Ayesha Munshi
Europe is entering a period of strategic uncertainty unlike any it has experienced since the end of the Cold War. For decades, European states operated under the assumption that economic interdependence, and stable alliances would reinforce a relatively predictable international order. Today, however, geopolitical rivalry, economic competition, and security threats have forced Europe to reconsider its global role. The central debate now confronting Europe is whether it should pursue greater autonomy in defense and foreign policy or continue relying primarily on the North Atlantic alliance for security.
The turning point in this debate was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The conflict exposed
critical vulnerabilities in Europe’s security structures, especially reliance on Russia for energy, and highlighted how heavily many European countries still depend on the United States for military capabilities and deterrence. In response to the conflict, European governments have increased defense spending and strengthened cooperation within NATO.
Simultaneously, the conflict revived long-standing discussions about whether Europe should develop its own strategic capacity to act independently when necessary. Advocates of European strategic autonomy argue that it must become more self-reliant in a world characterized by growing geopolitical competition.
Strategic autonomy broadly refers to Europe’s ability to defend its interests, maintain secure supply chains, and shape global affairs without excessive dependence on external actors. The concept itself has evolved significantly over time. From 2013 to 2016, it was primarily framed as an approach to security and defense policy. Between 2017 and 2019, however, it expanded to encompass Europe’s ability to defend its broader geopolitical interests amid developments such as Brexit, the presidency of Donald Trump in the United States, and China’s increasing global influence.
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 further reshaped the debate by highlighting Europe’s economic vulnerabilities and dependence on foreign supply chains. Since 2021, the
scope of EU strategic autonomy has broadened even further to include a wide range of policy areas from technology and industrial policy to the protection of European values while the terminology itself has evolved. Policymakers increasingly use related concepts such as “open strategic autonomy,” “strategic sovereignty,” “capacity to act,” and “resilience,” all of which emphasize strengthening Europe’s ability to respond to external shocks and pursue its strategic interests independently.
Yet the push for autonomy remains controversial within Europe itself. Critics argue that
prioritizing strategic autonomy could weaken NATO or duplicate existing military structures. From their perspective, the transatlantic alliance remains the most reliable framework for European security. The United States continues to provide critical military capabilities such as intelligence, advanced surveillance systems, and nuclear deterrence that many European states cannot easily replicate. According to analysis in European Strategic Autonomy Is an Illusion, European NATO members still import a majority of their weapons systems from the United States and lack key “strategic enablers,” such as advanced intelligence platforms.
These capabilities are essential for modern warfare, meaning that European forces would struggle to conduct sustained large-scale operations without American support.
Beyond military capabilities, some scholars warn that the concept of strategic autonomy itself may create strategic contradictions. In The EU’s Strategic Autonomy Trap, analysts argue that the EU’s push for autonomy risks undermining its ability to influence global affairs.
Efforts to reduce dependence on other powers may increase Europe’s self-sufficiency, but they could also weaken the very international partnerships that give the EU geopolitical leverage. In this sense, the pursuit of autonomy could become a “trap”. The more Europe focuses on insulating itself from external actors, the less influence it may have over them.
As a result, many policymakers believe that strengthening European defense should occur primarily within NATO rather than through entirely separate institutions.
While the war in Ukraine has strengthened cooperation amongst European states, the broader problem at hand is that internal divisions within the European Union make it difficult to develop a strategic vision.
Member states differ significantly in their threat perceptions, economic and political priorities. Countries located closer to Russia tend to view Russia as the most immediate threat to European security and strongly favor a continued U.S. military presence in Europe while Western European powers have historically been more open to discussions of strategic autonomy and independent European defense capabilities.
This complicates efforts to develop a unified strategy. Economic divisions within the EU also play a role in shaping strategic debates. Member states differ in their approaches to fiscal policy, industrial policies, and technological development and defence spending. These disagreements can result in internal political and economic divisions which prevent Europe from developing a systematic global strategy.
Ultimately, Europe’s long-term security will require stronger partnerships and greater internal capacity to respond to crises. The challenge for European leaders is to bridge internal divisions while building the strategic capabilities necessary to navigate an increasingly uncertain global order. If Europe succeeds, it can emerge as a more influential actor in global politics. If it fails, its strategic future may remain constrained by the very divisions that have long shaped its politics.
The author is a Faculty of Arts and Science program scholar at the Aga Khan University. She is majoring in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, and holds a special interest for international relations, wishing to pursue a career in the field.
