Security
The war in Iran and the conflict in Gaza have taken a back seat to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine since February 2022. Yet the war is not over. Every day and every night, hundreds of drones and missiles destroy Ukraine and kill or injure its population.
On Tuesday 3 June, the Center for Strategic and International Studies published a new death and injury toll for Russian and Ukrainian combatants. Although there are no official figures, the American think tank estimates the number of victims since 24 February 2022 at 1 million on the Russian side (including 250,000 dead) and 400,000 on the Ukrainian side (including 60,000 to 100,000 dead), a country four times smaller than Russia.
It is by far the deadliest war in the world and Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of wanting to stop it or even slow it down.
There is therefore a need to continue and step up European military aid, which is still insufficient to meet the needs. Russia's material superiority (tanks, cannons, missiles, etc.) is still significant and Russian industry has been mobilised for a long war.
Whatever it may say, France is not a leading arms donor. The EU has overtaken the United States. According to the Kiel Institute source (up to February 2025), the United States have granted ~114 billion (≈ 120 billion $) mobilised in total, whereas European Union (EU + Member States) : ~127-148 billion has already been mobilised, not counting future new components (Facility, loans), which brings potential aid to more than 220 billion.
On the plus side the first time that Europe outstrips the United States in military aid in a major conflict, including the war in former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Does this mean a strategic shift? The beginning of European strategic autonomy? This is a question to be watched closely.
In the short term, there will be Conference on 10 July on the reconstruction of Ukraine, in Rome (until the 11th). We need to step up the economic and financial effort, and look to the future. But first we must win the war. This is so obvious that Vladimir Putin and his many henchmen cannot be trusted.
What lessons can we learn from the war?
It was a butchery, as has been said: 1 million Russians killed or wounded, according to a recent report in the World. Several hundred thousand Ukrainians probably.
A human war, war has become largely technological. It's the drone war. Before the conflict, we thought of large drones such as the American Reaper, but in fact they are small, inexpensive drones: FPV kamikaze drones, for example, which are used on a massive scale by both sides, sometimes costing less than €1,000 each.
Ukrainian aerial drones and naval drones are now blocking the Black Sea from the Russian navy, which is holed up on the eastern coast to the east.
Artillery warfare, with the 155 mm calibre in particular, but also various types of missile launcher.
Various hypersonic or ballistic missiles on the Russian side, which Moscow uses extensively to crush populations in a strategy of terror reminiscent of Nazi Germany in 1940-1941 against the British population.
What lessons for the EU?
The EU has major capability deficits in these areas. In particular, EU countries are largely lacking in :
- ammunition
- adapted drones
- anti-aircraft defence...
But also battle tanks, armoured vehicles, long-range missiles, etc...
Above all, there is a worrying imbalance in relation to Russia.
According to a report by the Bruegel Institute and the Kiel Institute: in purchasing power parity (taking prices into account), Russia's defence budget rises from $146 billion to $461 billion, equivalent to that of the EU and the UK combined.
There are differences in arms production volumes between Russia and the EU. Russia produces 1,800 tanks a year, compared with 50 in the 4 major European countries (Germany, France, Poland and the UK). We would therefore need to multiply production by a factor of three to six, depending on the case, if we wanted to substantially reduce the gap with Russia within 5 years!
In 2024, the 4 major countries will have 1,627 tanks, compared with 2,400 for Russia.
In the event of war with Russia, the European front could collapse.
The same applies to other areas: artillery, infantry fighting vehicles, air defence, etc.
The need for a European defence
We organised a conference in 2013 at the Association Jean Monnet on this issue.
We were already pointing out the capability gaps that still exist today, particularly in logistics and military air transport, in addition to those mentioned above (munitions, drones, etc.). Fortunately, the A400 M transport aircraft was recently saved from extinction by a Franco-Spanish decision to ensure the continuation of at least 8 orders per year.
But the A400 M can only carry 35 tonnes of freight, compared with 130 tonnes for an American Lockheed C5-M! There's still a lot of catching up to do...
There is also the problem of having a deployable European force. At the Franco-British summit held in Saint-Malo on 3 and 4 December 1998, the Heads of State and Government of the United Kingdom and France agreed on the need to give the EU an autonomous capacity for decision-making and action, backed up by credible military forces, in order to be able to respond to international crises when the Atlantic Alliance is not engaged.
Since then, little or nothing has been put in place. And NATO, under American pressure, is wavering.
At the colloquium, it was suggested that a 60,000-strong European force should eventually be deployable within a few months. We are a long way from that.
France can play a leading role in this area, having deployed thousands of soldiers to foreign theatres of operations, at great bloodshed. We cannot name them all.
