Distinguished guests,
Lets start with a thought experiment.
Imagine: its the future. 2030. And 100,000 Russian soldiers are building up at the EU border and NATO border. Just like they did at the Ukrainian border, four years ago.
And at the very same time, on the other side of the world another massive security crisis is building. A massive threat to our American allies.
So what happens next? Can we face this dual crisis?
What happens next, depends on what we do in the weeks and months ahead.
Russia is continuing its brutal war without mercy or end in sight. And American strategic priorities are now in the Indo-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere.
They say that very clearly in the new National Defence Strategy. And they expect us to take responsibility for our conventional defence.
And it is not only the United States that expect this. So do the people of Europe.
Recent Eurobarometer polls show: A majority of European trusts the EU to strengthen security and defence. In Spain, Belgium, Germany 70% of people prefer European collective defence instead of national or even NATO defence.
European responsibility for defence does not mean: going solo.
It means beefing up Europe within NATO, so all of NATO is stronger.
In my view, our European defence readiness has three pillars. If one fails, all our defence readiness fails.
First pillar: Material defence readiness – weapons, equipment, troops.
Second pillar: Institutional defence readiness – a unified institutional framework to organise our defence on the European continent. Especially when the Americans are shifting towards other regions. The best answer - European Defence Union.
And third: political defence readiness – the will to defend, if need be to fight. That is what the Kremlin permanently attacks with all hybrid means.
So to start with material defence readiness: If Putin tests us in 2030, do we have our own European strategic enablers in place? Like space intelligence, or air to air refueling?
At the moment we are heavily dependent on American strategic enablers. If theres a crisis in the Western hemisphere or the Indo pacific, our allies might need those capabilities themselves.
So its urgent to be ready to replace American strategic enablers with our own European ones.
This should be our strategic priority. And we need to be ready to replace other conventional defence resources, placed by our transatlantic partners on the European continent.
If we can take care of our own security, that would not only improve our own security. It would also improve the security of our American allies. And the security and stability of the world.
So, to deter Putin from testing us, we have now several jobs to do.
First job: transform the opportunities for defence ramp-up we created last year, into the delivery of defence equipment and weapons. Including Strategic Enablers.
We have now 150 billion in SAFE loans. A 60 billion defence loan for Ukraine coming up.
Member States will spend 6.8 trillion euros on defence by 2035 if they fulfil their NATO pledges.
So billions worth of orders for industry are coming. But it sometimes seems that our industry is not yet ready to face this demand shock.
And it seems, that national governments also are not ready for the challenges of defence spending shock.
That is why the second job we need to do: Make sure we not only spend more, but also better and European.
As I said, - a big bang in defence spending is coming.
But quantity alone does not bring quality. The famous British economist and historian Adam Tooze recently pointed out: In the last ten years, Europeans spent 3.1 trillion on defence.
But even so - we still are not ready, to fight as Europeans.
I warn here today for one big danger: Most new money for defence will be national. So the temptation will be to spend only national. And that would only increase fragmentation.
Bad for our defence and our competitiveness.
More money but no production growth would only increase prices of defence products. Increase inefficiency. Increase waiting times for product delivery.
That is why the third job to do is the most important: bring greater unity, to European defence.
How do we do that?
We need a framework for action. We need institutional defence readiness.
A European Defence Union.
Not to replace NATO, or duplicate NATO. But support NATO in Europe. And to make Europe ready to take responsibility on European defence. And to be much more united in defence.
The division of labour is clear: NATO provides military might. The EU provides production power, European Defence Union builds European pillar of NATO.
Why European Defence Union?
Because there are very practical questions, related with our defence capabilities and they will demand answers in the nearest future.
Those questions are, first of all, related to the possibility of Russian aggression. What I was saying at the very beginning.
In this case, EU Member States will face a Russian battle tested army which is much stronger than it was back in 2022. No NATO Member State in Europe has such a battle tested experience. Only the military forces of Ukraine have.
That is why we need to answer a very practical question: are we preparing to integrate Ukrainian battle tested military capabilities with our own defence capabilities, with the capabilities of the EU? How are we going to do that? The same with capabilities of United Kingdom or Norway?
One of the answers to such a question could be an initiative to start to create a European Defence Union, a task defined in the agenda of this Commission. And defined as my mission.
German Chancellor Merz recently also urged to do that: “German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for the European Union to transform into a full-fledged European Defense Union, urging Europe to take greater responsibility for its security amid evolving global challenges”.
What will a European Defence Union mean? Many questions and ideas still need to be discussed:
How much should the European Defence Union borrow from the unratified “Treaty establishing the European Defence Community” from 1952?
To what extent will the creation of a European Defence Union be a means to implement Art.42(2) of TEU, which demands from Member States the “progressive framing of a common Union defence policy” which “will lead to a common defence”?
Or the implementation of Art.42(7), which demands “mutual assistance” in the case if EU Member State faces military aggression.
The list of such questions can be extended.
But lets ask ourselves an out of the box question, which is easy to answer: would the United States be militarily stronger, if they had 50 armies on the states level, 50 sovereign state level defence policies and 50 defence budgets?
If we understand that unity is stronger than fragmentation, then what are we waiting for?
Especially when European citizens are dramatically shifting in their opinion to demand more European unity in defence and more European defence.
Jean Monnet always said, that the European Community will be created during the crisis, and what will be created during the crisis (what institutions will be created), that will be the European Community itself.
We are facing a crisis. A dangerous security and defence crisis.
In the time of the crisis, the first thing what is needed is intellectual mobilization. For discussions not only about what others will do (we like to discuss this very much in Europe), but first of all what we need to do. And after discussions - swift decisions.
Let me finish with the words of Jean Claude Juncker from the famous speech in Prague in 2017 (almost 10 years ago), even more appropriate today:
“But more than that, the clock is running on how long we can live in a house half built. A European Security and Defence Union will help protect our Union, which is exactly what EU citizens expect.
So the call I make today is not only in favour of a Europe of defence – it is a call in defence of Europe”.
I can only repeat such a call!