Criticism of lack of legitimacy: What do Ursula von der Leyen's recent statements about EU troops in Ukraine mean?

EU soldiers in Ukraine? Von der Leyen is making unilateral decisions – without a mandate?

Ursula von der Leyen is planning to deploy European soldiers to Ukraine. While the war continues, she decides on billions of euros and troops – without parliament, without oversight.

Recent comments by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen regarding the potential deployment of European troops to Ukraine have sparked an intense debate about the decision-making powers and democratic legitimacy of the European Union. In an interview with the Financial Times in August 2025, von der Leyen stated that Europe was developing "fairly precise plans" for a multinational troop deployment to Ukraine as part of security guarantees following a potential peace agreement. This statement drew sharp criticism, particularly from German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who emphasized that the European Union "has absolutely no jurisdiction or competence regarding the deployment of troops.".

Von der Leyen spoke of a "clear roadmap" for the deployment of troops, which could consist of several tens of thousands of European-led soldiers with American support in the areas of command, control and reconnaissance.

What legal and institutional foundations does the EU have for military decisions?

The legal basis for EU military decisions is enshrined in the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which is an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The CSDP is governed by Articles 42 to 46 of the EU Treaty and is subject to specific provisions.

A key aspect of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is the principle of unanimity: Council decisions with military or defence implications require unanimity, as stipulated in Article 31(4) of the Treaty on European Union. This means that all 27 EU Member States must agree to any military operation. Operational expenditure related to measures with military or defence implications is not borne by the European Union budget, but by the Member States, in accordance with Article 41(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

The political control and strategic direction of EU military operations lies with the Council and the Political and Security Committee (PSC). The European External Action Service has a Military Staff (EUMS) responsible for early warning, situational awareness, and strategic planning regarding military tasks. Decisions to conduct a CSDP mission or operation are based on a decision of the European Council, which requires the consent of all EU member states.

What role does the European Commission play in military decisions?

The European Commission has a significantly more limited role in military affairs than in other EU policy areas. As Minister Pistorius emphasized, the EU Commission has "no jurisdiction or competence whatsoever" regarding the deployment of troops. The Commission is primarily responsible for executive functions in supranational areas, while military and defense policy decisions are anchored in the intergovernmental pillar of the EU.

In the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the main responsibility lies with the Council of the EU and the Member States, not with the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who is also a Vice-President of the Commission, plays a coordinating role, but even here, decision-making powers are limited by the principle of unanimity and the consent of all Member States.

Von der Leyen's statements about "precise plans" for troop deployments can therefore be interpreted as an overstepping of her institutional powers, since as Commission President she does not have the authority to decide on military deployments or to publicly announce such plans.

How does the unanimity principle work in EU security policy?

The principle of unanimity is a fundamental element of EU decision-making in sensitive areas such as foreign and security policy. Under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), all 27 member states must agree to a decision for it to be adopted. This principle is designed to ensure that, in particularly important areas affecting national sovereignty, no country is forced to take action against its will.

The principle of unanimity in security policy has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it ensures that all member states support a decision, which strengthens the legitimacy and sustainability of decisions. On the other hand, it can lead to gridlock if individual countries exercise their veto power, as Hungary has done, for example, in various decisions related to Ukraine.

However, there are limited exceptions to the unanimity principle in foreign policy, including constructive abstention and special passerelle clauses. In constructive abstention, a member state can abstain from voting instead of exercising a veto, thus allowing the measure to still be approved. These mechanisms are, however, used only very rarely.

What democratic legitimacy does the EU Commission possess?

The democratic legitimacy of the European Commission is a complex issue encompassing various indirect legitimacy mechanisms. The Commission President is not directly elected by EU citizens, but rather appointed through a multi-stage process: The European Council proposes a candidate, who must then be elected by the European Parliament. The entire College of Commissioners must also be confirmed by Parliament.

Ursula von der Leyen was confirmed for a second term in 2024 after receiving a clear majority of 401 votes in the European Parliament vote on July 18, 2024. This confirmation grants her a certain degree of democratic legitimacy, even if it is indirect.

The European Parliament, as the only directly elected EU institution, exercises important oversight functions over the Commission. It can withdraw its confidence in the Commission through a vote of no confidence, which would require the entire Commission to resign. Furthermore, the Commission must report regularly to Parliament and answer parliamentary questions.

What criticisms are there of von der Leyen's approach?

Criticism of von der Leyen's remarks about EU troops in Ukraine is multifaceted and comes from various political camps. Defense Minister Pistorius criticized not only the EU Commission's lack of competence in military matters, but also the timing of the public statements. He described it as "completely wrong" to discuss such issues publicly before sitting down at the negotiating table.

