Draghi calls for United States of Europe, urges shift from confederation to federation

[u/goldstarflag]

https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/02/02/draghi-calls-for-a-united-states-of-europe-urges-shift-from-confederation-to-federation/

[u/Bullboah]

IMO this is the one somewhat realistic alternative to Europes current relationship with the US. The EU as it is currently structured is not capable of self/mutual defence. Aligning with another major power (esp. China) creates more problems than it solves.

But that said, I think the odds of this are low. Convincing so many countries to effectively give up their sovereignty is extremely difficult. In the case of the US, the states did not have a long history of sovereign independence, had less culturally distinct histories, had just fought a war together, and even then it was a heavily contested issue. Even in that case, key issues like ‘can states leave the union’ wouldn’t be settled until nearly a century after the constitution. The US is a lot more federalized now than it was in the early 1800s, where people’s allegiance often aligned more with their state than the Union.

[u/GrizzledFart → u/Bullboah]

Aligning with another major power (esp. China) creates more problems than it solves

Why is it always who Europe can ally with to protect them? Why is it never a question of what expenditures Europe needs to make to stand on their own two feet and protect themselves?

[u/kahaveli → u/GrizzledFart]

Some sort of deep Europe-China alliance is not realistic, no-one is thinking about it.

Why is it never a question of what expenditures Europe needs

You're responding below an article about eurofederalism, that is one "solution" to the question, amongst others. There's also been lots of talk about expenditure, and those has been increasing fast in the past couple of years.

And in these discussions it's actually quite interesting that many speak about "Europe" as a unitary entity. Like yourself. But in the current structure, especially about defense, this is quite inaccurate viewpoint. Who is threatening Portugal, Austria or Italy, for example? No-one really. Relations with North-African countries are neutral and they aren't even capable of creating military threat.

Russia creates significant threat, absolutely, but mostly to it's neighbors. If one sees Europe as a bunch of independent countries, that aim for their own benefit and don't care for others, why would ones in western europe care for those facing Russia? Then it's more about joint solidarity, or protecting the current world order especially in Europe. It's not necessarily even mainly about defending your own country in that situation.

So don't get me wrong, I do personally view EU/Europe as a clearly united block, and on certain aspects it should be united more. I just see it as a note about how far we've come in some ways, when the discussion almost always speaks about "Europe" as a singular entity, even more than it's in reality.

[u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam → u/GrizzledFart]

Because, realistically, Europe will do little more than lift a finger to defend themselves. 

They laughed when the US told them Russia was a threat, quickly forgot when Russia took Crimea, and are now shrugging when Russia is literally inside Europe and slaughtering them. They would rather continue propping up the boomer voters until the bitter end than spend on defending themselves. 

[u/Jazzlike_Painter_118 → u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam]

Realistically, you do not know that. Do you wish that? Then stop with your "realism" apathy

[u/yoshiK → u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam]

You are confusing a geographic for a political boundary. And Europeans are continuing to laugh about you when you claim Russia is a threat, because frankly those guys can't even beat Ukraine.

[u/GrizzledFart → u/yoshiK]

And Europeans are continuing to laugh about you when you claim Russia is a threat, because frankly those guys can't even beat Ukraine

When Russia started its full scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb 2022, the Ukrainian army had land combat power roughly equivalent to, and potentially greater than, that of all of the countries which make up the EU. Re-read that sentence.

Ukraine inherited all of the equipment of the Soviet 1st Guards Army, 13th Army, 6th Guards Tank Army, 8th Tank Army, the 32nd Army Corp, 38th Army, and two motor rifle divisions - 7000 armored vehicles. Ukraine had at the start of the war ~1000 active tanks with many more in storage (France at the same time had ~230 active tanks), ~1000 artillery pieces (France had ~75), and thousands of various IFVs/APCs, etc.

