Defense commissioner nominee floats turning EU into war-weapons storehouse to deter Putin

BRUSSELS — The European Union could become an arsenal of democracy and create its own stores of weapons that could be used by member countries in case of a military emergency, Andrius Kubilius, the defense commissioner nominee, told POLITICO.
“We can look into all different ideas … maybe the EU and [the] Commission should buy some equipment and should keep [it] in the storages,” he said in an interview in his office in the European Parliament, where he remains an MEP until confirmed in his new job as the bloc’s first defense and space commissioner.
If the level of danger warrants it “then that equipment is used by member states,” he said. “That’s one of the possibilities.”
The proposal would revolutionize how the bloc functions. The EU was founded as a peace project after World War II; even the fund that is used to partially reimburse countries for arms they send to Ukraine is called the European Peace Facility.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen created the new post of defense commissioner in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the need to help European countries rearm and continue to ship weapons to Kyiv.
But storing arms would encroach on prerogatives that are jealously guarded by member countries, which have been leery of Brussels taking a lead role in defense.
NATO is also unlikely to be thrilled. Jens Stoltenberg, the outgoing secretary-general, issued a pointed warning last week to the EU to steer clear of NATO’s turf.
“I welcome more EU efforts on defense, as long as they are done in a way that doesn’t duplicate or compete with NATO,” he said, referring to EU efforts to set up the bloc’s own rapid reaction force, which might edge into areas like setting standards for arms and ammunition as well as planning and military capability targets.
“It has to be one set of standards, one set of capability targets, one command structure, and that’s NATO,” Stoltenberg said.
“European countries that are members of NATO already have ammunition stockpile requirements under the long-standing NATO defense planning process,” said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson and now a distinguished fellow at London’s Royal United Services Institute.
“These requirements regarding ammunition stockpiles, military capabilities and readiness are not pulled out of thin air but developed on the basis of NATO’s new defense plans.”
Kubilius, a former Lithuanian prime minister, insisted he isn’t trying to horn in on NATO’s turf.
“We need to sit down with NATO because we’re not trying to come into what NATO is doing,” he said, before adding that the two do in fact differ because “NATO cannot raise money.”
If NATO asks member countries to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, and some then fall short, “what can NATO do?” Kubilius asked. “They can blame.”
He admitted, however, that while the EU has financing powers, “it’s not so easy.”
That’s an understatement.
“If we want to have influence,” Kubilius said, the bloc should set aside “at least” €100 billion in the EU’s next seven-year budget.
But that’s just for starters, he continued: The EU’s needs are actually much greater. Von der Leyen herself has said the bloc needs €500 billion over the next decade for “additional defense investments.”
All means of raising that amount of funding are politically problematic. Kubilius’ €100 billion would represent about 10 percent of expenditures in the EU budget — an enormous sum, and almost 10 times the current figure set aside for security and defense.
Another way to get the money would be to issue common debt, as the bloc did in response to the pandemic. Kubilius mentioned “long-term instruments” as a path to pursue, although it is strongly opposed by more frugal member countries such as Germany and the Netherlands.
Not to mention that Kubilius does have other tasks.
In her mission letter to him, von der Leyen asked Kubilius to spend his first 100 days working on a vision for the future of European defense. He is already sketching out ideas for a defense union similar to what the EU has done with its energy union project — strengthening the bloc’s energy security by integrating the energy markets of member countries.
In defense as well, the bloc could “have military security criteria [declaring] that each country needs to keep in their storage such and such amount of artillery shells,” Kubilius said.
The plan might help unify the bloc’s fragmented defense sector, which is split into 27 separate markets with many capitals encouraging the formation of national defense champions.
“I would be not afraid to discuss … how we can allow to merge and to have bigger companies,” Kubilius said. Larger defense firms would in turn be better able to compete with their U.S. rivals that currently dominate Europe’s arms market, “but also with a goal to produce what is needed for us.”
Historically the bloc has not interfered much in the defense industry. Although the sector is subject to EU competition rules, Article 346 of the EU Treaty allows countries considerable latitude in the tendering of defense contracts, resulting in a divided market.
Kubilius is echoing calls by Mario Draghi, the former chair of the European Central Bank, who wrote in a recent report on EU competitiveness that the bloc should allow “industrial defence consolidation to reach scale, where needed.”
As the former leader of a country that borders Russia and that has a long and bitter historical experience of being a conquered colony of the Kremlin, Kubilius had a stark warning if the bloc falls short in its goals of consolidating its defense industry.
“Either we have a clear plan, how we are preparing ourselves … or we are creating some kind of temptation for [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin,” he said.