Lawfare Inside: Vetoes, Values, and Security

Episode Narrative

The story of European defense from 1991 to 2025 is a tale woven into the fabric of transition, negotiation, and conflict. The world was fractured by the Cold War, and as its shadows lifted, a new era emerged. The end of this marked an expectation of peace, a hope for cooperation among nations formerly divided by ideology and animosity. Yet, for many European Union member states, the immediate response was to draw back, to lessen the burden of military spending.

During this period from 1991 to 2013, nations across the continent made the consequential choice to cut back on their defense budgets. The average expenditure fell below NATO’s guideline of 2% of GDP, a decline that seemed to settle into a norm. It would not be until the NATO Wales Summit in 2014 that this trend would confront a vital awakening. Only a small group of countries had maintained their commitment to defense spending, illustrating a disconnect between intention and practice.

The walls of complacency began to shake in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea. This bold and aggressive act triggered a seismic shift throughout Europe. Suddenly, the perception of security was redefined. What had been a gradual reduction in military expenditures transformed into urgent talks of military reinvestment. By 2023, EU states had raised their collective military spending from €145 billion to €215 billion — an increase of nearly 50%. This was Europe, faced not only with the specter of its historical past but challenged to look to the future it had not planned for.

In the aftermath of Crimea’s annexation, the European Council began adopting various strategies. In 2016, the EU Global Strategy initiated reforms to the Common Security and Defence Policy. Their aim was ambitious yet necessary, aspiring to create a European Security and Defence Union with a rapid reaction force of 5,000 personnel by 2025. This would require unity — a task complicated by the diverse political landscapes across member states and the myriad of national interests that often trumped collective ones.

In 2009, the adoption of the Defence Procurement Directive had been a crucial step toward liberalizing the internal defense market, aimed at dismantling barriers to cross-border competition. Yet implementation presented challenges. National champions often prevailed as local interests took precedence over collaboration.

By the time the European Defence Fund was created in 2017, the winds of change began to blow. Member states saw how collaboration could lead to strengthened defense capabilities, but they were also caught in a tide of “economic patriotism.” A notable shift was emerging, where reliance on non-EU suppliers began to be scrutinized. The desire to cultivate homegrown innovation brought about a dual-edged sword, pushing nations closer together while simultaneously reflecting the growing apprehension of dependence on external powers.

However, it quickly became evident that the path toward a unified defense strategy was lined with complexities. In 2018, just five EU nations met the NATO target — illustrating a persistent gap between the rhetoric of increased defense commitments and the tangible action needed to realize those ambitions.

Amid this backdrop, the landscape of threats shifted. Between 2020 and 2025, Ukraine found itself at the center of a digital transformation, integrating artificial intelligence into its defense systems. Supported by the EU and USAID, this development allowed Ukraine to become a litmus test for EU interoperability. The response to the rising hybrid threats became an essential aspect of EU strategy.

When Russia initiated its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the response from the EU was notable. Arms and ammunition were supplied to Kyiv in a historic break from previous restraint. Europe stood at a crossroads of policy and principle. This decisive shift showcased a growing geopolitical ambition, and the European Council’s adoption of the Strategic Compass in March of that same year provided a roadmap for the continent's security and defense strategy through 2030.

Echoing this resolve, from 2022 to 2024, Germany and France would accelerate their procurement of air defense systems and armored vehicles, even as uncertainties about future demand lingered. Avoidance of a complete mobilization into a “war economy” illustrated a cautious approach. Questions of political constraints loomed, shadowing their ambitions for greater defense capabilities.

The following year, NATO EU members collectively reached €215 billion in defense spending, a remarkable figure yet still showcasing fragmentation in their capacity-building efforts. Divergence in specialization became pronounced, with nations like Germany and France focusing on separate domains rather than uniting their capabilities. The intricacies of unity remained a constant struggle, defined not only by intention but by the political realities of the time.

As 2024 approached, the EU unveiled a comprehensive European Defence Industrial Strategy. It aimed to boost production capacity, foster innovation, and secure supply chains. A milestone was reached with the “Oberig” digital military registry in Ukraine achieving coverage of 80%. This indicated promising potential for EU-Ukraine integration, showcasing how digital advancements could modernize conscription and military readiness.

Nevertheless, despite the increased spending, analyses indicated that the EU’s defense industrial mobilization remained largely off-track. This raised concerns about Europe's preparedness in a changing global landscape marked by looming threats and unexpected aggression. The gap between aspiration and realization was stark.

As the EU aimed to meet its ambitious targets, it also faced ongoing disputes with certain member states, like Hungary and Poland. Issues surrounding rule-of-law complaints began to seep into the defense domain, complicating consensus around sanctions and strategic direction. Herein lay the spectacle of “lawfare,” where legal means became tools to bolster national interests, often resisting the deeper cooperation the EU sought.

Through these intricate networks of policy, one anecdote stands out — a testament to the evolving narrative. In 2022, the EU trained 15,000 Ukrainian personnel, achieving a striking 90% interoperability with NATO STANAG standards. This portrayed the EU's role as a security provider, extending beyond its borders to foster strength in a neighboring nation amidst conflict, even as public sentiment across many EU countries reflected a deep aversion to military spending.

Surveys illustrated how many citizens viewed cutting defense budgets as a necessary step toward reducing national debt, even as the external threats loomed increasingly large. A paradox emerged — nations were seeking security, yet they hesitated to invest in defense infrastructure.

This unease extended into the technological arena as well. The EU's focus on next-generation capabilities, such as drones and AI systems, had not yet translated into a cohesive operational doctrine. The question arose: how would these sophisticated systems function in real-world, large-scale combat scenarios? The future remained uncertain, with unresolved doubts shrouding the advancements being pursued.

As we reflect on this unfolding saga of European defense, a compelling image emerges. It is the dual nature of a continent straddling ambition and hesitation — determined to invest in its collective security while wrestling with longstanding national interests and public sentiments. The path ahead will be filled with challenges, but also opportunities for unity and resilience. As the storms of history rage on, Europe must find its compass. Will it rise to the occasion, truly forging a single security identity? Or will the echoes of its past continue to shape its future choices? Only time will tell.