# In Berlin, Europe finally wakes up on its own defense

> Introduction: a summit that reeks of urgency

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Column
- Published: 2026-07-03
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/chronique-a-berlin-leurope-se-reveille-enfin-sur-sa-propre-defense

## Key takeaways

- The summit discussed raising defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, well above the 2% NATO benchmark.
- Merz's push would lift Germany's military budget from roughly 86 billion euros to more than 152 billion by 2029.
- Macron's strategic autonomy vision gained validation, though Paris and Berlin still disagree on financing, industry and the role of French nuclear deterrence.
- Meloni backed the target, but Italy's high public debt limits its room to maneuver.
- The author links the urgency to the Russian threat, American uncertainty under Trump, and fragmented European industry, with aid to Ukraine at stake.

## 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 **budget**s, 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 **budget**s 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 **budget**s, 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

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [Video coverage of the Berlin summit on European defense — June 2026](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx8PzkWcp2s)

- [European Relations — European leaders push for stronger defence unity — June 2026](https://europeanrelations.com/quick-brief/european-leaders-push-for-stronger-defence-unity/)

- [The Washington Post — Germany's defense spending surge under NATO pressure — June 24, 2025](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/24/germany-defense-spending-budget-nato/d48fe9ee-50e4-11f0-baaa-ba1025f321a8_story.html)

### Secondary sources

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

- [IP Quarterly — Germany needs to enhance its credibility on defense — 2026](https://ip-quarterly.com/en/germany-needs-enhance-its-credibility)

- [Foreign Policy — analysis on European defense and NATO — June 2026](https://foreignpolicy.com/)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/chronique-a-berlin-leurope-se-reveille-enfin-sur-sa-propre-defense