In Berlin, Europe finally wakes up on its own defense

Introduction: a summit that reeks of urgency

Berlin, improvised capital of European defense

There is something almost ironic about seeing Germany, long criticized for its chronic military underinvestment, host a summit devoted to the future of European defense. Yet it was precisely in Berlin that Chancellor Friedrich Merz brought together French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to discuss an ambitious goal: raising defense spending to 3.5% of GDP.

This summit is not just another diplomatic exercise. It reflects a late but genuine realization: Europe can no longer afford to depend so heavily on the American security umbrella, especially at a time when the Trump administration keeps sending signals of a possible disengagement from the continent.

Why this column was needed

I am among those who believe Europe took far too long to grasp the scale of the Russian threat and the fragility of its own collective security model. This Berlin summit, despite its limits, may finally mark the beginning of a strategic awakening that those closely following this issue have been waiting for far too long.

This column offers a personal, incisive but rigorous reading of what this summit reveals about the real state of Western solidarity against the threat posed by Russia, but also, more broadly, China and the authoritarian axis consolidating before our eyes.

Merz, the chancellor changing Germany's game

A break from decades of fiscal caution

Friedrich Merz represents a significant break from the German tradition of fiscal caution on defense. Under his push, the German military budget is set to climb dramatically, from roughly 86 billion euros to more than 152 billion euros by 2029, a trajectory that would have seemed unthinkable just five years ago.

This budgetary transformation reflects a deep shift in German perception of the Russian threat, accelerated by the invasion of Ukraine and by growing doubts about the long-term reliability of the American commitment to European security.

Merz's political gamble

This shift is not without political risk for Merz, in a country where part of public opinion remains attached to a culture of military restraint inherited from the postwar era. Convincing German citizens to accept such large defense spending requires a clear political message about the real nature of the threat Russia poses to the entire European continent.

The success or failure of this gamble will largely determine Germany's credibility as a European military leader in the years ahead, a role Berlin has not held since World War II.

Macron and the vision of French strategic autonomy

A doctrine defended for years

Emmanuel Macron has championed the idea of European strategic autonomy for several years, a doctrine long met with skepticism by some European partners, particularly those closer to the traditional Atlanticist line. The Berlin summit represents, for him, a form of belated validation of this vision he has consistently defended since the start of his first term.

With its own nuclear arsenal and developed defense industry, France naturally positions itself as a potential pillar of this reinforced European strategic autonomy, alongside a Germany economically dominant but still militarily under reconstruction.

Persistent tensions between Paris and Berlin

Despite this apparent convergence, substantial tensions remain between Paris and Berlin on key issues such as joint financing of European defense projects, the place of French industry in future joint arms programs, and the exact role French nuclear deterrence should play in an expanded European security architecture.

These disagreements, though rarely aired publicly, remain one of the main obstacles to genuine European defense integration, a challenge this summit did not fully resolve despite the displayed declarations of unity.

Meloni and Italy, between solidarity and fiscal caution

Declared support but limited room to maneuver

Giorgia Meloni expressed support for the 3.5% of GDP defense spending target, a position consistent with her pro-Western and pro-NATO stance since taking power. However, Italy's fiscal situation, marked by high public debt, considerably limits Rome's real room to maneuver to reach this target within the envisioned timeframe.

This fiscal constraint illustrates a broader reality across several southern European countries: security ambitions often run up against the structural limits of national public finances, an obstacle the Berlin summit did not truly address in concrete terms.

Italy facing its own strategic priorities

Italy also remains preoccupied with specific security concerns tied to the Mediterranean and instability in North Africa, priorities that do not always perfectly align with other European partners' focus on the Russian threat to the continent's east.

This divergence in geographic priorities illustrates the complexity of building a truly unified defense strategy across twenty-seven countries with sometimes conflicting security interests.

Starmer and the United Kingdom, an ally outside the EU

A symbolic but significant presence

Keir Starmer's presence at this summit, despite the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, underscores the persistent importance of British security cooperation for the entire continent. London retains significant military capabilities, notably nuclear, that remain essential for any expanded European defense architecture.

This participation also illustrates a pragmatic evolution of post-Brexit relations, where collective security considerations against Russia increasingly outweigh the institutional rigidities inherited from Britain's divorce with Brussels.

Challenges specific to the British model

The United Kingdom, however, faces its own budgetary and industrial challenges in significantly increasing defense spending, amid a domestic economic context marked by modest growth and significant fiscal pressures on British public finances.

Despite these constraints, Starmer reaffirmed his country's commitment to European security, a position reassuring continental partners worried about a possible British strategic withdrawal after recent years of political turbulence.

