Connect with us

Europe

Europe quietly develops ‘Plan B’ military structures to bypass potential US veto within NATO

Published

on

Despite mounting calls to establish a dedicated “European NATO,” politicians and military officials across multiple European nations are quietly developing sovereign military capacity options outside the structures of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

According to an analysis published by German Foreign Policy, these efforts are driven by deep-seated concerns that even a European-centric NATO—where European nations would provide the core command centers and weapons systems—could ultimately be blocked or paralyzed by the United States if Washington deems that the alliance’s activities do not align with its own strategic interests.

Consequently, calls for a “Plan B” have steadily intensified. In Scandinavia, defense planners increasingly view a robust Northern European defense cluster as the potential core of such an alternative strategy.

Simultaneously, the United Kingdom has been building the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) since 2014. Designed to be fully compatible with NATO but capable of operating entirely independently of it, the JEF maintains a comprehensive sovereign infrastructure at its headquarters in Northwood.

Recently, the ten member states of the JEF agreed to establish a joint naval force directed at countering Russia.

This restructuring comes amid growing criticism that NATO is operating under obsolete doctrines. European defense planners are now seeking to develop distinctly European methodologies of warfare, with a particular focus on drone and unmanned systems integration.

Sweden: The urgent need for a Plan B

Beyond efforts within NATO to increase reliance on European personnel and hardware—aimed at strengthening the autonomy of European member states relative to the US—discussions have shifted toward developing sovereign military capabilities completely outside the Alliance.

The primary driver of this shift is the apprehension that, in the event of an armed conflict involving European nations, Washington might not only withhold military support but could actively block NATO’s operational structures from being utilized.

Given that the US has historically dominated NATO—with key command structures organized around American leadership and built upon proprietary US technology—The Economist recently cited an insider source asking a fundamental question: “If America blocks NATO, what chain of command can be used?”

According to Luis Simón of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, the departure of the US would inevitably lead to a fragmentation of the existing deterrence ecosystem.

Nevertheless, several European armed forces are reportedly drafting confidential contingency plans detailing how they would wage war without relying on NATO’s command infrastructure.

The Economist further quoted a Swedish government official who summarized the prevailing sentiment: “We need a Plan B.”

A joint anti-Russian force emerges in Scandinavia

This “Plan B” is actively being negotiated, particularly among the Northern European countries.

Matti Pesu, an expert at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA), noted in November that a “strong Nordic defense cluster” could form the core of this alternative framework.

Pesu observed that while European allies cannot fully replicate or replace US military might at present, “closer Nordic integration” could deliver a credible level of deterrence and defense.

Pesu, who has chaired the FIIA’s Nordic Network since 2023, wrote that the UK—with its operational experience and maritime capacity—and France—with its independent nuclear deterrent and expeditionary forces—represent natural partners for military cooperation with the Nordic countries.

Paris has already been holding discussions with several Northern European nations regarding the potential expansion of its nuclear umbrella.

Furthermore, Pesu emphasized the necessity of “deeper Nordic-Baltic-Polish coordination in foreign and defense policy” to establish a cohesive northeastern European alliance against Russia.

Five Northern European states have maintained structured military cooperation under the framework of the Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDEFCO) since 2009.

The UK’s anti-Russian military framework: The JEF

The British-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is frequently cited as the most mature, established, and operational alternative military structure currently available.

Established in 2014 and fully operational since 2018, the JEF is officially characterized as a force that is “not dependent on NATO but compliant with NATO.”

The force comprises ten member states: the UK, five Nordic nations, three Baltic states, and the Netherlands. Canada’s potential participation is currently under discussion.

The JEF is designed to intervene within a NATO framework, but it retains the sovereign mandate to launch independent military operations even when the broader alliance fails to reach a consensus.

To support this capability, its headquarters in Northwood, northwest of London, possesses comprehensive intelligence, planning, and logistical assets. It also utilizes secure communication networks that are entirely independent of NATO infrastructure.

Edward Arnold, an expert at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, noted that these independent capabilities make the JEF the most established structure among all proposed alternatives.

