The turn towards security, defence and preparedness
For most of its history, the European Commission was seen as a technocratic machine, driving European integration. Students graduating from degrees in European law mastered competition law, the integration of the Single Market and the Economic and Monetary Union. Yet the last years, the world around the European Commission has changed dramatically, forcing the primary economic executive to become a geopolitical actor that is navigating an increasingly complex and hostile world.
The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine marked a defining shift and rupture in the EU’s strategic environment. The EU’s response, spearheaded by the European Commission, reflected the unity between EU’s Member States and strengthened the role of the Union on questions related to hard security. Prospects of enlargement were reenergised while the Russian sanctions regime has grown into a tool of EU policy making.
Two fundamental changes occurred that have underpinned this transformation of the European Commission into a vocal geopolitical player. Firstly, instruments long regarded as purely tools of integration find itself now at the centre of broader conversations about war, deterrence and geopolitical competition. While this framing might be new, many of the underlying work strands have been at the centre of the Commission’s power for years. Sanctions, tariffs and export controls have always been geopolitical instruments but now existing policies have acquired new meaning.
Secondly, this geopolitical shift has been reflected in the new political priorities of the second term of Von Der Leyen as the President of the European Commission. Under the umbrella of ‘a new era for European defence and security’, terms like preparedness, resilience and defence industry have become central to the Commissions rhetoric and policy priorities. The publication of the so-called Niinistö report provided the European Commission with a comprehensive blueprint articulating a new vision for societal preparedness and resilience. With a wide and ambitious scope, it argues for a paradigm shift in the way EU approaches security, away from the more common method of integration through incremental fixes.
The Niinistö report laid the foundation for three major Commission initiatives that signal this institutional shift around security:
- ProtectEU/Internal Security Strategy, which aims to consolidate the Union’s ability to detect, deter and mitigate threats from hybrid actors, organised crime or terrorism.
- The White Paper on Defence, exploring how the EU can mobilise industrial, financial and regulatory instruments to support Europe’s defence industry.
- The Preparedness Union Strategy, a forward-looking strategy for long-term societal resilience against health emergencies, climate change and hybrid interference.
Together, these initiatives provide a clear framework wherein the Commission is actively defining and claiming its role as the protector of the European project and the EU at large.
The key challenge: information for decision-making
This shift in the political orientation of the Commission raises a fundamental question: does the Commission have access to the right information to take informed decisions on security, defence and preparedness?
Although today’s geopolitical environment is almost unrecognizable compared with five years ago, the structures of EU’s intelligence-sharing architecture, defined by the limits set out in the treaties on member states’ responsibilities on national security, remain fundamentally unchanged. Nevertheless, the most senior levels of the Commission, those taking decisions on sanctions packages, crisis response or defence industries, require more than ever timely and actionable strategic intelligence.
A sharpening of the current mechanisms for information-sharing and situational awareness is therefore a necessity. The Commission’s evolving role cannot be sustained based on structures designed for a different era. In this regard, the announcement of the ‘Security College’ by President Von Der Leyen in March 2025, provides us with a possible blueprint for the way forward. From external and internal security to energy, defence and research to cyber, trade and foreign interference, the Security College meetings carve out a dedicated moment for the College to obtain a joint situational awareness about the security environment that increasingly negatively impacts the daily work of the institution.
Towards a truly geopolitical European Commission
The European Commission faces unprecedented challenges. Its policies and ambitions have adapted accordingly. The task ahead is to consolidate this transformation and to ensure that the Commission has the tools and the information to act decisively.
Europe’s security landscape has shifted. It is time that the Commission is also equipped for the role it is increasingly expected to play.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official views or policies of the European Commission.
Ilkka Salmi
Deputy Director-General in charge of Security, Workplace and Wellbeing
Directorate-General Human Resources and Security of the European Commission
Former Counter-Terrorism Coordinator of the EU, Director of EU INTCEN and Director of the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service SUPO
Back to Table of Contents