Zelenskyy’s Call for a European Army is a Call for Major Cultural Transformation
Response to "Zelenskyy says time has come to create an 'armed forces of Europe'" video by "Guardian News" YouTube Channel
Zelenskyy's message is crucial for European citizens and leaders to consider, 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 that 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. While financial investment is crucial for acquiring advanced weaponry, training troops, and sustaining logistics, it is not enough to create a truly formidable armed force.
Equally critical is the cultural foundation that supports a nation's military, shaping not only its effectiveness but also its long-term continuity. Many of the prosperous, just and democratic nations of Europe suffer from a kind of cultural deficiency comprising a lack of national militarism. Moreover, the dramatic differences in the national cultures of militarism among EU and NATO member states present a fundamental challenge: any truly effective and unified European Army would necessitate a degree of international cultural cohesion that does not yet exist.
As such, Zelenskyy's call is not merely about "forming a common European army," nor simply restructuring military organization, nor increasing defense spending; it is a call for a fundamental shift in how European nations perceive military service, cooperation, and collective defense. In order to host a potent military and the coveted deterrence that affords, a nation (or a confederation of nations) must cultivate a common set of shared values that cherish military excellence, professionalism, and a deep respect for service. Military readiness must be seen not just as a bureaucratic necessity, or a low-status career path for those unable to choose better options, but as a pillar of national security and sovereignty and an honorable occupational role that is widely respected and admired in the society.
Nations with powerful, effective militaries promote cultures of discipline, honor, and duty. This instills pride and purpose in service members, ensuring that individual soldiers’ motivations extend beyond financial incentives, comprising a call to military service as a way of life. A society that respects and values its armed forces naturally attracts and retains the best talent. If military service is regarded with honor and respect, more capable individuals will aspire to join and excel.
Military excellence does not come from spending alone—it comes from investing in people, ensuring that leaders are well-trained, ethical, and able to command effectively in both wartime and peacetime. A strong military culture fosters continuous improvement, pushing innovation in tactics, strategy, and technology.
Military power is strongest when backed vigorously by the population; just look at Ukraine as a prime 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 the military’s effectiveness beyond financial considerations. Without that culture of national pride and militarism, Ukraine would 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 significant challenge Europe faces in realizing Zelenskyy’s vision of a 'European Army.' While a full assessment of Europe’s diverse military cultures is beyond this essay’s scope, three examples—Finland, Germany, and Poland—illustrate the dramatic extent of the diversity.
Finland is a society with a strong valuation of militarism, military excellence, professionalism, and service. Finland maintains a deep-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). This history has ingrained a national ethos of self-reliance and resilience, where every citizen is expected to contribute to national defense.
Finland’s military culture is pragmatic and high-readiness focused. Its national military strategy is forged out of necessity, shaped by its relatively desperate geopolitical situation. With a small population concentrated in the south, Finland faces a vast, sparsely populated wilderness frontier bordering a hostile neighbor with a population and GDP many times larger. This has compelled Finland to maintain a defensive posture built around resilience, rapid mobilization, and territorial defense, ensuring it can withstand potential aggression despite its limited manpower and resources. The country maintains 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 to Finland, Germany is a society that has embraced a culture of restraint and bureaucracy in its military, often displaying a sense of shame regarding militarism, military excellence, professionalism, and service. Germany maintains a deep-rooted skepticism toward military power due to its WWII legacy. As a result, Germany suffers from low military readiness despite its substantial financial resources. German military affairs are known for bureaucratic inefficiency and slow decision-making in defense matters. Many of Germany’s ruling elites maintain a political aversion to military assertiveness. Despite spending substantially on defense, Germany struggles with inefficiency and readiness issues. The Bundeswehr (German armed forces) faces under funding of operational capabilities despite a relatively large national defense budget. Troop morale is relatively low, and military service is often viewed as a career choice rather than a patriotic duty.
Strategic hesitancy has further defined Germany’s approach—its response to military aid for Ukraine was slow, and it remains cautious about direct confrontation with Russia.
