BRUSSELS (Realist English). The strengthening of Russia in Eastern Europe and the reduced involvement of the United States in European security have once again revived the idea of creating a European Security Council.
Ben Hall, an analyst at the Financial Times, explains in his article why old formats have stopped working and what new mechanisms could unite the EU, NATO, Britain and Ukraine.
An Old Idea Made New
The idea of creating a European Security Council (ESC) is gaining new life against the backdrop of growing US disengagement and the continued Russian threat. The concept, first proposed by Emmanuel Macron back in 2017 and rejected at the time by London, has again become the focus of debate — this time thanks to former Lithuanian prime minister and current European defence commissioner Andrius Kubilius.
However, the main impetus comes from two fundamental changes in the European security architecture: the possible withdrawal of America from Europe and Ukraine’s transformation into an indispensable player in deterring Russia.
Former French prime minister, European commissioner and Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has become the latest supporter of the reform. Speaking at the Globsec conference in Prague at the end of May, he said the EU needs to consider whether its foreign policy apparatus is “working today or not”.
Barnier proposed a return to a “more intergovernmental framework” with the creation of a European Council for Security and Defence that would include the UK, Ukraine and Norway. The focus would be on defence, the defence industry, intelligence and strategically important technologies.
Fresh Impetus
In early June, Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius published a policy essay in which he called the ESC “the proper leadership platform for discussions and swift preparation of decisions” that Europe needs if it is to become responsible for its own defence.
Two fundamental changes are giving the idea new urgency:
- US disengagement. Washington could become not just a less reliable ally but even openly hostile, which could tear apart the transatlantic alliance. Europe relies on America not only for troops, intelligence, and critical NATO assets but also for political and strategic leadership. Replacing the latter will be the hardest part. Without it, NATO, as Macron once put it, becomes “brain-dead”.
- The central role of Ukraine. Its large army, combat experience and innovations in drone warfare make Kyiv an indispensable component for deterring and containing Russia. At the same time, Ukraine’s accession to the EU in the coming years is unlikely due to the bloc’s arduous procedures and doubts in European capitals about its readiness. Therefore, a seat on a European Security Council could be a way to bind Kyiv to the EU’s orbit without granting full membership.
Bridging Divides
Luigi Scazzieri of the EU Institute for Security Studies writes that an ESC could speed up coordination and political decision‑making and help bridge institutional divides between the EU and NATO and with countries that are outside either body — foremost Ukraine and Britain.
Nathalie Tocci of the Institute for European Policymaking at Bocconi University notes that neither NATO nor the EU has been able to reduce “a major, possibly existential, vulnerability” — dependence on the US. Tellingly, she adds, collective action on European security has often taken place outside the EU or NATO, such as the coalition of the willing on Ukraine or the group of countries that supported Denmark in its conflict with the US over Greenland.
But these are temporary ad hoc formats. A permanent ESC would help forge a shared commitment to European solidarity and autonomy.
Format and Membership: Options
Scazzieri identified four possible models:
- EU leaders meet in a dedicated security format of the European Council.
- A formalised EU Security Council.
- A formal council operating alongside the EU, led by the major powers (as proposed by Kubilius), with different formats for different issues.
- A purely informal body outside the EU based on the five — France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK — possibly with EU representation.
The first two would be easiest to set up and less contentious for smaller member states, but they would be hamstrung by EU procedures and consensus decision‑making. Tocci proposes a council with the major powers as permanent members and others on a rotating basis.
Crucially, all would have to subscribe to the same threat assessment and “a shared goal of defending Europe against Russia with much less America”. This would help exclude potential EU disrupters, such as Slovakia.
Many other questions remain: how would the ESC’s decisions translate into NATO or EU ones? What role for Turkey?
As Heather Grabbe of the Bruegel think‑tank in Brussels noted, the ESC is “one of those empty vessels which people can fill with all kinds of different content”. But fundamentally, it is gaining traction because NATO cannot work without fresh European leadership. The idea is not new, but its time has come.
