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's decision on her own – without a mandate?

Ursula von der Leyen is planning to send European soldiers to Ukraine. While the war continues, she is making decisions about billions and troops – without parliament, without oversight.

Recent comments by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen regarding the possibility of European troops in Ukraine have sparked an intense debate about the European Union's decision-making powers and democratic legitimacy. 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 no competence or authority whatsoever regarding the deployment of troops."

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

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

The legal basis for the EU's 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 central aspect of the CSDP is the principle of unanimity: Council decisions with military or defense implications are adopted unanimously without exception, according to Article 31(4) of the EU Treaty. This means that all 27 EU Member States must agree to a military deployment. According to Article 41(2) of the EU Treaty, operational expenditure related to measures with military or defense implications is not borne from the European Union budget, but by the Member States.

The political control and strategic direction of EU military operations rests with the Council and the Political and Security Committee (PSC). The European External Action Service (EUMS) has a Military Staff, which is responsible for early warning, situation assessment, and strategic planning regarding military tasks. Decisions to conduct a CSDP mission or operation are based on a European Council decision, which is taken with 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 matters than in other EU policy areas. As Minister Pistorius emphasized, the EU Commission has "no authority or competence whatsoever" regarding the deployment of troops. The Commission is primarily responsible for executive power in supranational areas, while military and defense policy decisions are anchored in the EU's intergovernmental pillar.

In the CSDP, primary 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 the Vice-President of the Commission, plays a coordinating role, but here, too, 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 exceeding 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 principle of unanimity 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. In the CFSP and CSDP, all 27 member states must agree to a decision for it to be adopted. This principle is intended to ensure that no country is forced to take action against its will in particularly important areas that affect national sovereignty.

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 deadlocks if individual countries exercise their veto power, as Hungary, for example, has done in various Ukraine-related decisions.

However, there are limited exceptions to the unanimity principle in foreign policy, including constructive abstention and special passerelle clauses. Constructive abstention allows a member state to abstain from voting instead of vetoing, allowing the measure to still be approved. However, these mechanisms are used only to a very limited extent.

What democratic legitimacy does the EU Commission have?

The democratic legitimacy of the EU Commission is a complex issue that encompasses various indirect legitimacy mechanisms. The Commission President is not elected directly by EU citizens but is 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 the 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 gives her a certain degree of democratic legitimacy, albeit indirect.

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

What criticism is there of von der Leyen’s approach?

Criticism of von der Leyen's statements regarding 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 called it "totally wrong" to discuss such issues publicly before sitting 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 passed in May 2025 to finance military equipment, in which the European Parliament was not involved because the Commission relied on the emergency Article 122 of the EU Treaty. The Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee subsequently unanimously decided to file an action for annulment with the European Court of Justice.

Further criticisms concern her procurement of €35 billion worth of coronavirus vaccine doses without sufficient transparency, which led to a vote of no confidence in July 2025, which she survived, however. Critics accuse her of a "centralistic leadership style" and complain about the lack of transparency in key decisions.

Suitable for:

• Institutional dispute over Europe's armaments program: 150 billion euro armor program Safe (Security Action for Europe)

What are the current plans for European troops in Ukraine?

The 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 different positions on a possible troop deployment.

Supporting countries include France and the United Kingdom, as co-chairs of the coalition. British Defense Secretary John Healey stated that the UK is ready to "station ground troops in Ukraine to reassure the Ukrainians." The Baltic states of Lithuania and Estonia have also signaled their willingness to send troops. Belgium has also pledged support.

On the other side are skeptical or hostile 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 refused to participate in troop deployments or have reacted very cautiously. Poland's Deputy Prime Minister clarified: "There are no and will never be any plans to send the Polish military to Ukraine."

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

The hub for security and defense offers well-founded advice and current information in order to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defense policy. In close connection to the SME Connect working group, he promotes small and medium -sized companies (SMEs) in particular that want to further expand their innovative strength and competitiveness in the field of defense. As a central point of contact, the hub creates a decisive bridge between SME and European defense strategy.

Suitable for:

• The Working Group Defense of the SME Connect - Strengthening SMEs in European defense

What financing mechanisms has the EU developed to support Ukraine?

The EU has developed various financial instruments for support to Ukraine, some of which are controversial. The aforementioned €150 billion defense fund was passed without the involvement of the European Parliament, with the Commission relying on Article 122 of the EU Treaty, which allows for measures in emergency situations without parliamentary involvement.

Germany has committed to funding one of the first comprehensive support packages under the PURL (Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List) mechanism, totaling up to $500 million. Under this mechanism, NATO coordinates 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 support measures for the Ukrainian armed forces amounting to €5.6 billion. Germany's contribution amounts to approximately 25 percent of this amount. In March 2024, the Ukraine Assistance Fund was also approved within the EPF, with a target volume of an additional €5 billion by 2027.

In the Financial Times interview, von der Leyen also announced new financing instruments to ensure "sustainable financing of the Ukrainian armed forces as a security guarantee." The existing billion-euro 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 support 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 from existing stockpiles.

These contracts were awarded primarily to companies based in Europe and Ukraine, highlighting the growing role of defense manufacturing 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 director 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 and toward industrial production."

What role do national parliaments play in EU military operations?

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

The national parliaments of the Member States play a key role in overseeing the EU and contributing to its democratic legitimacy. The principle of subsidiarity, enshrined in Article 5 of the TEU, gives national parliaments the opportunity to scrutinize and influence EU action.

In Germany, for example, every foreign deployment of the Bundeswehr must be approved by the Bundestag. This principle of parliamentary oversight of 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 actions?

Reactions from other EU institutions to von der Leyen's actions have been mixed, reflecting the institutional tensions within the EU. The European Parliament has already initiated legal action 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, arguing that Parliament was not involved in this important financial decision.

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

At the member state level, various governments have responded differently. While the German government, through Minister Pistorius, expressed sharp criticism, other countries, such as France under President Macron, have pushed forward the discussion about European troops. These differing reactions highlight the challenges of 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 EU's institutional balance and the democratic legitimacy of European decision-making. Her centralist leadership style and tendency to make important decisions without sufficient parliamentary oversight could exacerbate the EU's already discussed "democratic deficit."

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

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

What could more democratic decision-making 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 issues would have to be strengthened. Although the CSDP has traditionally been considered an intergovernmental area, greater parliamentary oversight could increase democratic legitimacy.

The currently discussed 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 bridge clauses in the EU Treaties could be used to transition to other decision-making procedures without treaty changes. 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 allocation of roles among EU institutions. Instead of the Commission President announcing military plans, such decisions could be made exclusively within the framework of the envisaged CSDP structures.

A stronger role for national parliaments in EU security decision-making could increase democratic legitimacy without compromising 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.

The development of a European "sovereignty safety net" could represent a compromise between the ability to act and the protection of national interests. Such a system would provide mechanisms to prevent member states from overruling in critical areas while allowing for greater flexibility in less sensitive decisions.

Democratic legitimacy versus capacity to act

The controversy surrounding von der Leyen's statements regarding 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 principle of unanimity and control by member states is not a random choice, but rather reflects the sensitivity of these areas to national sovereignty. Von der Leyen's actions in circumventing or exceeding these established procedures raise fundamental questions about democratic accountability in the EU.

The challenge for the EU is to find a path that both strengthens democratic legitimacy and enables 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 procedures and controls. The debate about EU troops in Ukraine is therefore not just a question 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.

contact me under Wolfenstein ∂ Xpert.digital

call me under +49 89 674 804 (Munich)

LinkedIn