Sikorski Rejects EU Federal Army, Proposes “European Legion”

Why It Matters

The proposal underscores the EU’s struggle to balance deeper defence integration with national sovereignty and NATO commitments, shaping future European security architecture.

Key Takeaways

• Sikorski dismisses EU federal army as unrealistic
• Proposes a volunteer "European Legion" brigade-sized unit
• Legion insufficient against major powers like Russia
• EU battle groups remain unused due to design flaws
• Debate highlights tension between EU autonomy and NATO reliance

Pulse Analysis

The debate over a pan‑European fighting force has resurfaced amid growing geopolitical pressure on the continent. While the EU has long experimented with rapid reaction battle groups, their limited deployment record has exposed structural weaknesses. Sikorski’s “European Legion” concept attempts to sidestep the political quagmire of full integration by offering a modest, volunteer‑based brigade that could be mobilised for low‑intensity missions. This approach reflects a pragmatic compromise: preserving national command structures while providing a collective tool for crises that fall below the threshold of full‑scale war.

Strategically, a brigade‑size legion cannot replace the deterrence offered by larger national armies or NATO’s integrated command. However, it could fill a niche for rapid response to destabilising events in the Mediterranean, the Sahel, or the Western Balkans—regions where the EU has economic and political stakes but limited on‑the‑ground capacity. By leveraging volunteers from multiple member states, the legion could foster interoperability and shared operational doctrine, easing the transition toward deeper defence cooperation without triggering sovereignty concerns.

Politically, the proposal highlights the delicate balance between EU federalisation ambitions and the entrenched role of national militaries as symbols of sovereignty. Countries wary of ceding control to Brussels view any supranational force as a potential threat to their strategic autonomy and to the transatlantic alliance. As long as the United States remains the cornerstone of European security, EU leaders must navigate these sensitivities, making incremental steps—like the European Legion—more viable than an outright federal army. The outcome will shape the EU’s long‑term strategic autonomy and its relationship with NATO.

Sikorski rejects EU Federal Army, proposes “European Legion”

PJ Patryk Jagnieża · 2 February 2026, 12:12

The issue of creating a single, common, federal army for the European Union regularly arises. The Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs denies and claims that it is unrealistic.

Photo: Radosław Sikorski/X

On the occasion of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, which took place on 29 January, Radosław Sikorski was asked about the possibility of creating a European army. This is a recurring topic in public debate, and it was recently raised in January by the EU Commissioner for Defence, Andrius Kubilius. The head of the Polish MFA replied that “talking about a federal army is pointless because it is unrealistic, as national armies will not be merged. However, we could create something that I call a European legion, that is, initially (…) a unit the size of a brigade, which citizens of member states, and perhaps even candidate countries, could join.”

The strength of such a legion would not be sufficient to deter leaders like Vladimir Putin, but there are also other, smaller threats where – according to Sikorski – the Union should be able to act together. He cites threats in North Africa and the Balkans. The Union already has so‑called battle groups, but they have never been used because – as Sikorski claims – they were designed in a way that makes them ineffective.

Andrius Kubilius stated that the EU would be capable of forming an army of 100 000 soldiers. The head of EU diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, said on Thursday that she personally cannot imagine EU countries creating a European army separate from their national forces. “Every European country has its own army, and the armies of 23 countries are also part of NATO structures, so I cannot imagine countries creating a separate European army,” Kallas said ahead of the meeting of EU foreign ministers.

It can be said with certainty that opinions on creating such a formation are divided, even among European elites. National armies are often also a symbol of a country’s independence. A common European army would be a sign of further federalisation of the Union, in which not all member states want to partake. Furthermore, for many countries, military cooperation with the USA and the role of their national armies within NATO structures remain important. These matters would change if a common European army were to be established.