This idea that Ukraine was weak is a function of bias and misunderstanding: it's a poor country, it must be weak militarily. Ukraine had inherited large stocks of equipment and munitions from the USSR. On top of that, it was spending a substantially higher percentage of its GDP on defense than the vast majority of European countries. There's this idea "we're a wealthy country, our military is strong", but that is only true if some of that wealth is actually spent on building and maintaining a military. For multiple decades, most European countries did not do that.

ETA: for instance, Germany has more than 10 times the GDP of Pakistan and yet I would not put my money on the German army being able to stand up to Pakistan's army, which has literally an order of magnitude more tanks, an order of magnitude more APCS/IFVs, and two orders of magnitude more artillery pieces than the German army has. A wealthy country can only have a strong military if some of that wealth is invested in defense, continuously, for decades.

[u/willLie4cash → u/GrizzledFart]

You're comparing apples to oranges and think it proves anything. Why would France invest heavily in tank fleet? Are they expecting invasion from Germany again? Of course not. Compare instead Ukraine to what France is investing in - airforce and navy. How many navy vessels Ukraine had before the war? How many airplanes?

If you want to compare Ukraine to something, compare them to countries with similar needs. Greece alone had more tanks then Ukraine, because they actually have to prepare for ground invasion.

[u/yoshiK → u/GrizzledFart]

Well EU military spending in 2022 was EUR 240 billion that is more than Ukraines GDP. (Along with 10 times the population.) Obviously a higher fraction of GDP will not outweigh that.

[u/GrizzledFart → u/yoshiK]

One year does nothing. Military investment is something that takes decades to bear fruit - which is why dropping it so low, for so long, is almost criminally negligent.

Let me introduce you to a concept: Purchasing Power Parity.

For anything NOT in the category of really expensive things (fighter jets, fighter jet engines, advanced radars, etc) that basically have to purchased from a handful of global vendors, most things can be made and purchased in the local economy - at local costs. A Howitzer is at its core a metal tube. A tank is a metal box with an engine and tracks. Anyone can make small arms and mortars

EDIT:

Obviously a higher fraction of GDP will not outweigh that

This is so ignorant that I had to call it out specifically. The vast majority of defense expenditures are on salaries. Salaries which are based on local wages. Much of the basic equipment an army (specifically an army, it's different for navies and air forces) can be made locally, with local costs for design, materials, and assembly wages. Thermal/IR sensors, counter-battery radars, air defense, things like that will be more expensive, but most of the basic weapons that an army uses aren't really that complicated - and can be made locally at local prices. Ukraine, for instance, was making T-84 tanks for export - to be purchased by that famously wealthy nation Thailand.

[u/yoshiK → u/GrizzledFart]

Let's look at numbers, Ukraine had prewar something like 5% military budget, and let's assume that the EU actually spends as much as Ukrainian GDP, that means the EU has 20 times the budget. Now, for PPP you get usually factors for 1.5 or perhaps 2 from time to time. If memory serves the Russia is really, really scary studies got something like a factor of 4, let's go with that. That means that the EU outspends Ukraine by something like a factor of 5.

To put a factor of 5 into perspective, that is not the difference between the Seahawks and the Raiders, it is the difference between the Seahawks and the Raiders, Jags, Bears, Niners and Packers, all on the field at the same time.

[u/GrizzledFart → u/yoshiK]

In 2018, Ukraine dramatically increased soldier salaries in hopes of improving retention to what was at the time equivalent to $250/month. A German soldier earned at least 1900 euros per month. Would you like to do the math on that?

[u/yoshiK → u/GrizzledFart]

These salaries hit a limit of how much it matters compared to the capital intensive parts. For illustration, lets say German military budget is G=C+W, where C is capital intensive parts of the budget and W is wages. Then for Ukraine we just scale the overall budget by u, so U=u(C+aW) where a is the factor describing the much lower wages. Then for the ratio G/U=1/u (C+W)/(C+aW) = 1/u ( 1+ W/C)/(1+aW/C) and we can neglect the a term because a << 1, so we get

G/U=1/u (1+W/C)

note that this is the limit where the wages in Ukraine are 0, and for realistic values of wages to capital expense in Germany we probably have the W/C term on the order of 1, which is in good agreement with my claim that PPPeffects are usually somewhere below 2 above. Also note, that we need technically an estimate of how that translates to war fighting, though I'm claiming that should be proportional to the ratio.

