Analysis of: Defence ministers consider ‘European Five Eyes’ intelligence cooperation without the US - Europe live
The Guardian | February 20, 2026
TL;DR
Europe's military powers are building independent intelligence and defense systems as US reliability collapses. This inter-imperialist realignment reshapes how capitalist powers coordinate war—with workers bearing the costs of rearmament.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
The E5 summit in Kraków reveals a significant fracturing within the Western imperialist bloc, as European powers accelerate military cooperation independent of traditional US leadership. German Defence Minister Pistorius's proposal for a 'European Five Eyes' intelligence-sharing arrangement—explicitly excluding the United States—marks a qualitative shift in transatlantic relations. This realignment occurs as the 'rules-based international order' that Chancellor Merz admits 'no longer exists' gives way to a more openly contested multipolar arrangement. The material drivers of this realignment are evident throughout: joint tanker fleets, low-cost drone systems, surface-to-air weapons development, and Poland's withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention on landmines. These are not mere diplomatic gestures but concrete preparations for European capital to project military force independently. The contradiction between NATO's collective security framework and emerging European autonomous capabilities reflects deeper tensions in how imperialist powers organize their spheres of influence. Notably absent from this high-level coordination is any meaningful democratic input from working-class populations who will fund these military expansions through austerity and conscription, and who would bear the consequences of any escalation. The framing throughout—'European responsibility,' 'deterrence,' 'defense'—naturalizes the logic of inter-state military competition while obscuring its class character. Meanwhile, the article's treatment of the Ukraine conflict focuses entirely on state actors and diplomatic maneuvers, rendering invisible the Ukrainian and Russian workers suffering its consequences.
Class Dynamics
Actors: European defense ministries and state officials, Defense industry capitalists, NATO military bureaucracy, European Commission technocrats, Ukrainian state leadership, Russian state apparatus, Working classes of Europe (largely absent from coverage)
Beneficiaries: European defense contractors positioned for new weapons contracts, Military-industrial complexes across E5 nations, Political leaders seeking 'strong on defense' credentials, Intelligence agencies gaining expanded mandates
Harmed Parties: European workers facing austerity to fund rearmament, Ukrainian civilians enduring continued war, Populations in NATO's eastern flank facing increased militarization, Workers globally as military spending crowds out social investment
The article presents defense policy as the exclusive domain of state elites and military officials, with zero consultation of affected populations. Power flows downward from defense ministers through military bureaucracies; democratic accountability is entirely absent. The E5 format itself—gathering the five largest European military powers—explicitly excludes smaller states while claiming to act for 'European' interests.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Defense industry contracts for drone and missile systems (LEAP initiative), Joint military procurement to reduce costs, Sanctions regime against Russian capital, Military aid flows to Ukraine, Germany's constitutional constraints on nuclear weapons affecting European defense architecture
The defense sector exemplifies state-monopoly capitalism, where public funds flow to private contractors while ownership and profits remain concentrated. The LEAP initiative for 'low-cost effectors' reveals capital's drive to reduce the labor costs of warfare itself—autonomous systems replacing human soldiers where possible.
Resources at Stake: Intelligence assets and surveillance capabilities, Military-industrial production capacity, Control over Eastern European security architecture, Ukrainian territory and resources, Energy and commodity flows affected by sanctions
Historical Context
Precedents: Pre-WWI European alliance system and arms races, Cold War NATO formation as US-led anti-communist bloc, Post-Cold War NATO expansion eastward, 2003 Iraq War intelligence failures and Franco-German opposition, Brexit fracturing European security cooperation
This realignment reflects the declining hegemony of US imperialism and the emergence of a more contested multipolar order—characteristic of late-stage monopoly capitalism where established powers face challenges to their dominance. The 'rules-based order' Merz mourns was always the institutionalization of US hegemony; its erosion forces European capital to develop independent capacity for imperialist coordination. Historically, such realignments among major capitalist powers have preceded periods of intensified inter-imperialist rivalry.
Contradictions
Primary: European powers must simultaneously maintain NATO alliance with an increasingly unreliable US while building independent military capabilities that implicitly challenge US leadership—cooperation and competition coexist uneasily within the same institutional framework.
Secondary: Germany's constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons versus its need for nuclear deterrence, Merz rejecting AfD coalition while pursuing militarist policies that share AfD's nationalist logic, Sanctions framed as 'working' while failing to end the conflict, Claims of 'European defense' while excluding most European states from E5 decision-making
These contradictions will likely intensify rather than resolve. Either European military autonomy develops further—potentially fracturing NATO—or US pressure forces European powers back into subordinate alignment. The Ukraine war serves as both accelerant and testing ground for European independent capacity. Whichever path develops, the costs will be socialized onto working populations through military budgets, conscription, and the economic consequences of prolonged conflict.
Global Interconnections
The E5 summit crystallizes broader shifts in global capitalism's political architecture. As US hegemony recedes—evidenced by the 'Board of Peace' summit in Washington that provoked European anger—regional powers must organize their own mechanisms for coordinating capitalist interests and projecting military force. This parallels developments in Asia (AUKUS, the Quad) and Africa (French military withdrawal, Russian and Chinese expansion), suggesting a general fragmentation of the post-Cold War order. The Ukraine conflict functions as both cause and consequence of this realignment. European powers that long outsourced security to Washington now face the material reality that US interests may diverge sharply from their own. The rush to develop independent intelligence capabilities reflects not principled opposition to war but the need to conduct imperialist coordination without US oversight—a competition among thieves rather than any challenge to the system of inter-state rivalry itself.
Conclusion
The Kraków summit reveals European capital preparing for a world where it must pursue its interests through independent military force rather than US protection. For working people across Europe, this means expanded military budgets, possible conscription, and the ideological mobilization of nationalist 'defense' rhetoric to suppress class demands. The alternative to this inter-imperialist jockeying is not a return to US hegemony but international working-class solidarity against all capitalist war-making—a perspective entirely absent from elite discourse but increasingly necessary as military spending devours resources that could address climate crisis, housing, and healthcare.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and the division of the world among great powers directly illuminates the current realignment of European military blocs and the competition for spheres of influence.
- The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' and analysis of US hegemonic decline provides crucial framework for understanding why European powers now seek military autonomy from Washington.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the capitalist state as an instrument of class rule helps decode the defense-ministry-level coordination that excludes democratic participation while claiming to act for 'national' or 'European' interests.