BRUSSELS — European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday proposed the EU take on a stronger role in security and tackling hybrid threats, reigniting a long-running turf battle with NATO over Europe’s defense.

Speaking at her annual policy address in Strasbourg, von der Leyen pitched a new leaders’ crisis decision-making forum together with Canada, Norway, Ukraine and the U.K. She also floated a new urgent consultation procedure for hybrid attacks modeled on NATO’s Article 4.

Von der Leyen insisted the EU would be “strengthening work with NATO,” but still suggested Brussels would push to carve out a greater role for itself.

“Our systems were made for a different world — they are driven by well-intentioned attempts at consensus and compromise,” she said. “But we need to consider whether they are still fit for purpose.”

The pitch is already stirring unease within NATO, which has bristled at any attempt by the EU to tackle military-adjacent threats and has warned against “unnecessary duplication.”

“I have seen many initiatives at the EU level during the recent years — none of them yet are really protecting member states,” said one senior NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “Of course, any initiative has to be assessed on its merits, but I do feel that NATO has delivered much more in concrete terms for collective security.”

The EU proposals underscore a growing sense that Europe is failing to deal with proliferating airspace violations, cyberattacks and sabotage attempts amid tensions over Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“Cyberattacks and sabotage, arson and drone incursions. They are ramping up every day. So, as the threat level climbs, so must Europe’s preparedness,” von der Leyen said.

The security council is supposed to help the EU react more decisively. NATO itself has struggled with how to respond to Russian provocations below the threshold of direct military attack.

The last time Article 4 was invoked — a formal request to consult allies due to a security threat — was by Estonia last year after three Russian fighter jets violated the country’s airspace. No other capital has invoked it since. 

Duplication drama

There are few details on von der Leyen’s ideas. Earlier European security council proposals — which the EU has rejected — include the idea of capitals delegating some defense decision-making powers to a smaller group of leaders in a crisis.

An Emergency Security Protocol, meanwhile, would allow one capital to convene all fellow EU members in a crisis “to coordinate a European response, to deter further escalation and to mitigate the impact,” von der Leyen said — almost identical to NATO’s Article 4 procedure.

Mark Carney listens to Ursula von der Leyen’s State of the Union speech to Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France on Sept. 16, 2026. | Christophe Verhaegen/AFP via Getty Images

In theory, a security council could help in “coordinating quick action” between the EU, NATO and other partners in a crisis that is “flexible across institutions,” said Giuseppe Spatafora, an analyst at the EU Institute for Security Studies. The emergency protocol, meanwhile, could protect non-NATO countries like Ireland, he said.

But the alliance insists it should take the lead on security. “NATO is the bedrock of our collective defence and we will continue to work closely with the EU in pursuit of our shared agenda,” said a NATO official speaking on behalf of the alliance.

Not all NATO allies are skeptical. On hybrid attacks, the “EU is better placed to put in place a mechanism to react, because it has more diverse tools than NATO,” said a second senior NATO diplomat.

EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius said von der Leyen’s schemes were not intended to replace NATO.

“In order for Europeans to take primary responsibility for European defense, we need to have our own defense architecture,” he told POLITICO, “and we shall do that, not undermining NATO — keeping NATO structures as they are.”

But von der Leyen’s ideas pose a risk of duplication, two NATO diplomats warned, adding that allies were not formally briefed by the EU on the proposals in advance.

Countries near Russia also fret that it could worsen their security situation. “It gives the signal to the world that NATO is irrelevant and we need to replace it with something,” said MEP Riho Terras, Estonia’s former chief of defense. “It is a very bad idea … which I hope will not have a future.”

The move also risks alienating some non-EU NATO members such as the U.S. and Turkey.

“The idea of a ‘European Security Union’ not including Türkiye, a major capable ally and a pillar of stability, security and peace at NATO’s southeastern flank, would be fatally flawed from the outset,” said one Turkish official.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from POLITICO.

Setting up new EU bodies and holding consultations will not fix Europe’s underlying lack of political will to confront Russia and the need to match talk with action, said Oana Lungescu, a former longtime NATO official.

“Nations … should be talking about real capabilities and trying to harness real political will to impose costs on Russia,” she said. “How can you do that by focusing political energy and some resources … towards yet another body?”

NATO’s “Article 4 works because it sits inside [its] Article 5” mutual defense clause, added a third NATO diplomat. “An EU ‘Article 4’ without an EU ‘Article 5’ is a consultation forum with a flattering name.”