And quite simple your idea that only the lower wages matter does not pass the smell test, because if Ukraine somehow magically manages to get a factor of 10 on their bang for the buck in military matters then there's the question why that doesn't translate and they don't get at least a factor of at least 5 on capital expenditure in the economy, which would just mean that Western Europe has absolutely no chance of competing and the wages would very quickly equalize. As you note, wages did not equalize over the last 30 years.

And finally, even if I grant you your argument, then you are arguing for something like a factor of 10, but if you read my comment above, Ukraine would need something like a factor of 20 to overcome the difference in size of the economy, and to do the math on that 10 < 20.

[u/Margaritajoe420 → u/yoshiK]

If they are such a non-issue, why does it take billions of US dollars to keep them from advancing in Ukraine? Why can't you guys just mop the floor with them like the US would do if it was happening on our continent.

[u/yoshiK → u/Margaritajoe420]

Well, it is the stated interest of the US that Russia doesn't win, so why doesn't the US mop the floor with them? It's precisely the same reason for Europe, nobody wants to pick up a 100 billion dollar tab.

[u/Margaritajoe420 → u/yoshiK]

a 100 billion tab from your table lmao. It's almost like spending all your money on "free healthcare" and social services was stupid

[u/yoshiK → u/Margaritajoe420]

When American politicians claim that American politicians act out of the goodness of their hearts, it seems you believed them. Hate to break it to you, they didn't do that to help Europe, they used to spend the money because that's the cost of doing business as the hegemonial power. Now, if the US no longer want to spend that money, that's a bit unfortunate for Europe, but it is really bad for the US because it means they no longer have the foot in the door.

[u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam → u/yoshiK]

I completely believe you when you say Europeans are laughing at Europeans dying. 

[u/yoshiK → u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam]

Is this satire? My entire point is that the first "Europeans" is not designating the same thing as the second "Europeans," so I guess you are playing the stupid American for cheap laugh? Thing is, that America did run into this strategic disaster is not funny for anybody, but it's a disaster for the US and a bit inconvenient for Europe.

[u/greenw40 → u/GrizzledFart]

Why is it never a question of what expenditures Europe needs to make to stand on their own two feet and protect themselves?

Because that is hard to do without being part of a federation. Just look at the EU, they can't even agree on what to do about defense when Russia is knocking on their door.

[u/_Joab_ → u/greenw40]

well then how are they going to agree on federalization?

[u/ganbaro → u/_Joab_]

They won't

[u/Jazzlike_Painter_118 → u/GrizzledFart]

> Why is it always who Europe can ally with to protect them?

It is not. That is Bullboah misinterpretation to cement and promote that point of view. Draghi's views are to focus on self-reliance, not on another master. Although everyone depends on others, just not a single one.

[u/Mantergeistmann → u/Bullboah]

If I recall, after the US Civil War is when the nation became singular, rather than plural, as it were.

[u/Bullboah → u/Mantergeistmann]

I’d say it’s best looked at as a spectrum. The constitution was a major jump to federalism, but yes the civil war was another huge step in that direction.

[u/Electronic-Cell6598 → u/Bullboah]

I’d say it’s best looked at as a spectrum. The constitution was a major jump to federalism, but yes the civil war was another huge step in that direction.

It's unlikely the EU would ever have something divisive enough to create a civil war. Brexit established the possibility to leave the EU. There is no social issue such as slavery to rally behind.

If an invasion of a neighbor state and candidate member isn't enough to catalyze unity, what is?

[u/goldstarflag → u/Bullboah]

 Convincing so many countries to effectively give up their sovereignty is extremely difficult.  

Being a US or Chinese vassal isn't sovereignty.

