Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Author Loïc Simonet

1. The technical limits of the EU. Europe’s defense economy as a driving force for strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty

Author:
Loïc Simonet
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
The Working Paper delves into the European Union’s defense sector’s evolution and current challenges, underscoring the urgency for strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty. It provides a historical backdrop of EU defense initiatives, highlighting the significant influence of recent geopolitical shifts, notably the conflict in Ukraine, on the EU’s defense strategies and industrial landscape. The fragmentation of the European defense market, rising equipment costs, and hefty R&D expenses undermining competitiveness and innovation are identified as key challenges. The author focuses on the war in Ukraine as a catalyst for a consolidated defense equipment market and a surge in military expenditures and defense investments among EU nations. He scrutinizes EU’s measures to foster innovation and integration in the defense market while grappling with national protectionism and divergent member state interests. Conclusively, the report advocates for an autonomous European defense capability as crucial for tackling both longstanding and emerging crises and threats. It underscores the imperative of a harmonized defense approach within the EU, highlighting its significance for the region’s stability and security.
Topic:
Defense Policy, European Union, Strategic Autonomy, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine

2. How to rebuild Europe’s security architecture?

Author:
Loïc Simonet
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
Russia’s war on Ukraine is overturning the European security order in place since the end of the Cold War. The Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990), the 1992 Helsinki Summit, as well as the fragile acquis of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), failed to build and maintain a system involving all countries of ‘Greater Europe’, including the Russian Federation. For at least two decades, Russia has expressed discomfort regarding its perceived status in a ‘concert of nations’ dominated, in its perception, by the Atlantic Alliance and the European Union. Still referring to a conception of security based on spheres of influence, it has considered NATO’s eastward expansion as a threat to its national security (Russian National Security Strategy, 2015, 15). “Only during ‘critical junctures’ – relatively rare watershed moments marked by rapid change and upheaval – are security architectures likely to be fundamentally reconfigured” (Hyde-Price, 2014, 105). The war in Ukraine is already listed as such a turning point in history. ln addition to continuing efforts to support Ukraine and stabilize the situation on the battlefield, the time seems ripe for an in-depth assessment of Europe’s security regime. Many might argue that it makes little sense to discuss architecture while the house is burning. I answer that it is our responsibility to stress our preparedness and explore all opportunities. Just increasing military expenditures cannot be the only option. We need a ‘Code of Conduct’ for the 21st Century that would allow no more – real or perceived - ‘security vacuums’. This is in no way intended to accept the Russian narrative. Even during the Cold War, European countries were able to progress in building a common security architecture through dialogue and negotiations. It was less than a month after the brutal military suppression of the Prague Spring by the Warsaw Pact States, in 1968, that the Finnish Government initiated the process that ended up in the Helsinki Final Act.
Topic:
Security, NATO, European Union, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Europe

3. The third EU-NATO joint declaration (10 January 2023): Was it worth the delay?

Author:
Loïc Simonet
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
Triggered by the war in Ukraine, the long-awaited third joint EU-NATO declaration was signed on 10 January 2023, after months of postponement. Neither a joint strategic concept nor a plan of actions, the document primarily sends a strong political message of transatlantic unity with regards to the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades. Although it recognises the value of a stronger and more capable European defence, it marks the primacy of NATO as European security provider, therefore being seen as a defeat for EU’s strategic autonomy. China’s first ever mention in a joint EU-NATO declaration sparked a nervous reaction in Beijing.
Topic:
Security, NATO, European Union, Strategic Autonomy, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, and Ukraine