In the summer of 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel celebrated together with the national football team at their World Cup win. Her uncharacteristically jubilant expression, captured in photographs, made headlines worldwide. It was not merely a German victory—it symbolised, for many, a resurgent Europe.
After the euro crisis had shaken the continent, the European Union, under Merkel’s leadership, appeared to be regaining its footing and reasserting itself on the global stage. Yet this image of European unity and strength was deceptive. Much like the German football team, which failed to advance from the group stage four years later in Russia, Europe soon revealed the fragility of its presumed sovereignty. Today, even the most ardent advocates of European integration are beginning to acknowledge the Union’s limitations, as its illusion of power crumbles under the weight of three critical weaknesses: dependence on foreign military protection, fragile economic self-sufficiency, and lagging digital and technological sovereignty.
A Combat-Ready European Army?
The European Union has one undeniable achievement: it ensured lasting peace between Germany and France, two nations that waged devastating wars in the 20th century. While their rivalry persists, physical confrontation is unthinkable. European integration has made the unimaginable possible—most European countries no longer face immediate military threats. Maintaining large armies lost its purpose, and defence spending plummeted as a result. European nations shifted towards smaller, professional forces rather than sprawling militaries. This trend is reflected in armaments investment: between 2005 and 2018, the EU’s total annual defence spending remained below €200 billion. This allowed European countries to redirect resources to education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
Low defence budgets gave Europe an economic edge. While the United States consistently allocates over 3.4% of GDP to defence, Germany in 2024 reached only 1.9% of GDP, despite (nearly) meeting NATO’s 2% target for the first time since 1992. From a purely economic perspective, investing in military hardware that is either destroyed in conflict or left unused seems inefficient. Yet this logic has collided with a new reality.