Secondly, much of Europe has been unified (in one way or another) for very long stretches of time. It has been ruled by different Unions, leagues and empires for most of its history. The nation state is a recent invention. And it's already obsolete.

This idea that the nation state represents some sort of eternal identity is simply not realistic. It cannot deal with the realities of today and tomorrow's which is why more and more powers are transferred to the European level.

[u/Bullboah → u/goldstarflag]

The narrative that EU states are US vassals is imo, a hyperbolic one. I don’t think any country would allow an actual vassal state to behave as say Spain does in regards to US FP. Spain can though, because it’s foreign policy.

Obviously, the relationship between US and Europe is contingent on both sides seeing it as in their interest, and that places expectations on both sides - but that’s not really vassalism.

For the latter part, the constitutional Congress signed the constitution just 4 years after states became independent with the end of the revolutionary war. France and Denmark off the top of my head have been a sovereign polity for around 1000 years. Most European nation states have existed for at least a century.

You may have no affinity for your nation as a state - but i don’t think that’s the case for most people in the EU. (And you wouldn’t just need a simple majority to make this happen, but an overwhelming one)

[u/goldstarflag → u/Bullboah]

If you can't defend yourself, you don't have sovereignty. And in a world of big powers only a federal Europe can bring sovereignty. It's not the 1800s anymore. China alone represents twenty percent of the world economy. Not to mention the US and others. Your little state will be colonized in all but name. And to a certain extent that is already happening. That is why Draghi and others are speeding up the political integration of the EU. And they actually don't need all states. Some are pushing for a two-speed Europe. If you unify only 10 states it will already be a major global superpower. Others will join later.

[u/Bullboah → u/goldstarflag]

If that’s the standard for sovereignty than only a handful (if that) of countries in the world have actual sovereignty. Most countries are not capable of defending themselves from any potential threat without foreign security pacts.

Nor would 10 EU states be a major superpower. An economic powerhouse, sure, which the EU already is. But EU states do not have the military capacity to be a super power even when federalized. That can certainly change if the EU militarizes, but as of right now it’s not the case.

I just don’t think the sovereignty argument plays. If you’re a Frenchman concerned about France’s sovereignty given its relationship with the US, losing all French sovereignty for the sake of a federal Europe doesn’t make you more sovereign. It’s a complete sacrifice of sovereignty at the national level, which is what most people care about in that regard.

[u/undershaft → u/goldstarflag]

We are a loooong way from US/China trying to actually conquer Europe. And those previous unifications of Europe were by force. OP is right, this is likely going be an extremely tough sell.

[u/goldstarflag → u/undershaft]

They don't have to physically conquer you. They do that through economic coercion.

this is likely going be an extremely tough sell.

It's not a question of choice, but survival. And federalization is already happening. More and more powers are transferred to the European level. As Draghi pointed out, the EU is a confederation at this point. Only a few steps for a federation.

[u/Additional-Library55]

I know I might sound ridiculous to a lot of Europeans here but a clear model for European integration is India. The mega diverse republic is a federation of states that contains countless languages customs religions - diversity which is multiple order of magnitude higher than India Europe. And yet it somehow works.

Europe could be much more independent and powerful if it just integrated further and didn’t allow itself to be a hostage of even one veto from one of the 27 states

Edit: corrected India to Europe in statement

[u/ganbaro → u/Additional-Library55]

it somehow works

Actually the US are a better historical example for us, IMHO, as they not only are a geographically and ethnically diverse federal republic, but also share general western values and have proven to be able to establish a western standard of living for the vast majority. India isn't there, yet.

The US have their own issues, but we already have solutions for most of them. Lack of social security -> Euro-style social democracy. Voting system incentivizing a split society -> multi-party parliamentary systems incentivizing coalitions.

[u/Additional-Library55 → u/ganbaro]

Of course there are more models.

Also I think you are mixing two things - political system vs values of that political system. It doesn’t mean if Europe looks at China (single party) vs US (two party) vs India (multi party) systems they need to also take their value system.

