ESSAY: The E5 in Berlin — when Europe finally decides to defend itself for real

A summit that changes everything

On June 24, 2026, five heads of government gathered in Berlin for what may go down in history as the moment when European military power stopped being wishful thinking and became strategic reality. France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland — the five largest military powers on the continent — formed a group called the E5 and made concrete, quantified, verifiable commitments.

This is not a declaration of good intentions. It is a common defense architecture taking shape, days before the NATO Ankara summit. And to grasp the scale of this pivot, the numbers must be faced head-on, without detour.

The Merz signal: 3.5% of German GDP

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that Germany will aim to devote 3.5% of its GDP to defense by 2029. That is colossal. Germany — long accused of underinvesting, the country that hesitated for decades to rearm out of historical guilt — is crossing a threshold. In 2025, Berlin had already spent USD 114 billion on defense, a rise of 24% in a single year.

Berlin as the stage for a strategic shift — there is a deep irony in that geographic choice. Berlin, the city divided during the Cold War, is now the place where Europe decides never to be weak again. Geography has a memory that politicians ignore at their peril.

Why these five countries specifically

The E5 group was not born of European federalist ideology. It was born of strategic urgency. These five countries concentrate the bulk of European military capabilities — expeditionary forces, heavy weapons, Franco-British nuclear deterrence, Poland's booming defense industry. Together they represent a power bloc that Russia can no longer ignore.

The choice of Berlin as host city is itself symbolic: it was in Germany that, for decades, European hesitation crystallized. Holding it there is a way of closing a chapter.

Spain excluded — and what that says

Spain was excluded from the E5 summit for a specific reason: its refusal to meet the 5% of GDP threshold set as the condition for entry into this inner circle. This is not a symbolic punishment — it is proof that the E5 intends to be a group of action, not a discussion club. Madrid's exclusion sends a clear message to every European capital: either you are serious about rearmament, or you stay outside the decision-making circle.

Spain's exclusion may be the most significant decision of this summit. It means the E5 is choosing coherence over inclusiveness. That is brutal — but it is also the only way to build a coalition that actually holds.

Long-range precision strike under joint development

One of the most significant commitments at the E5 summit involves the accelerated joint development of long-range precision strike systems. The five countries agree to coordinate their industrial efforts, avoid duplication and pool investments in a capability that Europe sorely lacked when facing Russian ballistic missiles.

This means a European defense industry beginning to function as an integrated ecosystem rather than five national markets competing against one another. That is a profound structural shift.

Air defense and artificial intelligence

The E5 countries also commit to coordinating air defense and the integration of artificial intelligence into their weapons systems. Both domains became critical after three years of war in Ukraine, where the Russians learned to saturate air defenses through massive waves of drones and cruise missiles.

Coordinating on air defense and AI is not a tech gimmick. It is a direct response to the lessons of the war in Ukraine. Europe is finally looking at the real battlefield rather than the doctrinal manuals of the 1990s.

A massive rearmament already under way

NATO's 29 European members collectively spent USD 559 billion on defense in 2025, according to available data. That figure, combined with Canada's contributions, represents an increase of USD 90 billion over the previous year, or +20% in a single budget cycle.

That is the largest Western rearmament since the end of the Cold War. And yet delays persist in the delivery of ordered equipment, in the scaling up of defense industries, and in personnel training. Money alone is not enough — political will and industrial capacity are also required.

Why delays persist despite the money

The paradox of European rearmament is that governments are signing checks their defense industries cannot yet cash in full. Ammunition supply chains were disrupted after decades of disarmament. Factories must be rebuilt, engineers trained, production lines restarted. That takes time — exactly what the geopolitical situation does not allow.

Poland inside the European military decision-making circle — that is the harshest geopolitical lesson Putin ever inflicted on Europe. He wanted to weaken NATO; instead he turned Poland into a frontline military power. History takes its revenge with an irony that even the finest strategists could not have planned.

Ankara as a test of cohesion

The Berlin E5 summit fits directly into the countdown to the NATO Ankara summit scheduled a few weeks later. By presenting a united front with quantified commitments, the five major European powers send a strong signal to Washington: Europe is capable of shouldering its own responsibilities; American allies no longer need to carry the burden of Western defense alone.

Berlin, June 24, 2026 — the day Europe decided to stop begging for its own security. This is a date worth remembering. Not with triumphalism, but with the sobriety of those who understand what it cost to get here — and what it will cost to go further.

It is also an indirect message to Donald Trump, whose threats to reduce American engagement in NATO paradoxically accelerated European rearmament. The fear of abandonment achieved what decades of diplomacy had failed to bring about.

