Europe’s Military Malaise: Historical Roots, Political Paralysis, and the Crisis in Ukraine

Ursula von der Leyen’s ninth visit to Kyiv underscores a stark reality: Europe’s military preparedness is alarmingly inadequate. While symbolic visits and financial aid packages attempt to show strength, they mask a deeper issue — European armies are in a fragile state, struggling with decades of under-investment, political fragmentation, and a lingering over-dependence on American military might. The war in Ukraine has served as a brutal wake-up call, but it remains unclear whether the European Union (EU) can truly reverse the decay of its collective defense capabilities.

Let’s break this down:

Historical Context: From Cold War Armies to Post-Cold War Apathy

After World War II, European security was effectively outsourced to the United States through NATO. The Cold War saw European militaries well-funded and highly capable, standing as a bulwark against Soviet aggression. However, after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, many European states rapidly demilitarised, believing peace was permanent. Defense budgets were slashed, conscription ended in several countries, and weapons production slowed to a crawl.

The 1990s and early 2000s saw conflicts like the Balkan wars and interventions in Afghanistan, but these were largely seen as “out-of-area” missions, not existential threats. The EU's military strategy became more focused on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, rather than deterrence and hard power. Meanwhile, the U.S. continued to act as Europe's security guarantor, fostering a sense of complacency.

Fragmentation and Political Paralysis

Europe’s military weakness isn’t just a budgetary issue — it’s structural and political. Unlike the United States, the EU has no unified army. Instead, it relies on 27 national armies, each with its own priorities, supply chains, and political dynamics. Attempts to create a more integrated European defense force, like the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) initiative, have made progress but remain limited by national sovereignty concerns.

When decisions must pass through 27 capitals, paralysis is inevitable. The war in Ukraine has highlighted this dysfunction: promises of weapons and ammunition often fail to materialise on the battlefield, bogged down by bureaucracy and logistical chaos. Even von der Leyen’s announcement of a €3.5 billion package for Ukraine rings hollow when set against the backdrop of munitions shortages and dwindling stockpiles across European arsenals.

The European Defense Agency has warned that weapons production capacity is critically low, with some countries unable to replace even modest contributions to Ukraine. For example, Germany — Europe’s largest economy — was revealed to have only a few days' worth of usable ammunition when the war began.

Trump, Ukraine, and the Shock to the System

Donald Trump’s erratic foreign policy, including his disdain for NATO and apparent sympathy for Putin, has shattered European illusions of perpetual American protection. His push for a rapid Ukraine-Russia peace deal, conducted without consulting European allies, has left the continent feeling exposed and politically irrelevant.

For years, European leaders ignored warnings that their militaries were unprepared for a large-scale war. Even after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, many states failed to make substantial defense investments. Now, as Trump’s phone calls with Putin and inflammatory rhetoric against Zelenskyy ripple through global politics, Europe faces the terrifying possibility that it may have to face Russia alone.

Von der Leyen’s attempts to scale up arms production and forge a unified response are commendable but may be too little, too late. Rebuilding Europe’s defense capabilities will take years, and with Ukraine’s fate hanging in the balance, time is a luxury the continent doesn’t have.

Can Europe Rebuild Its Military Strength?

The European Commission’s recent proposals to ramp up arms production are a step in the right direction. But even if funding flows, fundamental issues persist:

• Production Bottlenecks: Europe’s defense industry is fragmented and sluggish. Scaling up artillery shell production, for instance, could take years due to supply chain limitations and workforce shortages.

• Political Will: Some European nations, particularly those further from Russia, remain reluctant to dramatically increase military spending, fearing domestic backlash.

• Strategic Dependence: Even with increased military budgets, Europe still lacks critical capabilities like strategic airlift, missile defense, and command-and-control systems — all of which are heavily reliant on the U.S.

  
  

If the EU is serious about protecting itself, it must break the cycle of symbolic unity and delayed action. That means creating a genuine European defense union, with pooled resources, streamlined logistics, and shared military procurement. Otherwise, the continent risks being not just diplomatically sidelined but strategically irrelevant.

A New Era of European Security?

Von der Leyen’s words in Kyiv — "A free and sovereign Ukraine is in the interest of the entire world" — are not just a moral statement; they’re a strategic imperative. If Ukraine falls, it could embolden Russia to test NATO’s resolve in the Baltics or Poland, potentially triggering a continent-wide conflict for which Europe is woefully unprepared.

The EU must treat Ukraine’s fight not as a distant conflict but as its own frontline. Only by facing the harsh reality of its military shortcomings can Europe hope to safeguard its future. The question is whether European leaders will summon the courage to act — or continue to stumble through history, hoping the U.S. will always come to their rescue.