(Delivered at the Charlemagne Prize Forum in Aachen on Wednesday 28 May 2025)

Dear all,

Dear organizers,

You are asking the toughest question we face these days: Europe without the US – is it possible?

Of course, I will speak mainly about security and defence:

what will happen to European security and defence if and when the Americans will diminish their military presence on the European continent?

My answer to your question can be very short and simple:

– First, looking into next decade, yes, it is not only possible, but almost unavoidable that we shall need to stand on our own two feet in defence matters in Europe, because Americans will more and more withdraw from Europe.

– Second, it is not only possible, but it is our duty as Europeans to be ready to assume the sole responsibility for the defence of Europe.

It will not be easy to defend Europe only by Europeans, but that is what we must be ready to do.

We will need to take care not only about the material side of defence: how many weapons we need to produce and procure. But also about the institutional and political side of the issue: how to organize European defence on our own.

This kind of a readiness will take time, but to make it possible we need to change our mindset already now: less complaining that we are being betrayed, and more rational preparation for a transatlantic division of responsibilities.

On what are we facing? 

To understand the challenges we will need to overcome in our preparedness, let’s start with a short description of what we are facing now:

1. War in Ukraine – without clear perspectives of peace. Putin does not want peace. He thinks he is benefiting from this war. If things with peace negotiations will continue in the same way as they were going till now, war can continue until Putin decides that he has benefited enough from this war. And then he will turn to another target.
2. Putin‘s aggressiveness in the future will only increase. If peace would be concluded in Ukraine, Putin will continue to mobilise Russia’s war economy to produce huge amounts of weapons. At the moment Putin is able to produce 4 times more ammunition than all NATO members (including USA) produce together. Our intelligence services predict: that starting from 2027-2028, Putin can be ready to test NATO’s Article 5. This year Putin again organizes big military exercises “Zapad” in Belarus, close to the borders of Poland and Lithuania. This is done the first time since the beginning of the war in 2022.
3. American forthcoming withdrawal from Europe is a new reality.This does not mean American withdrawal from NATO. But China’s rising military power will push the US to shift its attention more and more to the Indo-Pacific, at the same time diminishing US presence on the European continent. That is going to happen, not because Americans do not love Europeans anymore, but because global geopolitical reality and security challenges are changing very rapidly and radically. And we need to be ready to adapt.

In short, we are now facing the “perfect storm” on the European continent:

• War in Ukraine continuing;
• Russian aggressiveness increasing;
• American withdrawal speeding up;

and together creating conditions for a deep crisis on the European continent.

But as is often said – never waste a good crisis to take bold decisions and reforms. As Jean Monnet said in 1957: “The European Community will be created during the crises, and the sum what will be created during those crises that will be the European Community”

So during this crisis, what kind of European community in defence do we need to create?

To better understand what we need to be ready for, let’s make a short overview of the conclusions we can draw from the experience of the war in Ukraine.        

On the lessons of the war in Ukraine. 

We need to understand that on the European continent there are two battle tested armies, with the ability to use millions of drones: Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine – for its own defence and the defence of Europe. Russia – in preparation for its next aggression.

The biggest change in warfare is clear: today 80% of targets in Ukraine are destroyed by drones, there’s a 15 km “death valley” on both sides of front line where nothing can move. The “valley” is created by drones. Ukrainian drones and Russian drones. A traditional tank on average survives 6 minutes in this “death valley”. Every 2 months there is a need for radical innovation of the drones in operation – as the Russians learn to jam or intercept the previous models. Ukraine during this year will produce and will use 4 million drones. Russia – a similar amount.

Last week I spoke with the famous Ukrainian general, former Commander of the Ukrainian military forces in 2022-2024, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. He is now Ukrainian ambassador to the United Kingdom. And he told me, that Russia and China are learning from the war in Ukraine how a modern war of attrition develops.

At the beginning of the Russian aggression, the Russian army was at its weakest point. Now the Russian army has changed a great deal. Ukrainians say that the Russians are as good as Ukrainians at drones and electronic warfare. Sometimes even better.

We can assume that Putin started the war and continues the war not only to grab new territories, but also to learn how to fight a modern war. In the case of Russian aggression against a NATO or EU member state, we will face a battle tested Russian army, with millions of drones in its “Army of drones”.

Are we ready for that? I doubt it.

General Zaluzhnyi also told me, – the West (including the EU) is still preparing to fight the wars of yesterday.

Maybe the UK can be a source of inspiration for us. Especially now, when we signed historically important Partnership in Security and Defence. Last week, the British Army announced its new military strategy, the so called “20-40-40” strategy: – heavy equipment like tanks, infantry vehicles, helicopters will make-up 20% of fighting capability;

– single use kamikaze drones and long range missiles will make-up the first “40” %;

– reusable drones, more durable reconnaissance or attack drones will make up the remaining “40” %

This sounds very similar to the Ukrainian strategy to hit 80% of targets with drones.

The UK inspires us to update not only our military technologies, but also our military doctrines. It’s time we learn from both the Ukrainians and the British.

On what to do?

