How to defend Europe: Far-right forces split along nationalistic, geographical lines

Boosting Europe’s defence capabilities after years of underinvestment is a goal broadly shared by leaders across the European Union – but how and to what extent are still big questions, depending on both the positions of the different political families and the countries they represent.      

“There are many challenges ahead as we move towards a European Defence Union, [but] the main one will be to overcome the national industry mentality and recognise that we need to make a joint effort to fill capability gaps,” Marie-Agnes Strack Zimmerman (Germany/Renew Europe), who chairs the Security and Defence subcommittee (SEDE), told Euronews. 

Strack Zimmerman favours the creation of a European army, closer partnerships with allied third countries and exploring “all possibilities in line with the Treaties” that would boost funding at the European level, including so-called eurobonds. 

Some of these positions would likely put her on a collision course with radical and far-right forces within the hemicycle, which were strengthened in June’s European elections, and who make up over a quarter of the SEDE subcommittee. 

As Commissioner-designate for defence Andrius Kubilius (EPP/Lithuania) faces his confirmation hearing later on Wednesday, Euronews spoke with MEPs from the far-right groups Patriots for Europe (PfE) and European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) – respectively the third and fourth-largest political forces in the European Parliament – sitting on the SEDE subcommittee.  

What emerged is that although all agree that more needs to be done to boost European defence, ideologically they remain largely split along nationalistic, geographical lines. 

NATO cooperation

For instance, the radical and far-right MEPs who took part in this article – from smaller member states with smaller armies (Euronews also reached out to MEPs from France and Germany but received no answer) – believe that NATO should remain the cornerstone of Europe’s defence. Twenty-three of the EU’s 27 member states are also NATO allies.  

They conceded however that EU member states should boost their own defence capabilities and readiness and seek a greater role within the transatlantic military alliance. 

“We must be able to defend ourselves independently until our allies intervene. And I believe that all NATO countries should adopt this approach,” MEP Claudiu Târziu (Romania/ECR) told Euronews. 

His fellow lawmaker, Alice Teodorescu (Sweden/PfE), meanwhile said that “by supporting the European defence industry, Europe can provide a more robust and complementary contribution to NATO, enhancing the overall resilience and strategic autonomy of the alliance”. 

But when it comes to how to fill gaps in capabilities, which is a national competence, and whether to boost cooperation at the EU level, geography matters. 

For Latvian conservative MEP Reinis Poznaks (ECR), the bloc should consider some form of cooperation between member states to boost European defence capabilities.   

“I think it’s impossible to leave it just in national competence because, for example, small countries like Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia cannot buy everything they need at the moment,” Poznaks argued.    

Meanwhile, Portuguese MEP António Tânger Corrêa (PfE) strongly opposes the creation of isolated political or military blocs and advocates an anti-federalist approach within the EU, ensuring equal sovereignty for all member states.   

On funding EU’s defence capability gaps

“As the three years of almost war show quite well, we’re not very independent from third countries, not only militarily, but also technologically in general, so that’s what needs to be fixed,” Poznaks said.    

Between February 2022 and mid-2023, purchases from outside Europe accounted for 75% of new orders, and over the next decade the EU will need an additional €50 billion for the defence industry to remain competitive against global players such as the US and China, according to Commission estimates.   

In response, member state leaders have agreed to step up cooperation and fund more joint projects and purchases, but the EU budget is limited and priorities are many.   

EPP commissioner-designate Kubilius has already signalled that he is open to exploring alternative ways of financing defence needs, including issuing common debt – an option Tânger rules out.   

“I am not in favour of financing through centralised EU mechanisms such as Eurobonds for defence,” he said, stressing that he would rather allow each country to decide on defence spending without committing the entire EU budget to collective defence mechanisms.    

On creating an EU army

For Strack Zimmerman “a European army is our long-term [goal]”. The SEDE chair cited the EU’s existing Rapid Deployment Capacity (RDC) as the first step on which such a common army could be built.   

The RDC mechanism will allow the EU to rapidly deploy a modular force of up to 5,000 soldiers in crisis situations by 2025.  

On this issue, far-right MEPs are more or less aligned: the RDC and NATO capabilities are as far as the bloc should go and anything else would encroach on national sovereignty.   

“I prioritise strengthening each nation’s military over any EU-led force, which is why a rapid deployment capability for crisis response may be acceptable only within strict limits,” Tanger said.     

“NATO is the format we should stick to,” Poznaks also said, arguing that a common army would mean “someone else will make decisions to protect our country or not”.    

The least reluctant to further military cooperation is Sweden’s Teodorescu, who is open to “international efforts under the auspices of the EU to protect peace, freedom and human rights” as long as national sovereignty and the level of participation of each member state are respected. 

“The concept of willing member states integrating their military capabilities – complementing NATO’s efforts – is promising, as it can enhance both EU and regional stability,” Teodorescu added.  

On integrating third countries into the single market for defence

Another point of possible convergence is for integrating allied third countries into the single market for defence, which would allow them to tap into joint procurement schemes and possibly for their industry to receive EU investments.  

The United Kingdom, a European ally, appears most likely to benefit. It has recently penned a number of bilateral defence pacts with several EU member states. 

“The United Kingdom is and will remain a very important partner for the EU, especially in the field of defence. As a NATO partner, it should not be treated like any other third country, but should at least have privileged access to the single market for defence,” Strack Zimmerman told Euronews.  

Poznaks also backed the inclusion of “strategic partners” in EU schemes, but posited that certain conditions would have to be put in place so that member states don’t find themselves in a situation where they “have weapons, but cannot use them because there are components from other countries who don’t let you use them”.  

But that point may very well be moot, as some like Târziu oppose the very concept of a single market for defence outlined by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, blasting it as “another tool of the artisans of globalism”. 

These divergences suggest that it will be difficult for radical and far-right forces to reach a common position that would allow them to have more influence on how Europe’s new defence strategy is shaped.