The criticism also extends to von der Leyen's general leadership style. She is accused of making important decisions unilaterally and without sufficient democratic oversight. One example is the €150 billion defense fund adopted in May 2025 to finance armaments, in which the European Parliament was not involved because the Commission invoked the emergency Article 122 of the EU Treaty. The Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee subsequently decided unanimously to file an action for annulment with the European Court of Justice.

Further criticisms concern her procurement of €35 billion worth of COVID-19 vaccine doses without sufficient transparency, which led to a vote of no confidence in July 2025, which she survived. Critics accuse her of a "centralist leadership style" and criticize the lack of transparency in important decisions.

Related to this:

• Institutional dispute over Europe's arms program: 150 billion euro arms program SAFE (Security Action for Europe)

What are the current plans for European troops in Ukraine?

Plans for European troops in Ukraine are part of a broader "coalition of the willing" led by France and the United Kingdom. Various EU countries have taken differing positions on a potential troop deployment.

Among the countries supporting the plan are France and the United Kingdom, which co-chairs the coalition. British Defense Secretary John Healey stated that the UK was prepared to "deploy ground troops to Ukraine to reassure the Ukrainians." The Baltic states of Lithuania and Estonia have also signaled their willingness to contribute troops. Belgium has also pledged its support.

On the other side are skeptical or opposed countries. Germany has stated that it has little capacity for troop deployments but would provide other important elements for security guarantees. Hungary, Poland, Italy, and the Netherlands have rejected participation in troop deployments or reacted very cautiously. Poland's Deputy Prime Minister clarified: "There are no plans, and there will be no plans, to send the Polish military to Ukraine.".

The military realities are challenging. Military experts estimate that at least 100,000 soldiers would be needed to secure a ceasefire line between Russia and Ukraine. Since each troop would need to be rotated for rest and recuperation, the participating states would have to provide three times that number of soldiers in total. This would overstretch European armies, which is why a maximum troop strength of 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers is considered realistic.

The Security and Defence Hub offers expert advice and up-to-date information to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defence policy. Working closely with the SME Connect Defence Working Group, it particularly promotes small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that wish to further develop their innovative capacity and competitiveness in the defence sector. As a central point of contact, the Hub thus creates a crucial bridge between SMEs and European defence strategy.

Related to this:

• The SME Connect Defence Working Group – Strengthening SMEs in European Defence

What financing mechanisms has the EU developed for supporting Ukraine?

The EU has developed various financing instruments for supporting Ukraine, some of which are controversial. The aforementioned €150 billion defense fund was adopted without the involvement of the European Parliament, with the Commission invoking Article 122 of the EU Treaty, which allows for measures without parliamentary involvement in emergencies.

Germany has committed to financing one of the first comprehensive support packages under the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism, amounting to up to US$500 million. Under this mechanism, NATO coordinates the implementation and ensures that the equipment meets Ukraine's most urgent needs.

The EU member states have also established the European Peace Facility (EPF) with €5.6 billion in support measures for the Ukrainian armed forces. Germany's contribution amounts to approximately 25 percent of this sum. In March 2024, the Ukraine Assistance Fund within the EPF was also established, with a target volume of an additional €5 billion by 2027.

In an interview with the Financial Times, von der Leyen also announced new financing instruments to ensure "sustainable funding for the Ukrainian armed forces as a security guarantee." The existing billions in EU funding flows to Ukraine are to continue even in peacetime.

How is the European defense industry developing in the context of support for Ukraine?

The European defense industry has experienced significant expansion as a result of support for Ukraine. For the first time since the beginning of the Trump administration, Europe and the US have reversed their roles in providing military assistance to Ukraine. Of the €10.5 billion in European military aid provided in May and June 2025, at least €4.6 billion is to be channeled through procurement contracts with defense companies, rather than being drawn from existing stockpiles.

These contracts were primarily awarded to companies based in Europe and Ukraine, highlighting the growing role of defense production in military support. From the start of the war until June 2025, Europe provided at least €35.1 billion in military aid through defense procurement – ​​€4.4 billion more than the United States.

Taro Nishikawa, project manager of the Ukraine Support Tracker, explains: “Military aid to Ukraine is increasingly determined by the capacity of the defense industry. Europe has now procured more through new defense contracts than the United States – a clear shift away from relying on arsenals towards industrial production.”.

What role do national parliaments play in EU military operations?

The role of national parliaments in EU military operations is of fundamental importance, as they possess the necessary democratic mandates. As the German visit of high-ranking parliamentarians to Ukraine underscored, the approval of the German parliament is essential for any German participation in operations in Ukraine. The German parliament oversees the financing and would have ultimate authority regarding troop deployments in the context of a ceasefire.

