Zelenskyy’s message is crucial for European citizens and leaders, as the security and prosperity of Europe—and the broader free world—could well depend on it.
However, the full implications of Zelenskyy’s message—points he himself undoubtedly understands—may not be immediately clear to many in the audience, let alone to Europeans more broadly. As Zelenskyy rightly points out, financial investment is only one part of building and sustaining an effective military. Financial investment is essential for acquiring advanced weaponry, training troops, and sustaining logistics—but it is not enough to create a truly formidable armed force.
Equally critical is the cultural foundation that underpins a nation’s military, shaping both its effectiveness and long-term continuity. Many of the prosperous, just, and democratic nations of Europe suffer from a kind of cultural deficiency—a lack of national militarism. The dramatic differences in national cultures of militarism among EU and NATO member states present a fundamental challenge: any truly effective and unified European Army would require a degree of international cultural cohesion that does not yet exist.
Zelenskyy’s call is not merely about forming a common European army, restructuring military organization, or increasing defense spending; it is a call for a fundamental shift in how European nations perceive military service, cooperation, and collective defense. To field a potent military and the deterrence it affords, a nation—or a confederation of nations—must cultivate shared values that cherish military excellence, professionalism, and respect for service. Military readiness must be seen not as a bureaucratic necessity or a low-status career path, but as a pillar of national security and sovereignty—an honorable role widely respected across society.
Nations with powerful, effective militaries promote cultures of discipline, honor, and duty. This instills pride and purpose in service members, ensuring that their motivations extend beyond financial incentives into a genuine sense of vocation. A society that respects and values its armed forces naturally attracts and retains stronger talent. When military service is regarded with honor, more capable individuals will aspire to join and excel.
Military excellence does not come from spending alone—it comes from people. It requires leaders who are well-trained, ethical, and capable of commanding effectively in both war and peace. A strong military culture fosters continuous improvement, driving innovation in tactics, strategy, and technology.
Military power is strongest when backed by the population; Ukraine provides a clear example. Countries where the military is deeply integrated into national identity tend to display greater resilience in times of crisis. In Ukraine, civilians have played vital roles in the war effort, reinforcing military effectiveness beyond financial inputs. Without that culture of national pride and mobilization, Ukraine would likely have fallen to Putin’s aggression long ago, even with a much larger defense budget.
The Challenges of Europe’s Diverse National Cultures of Militarism
A comparison of several European national cultures of militarism highlights the challenge Europe faces in realizing Zelenskyy’s vision of a European Army. While a full assessment is beyond this essay’s scope, three examples—Finland, Germany, and Poland—illustrate the scale of the divergence.
Finland is a society that strongly values militarism, professionalism, and service. It maintains a deeply rooted culture of total defense and preparedness. Universal conscription ensures that a large fraction of the population is trained for military service and can be mobilized in times of crisis. These characteristics stem from Finland’s long history of resisting Soviet aggression, particularly during the Winter War (1939–1940) and the Continuation War (1941–1944). That history has ingrained a national ethos of self-reliance and resilience, in which every citizen is expected to contribute to national defense.
Finland’s military culture is pragmatic and high-readiness focused. Its strategy is forged out of necessity, shaped by a difficult geopolitical position. With a small population concentrated in the south, Finland faces a vast, sparsely populated frontier bordering a hostile neighbor with far greater population and economic weight. This reality has compelled Finland to maintain a defensive posture built on resilience, rapid mobilization, and territorial defense. The country fields a highly trained and motivated citizen-soldier force, making it one of the most defense-ready nations in Europe despite its relatively small active military.
In contrast, Germany has embraced a culture of restraint and bureaucracy in its military, often marked by a lingering sense of shame toward militarism. Germany maintains a deep-rooted skepticism toward military power due to its WWII legacy. As a result, it suffers from low military readiness despite substantial financial resources. German military affairs are characterized by bureaucratic inefficiency and slow decision-making. Many of Germany’s ruling elites maintain a political aversion to military assertiveness. Despite significant defense spending, Germany struggles with readiness and operational effectiveness. The Bundeswehr faces underfunding in key operational areas, troop morale is relatively low, and military service is often viewed as a career rather than a duty.
Strategic hesitancy further defines Germany’s approach—its response to military aid for Ukraine was slow, and it remains cautious about direct confrontation with Russia.
Like Finland, Poland views military strength as a pillar of deterrence and national security, though within a distinct historical context. Poland’s experience of subjugation—particularly under the Soviet Union—has instilled a deep distrust of Russia, shaping its defense posture. Unlike Germany, Poland has actively embraced a strong militaristic tradition, prioritizing rearmament, modernization, and robust national defense policy.
Poland’s emphasis on national pride and military service is deeply ingrained. Its strategic posture reflects both its larger size and its geographic position along NATO’s eastern flank. Military service is widely respected, and Poland has consistently advocated for a stronger NATO presence in Eastern Europe. This proactive stance makes it one of the most assertive NATO members in regional deterrence. Unlike Finland, which benefits from geographic defensive advantages, Poland has historically served as a corridor for invasion. The Suwałki Gap remains a focal point for NATO planning, reinforcing Poland’s urgency in maintaining a strong military. Its defense posture is not just policy—it is cultural, rooted in self-reliance and sovereignty.
A “European Army” Is a Call for Cultural Transformation
Money alone will not resolve Europe’s military unreadiness in nations where cultural deficiencies persist, nor will it produce the cohesion required for a European Army. The entire Czech military (30,334 active and 4,900 reserves) is roughly 70% the size of the Moscow police force (50,500 officers).
There is considerable diversity in military cultures across Europe. Despite having roughly half the population of the Czech Republic, Finland maintains about 24,000 active personnel and can mobilize 280,000 troops in wartime, with a reserve force of approximately 870,000.
Finland, with fewer resources, has cultivated a national culture that values military readiness—and as a result, fields a highly potent force relative to its constraints.
With twice the population and a larger GDP, there is no structural reason Czechia could not achieve similar or greater capability. It is ultimately a matter of political decisions and a national culture that has not valued militarism. Many of the least capable European militaries—Germany, the Czech Republic, and the Low Countries—have ample financial resources but lack the cultural foundation for effectiveness. Reports in recent years have highlighted severe readiness issues in Germany, including major equipment failures such as all 18 Puma armored vehicles becoming inoperable during a 2022 exercise. The Czech Republic struggles with recruitment and modernization. The Low Countries, while increasing spending, still lag in readiness and capability.
In contrast, nations such as France, Poland, Finland, and Italy maintain more robust defense postures. The diversity of military cultures across EU and NATO members demonstrates that the challenge goes far beyond budgets. Any nation participating in a European Army initiative must confront its own cultural strengths and weaknesses and work toward shared norms and standards.
Zelenskyy’s call for a European army is not merely about funding—it is a call for a profound cultural shift. For Europe to build a capable joint force, it must transform how its societies view military service, readiness, and national defense. Without such a shift, no amount of spending will produce a truly effective and resilient force.
Given the stark cultural differences among EU and NATO nations, any genuinely unified European Army would require a level of cultural cohesion that does not yet exist. Zelenskyy’s call is not just for military cooperation—it is a call to build a shared cultural and strategic vision. Without a unified sense of purpose, identity, and commitment to defense, such a force would struggle in high-stakes scenarios.
This cultural transformation is as critical as any financial or logistical investment in Europe’s defense future.