The 3.5% target, between ambition and realism

A threshold as symbolic as it is strategic

The goal of raising defense spending to 3.5% of GDP far exceeds the 2% threshold traditionally associated with NATO commitments. This more ambitious figure reflects a growing recognition, among European capitals, that the Russian threat demands substantially greater military investment than what was envisioned before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Reaching this threshold would represent a major transformation of European public budgets, with significant implications for other spending categories, notably social spending, in several countries across the continent.

Domestic political obstacles to overcome

Each European country will need to convince its own public opinion of the necessity of this considerable fiscal effort, in a context where immediate economic concerns, such as inflation and the cost of living, often dominate the electoral priorities of European citizens.

This gap between the strategic urgency perceived by leaders and the daily priorities of populations is one of the biggest political challenges to effectively implementing this ambitious goal within the set timeframe.

The Russian threat as common denominator

A war that changed European perception

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 fundamentally transformed European perception of continental security, ending decades of illusion about the possibility of a lasting, stable peace with Moscow. This realization, though late for some countries, is the real driver behind the current acceleration of European defense efforts.

The leaders gathered in Berlin now share a common assessment: Vladimir Putin will not necessarily stop at Ukraine if his military aggression is not firmly contained and deterred by a unified, credible Western response.

American uncertainty as an accelerating factor

The ambiguous signals sent by the Trump administration regarding long-term American commitment to European defense have also accelerated this continental awakening. While Trump remains, in my view, a necessary evil for the West against the combined threats of China, Russia, and Iran, his unpredictability forces Europe to take on greater responsibility for its own security.

This dual pressure, coming from both the east and transatlantic uncertainty, largely explains the palpable urgency that marked the discussions at the Berlin summit.

The European defense industry put to the test

A fragmented industrial base

One of the biggest challenges to reaching the 3.5% of GDP target lies in the persistent fragmentation of the European defense industry, with multiple redundant national programs that limit economies of scale and slow collective technological innovation against competitors like the United States and China.

Discussions in Berlin addressed the need for deeper industrial consolidation, notably through existing Franco-German joint projects, often slowed by disagreements over technology sharing and national economic benefits.

The challenge of rapid production

Beyond financing, Europe faces an immediate production capacity challenge, particularly for artillery ammunition and air defense systems, areas where current demand tied to supporting Ukraine far exceeds the continent's existing industrial capabilities.

Resolving this industrial bottleneck will require sustained investment over several years, a political continuity that national electoral cycles do not always reliably guarantee.

Reactions from Moscow and Beijing

The Kremlin denounces an escalation

Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin reacted to this summit by denouncing what it calls Western militarist escalation, a familiar rhetoric aimed at presenting Russia as the victim of Western aggression rather than the initial aggressor against Ukraine. This rhetorical inversion, well known to observers of the conflict, no longer fools many outside pro-Russian circles.

This reaction confirms, if confirmation were needed, that Moscow indeed perceives European military reinforcement as a serious threat to its own long-term geopolitical ambitions on the continent.

China watches closely

China, for its part, is closely watching this European evolution, aware that strengthened Western defense against Russia could also signal a firmer posture toward its own regional ambitions, particularly concerning Taiwan. This convergence of Western concerns about authoritarian regimes is a development Beijing follows very closely.

This global dynamic confirms that the Berlin summit, while primarily focused on the Russian threat, fits into a much broader geostrategic context of confrontation between Western democracies and authoritarian regimes.

The role of NATO in this new architecture

An organization that must adapt

NATO, headquartered in Brussels, must now contend with this rise of European defense initiatives, which complement but sometimes also complicate the traditional transatlantic security architecture. Coordination between strictly European initiatives and the Alliance's broader framework remains a delicate issue in the months ahead.

Some NATO officials see this European buildup as a positive, complementary evolution to the overall transatlantic effort, while others fear a possible duplication of existing structures, a potential source of additional bureaucratic inefficiency.

Toward a clearer transatlantic division of labor

This summit could accelerate the emergence of a clearer division of labor between the United States, which would retain a leading role in certain global strategic theaters, and a Europe taking on greater responsibility for its own immediate continental security against Russia.

This evolution, if it truly materializes, would represent a major structural change in the Western security architecture inherited from the Cold War, finally adapted to the geopolitical realities of the twenty-first century.

The consequences for aid to Ukraine

A defense buildup that benefits Kyiv

The strengthening of European defense capabilities announced in Berlin should, over time, directly benefit Ukraine, through increased production of ammunition, air defense systems, and military equipment that Kyiv continues to urgently demand amid intensifying Russian strikes on its territory.

This positive dynamic, however, remains conditional on the actual speed of implementing the commitments made at this summit, a challenge Europe has historically struggled to meet within the timeframes initially announced by its leaders.

