When Europe’s heads of state and government met in Copenhagen for two days of informal talks on October 1 and 2, the symbolism was unmistakable. The Danish capital sits at the hinge between Northern and Central-Eastern Europe, a bridge between regions that now share a growing sense of vulnerability. The summit’s tone was set early, as drones were sighted near the airport and military sites. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned of “hybrid attacks,” calling Russia “a threat to us all.”
But once the delegations departed, the mood turned from alarm to resignation. Behind the rhetorical unity lies a deeper question: how much security is the EU truly prepared to organise? And how much can it organise at all without breaking on its own contradictions?
Virtually everyone agrees that Europe’s security architecture is too weak to defend its people and values. Yet consensus stops there. Russia’s war in Ukraine still hangs over European politics like a sword of Damocles. Three and a half years after the invasion, the war continues to sap Europe’s strategic weight, now entangled with crises from Gaza to Iran to the Caucasus. Meanwhile, the geopolitical balance among the United States, China, and the EU has shifted sharply to Europe’s detriment. Awareness is not the problem—panic is. Never has Europe felt so threatened, and never has it been so institutionally paralysed.
Copenhagen generated a flurry of proposals, many of which were recycled. The SAFE instrument, a €150 billion financial framework, is designed to boost Europe’s defence industry through new EU-level borrowing. Yet the details—who pays, who controls—remain unresolved. The EU reaffirmed its support for the Ukrainian war effort, but divisions persist over how to fund it, particularly whether to use frozen Russian assets. Plans to strengthen hybrid resilience, such as cyber defence, early warning systems, and counter-disinformation networks, were announced but left vague. The summit’s supposed centrepiece, a European ‘drone wall’ to guard against unmanned threats, won easy applause but no commitment on financing or governance. Lofty declarations, uncertain delivery.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member