Europe’s Security: Why the EU Shouldn’t Seek ‘Strategic Autonomy’

Europe Cannot Be a Military Power: Why the US Security Guarantee Remains Essential

Since the end of World War II, the countries of western Europe have relied on the United States for their security, allowing them to focus on economic integration and democratic governance. This long-standing division of responsibility – Washington handling security, Brussels pursuing economic cooperation – is now facing unprecedented strain. Recent actions by U.S. President Donald Trump, including questioning NATO commitments and interfering in European affairs, have prompted calls for greater European strategic autonomy. While the desire for independence is understandable, attempting to transform the European Union into a military power would be a mistake, threatening the foundations of European cooperation and ultimately undermining transatlantic security.

The Historical Foundation of Transatlantic Security

The current arrangement isn’t accidental; it’s the result of deliberate policy choices made after World War II. The United States believed that European integration was the most effective way to rebuild the continent and contain the spread of communism. While this approach wasn’t universally welcomed – particularly by the British government, which feared external interference – it laid the groundwork for decades of peace and prosperity. The initial institutions of European economic integration were designed to complement, not replace, national sovereignty.

Crucially, this economic integration wasn’t mirrored by a similar development in defense capabilities. After the failure of the European Defence Community in 1954, NATO emerged as the primary framework for mutual defense, with the U.S. Bearing the brunt of funding and deploying the necessary military assets. This allowed European nations to prioritize economic development while remaining secure under the American security umbrella. As Senator Richard Lugar argued in 1993, NATO was essential to prevent the resurgence of “destructive xenophobic nationalism” and keep Europe from “coming apart at the seams.”

Shifting Global Dynamics and the Illusion of European Power

The end of the Cold War brought new challenges, and the rise of global Islamist terrorism briefly shifted the focus. However, Russia’s actions in Crimea in 2014, and more recently, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, have underscored the renewed threat to European territorial integrity. Simultaneously, the global balance of power is shifting towards the Pacific, with China emerging as a major competitor to the United States. This has led to calls for the European Union to become a “global power,” capable of balancing the influence of both the U.S. And China.

However, the EU is fundamentally an economic project, not a military one. It lacks an army and the ability to directly fund defense initiatives, relying instead on subsidies and potential common debt issuance. Attempts to create a common defense policy would likely exacerbate existing tensions between member states, particularly regarding financial contributions and control over defense industries. France, for example, is hesitant to relinquish control over its defense sector, as evidenced by the difficulties in the Franco-German FCAS fighter jet project.

The Risks of a Consolidated European Defense

A consolidated European defense sector would require significant sacrifices from member states, potentially leading to job losses and reduced export revenues. It would too necessitate a level of democratic oversight and coordination that currently doesn’t exist. It risks disrupting the German social contract, which relies on a combination of manufacturing employment and euro membership. Increased defense spending, coupled with potential cuts to social programs, could fuel support for extremist parties.

As analysts writing in Foreign Affairs have noted, the universalist approach to international trade pursued in the 1990s is no longer appropriate in an era of great-power competition. While the recent trade deals signed by the U.S. With the EU and the UK represent a step in the right direction, Trump’s erratic behavior and questioning of NATO commitments continue to undermine transatlantic trust.

A Path Forward: Intergovernmental Cooperation and Strategic Partnerships

Instead of attempting to transform the EU into a military power, the focus should be on fostering intergovernmental cooperation among like-minded nations. NATO should remain the primary framework for collective defense, focusing on maintaining interoperability among its members. The U.S. Should encourage increased defense spending from European allies, particularly those in Northern and Eastern Europe, recognizing that contributions will vary based on fiscal capacity and political will.

European countries should also actively seek partnerships beyond the EU. Initiatives like the GCAP fighter development program involving Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, and Poland’s procurement of military equipment from South Korea, demonstrate the value of diversifying security partnerships. The United States’ closest partner in this effort remains the United Kingdom, with its strong defense-industrial base and intelligence-sharing network.

the key to renewing the Euro-Atlantic settlement lies in recognizing the strengths and limitations of both the U.S. And the EU. The EU should focus on its core competencies – economic integration and fostering prosperity – while the U.S. Continues to provide the essential military capabilities needed to deter aggression. By prioritizing intergovernmental cooperation and strategic partnerships, Washington and Brussels can ensure peace and security in Europe for generations to come. The division of responsibilities that has served the continent well for over 70 years should be preserved, not dismantled.

As Peter Harrell argues in Foreign Affairs, a new approach to international trade is needed, one that prioritizes economic security and addresses the challenges posed by China.