EU defense lines against Russia: a roadmap with a delay
EU leaders gathering in Copenhagen faced a heavy mood as Russian hybrid threats loomed over the discussions. Fresh airspace restrictions and mysterious drone activity reported in several member states underscored the urgency of stepping up Europe’s defense posture. After the talks, the message from Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, was blunt: “They threaten us and they test us, and they will not stop.”
On the agenda were long‑standing proposals from the European Commission aimed at strengthening both the union’s own security and support for Ukraine. Two items dominated the debate: a flagship plan for a high‑tech “drone shield” and a loan mechanism for Ukraine, potentially up to €140 billion, secured by frozen Russian assets. The leaders asked the Commission to push the ideas forward, but the path to action remained uncertain. A formal decision at the Brussels summit in three weeks’ time appeared likely to slip into that meeting room as well.
The drone shield: a shield for the whole continent?
The Commission’s proposed flagship project, titled “Eastern Flank Watch,” envisions a layered response to threats along the EU’s eastern border. A central component would be a rapid‑reaction drone defense system designed to detect, jam, and—when necessary—neutralize incoming drones. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen framed the package as a continental shield, noting that the EU should draw lessons from Ukraine’s nightly drone battles to date.
“This is a system for rapid detection, interception, and, if needed, neutralisation,” von der Leyen said, stressing that the protection is not limited to one flank. She warned the alliance must be ready to defend the entire continent, including, she added, the southern flank. Still, the exact design of the drone shield and how broadly it would be deployed across borders remains a subject of debate among member states.
Several southern European capitals, along with heavyweight members like France and Germany, have pressed for a more holistic approach. They argue that a focus solely on the eastern border could leave gaps in Europe’s overall security. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen skirted the naming dispute but acknowledged the breadth of the threat landscape, saying the “threat picture is broader than just the eastern flank.”
Militarily funded solidarity: a loan backed by frozen assets
Another red‑hot issue was the Commission’s plan to help Ukraine with a sizeable loan funded, in part, by frozen Russian central bank assets totaling over €200 billion held in the EU. The idea is to enable Kyiv to access funds that would support reconstruction and defense while ensuring Russia covers some of the costs of the ongoing war. Importantly, this is not a seizure of assets; Ukraine would use future repayments to service the loan if Russia eventually pays war damages.
“It is only fair that Russia pays for the destruction it has caused in Ukraine,” Frederiksen argued, signaling strong political will behind the loan concept. Yet the proposal encounters persistent legal and political headwinds. Belgium has raised concerns about legal exposure and reputational risk for its financial system since the bulk of the assets are under Belgian jurisdiction. von der Leyen sought to reassure allies that risk wouldn’t be borne by one nation alone and that a broader burden‑sharing mechanism is essential.
Hurdles and tensions: who bears the risk?
Even as the East–West security dynamic dominates headlines, the EU remains divided on how to proceed. The Netherlands and several Mediterranean states want a comprehensive plan that protects the entire continent rather than an exclusive focus on the eastern border. The discussions also reminded everyone that decisions are not only about policy design but also about who pays and who bears the political risk.
There is also friction over Ukraine’s path to EU membership. While 26 leaders formally backed Ukraine’s accession trajectory, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban remains a notable blocker. Officials at the Copenhagen talks indicated broad support for Ukraine’s direction, but the bloc’s unity hinges on resolving Budapest’s concerns, a point underscored by coverage in regional outlets and policy circles.
Timing: three weeks until the Brussels summit
With the autumn formal EU summit in Brussels scheduled in three weeks, leaders signaled that final decisions would be taken then. António Costa, chair of the European Council, indicated that “this is the time to decide,” underscoring the takeaway that the next gathering must settle the strategic questions that were sketched out in Copenhagen. Yet for many observers, the negotiations are likely to continue beyond the closing press conference, given the volume of disagreements on both strategic and legal grounds.
What to watch next
All eyes will be on how the Commission reconciles competing priorities: a continent‑wide defensive architecture that includes the drone shield and a robust, transparent mechanism to leverage frozen assets for Ukraine. Expect more clarifications on governance, funding, and legal safeguards, as well as renewed emphasis on fortifying the EU’s unity ahead of the Brussels summit.
