This story was originally published by Real Clear Wire.
By Chick Edmond
Introduction
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 marked a critical juncture where it became clear that there had been a significant resurgence of traditional security challenges in Europe, and at the same time that Europe was still reliant upon the provision of external security guarantees. As a result, the idea of European strategic autonomy has become far more prominent, especially given that it was previously primarily associated with French ambitions, and has now become a central theme in EU strategic debates.
Strategic autonomy is typically described as Europe’s response to three related developments: the revival of territorial conflict on the continent, the gradual re-orientation of U.S. strategic interests towards the Indo-Pacific region, and the fact that Europe has been under-investing in defense capabilities for decades. It is argued that unless Europe can develop greater autonomy, then it risks being strategically marginalized in an increasingly competitive international environment.
However, the strategic autonomy debate continues to be highly contentious. Some have questioned whether Europe has sufficient political cohesion, military capability, and strategic will to convert ambition into tangible realities. Others have warned that greater autonomy may undermine the cohesion of NATO or create unrealistic expectations regarding Europe’s ability to act unilaterally in high-intensity conflict scenarios. As such, the strategic autonomy debate is reflective of deeper contradictions and tensions among aspirations and constraints, sovereignty and interdependence, and identity and power.
This paper argues that the strategic autonomy debate typically frames the issue in an overly simplistic manner, as either Europe has strategic autonomy, or it does not. Rather, the development of European defense policy needs to be viewed as a continuum of progress based on a series of systemic constraints, the degree of institutionalization of policies and procedures, and the historic experience of each state regarding the use of military power. Therefore, strategic autonomy is neither an illusion nor a current reality; it is an evolving posture of ambition that is defined by limitations as much as possibilities.
The main research problem addressed in this paper is the continuing gap between Europe’s expressed intent regarding strategic autonomy and the evidence of Europe’s ability to conduct independent military actions. While Europe’s member states have increased their defense spending, while expanding their cooperative mechanisms and enhancing their political commitment to defense issues, they continue to rely heavily on the capabilities provided by the United States across multiple areas, such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), strategic lift, missile defense, cyber warfare, and nuclear deterrence.
Therefore, the primary research question posed in this paper is: In what ways can European strategic autonomy be regarded as a viable defense strategy rather than simply an illusion in an age of renewed great power rivalry? The author hypothesizes that European strategic autonomy can be characterized as a type of limited autonomy – an attempt to increase the agency of European states without breaking their dependency on U.S. power – which is limited by structural, institutional, and cultural constraints.
Methodologically, the author uses qualitative research methodology which includes a combination of theoretical analysis and comparative regional case studies. The author analyzes policy statements, defense plans, and operational experience to evaluate the defense behavior of Europe rather than simply evaluating the stated intentions of Europe’s member states. This methodology enables the author to provide a multi-faceted evaluation of strategic autonomy along structural, institutional, and ideational dimensions.
Defining Strategic Autonomy
The concept of strategic autonomy is ambiguous by design. A fundamental aspect of strategic autonomy is the ability to make decisions and act without coercion from outside actors. However, in the European context, strategic autonomy has been defined in many different ways, including as military self-sufficiency, sovereign decision making, industrial resilience, or as a greater share of responsibility for defense burdens within NATO
The ambiguity of the definition of strategic autonomy has allowed strategic autonomy to function as a flexible coalitional concept – allowing the varied preferences of individual member states to be accommodated. For example, France views autonomy through the lens of a long history of strategic independence and expeditionary military capability. Germany defines autonomy in terms of multilateralism, institutional collaboration, and crisis management, not through the lens of military power projection. For most of the Eastern European member states, autonomy is seen with skepticism because it implies a potential decoupling from the United States, and therefore potentially undermines the deterrent effect of collective defense arrangements vis-a-vis Russia.
In other words, instead of being an operational doctrine, strategic autonomy serves as a strategic narrative – a means of signaling ambition, reassuring domestic constituencies, and positioning Europe in a rapidly changing world. The narrative nature of strategic autonomy is a major reason why it has appeal to politicians, and why it is so ambiguous. Autonomy is not about supplanting alliances, but about redefining Europe’s role within those alliances.