The national parliaments of the member states play a crucial role in overseeing the EU and contribute to its democratic legitimacy. Through the principle of subsidiarity, enshrined in Article 5 TEU, national parliaments have the power to scrutinize and influence EU actions.

In Germany, for example, every deployment of the Bundeswehr abroad must be approved by the Bundestag. This principle of parliamentary control over military operations is a fundamental component of the German constitutional order and cannot be circumvented by EU decisions.

How are other EU institutions reacting to von der Leyen's approach?

The reactions of other EU institutions to von der Leyen's actions are mixed and reflect institutional tensions within the EU. The European Parliament has already initiated legal proceedings against the Commission, particularly regarding the €150 billion defense fund. The Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee unanimously decided to file an action for annulment with the European Court of Justice, as Parliament was not consulted on this important financial decision.

The vote of no confidence against von der Leyen in July 2025, although she survived it, demonstrates growing unease in parliament about her leadership style. The criticism focuses on a lack of transparency and a tendency to make important decisions without sufficient democratic oversight.

At the member state level, different governments have reacted differently. While the German government, through Minister Pistorius, voiced sharp criticism, other countries, such as France under President Macron, have pushed forward the discussion about European troops. These differing reactions highlight the challenges in coordinating EU foreign and security policy.

What long-term effects could von der Leyen's actions have?

Von der Leyen's approach could have far-reaching consequences for the institutional balance of the EU and the democratic legitimacy of European decisions. Her centralist leadership style and tendency to make important decisions without sufficient parliamentary oversight could exacerbate the already discussed "democratic deficit" of the EU.

Bypassing the European Parliament in key financial decisions by invoking emergency articles sets a problematic precedent. If this practice becomes established, it could further weaken Parliament's role as a democratic check and balance and disproportionately strengthen the Commission's power.

In security policy, von der Leyen's approach could exacerbate tensions between the supranational and intergovernmental elements of the EU. Her public statements about military plans, despite lacking formal authority, could undermine member states' trust in the EU's institutional order.

What could a more democratic decision-making process in EU security policy look like?

More democratic decision-making in EU security policy would require several reforms. First, the role of the European Parliament in security policy matters would need to be strengthened. Although the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is traditionally viewed as an intergovernmental area, greater parliamentary oversight could increase its democratic legitimacy.

The currently debated concept of qualified majority voting in foreign policy could improve the EU's ability to act without undermining the principle of democratic control. Nine member states, including Germany and France, have already formed a "group of friends" to promote the gradual transition from unanimity to qualified majority voting in foreign policy.

The passerelle or bridging clauses in the EU treaties could be used to transition to other decision-making procedures without amending the treaties. However, a balance would have to be struck between the ability to act and the protection of legitimate national interests.

What alternatives are there to von der Leyen's approach?

Alternative approaches to EU security policy could include a stronger emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and a clearer division of roles between EU institutions. Instead of the Commission President announcing military plans, such decisions could be made exclusively within the framework of the existing CSDP structures.

A stronger role for national parliaments in EU security decisions could increase democratic legitimacy without impairing the EU's ability to act. The "coalition of the willing" model already demonstrates how countries with similar interests can cooperate without forcing all EU member states to participate.

Developing a European “sovereignty safety net” could represent a compromise between the ability to act and the protection of national interests. Such a system would include mechanisms to prevent member states from overruling each other in critical areas, while simultaneously allowing more flexibility in less sensitive decisions.

Democratic legitimacy versus capacity to act

The controversy surrounding von der Leyen's remarks on EU troops in Ukraine highlights the fundamental tensions between democratic legitimacy and the ability to act within the European Union. While the Commission President could argue that swift decisions are necessary in times of crisis, criticism from various quarters demonstrates that such decisions, without sufficient democratic oversight, can undermine the EU's legitimacy.

The EU's institutional architecture deliberately provides for different decision-making procedures for different policy areas. In security policy, the unanimity principle and member state oversight are not arbitrary but reflect the sensitivity of these areas to national sovereignty. Von der Leyen's approach of circumventing or overriding these established procedures raises fundamental questions about democratic accountability in the EU.

The challenge for the EU is to find a path that strengthens both its democratic legitimacy and the necessary capacity to act in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. This may require institutional reforms, but also a more conscious approach to existing democratic processes and checks and balances. The debate over EU troops in Ukraine is therefore not just a matter of security policy, but a test case for the future of European democracy.

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group

LinkedIn

 

 

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

You can contact me at wolfenstein∂xpert.digital or

Just call me on +49 7348 4088 965 .

LinkedIn