Europe
European defense overhaul: Billions sought for joint security fund
Following US President Donald Trump’s call for peace negotiations in Ukraine, suspension of military aid to Ukraine, and increased defense spending by NATO countries, alarm bells have started ringing in Brussels and Berlin.
European Commission President von der Leyen aims to mobilize a Europe-wide defense budget to continue supporting Ukraine.
In this context, Leyen proposed a plan for the “rearmament of Europe.” EU member states need to invest in a joint defense budget to protect themselves independently of US aid. According to Leyen, an amount of up to 800 billion euros could be mobilized.
Leyen’s five-point plan, announced in Brussels on Tuesday, includes easing debt rules and providing incentives for increased defense spending.
Member states will be enabled to spend more on defense without falling into a debt trap. A new fund of 150 billion euros will be created to support the 27 member states investing in defense.
The Commission stated that the new 150 billion euro joint borrowing would be directed towards building Europe-wide capabilities such as air and missile defense, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drones, and anti-drone systems, or meeting other needs from cyber to military mobility.
Social spending to be redirected to arms procurement
“This will help Member States pool their demands and buy together, reducing costs, fragmentation, increasing interoperability, and strengthening our defense industrial base,” Leyen said.
Leyen argued that if member states increased their defense spending by an average of 1.5% of GDP, this could create a fiscal space of nearly 650 billion euros.
The Commission also proposed that EU countries could use the money they receive from the EU budget, intended to equalize living standards across Europe, for defense purposes.
Arguing that the real question is not “whether Europe is facing real threats or whether it needs to take more responsibility for its security,” Leyen said, “The real question is whether Europe is ready to respond decisively as the situation requires.”
Europe is ready to increase its spending to help Ukraine in the short term but also to protect itself in the long term. “Now is the time to take responsibility,” Leyen said.
Recommendations from Berlin: Implement social cuts, indoctrinate the public
Government advisors and foreign policy experts in Berlin are also calling on the next German government to significantly increase the military budget, make severe cuts in social spending, and strongly indoctrinate the public (“change of mindset”).
The demands are featured in the current issue of the journal Internationale Politik (IP), published by the influential German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). The cover story of this issue is the question of “what the world expects from Germany after the election.”
For example, the articles state that the new government must prepare the German people “for Germany to become the leading power in Europe, diplomatically and militarily.” For this, it is necessary to “embed the turning point in people’s minds.”
Strategies to reverse the EU’s decline
According to the current issue of IP, as reported by German Foreign Policy, the EU has been characterized by “a growing decline” for some time.
According to DGAP expert Josef Janning, who has been analyzing the EU for decades, there are several reasons for this. One of these reasons is that the “consequences of supranational political interdependence” are beginning to be felt in daily life, especially in “distribution conflicts and crises.”
These are often negative, especially for weaker member states and population groups that do not belong to the national elites. Janning writes, “[This situation] contributes to the … gain in weight of right-wing national currents and parties.”
At the same time, “at the latest with the failure of the 2004 Constitutional Treaty,” the goal of “a closer union of the peoples of Europe” disappeared from real politics and is, at best, only mentioned in “ceremonial acts … and coalition agreements,” he believes.
In addition, there are no longer “strategically oriented coalitions among member states,” probably due to increasing differences in interests. Finally, it should be noted that the US, under the Trump administration, lost interest in a “stable” and “cooperative Europe.”
The dissolution of the EU as a realistic scenario
Janning notes that political entities like the EU can “continue to exist institutionally” but can also “lose their importance and integrity.”
Institutions like the EU are in danger of becoming “obsolete” if they lose their ability to “further develop” or even act actively. Therefore, “national solo efforts” should be increasingly expected.
“If these trends reach the first pillar of the EU, the internal market and the common currency,” Janning continues, “then the Union will self-destruct in an ‘abundance’ of internal conflicts.”
The author argues that in no period since the 1950s has the centrifugal dynamic been stronger and more visible than in the current situation. “While institutions and processes function as usual, the essence of integration is eroding beneath the surface,” he says, suggesting that for the first time, the failure and dissolution of the European Union “seems like a realistic scenario.”
