EU defence Commissioner calls for permanent 100,000-strong European army

EU Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius has advocated for a “big bang” in defence and the creation of a standing European military force of around 100,000 troops. This force would serve as a backbone for continental security, potentially replacing the current U.S. military presence in Europe, which also numbers approximately 100,000 personnel.

Kubilius made these remarks during the “Europe Under Pressure” security conference held in Sälen, Sweden, on 11 January, organized by the Swedish defence think tank Folk och Försvar.

The event, attended by defence experts, policymakers, and military officials, focused on escalating threats to European stability, including Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine and uncertainties in transatlantic relations.

Kubilius emphasized the need for institutional reforms to bolster Europe’s defence capabilities, questioning the inefficiency of fragmented national forces. “Would the United States be stronger if they had 50 armies at the state level instead of a single federal army? Or 50 defence policies and budgets instead of a single federal defence policy and budget? The answer is no. So what are we waiting for?” he rhetorically asked in his speech.

He described Europe’s current national militaries as “bonsai armies” – small and ornamental – arguing they are inadequate for replacing the U.S. contingent that forms the core of NATO’s European operations.

Drawing on recent polls from countries like Spain, Belgium, and Germany, Kubilius noted that about 70% of citizens prefer a European army for national defence over purely national forces (10%) or NATO alone (12%), signalling broad public support for integration.

The proposal echoes earlier ideas from figures like former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, and ex-EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who advocated for unified European armed forces over a decade ago.

Kubilius also called for the establishment of a European Security Council to facilitate rapid decision-making on defence matters. This body could include permanent members from key EU states, rotating participants, and representatives from EU institutions, with potential involvement from non-EU countries like the United Kingdom for broader security discussions.

He stressed that the council’s initial focus should be on Ukraine, warning that maintaining current levels of support risks allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin to prevail. “There are currently no signs that Putin will agree to a peace plan. Simply continuing our support for Ukraine at the same level risks worsening the situation and, ultimately, carries the risk that Putin will win,” Kubilius stated.

Additional reports from the Sälen conference highlight the timing of Kubilius’s comments amid heightened anxieties over U.S. commitment to European security. Sources note that concerns have intensified due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated statements, including his controversial push to acquire Greenland, which has raised doubts among NATO allies about Washington’s reliability as a partner.

AFP coverage of the event described Kubilius’s vision as a “powerful, standing European military force” aimed at reducing Europe’s dependence on American troops, framing it as a response to strategic vulnerabilities exposed by the Russia-Ukraine war.

Ukrainian media outlets, such as Suspilne and European Pravda, amplified the proposal’s relevance to Kyiv, suggesting that Ukraine’s armed forces, defence industry, and combat experience could be integrated into a future European Defence Union

Kubilius further urged modernization of Europe’s defence industry through stronger political leadership and collaborative projects, while preparing for the activation of Article 42(7) of the EU Treaty, which mandates mutual assistance in case of armed aggression against a member state.

Challenges in building a real European army beyond paper proposals

While Kubilius’s call revives a long-standing debate on European defence integration, experts point to substantial hurdles in transforming such ideas into a functional, unified army. Historically, proposals for a European army have faltered due to member states’ reluctance to cede sovereignty over national security, viewing it as a core element of statehood.

This hesitation stems from fears that shifting power to the EU level could undermine individual countries’ ability to respond to unique threats, leading to fragmented commitments rather than cohesion.

Fragmentation in Europe’s defence landscape exacerbates these issues: differing national military strategies, threat assessments, and equipment standards hinder interoperability, inflating costs and causing logistical nightmares.

For instance, nearly 70% of arms purchased by European NATO countries between 2020 and 2024 came from outside Europe, highlighting industrial dependencies and a lack of self-sufficiency.

Political and financial barriers also loom large. Unwillingness to deploy forces in crises, uneven cost-sharing (where deploying nations bear the brunt), and a lack of shared strategic culture – such as through joint training or a European war college – stifle progress.

Despite momentum from events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the EU’s Strategic Compass adoption, defence nerds remain cautious, warning that reviving the army debate could sow confusion without addressing these foundational challenges.

Caption: EU Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius (4^th from left in Sweden, on 11 January 2026. Second from left is Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden and third from left is her father, King Carl XVI Gustaf [Account of Andrius Kubilius on X]