European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has of late avoided any mention of a European army, opting instead for the more socially acceptable notion of a European defense union. Whatever the title, the question remains: Will this idea improve the defense of Europe, or will it turn away both Washington and London, undermining the tried and tested structures of NATO?

As a Latvian, I have an immediate interest in bolstering Europe’s defenses. I grew up under the U.S.S.R.; the Russian menace has never been far away. During the Cold War, decisions about the safety of Europe were made in Washington and Moscow. Were it not for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the U.S., Moscow might now be calling the shots across the Continent.

President Juncker thinks “NATO is not enough.” But what’s the alternative? A European defense structure built around countries with a predominantly pacifist background? Most of the members of the European Union have little experience with war.

Instead, Europe has avoided combat over the past six decades by relying on NATO to do the heavy lifting. Supporters of the new defense union say NATO is only focusing on mutual defense instead of modern threats such as counterterrorism. But let’s not forget that Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which every Latvian today knows by heart—stipulating that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, and thus warrants a unified response—has only ever been invoked once, and that was after the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York.

As it coordinated a coalition to defeat the Taliban, NATO went from a purely defensive operation to an international stabilizing force. Its intelligence-sharing work has proved invaluable, and today NATO provides surveillance planes in the combat against Islamic State. It has even supported operations to curb migratory flows in the Mediterranean.