Frankly, I don’t understand the debate here.

You can do both, and leverage both, to improve the capabilities of both. Leave NATO as the standards-definer and overall command structure. But also, the EU should absolutely take more advantage of the economy of scale for big-ticket items like regional ballistic defense, new fighter projects, even submarines and CVNs.

If they do it conscientiously, and are careful to not let military industrial basically dictate procurement policy, the EU could potentially spend less under that aggregated model than they do with individual, independent militaries.

As an American, it’d honestly be great if literally anyone else who was somewhat ideologically aligned with the west would really, seriously underwrite the security of the western world in a military sense.

If the issue is setting standards, how hard would it be to just agree to set them together? Is NATO just being weird and possessive and not wanting to give the EU any input?

Also an interesting bit:

Turkey's territorial dispute with Cyprus — a non-NATO member in the EU — is also making things more complicated between the two institutions. Turkish diplomats at NATO are unwilling to let alliance staff share too much information with the EU, as Cypriot officials would be able to access it. "You might think we're having the war in Ukraine, and the two groups of ambassadors should be meeting as often as possible to discuss strategies," a senior EU diplomat said. "That's not the case, thanks to Turkey and Cyprus."

Conflict in everyone's favourite Balkan island strikes again.

Goodbye pax americana, we hardly knew ye o7

So this debate was always buried in the whole "Europe is freeloading on NATO" schtick, the fact that for example both EU countries and the US buy and fly F-35 jets. If the EU is now forced to spend more on defense, especially since the impetus is partly coming from the unreliability of the US, why should an EU country give that money to the US as opposed to joining the FCAS programme? Now the question is, will NATO put the joint interests of its member states ahead of those of the US MIC?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Commission has also presented a European Defence Industrial Strategy alongside a cash pot of at least €1.5 billion, aimed at getting the EU to finally begin punching its weight when it comes to defense.

Spurred by the war in Ukraine and by the potential return to the White House of Donald Trump, the bloc wants its members to start thinking of their own futures when it comes to defense, one in which they don't rely overly on the United States.

"We need to build such a sustainable financial instrument if European security should be protected" Tomáš Kopečný, the Czech envoy for the reconstruction of Ukraine and a former deputy defense minister, told POLITICO.

In a letter Stoltenberg sent to von der Leyen Jan. 26, seen by POLITICO, he warned "I am concerned about the potential overlap with existing NATO activities," adding: "In particular, I would be worried if the EU were to move into standard setting for munitions."

In a February speech, von der Leyen said a “new European defense mindset” would be urgently needed, because “we do not have the control over elections or decisions in other parts of the world.”

"On the day of the invasion, you and I stood side-by-side and delivered a clear message of support for the Ukrainian people," Stoltenberg recalled, casually omitting the other person who was also on stage at the time — European Council President Charles Michel.

The original article contains 1,685 words, the summary contains 236 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

The EU has different goals than NATO. So it would be prudent to collect input from NATO, but the goal is different.