Brussels Is Organizing a European Army, Expert Warns Of Consequences

The plan for a joint European army has once again resurfaced in Brussels, with the EU Defense Commissioner saying that the EU may need a standing military force of 100,000 troops and faster decision-making. However, the proposal is yet another attempt to push Europe into war and reduce national sovereignty, Zoltan Lomnici Jr. pointed out, stressing that the plan runs against EU rules, would weaken the military decision-making rights of member states, and lacks broad public support.

Brussels proposes establishing a joint European army

A new plan is taking shape in Brussels to establish a joint European army. According to EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, setting up a standing force of up to one hundred thousand troops may be needed. In his view, the EU’s current security and decision-making system is unable to respond effectively to the Russia-Ukraine war, shifting American priorities, and new geopolitical tensions. Mr. Kubilius argues that separate national armies weaken Europe, and that an overhaul of defense, a common military force, and a simpler decision-making structure are needed.

According to EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, the establishment of a standing army of up to one hundred thousand troops may become necessary (Photo: TT News Agency)

 

Brussels Military Plan Raises Serious Constitutional And Sovereignty Concerns

According to Zoltan Lomnici Jr, scientific director at Szazadveg Foundation, Brussels' plan for a joint EU army raises serious constitutional and sovereignty issues under the treaties. As he pointed out,

current EU law does not allow for the level of centralization in defense policy suggested by the emerging proposal.

The expert stressed that EU rules are clear: foreign and security policy is not an exclusive EU competence, but is based on joint and unanimous decisions by the member states. In other words, when the treaties refer to a common policy, this does not imply control by Brussels, but cooperation between governments. For this reason, he argues that

any Brussels initiative aimed at accelerated decision-making, reduced member state input, or narrow military command structures runs counter to the logic of the treaties. This is not a simple development, but a major change of direction.

The EU treaties clearly state that progress toward a common defense policy is only possible if all member states unanimously agree, and only with military forces that countries voluntarily make available to the EU, Zoltan Lomnici Jr. pointed out. This means there is no room for fast-tracked or narrowly made military decisions, regardless of what the Brussels plan suggests.

The constitutional lawyer said that Brussels' proposal may even violate NATO rules, despite the fact that EU treaties clearly state:

the EU must respect the specific character of the security and defense policy of its member states, as well as the primacy of NATO frameworks.

By contrast, the current concept would result in some military decisions being removed from national constitutional oversight.

EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius proposes to create a European Army of 100.000 troops.

It would protect Europeans against global threats 🇪🇺 pic.twitter.com/OcTwIDQBSg

— NXT EU (@NXT4EU) January 11, 2026

 

A Particularly Sensitive Issue for Hungary

In the expert's view, this issue is particularly serious for Hungary, as the Fundamental Law clearly states that control over the Hungarian Defense Forces rests with the Hungarian National Assembly, the President of the Republic, and the government. Mr. Lomnici highlighted that 

decisions on the use of military force would be partially or entirely removed from the control of Hungarian constitutional institutions.

This would not only be a legal problem, but would also lead to the loss of democratic accountability, he stated.

Austria and the Example of Neutrality

According to Zoltan Lomnici Jr, Hungary is not the only country that insists on maintaining control over its own military decisions. In Austria, for example, the constitution enshrines permanent neutrality, meaning the country does not take part in wars involving military alliances.

It is no coincidence that the majority of Austrians have for years rejected the idea of a joint EU army.

The latest surveys reveal that, in 2025, 78 percent of Austrians continued to support maintaining neutrality. The expert says this shows that resistance to military integration is strong in other countries as well, and that this tendency is even more pronounced in Hungary.

According to a Szazadveg survey published in March 2024, 86 percent of Hungarians reject the deployment of EU or NATO troops to Ukraine.

The constitutional lawyer pointed out that this indicates broad opposition within Hungarian society to directions that increase the risk of war escalation, and that the protection of sovereignty is seen as a fundamental value.

According to Zoltan Lomnici Jr., the plan for a joint European army is problematic on several levels: it contradicts EU rules, violates the constitutional order of member states, and lacks public support. He noted that 

the EU originally based its defense policy on cooperation between governments, unanimous decisions, and national control, while public opinion in Hungary and other European countries rejects policies that reinforce military escalation. 

According to the expert, In this situation, protecting sovereignty is not a political slogan, but a constitutional and democratic obligation that cannot be circumvented by either accelerated decision-making or EU centralization, the expert said.

Cover photo: Illustration (Photo: AFP)