High Representative/Vice-President Kallas has sought to allay fears that the EU's operationalisation of the mutual assistance clause under Article 42(7) TEU could undermine NATO's role or damage transatlantic relations, stressing that the work is being coordinated with the Alliance and will not replace its deterrence guarantees. The answer, given on behalf of the European Commission, comes in response to a parliamentary question from Michał Dworczyk (ECR, Poland), who expressed concern that EU security initiatives—including the mutual assistance clause and concepts like strategic autonomy—risk pushing the United States out of Europe and weakening NATO's Article 5.
Kallas emphasised that the implementation of Article 42(7) remains entirely a prerogative of EU Member States, and that ongoing reflections focus on clarifying invocation procedures, coordination, and possible EU institutional support. For the 23 EU members that are also NATO allies, NATO remains the cornerstone of collective defence, a reality explicitly recognised in Article 42(7) itself, which states it shall not prejudge Member States' security and defence policies linked to neutrality or NATO obligations. The High Representative confirmed that discussions are being conducted in coordination with NATO to ensure coherence, complementarity, and mutual reinforcement, including through clear strategic communication.
The answer contains no concrete proposals, numerical targets, or deadlines, instead offering declarative assurances and reaffirming existing treaty language. Policy orientation is defensive: the Commission seeks to reassure eastern flank Member States and NATO allies that EU defence initiatives are complementary, not competitive. Expected institutional follow-up includes continued coordination with NATO and possible further clarifications as Member States advance the implementation plan. Stakeholders most impacted include EU Member States on the eastern flank, who seek unambiguous NATO guarantees; NATO itself, which gains reassurance of EU coordination; the European Commission, which avoids a political rift with Washington; and EU defence industries, which may see limited operational changes absent concrete EU defence spending commitments.