IVA's President: some thoughts on international perspectives

Dear IVA Friends, 

Today, Denmark took over the EU presidency. Denmark is the second member of the trio leading the Council of the European Union across three consecutive terms, between Poland and Cyprus. When the Trio Presidency set its shared priorities in late autumn 2024, the global situation looked quite different: Trump had won the US presidential election but had not yet taken office; Defence Minister Hegseth had not yet delivered his notorious speech at the Munich Security Conference; and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy had not yet been publicly rebuked at the White House. Transatlantic relations remained warm and predictable.

I will honestly say I was surprised by the realpolitik sharpness and security focus in the priorities the trio presented six months ago, given that we were still living under the illusion of the old world order. I do not, however, believe this is a coincidence, but rather that we have realpolitik leaders like Donald Tusk and Mette Frederiksen to thank for this foresight.

The trio’s slogan is “Security, Europe!”, reflecting its ambition to strengthen the EU’s security on all fronts. As Denmark now assumes the presidency, the priorities have been sharpened further:

“For me, the most important thing is to rearm Europe. That's my starting point, and that's my conclusion in all discussions. Because if Europe is not able to protect ourselves and to defend ourselves, then it's game over at some point,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen when she presented the priorities earlier this summer.

To “rearm Europe” also comes at a price. Frederiksen is well aware of this. It was therefore no surprise when she simultaneously announced that Denmark would withdraw from the group of Member States nicknamed the “Frugal Four” (Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden), which had long advocated a strict and restrained approach to EU spending. This too is a wise decision, given the grave geopolitical situation we now face and the substantial investments in the defence sector that lie ahead. I do not know the position of the Swedish government regarding the “Frugal Four,” but I was pleased to note last week’s broad political agreement on an historic expansion of the Swedish defence system through loan financing.

So far so good. Now we must invest—but we must also invest wisely, both at the national and international level. I do not believe that increased defence spending is inherently good for the economy. What matters is what we invest in, how we go about it, and that we act swiftly. There is both a need for and a sense of purpose in investing in a strong defence here and now. But we must also build for the future. The defence systems of tomorrow demand bold decisions on innovation—such as opening up research funding for dual-use technologies, for both civilian and military purposes. In the self-image of peace-loving Member States, this distinction has long been a point of pride. But reality has changed. Realpolitik leaders like Tusk and Frederiksen understand this.

We must therefore leverage the major investments for innovation—not simply buy off the shelf products. We've done it before, when the development of the Viggen fighter aircraft was a key driver of IT competence in Sweden. We now need to develop new models that not only build defence capability, but also defence innovation capability. The importance of this is demonstrated daily on the ground in Ukraine.

Europe’s leaders view the fragmentation of defence materiel systems across Member States as a significant challenge. One example is the dozen or so different types of armoured vehicles in Europe, compared with the USA, which produces only a few. The same goes for other defence systems: signal intelligence, submarines and naval vessels, and combat aircraft. I do not know whether consolidation in the strictest sense is desirable or even possible, but the issue is really about enhanced collaboration between industries and joint procurement among Member States. The SAFE instrument, developed during the Polish presidency, is an important step in that direction. A clear European defence industrial strategy for the development and production of future defence systems is not just desirable, but essential—especially now that Europe must increasingly take responsibility for its own security.

The EU’s 450 million citizens need and deserve leaders who prioritise security and safety, while also being prudent with taxpayers’ money. Looking across Europe, I find grounds for optimism.