← Back to reports geopolitics EU systemic-risk war-economy Ukraine NATO strategic-autonomy

Europe at the End of Procedural Peace

Strategic Reconstitution in an Era of Systemic Breakdown

Executive Summary

The European Union is approaching a structural security inflection point. The post–Cold War model built on economic interdependence, legalism, and U.S. security guarantees is no longer sufficient to deter coercion, contain revisionist actors, or stabilize Europe’s strategic environment.

Incremental adaptation is no longer a low-risk option. It is a slow-failure path.

This paper argues that a time-limited transition toward a European war-economy posture, combined with the institutional military integration of Ukraine, represents a high-risk but potentially lower-cost alternative to long-term systemic degradation.

To operationalize such a transition, at least one structurally disruptive institutional artifact would be required. For example:

The creation of a European Defense Mobilization Authority (EDMA) with override powers over national military procurement, industrial allocation, and emergency logistics coordination.

This is not a symbolic reform. It is an explicit suspension of peacetime sovereignty norms in favor of survival governance.

However, this paper also explicitly acknowledges that such a transition carries severe political, geopolitical, and institutional failure modes that could destabilize the EU itself.

The core dilemma is not whether disruption can be avoided, but whether it will be managed deliberately or imposed later under far worse conditions.

1. The Structural Collapse of the Post-1990 Security Model

For three decades, European security policy rested on five implicit assumptions:

  1. Economic interdependence would deter major war
  2. Legal frameworks could substitute for power politics
  3. U.S. strategic guarantees were structurally permanent
  4. Global supply chains would remain stable
  5. Normative legitimacy could compensate for limited coercive capacity

All five assumptions are now empirically false.

Russia has demonstrated sustained tolerance for sanctions and human losses in pursuit of geopolitical revisionism.
China is pursuing long-term systemic leverage independent of Western norms.
The United States is entering a phase of internal political volatility and transactional foreign policy.
Global supply chains are fragmenting under geopolitical pressure.
Normative constraints no longer deter actors operating on coercive or prestige-driven logics.

Yet the EU remains institutionally optimized for incremental governance and low-intensity risk management.

This mismatch between institutional tempo and strategic reality is now the EU’s primary security vulnerability.

2. The Strategic Paradox of the European Union

The EU possesses all the material prerequisites of a major power:

Yet it remains strategically brittle.

This brittleness does not stem from a lack of resources, but from three systemic constraints:

  1. Fragmented sovereignty
  2. Veto-driven decision mechanisms
  3. Political aversion to short-term social cost

These constraints bias European policy toward under-reaction.

The result is a paradox: policies designed to minimize immediate disruption generate greater cumulative instability over time.

3. The Cost-Curve of Strategic Inaction

From a risk-management perspective, Europe faces two broad trajectories.

Trajectory A: Distributed Degradation

This path involves maintaining the current posture with incremental adjustments. It produces:

This trajectory minimizes short-term political cost but maximizes long-term systemic fragility.

Trajectory B: Concentrated Stabilization

This alternative involves a time-limited shift toward emergency governance and strategic mobilization:

From a systems-engineering standpoint, Trajectory B is the lower-risk option in aggregate, despite its higher short-term volatility.

A credible mobilization posture would require, at minimum, a coordinated ramp toward 4–5% of EU GDP in defense and security expenditure, sustained for a 24-month surge window, alongside a tripling of ammunition and critical equipment output.

4. Ukraine as a Strategic Fulcrum (and Its Real Risks)

Ukraine represents a unique structural asset:

Institutionalizing Ukraine as a defensive partner within a European security architecture could:

However, this integration is not cost-free. Major risks include:

Failure to explicitly address these risks would transform Ukraine from an asset into a political liability.

5. The United States as a Passive-Adversarial Actor

Most European discourse treats the United States as a stabilizing constant. This assumption is no longer analytically defensible.

If the EU pursues strategic autonomy, the U.S. is unlikely to remain neutral. Likely responses include:

While Washington would publicly frame European mobilization as burden-sharing, its private incentives would favor preserving transatlantic dependency.

This pattern is not unprecedented. During the Suez Crisis (1956), the United States actively sabotaged British and French military operations through financial coercion, forcing an immediate withdrawal and permanently humiliating Europe’s residual great-power ambitions.

Ignoring the U.S. as an active strategic obstacle creates a critical blind spot.

6. Corruption, Sabotage, and Internal Extraction Risk

In a mobilization environment, corruption becomes a national security threat.

Accelerated procurement and regulatory suspension structurally incentivize:

Existing EU institutions lack the coercive authority required to enforce emergency anti-corruption regimes.

Unresolved vulnerabilities include:

In practice, this would require granting the European Defense Mobilization Authority (EDMA) direct investigative referral powers, procurement veto authority, and the ability to suspend national defense contracts pending forensic audit.

Absent such powers, the mobilization effort would be internally looted long before it failed externally.

7. Russia as a Non-Linear Actor

Most deterrence models assume rational cost-benefit calculation. This assumption is unstable in the Russian case.

Potential destabilizing dynamics include:

A rapid European mobilization could provoke not restraint, but chaotic escalation:

Any autonomy strategy must therefore incorporate explicit escalation-management mechanisms, including at minimum:

Without these, deterrence becomes improvisation.

8. The Domestic Political Detonation Risk

A war-economy transition would almost certainly trigger internal destabilization.

Likely effects include:

Public consent cannot be assumed. It must be manufactured through:

The European Defense Mobilization Authority (EDMA) would also require an explicit domestic mandate to coordinate compensation flows, industrial employment guarantees, and emergency price controls across member states.

Some civil liberties will be curtailed. The alternative is losing all of them later under foreign coercion.

Absent such mechanisms, internal fragmentation may derail mobilization before external stabilization is achieved.

9. Strategic Conclusion

Europe is not facing a choice between war and peace.

It is facing a choice between:

Strategic maturity requires accepting that:

However, this strategy is not guaranteed to succeed. Its failure modes include:

The strategic dilemma is therefore not whether Europe can afford to act, but whether it can afford to delay action while pretending incrementalism remains viable.

Final Verdict

Europe is not weak.
It is under-mobilized.

It is not poor.
It is misallocated.

It is not naive.
It is institutionally trapped in a peacetime architecture.

The crisis is not that Europe cannot act.
The crisis is that it cannot act without risking its own internal cohesion.

A Europe that chooses strategic adulthood will experience one year of pain and an uncertain but potentially stable future.

A Europe that refuses will experience fifteen years of decline and a far more violent reckoning later.

History will not judge Europe by its intentions, only by whether it survived its own hesitation.