Debate Among Theorists: Realism, Institutionalism, and Strategic Culture
Realists see European strategic autonomy as subject to significant structural constraints imposed by the configuration of power in the international system. The United States remains the dominant military actor within NATO and provides capabilities that no single or group of European states possess individually or collectively. Therefore, from a realist perspective, autonomy without power is inherently illusory, and Europe’s ultimate security depends upon American hegemony.
Conversely, liberal institutionalists emphasize the importance of institutions in facilitating cooperation and reducing dependence. From this perspective, EU defense initiatives (i.e., PESCO, EDF, etc.) represent incremental but meaningful steps toward an enhanced strategic capacity. Thus, autonomy does not imply separation from NATO, but rather a symmetrical relationship within NATO.
Finally, strategic culture provides a vital additional level of explanation by highlighting how past experiences influence national perceptions of military power. Due to differing historical experiences of war, occupation, and dependence on alliances, Europe lacks a common strategic culture. Consequently, differences in threat perceptions, risk tolerance, and willingness to employ military force limit the emergence of a unified defense posture.
Together, these theoretical frameworks indicate that European strategic autonomy is limited not only by material capabilities but also by institutional and cultural factors.
Findings:
Eastern Europe: Deterrence over autonomy
Strategic autonomy has little traction in Eastern Europe; the Russian invasion of Ukraine has reaffirmed the reliance on NATO and U.S. leadership for regional security. The Polish and Baltic states have enhanced their bilateral defense ties with Washington, committed to increasing their defense spending above the NATO benchmark and rapidly acquiring U.S. weapon systems.
These states have maintained that U.S. extended deterrence – particularly its nuclear guarantee – remains indispensable. They welcome European defense initiatives so long as those initiatives support NATO; at present, autonomy is seen as a future aspiration rather than a current strategy.
Mediterranean and Sahel: Limited Autonomy
The EU has shown more operational initiative in the Mediterranean and Sahel regions through EU-led missions and crisis management operations. In these contexts, the EU demonstrates some level of autonomous operation, especially in terms of stabilization and training roles. However, the limitations of EU mission effectiveness, ranging from intelligence deficits to political fragmentation, constrain the degree to which EU missions can be considered autonomous.
The loss of EU influence in the Sahel demonstrates the limits of autonomy where there are both political divisions and a lack of sustainable commitment. These examples demonstrate that autonomy exists as a situational concept rather than a systemic one.
Indo-Pacific: Autonomy as Signaling
The EU’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific region illustrates autonomous signaling more than it does autonomous substance. Naval deployment and strategic documentation signal awareness of global competition, however these actions do not possess the scope to significantly alter regional balances. The EU’s role continues to exist beneath the umbrella of U.S. led security architecture thus the EU exists primarily as a normative rather than decisive military actor.
Discussion: Autonomy as Limited Agency
The empirical findings suggest that the most accurate characterization of European strategic autonomy is limited agency. Europe desires to increase its influence and responsibilities without severing its dependence on U.S. power. Therefore, this represents a form of practical adaptation as opposed to strategic failure.
Autonomy rhetoric also risks creating unreasonable expectations. Framed as independence, it conceals structural constraints and increases transatlantic distrust. Framed as capability enhancement and credibility-building within NATO, it is closer to reflecting Europe’s strategic realities.
Conclusion
Strategic autonomy is neither a strategic illusion nor a completely achievable objective for Europe. It represents an evolving and contested project driven by power asymmetry, institutional constraints and strategic culture. Europe’s defense posture is still deeply rooted in NATO; therefore, autonomy is a mechanism of increasing agency rather than supplanting alliances.
Therefore, in a world of great power competition, Europe’s task is not to decide whether to pursue autonomy or an alliance, but how to reconcile ambition with structural reality. Strategically understood, autonomy is not about separation, but about responsibility and its success will depend upon Europe’s ability to commit sustained political, military and cultural effort behind its rhetoric.
Chick Edmond is a Political Scientist and Graduate Researcher in the International Studies program at Old Dominion University. His research focuses on Nuclear Deterrence Strategies, Geopolitics in Europe/Africa and the balance of power between NATO and Russia.
The post Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Illusion? Europe’s Defense Posture in an Era of Great Power Competition appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.