Europe
Europe’s distant territories expose gaps in NATO and EU collective defence frameworks
Many NATO member European countries govern territories far beyond their own borders, a legacy of the colonial era.
From the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean, parts of Europe lie thousands of kilometres from the continent, raising a fundamental yet unresolved question: does a collective mechanism exist for the defence of these regions?
According to an analysis published by Euractiv, in theory a NATO member can invoke Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty and request assistance if it comes under attack.
But the collective defence clause does not apply everywhere, and its geographic scope is actually defined in the far less well-known Article 6.
That article stipulates that for Article 5 to be triggered, an armed attack must occur “on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America (…), on the territory of Türkiye or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
NATO’s ultimate security guarantee therefore does not cover a large proportion of Europe’s overseas territories.
At this point, the question arises as to whether the EU’s mutual assistance clause can fill that gap.
Unlike NATO’s Article 5, Article 42(7) of the EU Treaties is not a mutual defence clause but a mutual assistance clause.
It does, however, contain no geographic limitation.
European External Action Service (EEAS) spokesperson Anitta Hipper confirmed to Euractiv that, if invoked, the clause provides a guarantee that “all EU member states are obliged to assist the member state that has suffered an armed attack on its territory ‘by all the means in their power’.”
EU mutual assistance is increasingly becoming a subject of political debate in Brussels.
Some member states remain cautious about its potential implications.
In particular, there is a risk that more explicit reliance on EU mutual defence mechanisms could accelerate a partial US withdrawal from the Continent.
EU diplomats are expected to conduct a simulation this week on the application of Article 42(7), which is politically defined but has never been clearly tested.
Colonial legacy: EU overseas territories
France is the EU member state with the largest number of overseas territories.
Paris controls French Guiana in South America, home to the ESA’s European Spaceport, as well as Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy in the Caribbean.
These territories lie below the Tropic of Cancer and are therefore outside the scope of NATO’s Article 5.
In the Indian Ocean, Réunion and Mayotte also remain part of the French state.
The security of these regions is the sole responsibility of the French armed forces, but as part of the European Union, any armed attack could prompt Paris to invoke the EU mutual assistance mechanism.
The Netherlands also possesses Caribbean territories, including Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
A spokesperson for the Dutch foreign ministry confirmed to Euractiv that because these territories are located south of the Tropic of Cancer, they fall “outside the geographic scope” of NATO’s Article 5.
“That said, a provision such as Article 5 is not necessary for allies to request or provide (military) assistance in the event of an armed attack on any of these territories,” the spokesperson added.
Unlike the situation with France, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Asked about Article 42(7), the ministry said the provision “speaks for itself” and “should be understood as an expression of solidarity among EU member states.”
According to Euractiv, the example of Greenland offers a useful comparison for better understanding the Dutch Caribbean.
Asked about the scope of EU assistance, the spokesperson confirmed that “Greenland is part of the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and therefore falls within the scope of the mutual assistance clause.”
Moreover, because Greenland is located well north of the Tropic of Cancer, it is also eligible for NATO protection under the treaty’s geographic framework.
Spain presents another interesting case with regard to Article 6. Its North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla appear to occupy a grey zone, as they lie outside Europe and North America.
In 2022, ahead of the NATO summit in Madrid, the issue briefly surfaced in domestic political debate.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez appeared to dismiss the discussion.
Noting that Spain had been a NATO member for more than 40 years and that such doubts had never arisen, he said: “Ceuta and Melilla are Spain.”
While the applicability of NATO’s Article 5 may be debatable, no such ambiguity exists with respect to the EU’s mutual assistance clause.
Non-EU NATO overseas territories: Britain
As a NATO member outside the EU, the United Kingdom possesses 14 overseas territories under its sovereignty.
These territories are spread across the Caribbean, Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and most lie outside the core geographic scope of NATO’s Article 5.
Recent geopolitical debates, however, have put these regions back on the agenda, including heightened attention to the Falkland Islands dispute.
A recent internal email first reported by Reuters indicated that the US Department of Defense had considered revisiting Washington’s position on the sovereignty of the islands, partly because it viewed UK support as insufficient on the issue of a US-Israel war with Iran.
British overseas territories that fall outside the scope of NATO’s Article 5 rely entirely on London for their protection.
The US also faces a geographic issue. Hawaii lies south of the Tropic of Cancer.
Territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa also fall outside the treaty’s traditional North Atlantic framework.
They are therefore outside the strict geographic scope of Article 5, but can nonetheless rely on NATO’s largest military for their security.
This gap in the security architecture for overseas territories reflects the legacy of European states with global territorial footprints, even as collective defence systems rest on frameworks designed for a narrower Europe.
The result is that, in the event of a crisis, responsibility for overseas territories remains at times unclear.
Europe
Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget
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.
Europe
EU expects next Israeli government to adopt less aggressive posture
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.”
Europe
Germany threatens EU budget veto over long-term Ukraine aid
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.”
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Europe6 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Diplomacy1 week agoProtesters storm Kyiv site holding soldiers over torture allegations
-
Russia2 weeks agoPutin proposes Arctic energy cooperation to US to ease gas sanctions
-
Europe1 week agoPro-Ukraine Republicans in US Congress dwindle after departures
-
America2 weeks agoRubio outlines Venezuela election plan, says US will not wait two years
