For the first time in its history, the European Union has named a commissioner tasked with overseeing its defence. The appointment marks a significant shift as the bloc faces mounting security concerns. The commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, a Lithuanian conservative and former prime minister, will be primarily responsible for bolstering the EU’s defence industrial base.
Kubilius, a vocal advocate for increasing military aid to Ukraine, steps into the role as Europe grapples with the escalating demands of modern defence, Deutsche Welle reports. His mandate includes strengthening Europe’s defence industry, a sector in need of substantial investment.
Kubilius’s stance on Ukraine is resolute: “To those who insist that Ukraine should accept Putin’s peace terms, I would suggest they consider offering him territory from their own country. Peace can only be secured if Ukraine prevails and defends its territorial sovereignty, which is only achievable with our sustained, long-term support,” he declared before the European Parliament in July.
Just days ago, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, Kubilius pointed out that while Europe is investing significantly in Ukraine’s security, it remains insufficient. “Last year, Western military aid to Ukraine totalled a mere €40 billion, whereas Russia poured over €120 billion into the war. Even if we were prepared to spend €100 billion instead of €40 billion, we would still face difficulties in delivering more arms because the capacity of our military industry is extremely limited. And even when we do provide arms to Ukraine, some countries impose ‘red lines’—restrictions on their use against targets within Russian territory. It’s clear that we are not investing enough, either in Ukraine or in our own security,” he remarked.
To alter the current situation, Kubilius asserts that Europe must urgently secure significantly greater financial resources for military assistance to Ukraine, dramatically ramp up production within the military industry, integrate Ukraine’s military capabilities into the broader European framework, and remove any “red lines” concerning aid to Ukraine.
Kubilius’s new role comes with ambitious expectations. Yet, the EU has historically occupied a peripheral position in matters of defence, a domain where national capitals are protective of their sovereignty, as noted by Politico. “Instead of commanding armies, Kubilius will be responsible for better organising the EU’s fragmented defence industry and assisting member states in rearming, all while continuing to supply substantial quantities of weapons to Ukraine,” the article observes.
Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President, has indicated that the Defence Commissioner will focus on developing the EU’s defence capabilities and increasing investments in production capacities. She also stressed that this new role does not represent a power grab. “I am very clear that certain competencies belong to member states, such as troop composition, missions, and deployments,” she remarked, adding that Kubilius will oversee “the single market and industry and will work to strengthen the defence industrial base.”
Von der Leyen has charged the new Defence Commissioner with the critical task of drafting, within a tight timeframe of 100 days, a comprehensive document outlining the future of European defence. This blueprint is intended to equip national capitals for “the most extreme military situations.”
Additionally, he has been instructed to devise concepts for a European air defence shield and a cyber defence programme. Kubilius is also expected to establish military mobility corridors across the Union and facilitate joint procurement of military equipment for national armed forces.
The Atlantic Council concluded that while the appointment of a Defence Commissioner marks a significant step in addressing the EU’s historical reluctance to confront security challenges, it may ultimately fall short of what is necessary.
“Rather than emerging as a strategic leader for European defence, the Defence Commissioner risks being relegated to the role of a procurement manager, mired in territorial disputes with defence ministers—and perhaps even other commissioners—who are reluctant to cede control. Furthermore, smaller nations may be disinclined to engage in tenders that appear skewed in favour of larger countries like France or Germany, which could funnel resources into their own defence industries,” analysts caution.
Concurrently, The Atlantic Council noted that “If the Defence Commissioner is able to foster consensus, effectively leverage financial incentives, and navigate the existing resistance within the EU, this new position could establish the foundation for a more coherent and autonomous European defence strategy—one that might ultimately reshape the global defence landscape and bolster Europe’s standing on the international stage.”
