital hardware and software we use to keep our militaries running. 

  • Set up a ‘’fusion cell’’ for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) so that we at least have the eyes and ears to know what our enemies are doing. This is perhaps our most critical dependency on the US, especially in the context of Ukraine. National intelligence agencies that trust each other can pool their assets.

  • Replace, as much as possible, the US extended nuclear deterrent by pooling the British and French nuclear deterrents. We can never fully replace the US, nor should we want to. The Northwood Declaration is a good starting point; make it clear that France and the UK consider all of the European Union as their common vital interest and develop delivery platforms that are independent of the US.

  • Create pooled strategic enablers, procured, maintained and operated as one. Precedents for this already exist, like NATO's AWACS, the European Air Transport Command (EATC) and the Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet (MMF).

  • Replace the 100,000 strong US rapid reaction force in Europe with a multinationally generated European force, building on existing NATO multinational units. Non-frontline states with large, non-committed standing forces could take the lead. National brigades fight under a common command. The rest of Europe can help finance, equip and base the force. This would be a permanent, standing force, not ineffective ad-hoc units like the EU Battlegroups.

  • Make sure Ukraine wins and accelerate candidate countries' EU membership. The best way to ''buy time'' for Europe to get its defence in order is by making sure Russia loses its imperial war. Beyond this, EU membership can serve as a security guarantee and protect other countries that will join the European family.

Step two: Build a core European Defence Union with a group of willing countries

Europeanising NATO is not sufficient in the long run. Europeans might not always want to or be able to use NATO for operations. For example, what if an EU Member State that is not part of NATO is attacked, or attacked by another NATO state? It would also allow us to provide security guarantees in Ukraine with European boots on the ground. But getting 27 squabbling EU countries to merge their national armies into a European Army will take a lot of time and effort. Some, like Hungary, will actively obstruct, while others, like Ireland and Austria, maintain a neutral policy. Bigger countries are willing and able to do more. So, in the medium term, it's best to set up a kind of a start-up for the military: on top of national armies, and only by those who want to participate. More can join over time, so that it becomes an EU-wide policy, just like the successful examples of Schengen and the Euro. National parliaments stay in control, and no treaty change is required to make it happen.

  • Set up a European Security Council, a kind of cabinet, to make decisions faster: with at least France, Germany, the UK, Poland, Spain, Italy and the EU Commission and European Council Presidents on board. This ESC can coordinate the armed forces integration of participating countries faster and provide a useful ''plan b'' in case NATO cannot be relied upon in an emergency.

  • Activate PESCO (through article 42.6), so that the European countries wanting to move faster can do so. Have them deeply integrate their militaries and industries. PESCO already exists but has so far been limited to fragmented ''click and subscribe'' programmes of limited ambition, like a common medical command. This can be done by a majority vote; unanimity is not necessary.

  • Centralise research, development, procurement and maintenance of military equipment. Moving to one common tank system instead of 17 will improve interoperability, create economies of scale, and ease logistics. A common authority procures on behalf of participating countries. Defence markets are fully integrated.

  • Upgrade the MPCC, the EU's command and control headquarters so it can coordinate large scale collective defence operations. Its functions are currently limited to expeditionary operations taking place under the common security and defence policy (CSDP), like commanding the Rapid Deployment Capacity (RDC).

  • Generate a supranational rapid reaction force of 300,000 soldiers. This would fulfil the current European targets under the NATO New Force Model. Unlike the 100,000 multinational forces under step one, this would be a truly integrated force.

  • Operationalise article 42.7, the EU's collective defence clause. We need to develop clear doctrines, scenarios, and exercise regularly to make it credible.

  • A Eurodeterrent. To prevent nuclear proliferation but ensure a sufficiently credible deterrence posture, countries can co-finance the Franco-British nuclear arsenals and develop a massed, conventional long-range deep precision strike capability.

Step three: Create a European Army under a democratic United States of Europe 

We can do a lot more together within the current treaties, and we don't have time to waste. A European NATO and a core European Defence Union will make sure Europe can defend itself without the US, but this is not sustainable in the long run. As more countries sign up and Europe becomes more of a ''pragmatic federation'' in many other areas, questions will arise about the democratic legitimacy of such a common force. At some point, a united army will require a united democracy to supervise it. Beyond this, a clear chain of command and rapid decision making leading down from a democratically elected government will improve the ability to respond to crises and prevent adversaries from playing ''divide and conquer'' against participating countries. Furthermore, there are limits to how much money can be saved and soldiers can work together without a common military culture. Eventually, we should take the leap to a real European Army.

  • Establish the United States of Europe: a democratic, federal state with one foreign and security policy, an elected prime minister and defence minister. A democratic process leads to a common security strategy shared by European citizens. A clear and accountable chain of command improves effectiveness.

  • Create supranational armed forces under the command of the United States of Europe, integrating and replacing most of national militaries. Countries can continue operating ''national guard'' style units for home defence. This force would be made up of European volunteers. Its responsibilities would be limited to collective defence of the EU and peacekeeping missions under UN mandate.

  • Build a fully European deterrent, under the control of the United States of Europe. Responsibility for the nuclear button should not be dependent on the election outcome in a single European country, but the shared burden of all.

  • Cultivate a European military culture from private to general. Common education, training and exercises create a shared culture. By transforming the European Security and Defence College into a full European Military Academy, we create generations of military personnel with a shared sense of civic duty.

  • Embrace a high-tech European military doctrine. Europe does not need to fully replace the US to be able to deter Russia and keep our continent secure. Why should we have 10 aircraft carriers? By adopting lessons learned by Ukraine (drones, AI, decentralised networked communication) and leveraging the unique strengths of our own societies, technology and industry, we build a defence that is more cost effective and fit for purpose for our security needs.

None of this is easy, and it will take time to create a culture shift in our militaries. But some countries, like the Netherlands, France, Germany and the Scandinavians are already integrating significant parts of their armed forces. NATO and the EU already operate multinational battlegroups, units like AWACS, transport and refuelling aircraft. It's possible. In a world under threat by imperialism and spheres of influence, Europe needs to be able to defend its democracy, prosperity, values and green future with a European Army.

Suggested reading:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-europe-can-defend-itself-less-america 

https://www.iiss.org/research-paper/2025/05/defending-europe-without--the-united-states-costs-and-consequences/ 

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us-first-estimates-what-needed 

https://www.egmontinstitute.be/app/uploads/2025/05/Sven-Biscop_Policy_Brief_379_vFinal.pdf?type=pdf 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/europe/europe-needs-army?utm_campaign=bs,tw&utm_content=&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky,twitter 

https://hcss.nl/report/shields-and-spears/ 

______________

You and us share the same dream of a united, thriving Europe. It really means a lot to us when you make a donation, and if you would like to help us plan ahead with confidence, we thank you for your monthly contribution 💜