Pavlos Xanthoulis
The much-publicized EU “mutual assistance clause” remains limited in scope, despite Nicosia’s ambitious push and President Nikos Christodoulides’ efforts to convince European partners that “the time has come for the EU’s strategic autonomy.” He cited the war in the Gulf and the crash of an Iranian drone at the British Bases in Cyprus to support his argument.
Ireland, which holds the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU, is firmly opposed to even discussing the operational activation of Article 42(7) of the EU Treaty, reflecting its traditional policy of political and military “neutrality.” Meanwhile, a significant number of member states, including Lithuania, which will assume the Council Presidency in the first half of 2027, insist that NATO’s leading role in defense and security must not be undermined in any way. They point to the EU’s “complementary” role in supporting the alliance, which they say is what the bloc was intended to do.
Given these circumstances, the next discussion on Article 42(7) remains some way off and is expected to take place under the Greek Presidency in the second half of 2027. Expectations remain low, as a large number of member states do not even want to entertain the possibility of EU actions overlapping with those of NATO. Their priority is to avoid friction with the North Atlantic Alliance, which remains the cornerstone of defense for 23 of the EU’s 27 member states. Three countries, Ireland, Malta and Austria, have opted out of this arrangement. That leaves Cyprus as the only country without such protection that has not opted out.
Ireland’s Minister of State for European Affairs brought Article 42(7) back down to earth, noting that it “refers to mutual assistance, not mutual defense.”
The European External Action Service (EEAS) and the European Commission are preparing a blueprint for how Article 42(7) would work in practice, although no major breakthrough is expected, as the results of a recent simulation exercise suggest. As reported by Economic Kathimerini, the exercise included Cyprus, but the scenario focused exclusively on hybrid attacks and did not consider the possibility of a military attack on the island.
Mutual assistance, not defense
The clearest and perhaps most significant statement on the issue in recent weeks came from Thomas Byrne, Ireland’s Minister of State for European Affairs and Defense. He made a point of stressing that “it is important to remember that the language (of the EU Treaty) refers to mutual assistance, not mutual defense.” Byrne went a step further, adding: “I think it is wrong for people to use the term mutual defense. We heard this in some of the discussions, and it is extremely unhelpful.” His remarks made Ireland’s position clear: Article 42(7) provides for mutual assistance, not mutual defense, as the EU Treaty itself states.
In simple terms, the Irish official made clear that Dublin does not share the view that the mutual assistance clause could also pave the way for mutual defense by the EU. This position stands in direct opposition to Nicosia’s approach. Last spring, Christodoulides declared that “the time for Europe’s strategic autonomy is now” and argued that “Europe must not only be able to invoke Article 42(7), but also be fully prepared to implement it effectively.”
French precedent
Article 42(7), however, has a clearly defined activation procedure and scope. A member state that comes under attack simply needs to invoke the “mutual assistance clause” and call on its European partners for support. Four internal documents presented by Kathimerini, from the EEAS, the German Bundestag, the UK House of Commons and the European Parliament, state that member states can choose how to assist an EU country under attack. Their support does not necessarily have to be military. It could take the form of political backing, diplomatic statements and initiatives, equipment, hospital assistance or firefighting support.
All four documents therefore align with Ireland’s position. They offer no indication that the mutual assistance clause in the EU Treaty could be transformed into a mutual defense clause leading to “Europe’s strategic autonomy,” which is precisely what Christodoulides sought to achieve following the Iranian drone crash at the British Bases.
The only time Article 42(7) has been activated was after France suffered a terrorist attack. On that occasion, the United Kingdom was the only country to provide Paris with military assistance. The other EU member states offered support mainly through political statements and expressions of solidarity.
No overlap with NATO
A large number of member states categorically reject any EU action that could be seen as overlapping with the work of the North Atlantic Alliance. At a meeting of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) about three months ago, the committee issued conclusions reaffirming the “complementarity of Article 42(7) with respect to NATO,” a position with significant implications for the clause’s future use.
According to information obtained by Kathimerini, five member states, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Poland, argued that any overlap between Article 42(7) and NATO structures should be avoided.
Cyprus, Portugal and Greece did not challenge the EU’s complementary role alongside NATO, but sought to keep open the possibility of further developing the bloc’s capabilities. Their position received a cool reception. A group of member states, including the Czech Republic, Romania and Luxembourg, also felt the need to make clear that they reject any proposals or arguments advocating the creation of a European army.
Cosmin Dobran, director of the EEAS Directorate for Peace, Partnerships and Crisis Management, also took part in the discussion. He expressed concern about what he described as “unnecessary” debates over a “European army” and repeated tensions in EU-NATO relations, leaving little doubt about his position on the matter.
