The European Commission has proposed the creation of a European Security Council (ESC), which would serve as a mechanism for responding to the rise of state-sponsored hybrid warfare, including cyberattacks and sabotage.
The proposed Council would aim to speed up European decision-making during security emergencies, overcoming bureaucratic obstacles that often slow down the European Union’s response.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has spoken of a plan against hybrid threats, which would address hostile actions that take place in an intermediate zone, below the threshold of an open military conflict, euronews reports.
In her State of the European Union speech in 2026, Von der Leyen stressed that the new mechanisms should be fully compatible with NATO and complement its role, not replace it.
Even the European Commissioner for Defense, Andrius Kubilius, stated at the Euronews Summit on Defense and Space that the proposed Council would not be against NATO, but would help strengthen it.
“It’s about making Europe stronger, which will also make NATO stronger,” he said.
The purpose of the EU
The European Union aims, through the European Security Council, to address a significant weakness in the fragmented and slow-moving European defense structure.
State-backed hybrid warfare includes hostile actions such as infrastructure sabotage, cyberattacks, and drone incursions into other countries’ airspace.
Since these actions usually do not reach the threshold of a direct military conflict, they do not automatically activate NATO’s collective defense mechanisms.
According to Steven Blockmans, deputy director of the International Center for Defense and Security, the idea of creating this institution has taken on new importance due to growing doubts about the United States’ willingness to respect the security guarantee under NATO’s Article 5.
There are also concerns that Washington could block political decision-making or hinder the operational functioning of the Alliance, making it necessary to strengthen European alternatives.
The European Security Council aims to address three main issues.
First, it would seek to overcome the blockages of decision-making in the EU, through qualified majority voting, so that a state’s veto does not paralyze foreign policy.
Second, an Emergency Security Protocol would enable member states to convene immediately when one of them faces a hybrid threat.
Third, the initiative would include partners outside the EU, such as the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Norway, and Canada, aiming to transform temporary coalitions into a permanent security cooperation structure.
This initiative is consistent with the EU’s long-term goal of strategic autonomy and the creation of a European Defense Union that can rely more on its own capabilities.
Over the next decade, the bloc aims to reduce dependence on American military logistics, by uniting fragmented defense sectors in Europe and coordinating the procurement and production of military equipment.
What does the proposal foresee?
The European Security Council would create a permanent crisis management forum, which would operate throughout the year.
Luigi Scazzieri, senior policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, explained that the idea is to organize special meetings of the EU Council so that security and defense issues can be discussed more regularly and in a more structured way.
The goal would be to strengthen political coordination in the field of defense and security, as well as define a long-term strategic direction.
In addition to EU leaders, international partners, including Ukraine, Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom, would also participate in this mechanism.
The Council would also enable the planning and implementation of rapid responses in the field of defense, including against hybrid and unconventional military attacks.
According to Ionela Maria Ciolan, a security and defense researcher at the Wilfried Martens Center for European Studies, the Council would help close the gap between identifying a threat and deciding how Europe should respond.
The proposed Emergency Security Protocol, modeled after NATO’s Article 4, would allow states to request consultations if they consider their security, territorial integrity, or political independence to be at risk.
According to Ciolan, the protocol would not replace Articles 42(7) and 222 of the EU treaties, which provide for assistance by member states in cases of armed aggression or terrorist attacks against a member state.
Instead, it would create an earlier opportunity for political consultations, activate an emergency meeting, and help determine whether the situation requires national action, the use of EU crisis mechanisms, or consultations with NATO.
The relationship with NATO
The proposed council is not intended to dominate NATO. It would operate independently of Washington, while NATO would continue to be the primary framework for collective defense.
According to Scazzieri, the division of roles is clear: NATO deals with collective defense, while the European Security Council would not have this function.
NATO would continue to guarantee collective military defense under Article 5, while the Council would focus on hybrid threats and hostile actions that develop below the threshold of open conflict.
The Emergency Protocol would allow for immediate security consultations without the need for direct United States support.
Scazzieri said the Council could deal with sanctions, setting priorities for spending limited EU funds and bringing together countries that do not always participate in the same formats within NATO, including EU states that are not members of the Alliance.
However, despite claims that the two institutions would complement each other, the initiative has raised concerns in some member states, including Estonia, which fears that the Council could duplicate NATO’s functions.
Creating parallel alert and consultation mechanisms could cause bureaucratic confusion, while excluding the US from some processes could increase tensions.
Scazzieri, however, considers that the risk of duplication of functions is small, as both structures would use different tools and perform different tasks.
On the other hand, Blockmans argues that a more ambitious Council should link political decisions to concrete military capabilities and be consistent with NATO and EU structures.
Competencies have not yet been defined.
The European Commission’s proposal does not solve the problem of unanimous decision-making, neither within NATO nor in the EU Council, Blockmans assesses.
A new body composed of states with similar positions and that enjoy each other’s trust could overcome some blockages, but there is a possibility that even within it, decisions will be made by consensus.
According to Scazzieri, the Council would not necessarily speed up decision-making, as it cannot be established as an independent legal body and, consequently, would not have the power to make binding decisions, unlike the Council of the EU.
However, Blockmans emphasizes that real decision-making powers are important for the legitimacy of the Council and for ensuring democratic oversight by the national parliaments of the participating states.
The structure and composition of the institution also remain unclear.
In addition to the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada and Ukraine, according to Blockmans, the possibility of South Korea or Japan being included in the future is not ruled out.
The EU would also need to determine how member states would be represented vis-à-vis international partners, what role they would have in discussions, and whether they would enjoy more influence than countries outside the EU.
One of the open issues is whether the Council should copy the model of the United Nations Security Council, with permanent members and non-permanent members with temporary mandates.
In addition to the political structure, the Council would need concrete military capabilities, including command structures in line with NATO and the EU, a dedicated defense budget, and a multinational European force.
Without these resources, he could make political decisions, but would have difficulty translating them into military operations.
What do member states think?
The European Commission has not yet presented a formal proposal and national governments have not been asked to approve a detailed plan. Therefore, it remains to be seen which countries will support the initiative and which will oppose it.
According to Ciolan, Italy is likely to support this idea, as it favors closer European cooperation in the field of defense and a single EU representative in the peace talks in Ukraine. Spain also generally supports deepening joint defense cooperation.
Germany and France had proposed a coordinated European approach to defense through the European Security Council in the 2018 Meseberg Declaration, titled “Renewing Europe’s Promise for Security and Prosperity.”
According to Ciolan, greater support is also expected from governments affiliated with the European People’s Party (EPP).
Meanwhile, opposition may come from states that fear they will lose their veto power in foreign and defense policy, that they will be marginalized by more influential countries, or that the initiative could weaken transatlantic cooperation. (Telegraph)