The JEF has already been activated multiple times, primarily for military exercises, but also to conduct active naval patrols in the Baltic Sea aimed at countering Russian maritime activity.

While the force maintains rapid-reaction capabilities designed for ultra-short-notice deployments, its primary operational focus remains Northern Europe.

Supporting NATO or operating independently?

In April, JEF member states took a significant step forward by agreeing to establish a joint naval force.

While these naval assets are intended to complement NATO, they are being structured to maintain fully independent operational capabilities.

Their initial objectives include joint exercises and coordinated contingency planning for emergencies. The naval force will be headquartered alongside the main JEF command at Northwood, from where forces will be directed as required.

General Gwyn Jenkins, the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff of the Royal Navy, emphasized that these forces are designed to be “ready to fight immediately, if necessary, with real capabilities, real war plans, and real integration.”

Jenkins explicitly identified Russia as the primary adversary for the future JEF naval force, calling Moscow “the biggest threat to our security.”

However, defense analysts point out that both the naval force and the broader JEF framework still lack participation from key European heavyweights, namely Germany, France, and Poland.

While Berlin is currently concentrating its naval activities in the Baltic Sea and the North Atlantic, observers remain highly skeptical that Germany would be willing to subordinate its forces to British command.

Obsolete NATO doctrine

In addition to developing operational forces independent of NATO like the JEF, European military commanders are beginning to fundamentally re-evaluate modern warfare doctrines, spurred by the war in Ukraine and the critical role played by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and autonomous robotic systems.

According to remarks made by General John Stringer, Deputy Commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command, at a recent RUSI conference, “tactical-operational conceptual thinking” within NATO largely ground to a halt in 1991.

Military officials and policymakers increasingly acknowledge that the entirety of NATO’s core doctrine has become obsolete, and that many member states lack the advanced technologies required for contemporary high-intensity conflict.

The conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated that nations traditionally viewed as weaker can successfully mount strategic defenses against adversaries that are far superior by conventional metrics.

Consequently, European armed forces, utilizing direct insights and assistance from Ukrainian military personnel and specialists, have begun exploring entirely new approaches to combat.

The Financial Times quoted a French government official who suggested that decoupling from US military paradigms could offer unexpected advantages: “Less America means we can finally ask the question: ‘If we no longer have to fight like Americans, how will we fight?'”

Europe

Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget

Published

on

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has hit back after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz threatened to veto the EU budget unless funding for Ukraine is secured.

Merz said he would block the EU’s seven-year budget if no agreement is reached on financial assistance for Ukraine.

The chancellor’s intervention has angered Central European leaders who are net beneficiaries of EU funds but do not want to take part in the next round of funding to support Ukraine’s war effort.

“What the chancellor is doing is typical blackmail, and I will not bow to it,” Fico told reporters in Bratislava.

Fico spoke alongside his Czech counterpart, Andrej Babiš, whose government has refused to participate in a future loan to Ukraine.

“I do not know why he said this,” Babiš said, referring to Merz’s stance.

Merz wants EU leaders to discuss Ukraine’s financing needs at a summit in Dublin on Friday.

In a letter to European Council President António Costa, who will chair the meeting, obtained by The Guardian, Merz wrote:

“We must maintain our support for Ukraine in its struggle to defend itself. This is our shared vital interest. Yet bilateral aid provided to Ukraine is distributed unevenly, with the burden shouldered mostly by only a few member states.”

The EU agreed last year to provide a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, intended to cover two-thirds of its military and civilian spending for 2026 and 2027.

Since then, however, Russia’s relentless bombardment has placed a heavier financial burden on Kyiv, prompting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ask for €70 billion to plug the budget deficit.

The EU has endorsed Zelenskyy’s figures and pledged to find €45 billion. Ukraine’s other allies, such as Britain and Canada, are expected to cover the rest.

Last year, Merz launched an initiative to tap €210 billion in frozen Russian state assets held in the EU, but the plan fell through due to opposition led by Belgium, which holds most of the funds in Brussels.

The €90 billion loan was the backup plan. Having opted out of that loan, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia indicated that they would not take part in the next round either.

Bulgaria joined these three member states following the election of Prime Minister Rumen Radev last April.