Seeking “ways out of the erosion,” the DGAP expert argues that the EU needs “an orientation towards political unity, strategic thinking.”
A Bundeswehr capable of war: New taxes for the public for the army
According to the author, this includes the “common defense issue.” Janning believes this too, saying, “Most, if not all, depends on Germany, the economically strongest power in the center of Europe.”
While Janning insists on addressing the “common defense issue” to save the EU, Carlo Masala, Professor of International Politics at the Bundeswehr University in Munich, calls on the future German government to “realize that the foundations of Germany’s security and defense policy must be renewed,” which means a “Bundeswehr capable of war.”
According to the professor, what is needed is a significant increase in the military budget. Masala proposes, among other things, “a solidarity surcharge for defense,” amounting to “1 to 1.5%” of income tax, “to be paid by everyone working in Germany.”
Besides, Masala believes that a significant increase in the number of personnel in the Bundeswehr is necessary because there will be a “disproportionately large wave of retirements” in the next few years.
An internal memo from the German Ministry of Defense recently considered increasing the current number of 180,000 personnel to 440,000 soldiers. However, the Two Plus Four Agreement provides for an upper limit of 350,000.
The Two Plus Four Agreement is the name given to the documents signed by the Federal Republic of Germany with the German Democratic Republic and the US-United Kingdom-France-USSR, paving the way for “German reunification.”
Independently of this, not only a return to compulsory military service but also a change in the Constitution is required, for example, to extend compulsory military service to women.
Change of mindset: Be ready for German leadership
Jan Techau, Director of the Europe Program at the Eurasia Group in Berlin, also argues in favor of mass armament in IP.
According to Techau, the next German government must prepare “the Germans, the Berlin bubble, and itself … for Germany to become the leading power in Europe, diplomatically and militarily.”
The learning process towards accepting this role will be “much more difficult” because “everything is very, very expensive,” and the next Federal Chancellor will “have to make and justify dramatic budget decisions,” according to the author.
Techau states that this is “clear to everyone involved,” but before the election, no one wants to be “caught telling the truth” about it.
According to the author, what is important now is to prepare the conservatives for “new debts” and the left for “painful structural reforms”: “Otherwise, there is a risk of resistance and blockade.”
But Techau also sees it as “the real task of the next government” to prepare the public for the fact that Berlin will “have to make some unheard-of decisions in the near future.” The author does not explain what this means beyond the enormous costs of weapons and other war equipment. However, he believes that “a change in mindset, a turning point in people’s minds” is necessary.
Armament should cease to be a moral issue for Germans
Ulrike Esther Franke from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is also among those offering advice on this matter.
Franke criticizes the discussions on military issues in Germany as being “morally charged”; according to her, military experts are therefore faced with “considerable distrust,” and this situation “does not contribute to a better discussion environment.”
The author also suggests that war discussions in Germany are “driven by fear,” which she considers harmful for dealing with future “dangers.”
Franke believes that the war in Ukraine has created “a window of opportunity in the willingness to deal with defense issues”; therefore, the next government should use this to set a significant course before the “mood” changes.
Franke calls on the new German government, “Now is the time for political leadership.”
Europe
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.
In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.
According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.
The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.
At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.
“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”
The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.
The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.
Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.
A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”
Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”
Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.
In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.
The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.
A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.
Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.
Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.
The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.
“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”
Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.
Shagina said:
“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”
In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.
Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.
“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.
Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.
A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”
“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.
Europe
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.
The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.
Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.
The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.
Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.
Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”
The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.
Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.
In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.
The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”
Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.
Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”
The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.
For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.
The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.
Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.
The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.
Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.
The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.
Europe
SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine
SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.
In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:
“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”
In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.
The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.
SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”
When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.
Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.
Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.
At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”
The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.
A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy1 week agoIran discloses 14-point draft US peace accord detailing sanctions relief, regional security measures
-
Russia1 week agoPatrushev urges assertive Russian naval presence to counter NATO encirclement strategy