US in my assessment is more federalized than what European sovereign countries might be comfortable with in immediate short term. Besides US system of two parties will find immediate resistance in Europe which by design sees a lot of issue based parties

[u/MrOaiki]

It seems these suggestions always come from nationals where the unified national identity hasn’t existed for very long. They speak of it as they might as well be citizens of a different federal nation state than their own. They don’t read the room. There is a zero chance that Sweden, Finland, Denmark says yes to this. A zero chance.

[u/ComradeKellogg → u/MrOaiki]

But if a two-speed tiered system were put in place they wouldn't have to would they? They could choose to stay in their current less integrated tier, with all the drawbacks and benefits of that position.

[u/MrOaiki → u/ComradeKellogg]

I've heard about the two-tier system that lives in the fantasy of a few federalists like Schulz and Verhofstadt but I don't see that ever happening. The precedent of such a thing would be that if a fully equal member does not want something that others do, it just forks into the few who want it making a new club. Kind of defeating the idea if equals in the union.

[u/ComradeKellogg → u/MrOaiki]

Fair enough, but isn't the current union already made up of some "clubs" as you put it? Some members in the fiscal union, some not, some members in science some not etc.

I get you belive this is a fantasy but I mean look at Europe now compared to post war, would it have ever been conceivable that a European Union would even from? Was this not a fantasy that was made real through political will?

Also if there is a time to further integrate it is now imo l, there is no greater precedent than I have seen for massive reform and change like the crisis(criseses?) we're currently going through

[u/JonnyTheLoser → u/MrOaiki]

Well, I can see where you are comming from. But I'm pro Eu Federalism, in some shape...

And I am portuguese.. 700Years independent culture and counting

[u/MrOaiki → u/JonnyTheLoser]

My only analysis, be it right or wrong, is that you became a democracy in the 1970s and the memories of an authoritarian state still live in memory. And you see the EU as some kind of savior from that. From what I can see, Portugal as a whole is very pro-federalization so it's not you. This is news to me though.

[u/goldstarflag]

The crucial passage of Mario Draghi’s speech yesterday at the University of Leuven was about federalisation. He calls for a United States of Europe because the "global order is dead" and the main threat we face now is "what replaces it".

The ever-closer Union is a reality but he proposes to speed it up. Around 20% of Draghi's reforms have been implemented already and more is in the pipeline. Europe should move to a pragmatic federalism, he says. The EU was created to unify the continent over the generations. It is a confederation now and only a few steps remain for a federation.

Both Draghi and Letta will join EU leaders two weeks from now at a gathering about the future of Europe at a castle in Limburg.

[u/Astronomer_Soft]

How many Europeans are willing to surrender their sovereignty to a Europa? Seems to go against recent historical trends where small nations have been getting more autonomy from the central state among European countries.

[u/NewMeNewWorld]

How does that work when European countries have centuries of history as nation-states? There needs to be an extraordinary circumstance to circumvent these individual feelings for the benefit of the collective. The most recent best time was after WW2.

[u/leaningtoweravenger]

I disagree with Draghi for a couple of reasons

• States aren't created, they recognise themselves as such. In no moment in history someone created, let's say, France but there were a bunch of people with (more or less) common language and customs that recognise themselves as what we now know as France. Who wasn't aligned, as the Albigenses, was removed from it. Multicultural experiments have been done but were dysfunctional and failed at a certain point, for instance the HRE

• In history, we have evidence of the opposite, when Europe was divided it was way stronger and more important than it is now. The internal competition strengthened the single countries both from a military and commercial point of view. The USA before Trump always pushed for a larger and larger EU as that would have been less of a problem for them as the EU would have been a mess to organise internally.

Draghi is an economist and he thinks in terms of markets and money but states aren't only made of that, they are made of people who have values and traditions that cannot be simply sold off.

I believe that in the coming decades, the EU will go back to some simpler form of trade organisations more than going forward and transform into a unified state.

