On September 14, 2016, during his State of the Union address, the President of the European Commission presented the European Union from the perspective of development and cohesion. He highlighted the success of the Investment Plan, which in its first year facilitated €116 billion in funding and supported over 200,000 small businesses and start-ups through financial loans.
Jean-Claude Juncker made a subtle reference to the “incomplete nature of our Union” by comparing his own State of the Union speech with that of the United States, where the American President’s address is watched live by millions who “hang on every word.” He emphasized that Europeans are no longer interested in speeches and meetings—they want decisions and actions: “common decisions followed by swift and effective implementation.”
The next twelve months, he stated, would be crucial for building a “better Europe”—one that aims to protect, preserve the European way of life, empower its citizens, defend both at home and abroad, and take responsibility.
One of the most notable and important points of his address was the proposal for the future creation of a European army. While not presented explicitly—since national armies are seen as key symbols of sovereignty and independence—the idea involves establishing parallel structures under EU coordination. These would not replace national armies but would instead coordinate them, alongside a unified EU military structure. Juncker assured that this would not seek to replace NATO.
From Russia, the dominant reaction was skepticism—particularly regarding the feasibility of the defense plan. The main concern is that these new EU military structures would inevitably fall under NATO control, and by extension, U.S. influence. For more insight into this perspective, one can refer to an interview with Dmitri Danilov, head of the European Security Department at the Institute of Europe within the Russian Academy of Sciences, published on svpress.ru (in Russian).
Other voices argue that such a joint EU defense initiative could, paradoxically, benefit Russia—by gradually undermining U.S. influence on the European continent.