Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski has dismissed the possibility of European nations forming a unified army, despite growing calls for a stronger continental defence in the face of threat from Russia. In an interview with Polish state broadcaster TVP on Saturday, Sikorski cautioned against the idea of a single European military force, arguing that such a concept is fraught with ambiguity and impracticality.
“If you understand [a European army] as the unification of national armies, it will not happen,” Sikorski said. “But I have been an advocate for Europe, for the European Union, to develop its own defence capabilities.”
The remarks come amid heightened tensions in Europe, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently urged the creation of a European army, warning that the continent could no longer rely on the United States for protection. Zelenskyy’s call reflects broader anxieties about the future of transatlantic security, particularly as U.S. political dynamics and shifting priorities under President Donald Trump have raised questions about Washington’s commitment to NATO.
Sikorski, however, emphasized that Europe’s defence strategy should focus on enhancing existing frameworks, such as NATO and the EU’s nascent military capabilities. He revealed that the EU is currently forming a reinforced brigade, a modest step toward greater self-reliance.
“If the U.S. wants us to step up in defence, it should have a national component, a NATO component, but I also believe a European EU component,” Sikorski said. He called for EU subsidies to bolster the defence industry and increase production capacity, as well as the creation of an “EU force worthy of its name.”
Yet, Sikorski’s vision stops short of deploying Polish troops to Ukraine, a move he ruled out as incompatible with Poland’s NATO obligations to protect its own territory and the alliance’s eastern flank.
A Gathering Storm
Sikorski’s comments coincide with a stark warning from Danish intelligence that Russia could be prepared to wage a major war in Europe within five years. According to an updated threat assessment by the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS), Moscow’s willingness to use military force against NATO members hinges on the alliance’s perceived weakness and political disunity.
“Russia is likely to be more willing to use military force in a regional war against one or more European NATO countries if it perceives NATO as militarily weakened or politically divided,” the report states. It adds that Russia is actively ramping up its military capabilities, preparing for a potential conflict with NATO.
The DDIS assessment outlines three scenarios for Russian aggression: a local war with a neighbouring country within six months, a regional conflict in the Baltic Sea region within two years, and a large-scale war in Europe within five years—provided the U.S. does not intervene.
The report underscores the urgency of strengthening NATO’s defence capabilities, a task complicated by Trump’s demands for member states to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP, more than double the current target. Trump has also suggested that the U.S. might withdraw from NATO if allies fail to meet their financial obligations, a move that could embolden Moscow.
A Strategic Blind Spot
While the EU has taken steps to support Ukraine and bolster its defence industry, critics argue that the bloc lacks a coherent, long-term strategy to counter Russia’s revisionist ambitions. Juraj Majcin, a foreign policy analyst, notes that the EU’s reactive approach—characterized by crisis management and tactical solutions—falls short of addressing the root causes of Moscow’s aggression.
“The EU’s weak response to Russia’s wars in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014) failed to send a strong message of deterrence,” Majcin writes. He warns that without a robust strategy, Europe risks repeating past mistakes, leaving itself vulnerable to further Russian aggression.
Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics, including disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and sabotage, have already targeted EU and NATO members. Moscow’s recent revision of its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for deploying nuclear weapons, further underscores the gravity of the threat.
From Crisis Management to Strategic Vision
To counter Russia’s revisionism, Majcin argues that the EU must transition from short-term crisis management to a proactive, long-term strategy. This strategy should focus on three key pillars: deterring Russian aggression, curbing Moscow’s ability to wage war, and containing its influence in the Global South.
“The EU must define its core interests vis-à-vis Russia and articulate a vision for achieving them,” Majcin writes. He emphasizes the need for stronger deterrence measures, including bolstering NATO’s defence capabilities and supporting Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression.
At the same time, the EU must address internal divisions that hinder a unified response to Russia. Pro-Russian leaders in Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria have openly championed Moscow’s agenda, complicating efforts to adopt more ambitious measures.
A Coalition of the Willing
Given these challenges, Majcin suggests that coalitions of willing nations—particularly those along NATO’s eastern and northern flanks—should take the lead in countering Russia’s malign activities. Such coalitions could drive broader EU action, as seen in the early days of Russia’s war on Ukraine, when Central and Eastern European states spearheaded military aid efforts.
The Baltic Sea NATO Allies Summit, for instance, has already launched initiatives to protect critical underwater infrastructure and deter further attacks. These efforts, Majcin argues, could serve as a model for broader EU and NATO cooperation.
A Test of Europe’s Resolve
As Europe faces its most urgent geopolitical challenge in decades, the question remains whether the EU can rise to the occasion. The war in Ukraine has exposed both the bloc’s tactical agility and its strategic shortcomings.
For Europe to secure its future and solidify its standing on the global stage, it must move beyond fragmented defence efforts and develop a coherent, long-term strategy to counter Russia’s threat. The stakes could not be higher.
As Sikorski aptly put it, “We need an EU force worthy of its name.” The question is whether Europe can muster the unity and resolve to make that vision a reality.
