Europe’s Military Gamble: Could a Continental Army Replace U.S. Support Against Russia?

Summary: As fears grow over a possible Russian advance into Poland, Finland, and Latvia, and with the United States hesitant to respond militarily, the European Union is revisiting the idea of forming a unified continental army. This article examines the geopolitical stakes, military capacities, and the feasibility of an independent European defense force in today’s volatile landscape.

In a scenario that could have been lifted from a Cold War thriller, military analysts across Europe are gaming out the consequences of Russian troops crossing into NATO territory. The idea may sound far-fetched, yet the combination of a resurgent Kremlin and an increasingly isolationist U.S. foreign policy has pushed European leaders to seriously reconsider the continent’s military autonomy.

The central question no longer seems to be whether a European army is necessary — but when it will materialize, and what form it will take.

The Geopolitical Context: Russia’s Shadow Over Europe

Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia has ramped up military exercises near NATO borders and expanded its influence in Belarus and the Arctic. European states, particularly those along the eastern flank — Poland, Finland, the Baltic nations — have grown increasingly alarmed. The hypothetical scenario of Russian forces entering Poland, Latvia, and Finland may still reside in the realm of war games, but it’s one that European defense officials can no longer afford to dismiss.

These developments have coincided with signs of wavering commitment from the United States. Successive administrations have questioned the burden-sharing arrangement within NATO, with former President Donald Trump repeatedly threatening to reduce U.S. military support for Europe if allies failed to increase their defense spending.

What Is the European Union’s Military Capacity Today?

The European Union, while primarily a political and economic bloc, has taken incremental steps toward coordinated defense initiatives:

• EU Rapid Deployment Capacity: A modest force of 5,000 soldiers, designed to respond to emerging crises within five days.
• Eurocorps: A multinational military corps based in Strasbourg, operational since the 1990s, involving troops from France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Spain.
• Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO): A framework launched in 2017 to coordinate defense investments and military projects across participating EU states.
• Joint naval flotillas and air patrol missions in the Mediterranean and Baltic regions.

Yet despite these efforts, Europe’s military posture remains fragmented. Language barriers, differing military doctrines, and uneven equipment standards have historically hampered joint operations. Unlike NATO’s integrated command, the EU lacks a unified military headquarters with operational authority.

Why Now? The Strategic Imperatives

The urgency behind renewed discussions for a European army stems from several converging factors:

• The Russia Threat: With heightened tensions in Eastern Europe and the Arctic, a rapid and cohesive military response may be required at any moment.
• U.S. Retrenchment: The United States’ increasing reluctance to engage in European conflicts has left a vacuum in regional security guarantees.
• Geopolitical Autonomy: European leaders are eager to reduce dependency on Washington and assert greater control over their defense policies.
• Defense Industrial Cooperation: Joint procurement and technology-sharing agreements could strengthen Europe’s defense sector and foster economic benefits.

Could a European Army Function Without NATO?

Military experts agree that building a fully autonomous European army remains a monumental challenge. NATO currently provides a ready-made command structure, logistical network, and operational experience in multinational warfare. Replicating this would require years of planning, standardized training protocols, and a unified chain of command — hurdles complicated by national sovereignty concerns and political disagreements among EU members.

However, proponents argue that a European military force could initially focus on border defense, peacekeeping, and hybrid threat responses (cyberwarfare, disinformation, paramilitary incursions) before scaling up to conventional deterrence roles.

Which Countries Would Lead and Who Might Opt Out?

Not all EU countries would embrace this vision equally. France and Germany, as Europe’s largest military powers, are likely to spearhead the effort. France, in particular, already possesses nuclear weapons and expeditionary warfare capabilities. Germany, though traditionally cautious, has steadily increased its defense budget and international deployments.

Neutral countries such as Ireland, Austria, and Malta may prefer to remain outside a formal military bloc. Meanwhile, Eastern European nations like Poland and the Baltic states would be enthusiastic supporters, given their direct exposure to Russian threats.

The Eurocorps: A Blueprint for the Future?

The Eurocorps provides a potential prototype for future European military integration. Established in 1992, this multinational force has participated in NATO and EU missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans, and Mali. Its command structure rotates among member states, and it operates independently of NATO’s command chain.

Analysts suggest that expanding the Eurocorps’ mandate and integrating it with new rapid deployment units could serve as a stepping stone toward a continental military alliance.

Financial and Logistical Challenges

Creating a European army would demand substantial financial commitments. Estimates suggest annual defense spending increases of €50–€100 billion would be required to develop independent capabilities in intelligence, logistics, strategic airlift, and cyber defense. Additionally, interoperable equipment, standardized training, and multinational procurement processes would be vital to avoid duplication and inefficiency.

Diplomatic and Legal Hurdles

Any European army project would face serious diplomatic and legal barriers. Existing treaties define defense obligations through NATO and national legislatures retain control over military deployments. Convincing parliaments to transfer authority to a supranational military body would require a profound shift in public opinion and political culture.

Public Sentiment: Divided But Shifting

Polling data reveals mixed public attitudes toward a European army. Support tends to be higher in countries like France and Poland, where security anxieties run high, while skepticism persists in traditionally neutral nations. However, each new crisis — whether in Ukraine, the Baltic, or the Mediterranean — steadily erodes opposition and boosts calls for collective action.

Would the U.S. Accept an Independent European Force?

Washington’s reaction would likely be complex. On one hand, a more self-reliant Europe could alleviate American defense burdens. On the other, an independent European military might dilute NATO cohesion and complicate transatlantic strategic planning. U.S. officials have historically opposed efforts that could rival NATO or undermine American influence in Europe.

 Is a European Army Inevitable?

As geopolitical rivalries intensify and security guarantees fray, the momentum behind a European military force appears stronger than ever. While a full-fledged European army remains years away, incremental steps — expanded rapid reaction forces, joint procurement programs, integrated command structures — are likely to accelerate in the near future.

The question is no longer whether Europe can afford to build its own military capacity, but whether it can afford not to. With Russia’s ambitions unchecked and the U.S. growing more insular, European leaders may soon find themselves with no choice but to forge a new path in defense cooperation — one that reshapes the continent’s security architecture for generations to come.