State of the Union: Europe’s defence prepares for everything — but is ready for nothing

This op-ed was originally published in Dutch in De Morgen and de Volkskrant online on 10 september, 2025.

Today Ursula von der Leyen delivers her State of the Union. Defence and security are at the top of the agenda: a Defence Commissioner, additional funding for the industry, and a new “Readiness Union” designed to make Europe more resilient against crises and threats.

In the background we also find “Readiness 2030”, the successor to “ReArm Europe”. The name change may look like detail politics, but it is telling. “ReArm” sounded too militaristic for some member states, while “Readiness” feels more neutral. That difference illustrates how sensitive defence remains in Europe – and how difficult it is to turn rhetoric into clear priorities.

The numbers are impressive. In 2024, member states together spent €326 billion on defence, more than €100 billion above the level three years earlier. Yet this surge in spending has only marginally translated into collective capability.

The reasons are well known. National prestige projects, industrial protectionism, and the veto right keep the EU slow and inefficient. Everyone protects their own slice of the pie, leading to duplicate production lines and competing systems. Extra money alone will not change that as long as political choices remain absent.

In the EU, any member state can block decisions on foreign and security policy. Majority voting sounds attractive but is politically unrealistic for now. What is possible, however, is for countries willing to move ahead to act in smaller coalitions. The treaties already allow this, though the option is rarely used.

The dream of a single European defence market with one central buyer also remains out of reach. Member states cling to their national industries. Still, joint procurement programmes for ammunition and air defence are feasible. The need there is urgent, and national symbolism weighs less. Progress in these areas could pave the way for broader cooperation later.

Financing plays a role as well. Penalty clauses for late deliveries are hard to enforce, but multi-year purchase guarantees are workable. They provide producers with certainty while giving member states better prices and security of supply. The European Defence Fund already offers tools for this; new structures are not required.

On technology, ambition abounds but strategy is lacking. Artificial intelligence is much discussed, but concrete military plans are scarce. A European approach would do better to focus on dual-use applications such as logistics, maintenance, or cyber detection. These are less controversial and can deliver faster results. A shared testing infrastructure could accelerate innovation and reduce costs.

The question is whether the political will exists to sustain such steps. Europe faces a changing threat landscape: the war in Ukraine, cyberattacks, disinformation, and pressure through energy or migration. Yet this sense of urgency does not always translate into joint action. An annual European readiness review – mapping capabilities and gaps, for instance in ammunition stocks or air defence – could offer clarity. Transparency could grow gradually: first within the Council and Parliament, later perhaps publicly.

Dependence on the United States remains a fact. Washington is still the backbone of Western security, especially in intelligence, missile defence, and nuclear deterrence. Europe is building its own initiatives – such as joint ammunition purchases and air defence – but the gap with the US remains wide. Strategic autonomy here means taking more responsibility within NATO, not breaking away from it. Investment in ammunition, air defence, logistics, and electronic warfare could strengthen Europe’s role while easing America’s burden.

Von der Leyen is right that naivety is no longer an option. Whether her statement leads to real change depends on member states’ willingness to set aside national interests. Until then, Europe’s readiness risks remaining a promise on paper.