Let's give you one: Master Corporal Jean Nicolas Panezyckwho died in action for France in Afghanistan on 23 August 2010 and was awarded the military valour cross with bronze palm, already missing for a just cause. We should also mention the thousands of Ukrainians who have also died for a just cause... The list is long.
Another issue: there is little or no European defence industry. There are many obstacles to consolidation: national sovereignty, industrial competition, slowness of joint programmes (e.g. Franco-German SCAF). These are national industries: there are 6 national tank manufacturers, three aircraft engine manufacturers, three combat aircraft manufacturers, etc. The situation is better in the naval sector with two major players: Fincantieri and Naval Group.
Fortunately, there is hope
After Brexit, the UK is moving closer to the EU. There is already Franco-British rapprochement through the London Treaties or Lancaster House agreements are the two military treaties signed at the Franco-British summit in London, at Lancaster House, by French President Sarkozy and UK Prime Minister Cameron on 2 November 2010.
The two governments decided to create a joint expeditionary force, Combined Joint Expeditionary Force - CJEF). The aim of this force was to provide, by 2016, a joint capability that could be deployed in bilateral operations, but also as part of an international coalition (NATO, EU or UN).
Fortunately for us, the UK is heavily involved in the defence of Ukraine. This is important because, along with France, it is Europe's other nuclear and naval power! Will the nuclear deterrent be extended to our European partners? The question is back in the spotlight.
There is also the German U-turn, which will spend hundreds of billions of euros on defence.
Finally, in March 2025, the European Commission launched the "Rearming Europe" plan, with a budget of 800 billion euros. 150 billion of this will come from European loans, with the other 650 billion to be provided by the various Member States, which is far from an easy task given the budgetary situation in France in particular...
However, the Bruegel Institute and the Kiel Institute estimate in a report that the efforts of "Rearming Europe" may be insufficient in relation to the necessary rearmament efforts.
Finally, at the NATO summit last June, the member countries undertook to increase their defence spending to 5 % of GDP by 2035.
But we need to go further
We need to develop the European defence industry through alliances between players. Europeans must not, out of habit, fear or the need for reassurance, turn to the United States to buy from abroad. Poland, for example, is a leader in rearmament, but has bought nearly $20 billion worth of equipment from South Korea and the United States in recent years. The United Kingdom has just bought 12 F35 aircraft from the United States for its nuclear deterrent.
As we know, this is not a unique case.
Increasing the defence effort to 5 % of GDP will be pointless if everything goes to orders for the American defence industry!
Here again, the European Commission is pushing for European solutions and pooling, just as it is aiming to facilitate the creation of new arms factories by streamlining regulatory procedures.
At the beginning of May, the Jean Monnet Association and its partners launched the idea of A SECOND SCHUMAN PLAN: FOR A COMMON DEFENCE AND POLITICAL UNION.
It must mobilise to this end. Ever since the failure of the European Defence Community in 1954, European defence has been under the thumb of NATO.
We now need a real European pillar of the Alliance, but a substantial pillar with command and planning resources and a substantial budget.
A changing world
Having a European defence means having a say in a world shaken by crises and, in particular, helping to ensure that the UN Charter is applied. On 26 June we celebrated the 80th anniversary of its adoption at the San Francisco conference in 1945.
Let me remind you that the UN Charter states in CHAPTER ONE, Article 1:
The UN's objective is to : " To maintain international peace and security and, to this end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and for the adjustment or settlement, by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, of international disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace. To develop cordial relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the N'Allons. United Nations. All members shall give their full assistance to the United Nations in any action taken by it in accordance with this Charter, and shall refrain from assisting any state against which the United Nations takes preventive or coercive action.
Russia is clearly violating the UN Charter to which it claims to adhere.
Armed international disputes are spreading like wildfire and must be dealt with. We need a European army, or at least a sufficiently large joint force, which could support or replace NATO if necessary, especially as American support for NATO is ambiguous and uncertain.
We could also imagine all kinds of military cooperation. For example, why not pool the French, British, Italian and Spanish naval air groups rather than relying solely on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which is also unavailable for maintenance for part of the year?
We need projects in areas of the present and the future, such as drones, because the Americans are way ahead of us. They already have combat drones, whereas in Europe we are barely at the prototype stage. We're way, way behind ...
We also need - and this was mentioned at the 2013 colloquium - a permanent European command, a military HQ in Brussels. We might also need a pooled defence fund managed by the EIB...
The future has yet to be written. Our first priority must be to save Ukraine from disaster. Saving and defending Ukraine means defending Europe, its unique model and its freedoms.
The Jean Monnet Association clearly has a role to play in this process of reflection and action.
EN 
FR 
DE 
ES 
IT 
PT 
PL 
UK