The question of funding for Ukraine is now spilling over into the fraught negotiations on the 2028-34 EU budget.

Germany, the largest net contributor, wants substantial cuts to the proposed budget and opposes the EU providing generous funding to member states that refuse to contribute to Ukraine’s financial needs.

Merz states in his letter that a “collective commitment without exceptions” is a “fundamental prerequisite” for closing Ukraine’s financing gap and for “discussing other matters, particularly those with financial implications.”

He also notes that, in the context of the EU’s next seven-year budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, all member states must contribute to a “robust” financial perspective for Ukraine from 2028 onwards.

A German government official said:

“For the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be successfully concluded, it is vital that all EU member states provide financial support to Ukraine.”

Berlin is also aiming to shift decision-making on funding for Ukraine from unanimity to qualified majority voting, in an effort to prevent a single government from blocking EU decisions.

The letter reflects mounting frustration among the EU’s northern member states, Ukraine’s most generous backers, over lower contributions from other EU countries in Central and Southern Europe.

The task of brokering an agreement on the budget falls to Costa, the former Portuguese prime minister.

Costa wants a deal by the end of the year, ahead of elections in France, Poland, and Italy in 2027 that could complicate the process.

A spokesperson for Costa confirmed receipt of the letter without elaborating on details. “President Costa will dedicate time to the Ukraine issue at the informal European Council meeting in Dublin this week,” the spokesperson said, adding that funding for Ukraine would be addressed at a dedicated summit on the EU budget scheduled for 26-27 November.

Continue Reading

Europe

EU expects next Israeli government to adopt less aggressive posture

Published

on

The EU expects the next Israeli government to mend its “difficult relationship” with Brussels and adopt a more constructive approach toward Gaza and illegal settlements.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog tasked Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, on Sunday with forming a government.

Eisenkot stated that the country faces a “catastrophic diplomatic crisis” as traditional allies begin to reassess their relations with Israel.

Speaking to Rapporteur, several European diplomats stationed in Tel Aviv said they expect ties to get back on track.

“Whatever government comes in, we can try to revitalize relations because Israel is clearly a very important partner,” one European diplomat said, adding that Brussels expects the next administration to be “less aggressive”.

The diplomat noted that relations with Europe are currently “not very good”.

Israel cut off communication with Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, after Rapporteur revealed in June that she had compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa during a visit to Mexico.

The diplomat stated that this decision, taken ahead of elections, was political in nature. A second European diplomat based in Brussels explained that the announcement came only a few days before an official visit by Dubravka Šuica, the European commissioner for the Mediterranean.

“This could have been interpreted as a tactic to divide Europe, but Israel had asked Kallas to deny the report; she did not do so,” the second diplomat said.

Brussels has repeatedly voiced its frustration with Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the expansion of West Bank settlements.

However, EU governments blocked almost all sanctions proposed by the European Commission.

A third diplomat said opposition parties would “almost certainly take the issue more seriously” when it comes to tackling violence by West Bank settlers:

“We see Palestinians being expelled from their homes and new illegal settlements being built in the West Bank. There is a reluctance on the part of the current government to address this issue, which causes problems in our relations.”

The new government is expected to ease pressure on Palestinians and halt construction of the E1 settlement project, a controversial plan to build settler housing in the West Bank east of Jerusalem.

“They will probably try to deal with the problem of extremist settlers in the West Bank,” the diplomat added.

On Gaza, the diplomat described the situation as “a complete nightmare”, with two million Palestinians crowded into an area that accounts for roughly 35% of the territory.

“There are not enough tents for the winter, and not enough vaccines are reaching the area despite an increase in diseases,” the diplomat said.

The European official argued that Donald Trump’s peace plan met all the conditions for Europe. Although the EU had much to offer, neither the US nor Israel appeared interested in EU involvement in the process.

“We are currently training Palestinian police in the West Bank, and if permitted, we could do the same in Gaza,” the diplomat said.