It’s time to answer the very simple question: What do we need to do to be ready to face aggression from Russia’s battle tested army, and at the same time: to prepare for the prospect of American withdrawal?

On Material preparedness.

First of all, as is stated in the “White Paper”: We must urgently ensure material preparedness for defence – according to NATO defence plans and NATO capability targets. At the upcoming summit, NATO will likely ask alliance members to raise their military capability targets by 30%. But Allies are already 30% behind in delivering on existing capability targets.
So the proposed increase means “there’s a huge hole ” in our readiness. That’s how NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation Admiral Pierre Vandier put it, at his press briefing in March.

Material preparedness means a radical increase in development and procurement of new weapons. And it means a ramp up of industrial production on the European continent. For that we need enough financial resources.

Rapid implementation of “Rearm Europe” with “SAFE” loans and activating the national escape clause – brings new hundreds of billions of financial resources into our defence industry. We need to use these instruments in the most effective way possible.

On Replacement of US resources

Instead of complaining that the Americans are going to betray us, we need to immediately start preparations for replacing American defence resources on the European continent. Let’s have our material and political readiness programs in order to avoid an emotional, angry divorce.We must have a rational agreement with our transatlantic partners on division of responsibilities, and discuss with the partners how long it will take us and which steps we need to take to implement it.

It’s clear that 450 million Europeans should not complain that 340 million Americans are not ready to permanently defend us against 140 million Russians, who are not able during 3 years of the war to defeat 38 millions Ukrainians.

It’s also clear that in Europe we still very heavily depend on US resources, especially on so called “Strategic Enablers”: like space intelligence data, command and control centers, heavy air-lift capabilities, refueling in the air capabilities.

That is what we need to develop in Europe without delay.

Definitely, it will cost a lot of money. A leading think-tank in studies of war, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, estimates that it could cost for European allies up to 1 trillion US dollars to replace the current US contribution to NATO’s collective defence.

And the Bruegel think tank in their recent paper gives their estimate: “Europe could need 300,000 more troops and an annual defence spending hike of at least €250 billion in the short term to deter Russian aggression”.

Readiness cost a lot, but non-readiness cost much more.

On Responsibility for peace on the European continent

In Europe we need to understand that peace is not interesting for Putin and diplomacy alone will not bring any kind of peace. A forthcoming American withdrawal from Europe, perhaps, would also mean withdrawing from the Ukraine “issue”, including on peace. So in Europe we need to change our approach on peace in Ukraine.

Until now we were mainly “waiting for peace” to happen. We first had a European hope that Ukraine itself would manage to win and to achieve peace (2022-2023 period). Then we were waiting for Biden and later for Trump to miraculously convince Putin to agree on peace. Recently we started waiting for phone calls to Putin or for negotiations in Vatican.

It does not work.

Now our last hope in our “waiting game” is that something will happen in the Kremlin or with Putin and that will bring peace. Peace will not happen while we just wait. We need to take our own responsibility and need to have our own strategy for  “creation of peace” in Ukraine.

Creating conditions for peace by our own efforts means no longer waiting for anybody else to bring much needed peace. A just peace in Ukraine can be created only by making Ukraine stronger. And the only ones who can make Ukraine stronger are we, Europeans.

On peace through strength and support to Ukraine

According to upcoming NATO agreements, we will need to spend 3.5% of GDP for our own defence each year. But now annually we are spending less than 0.1% of our GDP to assist Ukraine in its defence. Something is wrong here with those numbers and with our military logic.

Why such a difference? Why do we think that today it is more important to take care only about our own defence capabilities, but not about sufficient capabilities for Ukraine, when Ukraine is defending us against the same threat?

I don’t understand this military logic.

We have new possibilities to change those numbers. Those possibilities are called “SAFE” loans. The Council just approved the Regulation on those loans. 150 billion euros of attractive, triple A loans, backed by the EU budget. 45 years maturity, 10 years grace period. What’s important: Member States can take those loans and spend them together with Ukraine for joint procurement from Ukraine and for Ukraine.

SAFE loans can become a breakthrough in our support to Ukraine.

On New European Security Architecture.

In the case of Russian aggression, we would face a powerful, battle tested army, capable of using millions of deadly drones against us. But there are no military armies in NATO with the same battle tested experience. On top of that, we face American withdrawal from Europe.

And, as the White Paper on the Future of European Defence says: “…a new international order will be formed in the second half of this decade and beyond”.

That is why we need to see a broader challenge for us: we need not only to take care about our material readiness for defence, but we need to take care about institutional and political side of our European defence.

Looking at the long term future, it will not be enough just to spend more on defence and to produce more weapons.

In order to defend ourselves it is essential, that we “develop a European security architecture”, as stated in my Mission Letter, I received from President Von der Leyen, at the start of my mandate. Our strategic goal is to unite all efforts to strengthen European defence into “a true European Defence Union”.

If we agree, that “Defending Europe is a European task” – those are the words of my Mission Letter – then we need to agree: the European Defence Union architecture is the only way to prepare ourselves for American withdrawal.

