I believe that's the point the article is trying to make: That the EU should stand up and be an actual 3rd party and possibly mediate between China and USA. But then the article also concludes that it's not surprising that doesn't happen considering the parties in Europe.
The EU is hardly in a position to actually address any security concerns.
Why?
'catchup' would require 30 -60%of one years EU gdp over 5-10years + current spend...
Until that happens the EU is a spectator or victim.
Apart from that - I had suspected that "security" meant "defense" and I think this is far less important globally, than many would like to believe.
Of course if you're a country that doesn't know how to negotiate and compromise and do politics, all you'd know is military intervention.
How does that work?
If anything European history shows how non major players become the chips the players play for / the worst consequences land on them.
America badly wanted Pax Americana, got it, and just as Pax Britannica and Pax Romana did, it costs.
Germany and Holland are really delinquent here, Holland now has no actual navy, Germany would be unable to mount any defence of itself or Poland in a war with Russia.
This will matter in the next few years.
Germany has constitutional limits placed on her defence demanded by the post-WW2 allies, even if they did spend more. There's limits on when and how they can operate outside of Germany - though I'm very unclear on the detail. Holland may not have much navy - but it certainly still exists with frigates, submarines and what have you, and plans for new vessels - just rather few of them. They recently increased budget to get nearer that 2%. They've a population of about 15m, I think a modern carrier is simply out of reach without completely unbalancing their defence budget. They're way past their projecting power era anyway.
I do completely agree all signatories should stick better to that Nato agreed 2% though, or any future agreed amount.
I can imagine that the former would be technically doable, if there were enough political support (e.g. also to demand on the highest level from the U.S. companies to provide for the technical support to the project which would be managed from Europe for Europe). But yes, politically, I understand there wouldn't be much readiness, because of the long term established practice of depending on the U.S. "solutions" even in these aspects.
Still I'd feel more comfortable with three or more powers arguing over one thing than just two. It's more balanced.
That would require allignment of international politics across every EU state. If that is ever going to happen, we are very far, perhaphs hundreds of years, from that.
If you get Germany and France to work together, you're half way there, just like with Airbus/EADS. Nobody needs or wants to wait around for Luxembourg or Ireland, and we really only need the heavy weights - they're the ones paying for it anyhow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...