Europe is sitting in the corner of a bar when suddenly a fight breaks out. The Europeans are peaceable people, but as every viewer of a good Western knows, you can’t avoid the flying fists and shattering bottles. Do you scurry for cover, retreat into a fortified corner, or join the fight?
Operation Epic Fury posed that question in real terms — and Europe had no good answer. In practice, European countries chose the first two of the above, and unity vanished.
As the joint US-Israeli operation began at the end of February, individual European countries ran in different directions. The United Kingdom is staying out of the operation, but changed its stance to allow its military bases to be used by the US. France eventually sent a carrier group to patrol near Cyprus and is now floating an international mission to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Spain, the most hardline of all, is barring US forces from its air bases.
The lack of a unified voice across Europe, paired with the President of the European Commission waiting two days to convene a special committee on the issue, makes Europe look weak. After months of key European countries making commitments to stepping up defense spending, procurement, and readiness, their reactions to Operation Epic Fury underline just how far the continent is from global leadership or even influence.
This chaos results from indecisiveness and calls into question how unified Europe is on foreign policy. The hesitancy will only embolden Putin, as it reminds him that he faces the same uncertain and weak opponent he encountered in 2008, 2014, and 2022. This time, the conflict is not on European territory, but it raises hugely important issues. Europe cannot be heard if its foreign policy is a cacophony of internal conflict.
Fundamentally, Europe cannot be a world force if member states choose to act without considering the greater union. In reaction to Operation Epic Fury, European countries should have responded as one. The logical policy given the differing national positions was to say that it would defend Europe’s skies, bases, and maritime routes, but not directly join US-Israeli offensive operations.
Europe does have the military capacity to act — look at the very sizable French naval force of about a dozen ships now deployed to the eastern Mediterranean. Remember also that in early 2024, Operation ASPIDES deployed naval assets from multiple EU members to protect maritime routes in the Red Sea from Houthi attack. A similar reaction to the current conflict, possibly built around the French carrier group mentioned above and endorsed by the Commission and heads of government, would have demonstrated force projection and the right posture.
At the same time, European governments should have allowed the US access to their bases (as Romania has agreed to do), gaining political capital with Trump while avoiding unnecessary drama. Operation Epic Fury reminded the US that it needs European allies — and Europe wasted the opportunity to remind it of that on its own terms.
How to improve matters? Hungary’s vetoes on Russia sanctions and Slovakia’s resistance to Ukraine aid are reminders that populist governments within the bloc have consistently prioritized domestic politics over collective European action. The EU has recognized that it cannot allow any new members to wield this “Trojan Horse” power, and has stated as much.
More broadly, the EU needs a European Security Council (ESC). It cannot wait while the rest of the world acts; there needs to be faster coordination and decision-making in the bloc. At stake is deterrence, strength on the global stage, and validity as a force for good.
While not a new concept, as it has been mentioned by France and Germany previously, it is relevant once again. The ESC would need to balance decisiveness and security coordination that favors the whole bloc.
One option is to have an ESC led by core EU members: Germany, France, Italy, and the UK, as a visiting member. This offers coherent stability on foreign policy and the European Union’s role on the global stage, at the risk of creating a two-tier Europe where smaller member states feel sidelined from decisions that nonetheless affect them. A leaner council with clear authority is precisely what allows the speed and decisiveness Europe currently lacks.
But the realities of European politics might call for a broader membership. A future ESC could see rotating regional seats. With a representative country from each region (Western, Mediterranean, Eastern, Baltic, Nordic, etc.), there are fewer voices than the whole bloc, but nonetheless varying perspectives.
There is no silver bullet to fixing Europe’s hesitancy to engage with a more dangerous and unpredictable world, but something must change. Europe cannot keep getting caught deliberating while the rest of the world steams ahead. More fights will break out at the bar. The question is whether Europe is prepared for the next dust-up, or is once again an indecisive bystander.
Niccolò Comini is an independent researcher. He writes about Italian politics and foreign policy, and has been published on CEPA’s Europe’s Edge, Foreign Policy, and The National Interest.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
Ukraine 2036
How Today’s Investments Will Shape Tomorrow’s Security
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