Zelensky welcomes an encouraging development

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose courage and determination continue to inspire Western support, welcomed this development as an encouraging signal of long-term European solidarity with his country. This solidarity remains essential as Ukraine continues to heroically resist Russian aggression, more than four years after the start of the full-scale invasion.

For Kyiv, every strengthening of the European defense industrial base represents an additional guarantee of sustained military support, independent of political fluctuations observed in Washington.

Critics and skeptics of the summit

Voices that doubt implementation

Some analysts remain skeptical about European governments' real ability to turn these ambitious commitments into concrete, lasting action, recalling the many precedents of grandiose European summits followed by disappointing, fragmented implementation.

This analytical caution is legitimate, given that the recent history of European defense cooperation has been marked by frequent delays and persistent national divergences that have often diluted the initial ambition of jointly announced projects.

The risk of an announcement without follow-through

The main risk identified by the most critical observers concerns the possibility that this Berlin summit will remain just another announcement effect, without real and lasting transformation of European budgets and military capabilities within the timeframes announced by the leaders present.

Only time will tell whether, unlike previous European defense summits, the commitments made in Berlin will actually translate into approved budgets, signed contracts, and genuinely strengthened military capabilities on the ground.

What this summit reveals about the transatlantic future

A Europe growing up, but slowly

This Berlin summit illustrates a Europe strategically growing up, but at a pace that probably remains too slow given the real urgency of the Russian threat and the persistent uncertainty surrounding long-term American commitment to the continent's security.

This European strategic maturation, though positive in principle, still has to overcome numerous structural, institutional, and political obstacles before translating into genuine, credible, and lasting defense autonomy.

A transatlantic partnership bound to evolve

The future of the transatlantic relationship will largely depend on Europe's ability to demonstrate, in the months and years ahead, that the commitments made in Berlin actually translate into strengthened military capabilities and concrete solidarity with Ukraine and the entire eastern flank of NATO.

This evolution, if confirmed, could durably redefine the balance of responsibilities between the United States and its European allies in facing the security challenges of the twenty-first century.

Financing, the sinews of the European budgetary war

Common financing mechanisms yet to be invented

Beyond national commitments, the Berlin summit also addressed the sensitive question of common European financing mechanisms, notably through mutualized borrowing instruments inspired by the post-pandemic recovery fund. These mechanisms, if adopted, would allow the financial burden to be shared more equitably among countries with very unequal fiscal capacities.

This idea remains controversial, however, with some northern European countries, traditionally more fiscally cautious, expressing significant reservations about greater mutualization of European military debt.

The European Commission as a potential arbiter

The European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, could play a growing role in coordinating these common financing mechanisms, drawing on the experience gained from the collective management of the health crisis a few years earlier.

This expanded role for Brussels in defense matters, traditionally reserved for sovereign national competence, would illustrate a major institutional evolution for the European Union, should it materialize in the coming months.

Conclusion: a necessary step, but not a sufficient one

A summit that marks a symbolic turning point

The Berlin summit will likely be remembered as a pivotal moment in European awareness of the Russian threat and transatlantic uncertainty. Merz, Macron, Meloni, and Starmer sent a clear signal of their collective intent to significantly strengthen the continent's defense in the years ahead.

But a political signal, however strong, does not replace the concrete implementation of commitments made. It is precisely on this ground of execution that the true credibility of this summit will play out in the months and years to come.

What I personally take away from this

I close this column with cautious optimism, tinged with a demand for continued vigilance. Europe finally seems to grasp the scale of the security challenge it faces, but understanding is not enough: it must now act with the consistency and speed the situation genuinely requires.

Ukraine continues to pay, every day, the price in blood for the security of the entire European continent. The least Europe can do is finally turn its words from Berlin into concrete, lasting action.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Method and sources used

This column relies on press reports about the Berlin summit, as well as available economic analyses of German and European defense budgets. The precise figures concerning the German defense budget come from publicly available analyses and may be subject to adjustment in coming months depending on final parliamentary decisions.

I note that certain assessments regarding internal tensions among delegations, particularly Franco-German ones, rest on journalistic analyses and historically documented dynamics rather than direct confidential sources I did not have access to.

Acknowledged editorial position

I write this column from a clearly pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian position, in favor of strengthening European defense against the Russian threat. This position does not stop me from highlighting the real limits, contradictions, and uncertainties that accompany political announcements of this kind of summit.

Sources

Primary sources

Video coverage of the Berlin summit on European defense — June 2026

European Relations — European leaders push for stronger defence unity — June 2026

The Washington Post — Germany's defense spending surge under NATO pressure — June 24, 2025

Secondary sources

AOL News — The 'Merzcron' era: Franco-German defense cooperation — June 2026

IP Quarterly — Germany needs to enhance its credibility on defense — 2026

Foreign Policy — analysis on European defense and NATO — June 2026