That ambiguity is becoming harder to ignore. With fears of a potential Russian attack rising — and doubts about U.S. commitments under Donald Trump — some in Brussels want to clarify how the clause would operate. It has only been triggered once, by France after the 2015 terrorist attacks.
However, frontline countries are concerned that too much focus on 42.7 could impact NATO — the basis of their security. While the EU article is largely political and legal, NATO’s Article 5 would bring in alliance militaries, which have spent decades preparing and training together, along with the full power of the United States.
“EU efforts to engage more in the defense and security of Europe are welcome,” Latvian Defense Minister Andris Sprūds told POLITICO. He underlined that Article 42.7 should be “consistent with, but not in competition with NATO’s Article 5.”
Hanno Pevkur, Estonia’s defense minister, called Article 5 “the bedrock of collective security,” describing Article 42.7 as “a vital expression of European solidarity,” but underlining that the NATO provision “holds the layer of operational military readiness that ensures our defense.”
As part of the effort to flesh out how 42.7 works, national ambassadors on the Political and Security Committee will hold a closed-door meeting on May 4, where they will take part in a table-top exercise on invoking the article.
They are expected to test a hybrid attack scenario where two member states, one in the south and one in the east, use the clause, two diplomats told POLITICO. But a third diplomat said other scenarios could also be tested.