Like Finland, Poland values military strength as a pillar of deterrence and national security, though with its own unique historical and cultural context. Poland's experience of subjugation by foreign powers, particularly the Soviet Union, has instilled a deep-seated distrust of Russia, shaping its military posture and national defense strategy. Unlike Germany, which has largely distanced itself from a strong militaristic tradition, Poland has actively embraced it. The country has prioritized large-scale rearmament, modernization of its forces, and a robust national defense policy.
Poland’s emphasis on national pride and military service is deeply ingrained in its societal fabric. Unlike Finland, which has a smaller population (approximately 5.5 million compared to Poland’s 38 million) and a significantly lower GDP (Finland’s GDP is around $300 billion, while Poland’s exceeds $800 billion), and must operate within a more austere national framework, Poland's strategic considerations are shaped by its larger size, historical vulnerabilities, and its geographic position along NATO’s eastern flank. Military service is widely respected, and the nation has consistently advocated for a stronger NATO presence in Eastern Europe. This proactive stance makes Poland one of the most assertive NATO members in ensuring regional security and deterrence against potential threats. Unlike Finland, which benefits from natural defensive advantages and a less direct strategic route for major Russian offensives, Poland has historically been a primary corridor for invasions from both east and west. The Suwałki Gap, a critical stretch of land between Poland and Lithuania, remains a focal point for NATO defense planning, reinforcing Poland’s urgency in maintaining a strong military. Its strong defense posture is not just a function of policy but a cultural commitment to self-reliance and sovereignty, placing it in stark contrast to Germany’s more restrained approach to military affairs.
A "European Army" is a Call for Major Cultural Transformation
Money alone will not solve Europe’s military unreadiness in nations where cultural deficiencies persist, much less achieve the level of international cultural unity and cohesion necessary for a European Army to function effectively. The entire Czech military (30,334 active and 4,900 reserves) is about 7/10 the size of just the Moscow police force (50,500 officers).
But the point of the essay is that there is considerable diversity in the military cultures of different European nations. Despite having a population that is nearly half that of Czech Republic, Finland maintains an active military of about 24,000 active personnel (about half the size of the Moscow police force), but can quickly mobilize 280,000 troops in wartime. Moreover, the Finnish reserve force comprises about 870,000 individuals.
Finland, with half the population of Czechia (and a smaller GDP as well) nonetheless has a national culture that values military readiness and as a result the Finnish military is a potent force, arguably one of the most potent on Earth (along with the IDF) relative to the nation’s strategic limitations.
With twice the population and a bigger GDP, there is no reason Czechia cannot achieve an even more potent military than Finland. It is simply a matter of political decisions and a national culture that has not properly valued militarism. In fact, many of the least militarily capable European nations, such as Germany, the Czech Republic, and the Low Countries, have ample financial resources but lack the cultural mindset necessary for military effectiveness. Reports in recent years have highlighted severe readiness issues within the German military, with as few as 50% of its military assets battle-ready and major equipment failures, such as all 18 Puma armored vehicles becoming inoperable during a 2022 exercise. The Czech Republic, struggles with recruitment and modernization efforts. The Low Countries, historically under-invested in defense, have increased spending but still lag in readiness and military capabilities. In contrast, nations like France, Poland, Finland, and Italy have maintained more robust defense postures and military preparedness. The diversity of national cultures of militarism in EU and NATO member nations demonstrates that the challenges go far beyond simple line-item budget reconciliations. Each member nation which participates in a "European Army" initiative will have to acknowledge its own strengths, weaknesses, foibles and advantages and work earnestly and openly with the rest of the confederation of nations to strive toward common, shared set of cultural 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 truly capable joint military force, it must first undergo a transformation in how its societies view military service, readiness, and national defense. Without such a change, no amount of spending will produce an effective, resilient, and combat-ready European force. Furthermore, given the dramatic cultural differences among EU and NATO nations, any truly effective and potent 'European Army' would require a level of cultural unity that currently does not exist. Zelenskyy's call is, therefore, not just about military cooperation—it is a call to foster a shared cultural and strategic vision among like-minded European nations. Without a unified sense of purpose, identity, and commitment to defense, a European Army would struggle to function cohesively in high-stakes scenarios. This cultural transformation is as crucial as any logistical or financial investment in Europe's defense future.