The diplomat disclosed that Israel had agreed with Šuica that Europe would finance two projects aimed at improving sewage and water infrastructure in Gaza, continuing:

“However, none of these projects has started yet because there is a serious problem with dual-use goods. Getting materials into Gaza is very difficult because the Israelis say they could be misused if they fall into the wrong hands of Hamas.”

Israel insists that Hamas must be disarmed before subsequent phases of Trump’s plan can proceed.

With disarmament unlikely to happen in the near term, the EU argues that certain measures can be carried out in parallel.

“We can begin rebuilding sanitation systems in Gaza. We can start building desalination plants. We can begin providing energy and water to Gaza,” one diplomat said.

While Brussels hopes for progress on Gaza and the West Bank, it maintains that expectations regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state need to be “managed”.

The EU continues to advocate a two-state solution, yet most leading Jewish parties oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

The diplomat noted that the next Israeli government will likely have “a very slim majority and not much room for manoeuvre”.

There is also a “major misunderstanding” between the EU and Israel that must be addressed. According to the diplomat, Europeans fail to recognize the “psychological impact” of 7 October on Israelis.

“This event changed the country and made the two-state solution even more distant than before,” the diplomat said.

In return, some Israeli politicians believe Europe has betrayed Israel despite what they view as a fight against “Islamist terrorism”.

“Their argument is that European politicians are somewhat afraid of the Muslim population in Europe,” the European diplomat said.

Europe strongly opposes Iran and the possibility of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons, imposing sanctions in response.

However, the diplomat argued that the EU would not participate in a war because it lacks a common army:

“We are a diplomatic and economic power, which is why we resort to sanctions and diplomacy. The expectation that we would take part in a military operation is unrealistic.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Germany threatens EU budget veto over long-term Ukraine aid

Published

on

Germany has threatened to veto the European Union’s joint budget for the 2028-2034 period, which is currently under negotiation, unless every member state commits to providing financial support to Ukraine in 2027 and subsequent years, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned.

According to a report by the Financial Times (FT), Chancellor Merz set out Berlin’s condition for the budget talks in a letter addressed to European Council President António Costa.

In his letter, Merz wrote: “A collective commitment that every single one of us, without exception, will make a fair contribution to closing Ukraine’s budget deficit is an indispensable prerequisite for resolving this budget issue and, in particular, for addressing subsequent matters that carry financial implications.”

The German Chancellor stressed that a formula backed by all member states must be established to provide Ukraine with a reliable, multi-year financial perspective starting from 2028.

Merz also insisted that any agreed solution must cover the interest payments on debts incurred to finance the assistance provided to Kyiv.

Conversely, several countries within the bloc have cut financial aid to Ukraine, and the number of capitals adopting this stance is projected to rise next year.

In December 2025, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic approved the EU’s 90 billion euro loan package for Kyiv only on the condition that they would not contribute to its costs themselves.

Alongside these three countries, Bulgaria has also stated that it does not plan to participate in subsequent financial assistance packages for Ukraine.

In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who could potentially win the presidential election scheduled for spring 2027, recently told the FT that Paris has run out of funds.

Le Pen assessed: “The honest approach is to tell Mr Zelensky clearly, and even warn him: ‘Look, we cannot do more. We have already allocated the 90 billion euro EU loan, in which France’s share amounts to 18 billion euros. 18 billion euros is genuinely a huge amount of money.'”

The EU’s 90 billion euro loan, covering the 2026-2027 period, aims to meet two-thirds of Ukraine’s financing requirements.

Brussels expects the remaining 45 billion euros to be covered by other partners, including Canada, the UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Germany remains the largest net contributor to the EU budget.

In contrast, the four Eastern European countries seeking to avoid financing Ukraine rank among the largest net beneficiaries of the bloc’s budget.

Leveraging this balance, Chancellor Merz aims to use his influence in the EU budget negotiations to secure uninterrupted support for Kyiv in 2027 and the years beyond.

According to the FT, Berlin is also demanding that future aid packages be decided by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity, which is required under the current system.

A German government spokesperson told the newspaper:

“The issue of Ukraine’s financial needs must be resolved within the framework of the next EU budget. Financial support for Ukraine from all EU members is decisive for the successful conclusion of the budget talks.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey