When Ursula von der Leyen floated the idea of a European Security Council in September, she set in motion a debate that cuts to the heart of how the continent defends itself. The proposal, which would bring together EU leaders and key partners such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Ukraine and Canada, is designed to speed up decision-making on threats that stop short of conventional military attack.
Europe has seen a steady rise in hybrid incidents: cyberattacks on government networks, sabotage of undersea cables, GPS jamming in the Baltic, and drone incursions near critical infrastructure. Just last week, two commercial vessels were struck by drones in Bulgaria's Black Sea economic zone, one sinking and leaving a crew member missing. Such episodes, the Commission argues, demand a forum where leaders can agree on a common response without waiting for a full-blown crisis.
A forum for fast coordination
The proposed European Security Council (ESC) would give heads of state and government a regular meeting place to assess emerging threats, share intelligence, and align actions between EU member states and non-EU partners. It would operate alongside an Emergency Security Protocol, a mechanism to convene member states quickly when one of them faces a serious hybrid attack. The broader plan also envisions deeper cooperation on cybersecurity, air defence, space-based assets, and other shared capabilities.
Supporters see the ESC as a logical extension of existing efforts. The EU has already expanded sanctions against Russia, adding 1,646 names in a recent round amid growing concerns over hybrid attacks. It has also launched initiatives to bolster drone defences, though a recent audit found that only a third of counter-drone programmes are on track to meet their 2030 goals. The new council would, in theory, give political direction to such projects and ensure they do not stall.
But the proposal has met with scepticism in some capitals. NATO, which has been the cornerstone of European defence for seven decades, already has structures for consultation and response. Critics ask whether a new body would merely duplicate the alliance's work, creating confusion over who is in charge when a crisis erupts.
The Commission rejects that view. Officials insist the ESC is meant to complement NATO, not rival it. Collective military defence would remain the alliance's responsibility, while the ESC would focus on the grey zone of hybrid threats—where the lines between peace and war are blurred. As one Brussels insider put it, “NATO defends territory; the ESC would defend the everyday functioning of our societies.”
The inclusion of non-EU partners is a deliberate choice. The UK, Norway, Ukraine and Canada all have significant security interests in Europe and have cooperated with the EU on sanctions and intelligence. Their presence would give the ESC a broader reach than a purely EU body, though it also raises questions about decision-making: would all members have equal say, or would EU member states retain the final word?
Some diplomats worry about the pace. The proposal is still in its early stages, and any new institution would take years to become operational. Meanwhile, threats are evolving faster than institutions. The recent Black Sea drone strikes exposed gaps in EU maritime defence plans, and the EU's counter-drone push is already behind schedule. A new council might help, but it will not solve the immediate problem of protecting ships and infrastructure today.
There is also the question of political will. The ESC would require member states to cede some autonomy in security matters, a sensitive area where national sovereignty is fiercely guarded. The Baltic states, which have been vocal about Russian hybrid tactics, are likely to be enthusiastic. Others, such as Hungary, may see it as a power grab by Brussels.
For now, the debate is open. The Commission has launched a public consultation, and citizens are being asked to weigh in. The outcome will shape not only the structure of the ESC but also the broader question of how Europe organises its security in an era where the next attack may not come from tanks but from a keyboard or a drone.