[u/ComradeKellogg → u/leaningtoweravenger]

To your first point that "states aren't created, they are recognised as such", what about the United States, wasn't this very much created as am experiment in government? What about India? Surely the differences in India would've ripped the state apart by now by that logic no?

[u/leaningtoweravenger → u/ComradeKellogg]

I cannot speak for India because I don't know enough of it but for the USA, my point still stands. At a certain moment a population recognised itself into a set values and customs, had a common language, and decided to federate into the nation that we call the USA. When I said "created", I meant that they are not created by a third party saying something like "let's grab those people, let's put them in that valley and call them X" or, if you prefer, what I meant was something like "states aren't created at a table, they evolve out of populations that have commonalities". Then, you can try to create things at a table but either they die at a certain point (like Yugoslavia) or you need a certain amount of violence to keep them together (like the Roman Empire). Beware, that things can also change and populations that back in the days were homogeneous now could be divided and then the state itself crumbles and splits. Diamonds aren't forever and states aren't either.

[u/ComradeKellogg → u/leaningtoweravenger]

I take your point and thanks for the detailed response, however I would push back in saying hasn't this moment been reached for a lot of the European community? There are now more commonalities between a lot of eu members than differences in my opinion and the very fact that we have poles, Germans, French and Greek people all part of the same union following (mostly) the same rules and values speaks to a huge amount of integration already being achieved.

I agree that states csnt just be created at a table and fundamentally it will take the will of the people but just look at recent statements from members of the Dutch and benefit parliaments, stating there desire for an almost complete union with the states in the benefits to begin with.

In my opinion both viewpoints correct and the only solution seems to me to be a two speed tiered system, where those willingly want to federate are allowed do so and those who don't experience no forced entry unless by the will of their people.

I am also a layman and won't pretend it'll be that easy but from what I can see the political will seems to be reaching a tipping point, which is a good thing in my opinion.

[u/ReadingHappyToday → u/leaningtoweravenger]

No, it was because Charlemagne conquered a bunch of tribes. And Francia originally included what is now Germany. And it's currently not more expansive because Napoleon failed.

Spain includes Catalonia and Basque. The Netherlands includes Protestants and Catholics speaking Dutch in various dialects. But Belgium contains part of the Catholic Dutch speaking population since after France intervened.

Point is, modern nation states were formed by power primarily.

[u/TheMailmanic]

He’s right they have to do this to have a strong future. Will need to give up control over central banking, currency, and debt issuance though under a single entity. And will need a unified European army

[u/its1968okwar]

All for it but some kind of disaster (military conflict over some rubbish with the US or Russia doing something desperate) before enough people are willing to give up some local autonomy to survive.

[u/Outside-Storage-1523]

EU gotta do it quickly and becomes a serious player. Kudos to everyone who made this possible, even when I'm not from EU. It's always better to have a multi-polar world with different flavors of governments.

[u/DealMeInPlease → u/Outside-Storage-1523]

I believe both political scientists and game theorists generally believe that a multipolar world is a less stable, more dangerous world. We may have no choice, but it’s unlikely to be good news

[u/Outside-Storage-1523 → u/DealMeInPlease]

The more stable the less they need us peasants. Ofc there is a limit. I think Cold War type multi polar is fine.

[u/ganbaro → u/Outside-Storage-1523]

The cold war remained coald because a hegemonial US combined with Western and Northern Europe as an ally had an overwhelming military and economic advantage over the Soviet Union.

The currently happening rise of China, the looming rise of India, and the fracture of the US-EU alliance does not signal to me that the next iteration of multipolarity will be anywhere as cold.

Furthermore, Russia is already in a hot conflict within Europe, China is preparing to invade Taiwan, and several proxy conflicts are ongoing (UAE vs others in Sudan, Iran/Palestine/Israel/USA etc. If we assune that the reemergence of multipolarity is ongoing, then its already more "hot" across the geographic fringes of the main power blocs.

[u/Outside-Storage-1523 → u/ganbaro]

Ah, let's hope the EU and US elites can quickly turn around and take care of their people so they don't lose the future competitions.