The preparatory Brussels meetings

As early as June 18, 2026, NATO defense ministers had gathered in Brussels to lay the groundwork for Ankara. The progress made at that meeting — on spending targets, on the allocation of roles among allies — was hailed as significant. The Berlin E5 summit is the logical continuation, and the demonstration that Europeans are taking responsibility even before the official summit begins.

Trump succeeded, despite himself, in what George W. Bush, Obama and Biden had all failed to achieve: forcing the Europeans to pay for their own defense. The irony of history is brutal but real — the threat of American abandonment proved to be the best investor in European defense.

The concept of "irreversible transfer" of responsibilities

The conceptual framework emerging from Berlin is what some analysts call NATO 3.0 — a rebalanced alliance in which Europeans take charge of the conventional defense of the continent while the United States remains the nuclear guarantor and strategic reserve. This is no longer a two-speed NATO — it is a NATO with an acknowledged division of labor.

Secretary General Mark Rutte pointed out that NATO spending has risen by USD 250 billion since 2017, a remarkable trajectory even if it still falls short of stated targets. The direction is right; the pace must accelerate.

Poland as the eastern pillar

Poland's place in the E5 is no accident. It marks the definitive integration of NATO's eastern flank into the central decision-making group. Warsaw, already spending more than 4% of its GDP on defense, is now recognized as a first-rank military power in Europe. This geographic shift of the European military center of gravity toward the East is structural — and profoundly logical given the Russian threat.

Poland inside the European military decision-making circle — this is the harshest geopolitical lesson Putin ever forced on Europe. He wanted to weaken NATO; instead he made Poland a military power. The paradox is total.

Ukraine as the catalyst

Without the war in Ukraine, none of this would have happened at this pace. Ukraine was the brutal revealer of the gaps in European defense, and at the same time the laboratory where new doctrines of war are being tested. Every E5 commitment on long-range weapons, air defense or AI has a direct counterpart in lessons learned in the trenches of Bakhmut or in the skies over Kyiv.

The future of NATO depends on what the Europeans actually do with this transformation — not what they promise to do, but what they do concretely, factory by factory, regiment by regiment, budget by budget. The promises made in Berlin are only worth the actions that follow in the months and years ahead. The world will be watching. Putin, for his part, will not wait.

The E5 summit also enshrines a new political reality: Ukraine is no longer an exceptional case of temporary solidarity — it is the full-scale test of the new European defense architecture. What the E5 produces will, one way or another, make its way to Kyiv.

Zelensky as a political force

Ukraine forms the constant backdrop to the E5 summit. Volodymyr Zelensky has managed to transform his country into a symbol of democratic resistance, forcing European leaders to answer a simple question: do you want freedom to win? The Berlin summit is in part a collective answer to that question. The five countries cannot say they support Ukraine and continue to underinvest in their own defense.

Zelensky achieved something extraordinary: turning the Ukrainian cause into a moral obligation for all of democratic Europe. The E5 would not be what it is without the symbolic force of Kyiv holding the line.

The question of political durability

The E5 group has no formal legal basis. It rests on the political will of five current governments — and governments change. The commitments made in Berlin can be revisited after elections, economic crises or shifts in coalition. The durability of this commitment is the great unknown.

Moreover, Spain's exclusion creates a precedent — and perhaps a grievance — that could weaken the broader cohesion of NATO and the EU. Building an effective coalition should not mean permanently dividing Europe into strategic first and second tiers.

The defense industry: the real bottleneck

Political announcements always run up against the same industrial reality: production capacity. The European defense industry cannot double its output in a year, even with the budgets in place. Massive investment in production capabilities — factories, raw materials, skilled labor — is indispensable for Berlin's commitments to translate into real equipment in the field.

A historical threshold crossed

The E5 Berlin summit marks a threshold. Not a revolution — revolutions are instantaneous. A threshold is the moment when a trajectory becomes irreversible. European military power, with its USD 559 billion in defense spending in 2025, with Germany heading to 3.5% of GDP by 2029, with five major powers coordinating their long-range weapons and air defense, crossed that threshold in Berlin on June 24, 2026.

The future belongs to those who defend themselves

In a world where Vladimir Putin has put wars of conquest back on the European agenda, where China watches for cracks in Western cohesion, and where Trump's America negotiates its commitment like a commodity, Europe had no choice but to take charge of itself. Berlin 2026 is the moment that choice was made collectively, solemnly, and with enough substance to be taken seriously. The world has changed — and so has Europe.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

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.