On Ukraine and United Kingdom – integral part of European security architecture

A new European security architecture, a true European Defence Union cannot be created without Ukraine as an integral part from the very beginning. While Americans are starting to move out from Europe and Russians are growing stronger, our security in Europe depends on how rapidly we will build a new European security architecture. And Ukraine with its battle tested army and extremely innovative defence industry will be the most important part of that security architecture.

With the prospect of Americans leaving, it is obvious that we need Ukraine’s integration into the European Union as much as Ukraine needs this integration. Because this is how we can speed up building our European security architecture.

This way we can integrate Ukraine’s battle tested army without delay into our European military structures. And at the same time learn from the Ukrainians:

• How to defend ourselves against the battle tested Russian army;
• How to build an innovative European defence industry;
• And how “to do defence” in the most innovative way.

The same is true for our relationship with the United Kingdom. Withdrawal of the United States should push Europeans towards more unity. And of course, the British have remarkable skills on the battlefield and in defence innovation. Which would bring a lot of additional strength to the European Defence Union.

On European Common Defence

We need to remember what the Article 42 part 2 of the Treaty on European Union says about European defence:

“The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.”

The treaty speaks not only about the possibility to create a common Union defence policy. It defines an obligation for EU Member States to work towards common defence in the European Union. It’s obvious that the best moment to start building our common defence is exactly now, when we are facing a double crisis in defence: Russian aggressiveness is increasing, at the same time Americans are starting their withdrawal.

The peace dividend is over. The time when we could live without a common European defence – is over.

Let’s face reality, and our Treaty obligation. And let’s remember the historic roots of the Union – it was created for peace on European continent. And in parallel to the integration of coal and steel industries, there was a profound attempt to create an European Defence Community by the same godfathers of our Union of today: by Schuman, Adenauer, Monnet, de Gasperi.

The European Defence Community failed to be established at that time. Now is time to correct this historical mistake. A European Defence Union instead of the European Defence Community is the right way to go forward.

On How to remove the permanent threat of aggressive authoritarian post imperial Russia?

The American withdrawal from Europe would leave us not only with a material shortage of defence capabilities, but also with a gap in strategic vision: what to do with Russia?

Until now we allocated that task also to the Americans: they were declaring that Russia was part of the “new axis of evil” or that there is a need for a “reset” with Russia. Europeans usually followed the lead.

The outcome of such an approach is a more and more aggressive Putin and Russia, and new promises by President Trump to establish good relations with Putin if he will agree on peace.

These promises by President Trump are not changing Putin’s behavior and we, Europeans, are left with a question: after the Americans withdraw from Europe, what kind of strategy do we need towards Russia?

Let’s not forget: “Defence” – is not only about strengthening your own defence capabilities. It’s also about reducing your adversary’s capabilities to attack you.

How we are building up our defensive capabilities – I have just explained. How to reduce Russia’s offensive capabilities – we are not so effective. We are introducing new economic sanctions, and they are very much needed.

But it is clear – that is not enough.

The strategic question for Europeans is: how to get rid of the permanent threat of an aggressive, authoritarian post imperial Russia?

That will happen only if the Russian people by themselves will succeed in transforming Russia back to normality. Normality means first of all – no aggression anymore. There is no hope that it can happen while Putin stays in power. Without Americans, it is our responsibility as Europeans to have a specific European “Russia strategy”: to assist the Russian people in turning Russia back to normality, since any political transformation in Russia is in the hands of the Russian people.

And the best way to achieve this is by implementing our “Ukraine Strategy”: to create conditions for peace, security, integration and success for Ukraine. Because the example of Ukraine’s success can be a very powerful inspiration for the Russian people to turn Russia back to normality. That is what Putin is extremely afraid of. Because Ukraine’s success with its power of inspiration can destroy Putin’s regime.

And that’s why our strategy for Ukraine’s success is so strategically important: for the future of a much broader Eastern part of Europe, including Russia and Belarus.

On Leadership

Crisis needs and brings leadership. History teaches us: in order to overcome crisis – there is a need of effective leadership. History also teaches us – when crisis comes, history and nations bring forward the right leaders, to overcome the crisis. That’s what happened after the Second World War, when Europe needed to unite to be able to stand against Soviet Union: Adenauer, Schuman, Churchill, Monnet, de Gasperi were the leaders, ready to face the challenges of that time. And they got the job done: our Community was born.

And today we are witnessing the same thing happening: the double challenge of Russian aggression and American withdrawal brings a new set of European leaders who are writing a new history of Europe. For example Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Giorgia Meloni, Donald Tusk, and of course, honored here in Aachen tomorrow with the Charlemagne prize: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

In Conclusion

We need to remember, that history of Europe, the future of Europe, future of our kids and grandkids today is decided in Ukraine. So, to return to your question: “Europe without US – is it possible?” I will translate it into more practical and strategical one: “Is peace in Ukraine and is victory for Ukraine possible after American withdrawal?” Because this is the only single way towards sustainable peace on European continent.

My answer is – yes! It is possible – but it is our job, our job as Europeans.

Vivat Europe! And – Slava Ukrainy!