Competing visions of European strategic autonomy have been widely debated in European Union (EU) policy circles. This study examines the meaning of European strategic autonomy in defence and its implications for the U.S., NATO and EU-US relations using a scenario methodology and transatlantic expert consultation.

European Strategic Autonomy in Defence

Transatlantic visions and implications for NATO, US and EU relations

Lucia Retter, Stephanie Pezard, Stephen J. Flanagan, Gene Germanovich, Sarah Grand-Clement, Pauline Paillé

ResearchPublished Nov 9, 2021

Competing visions of European strategic autonomy have been widely debated in European Union (EU) policy circles. The term itself has undergone a fast evolution: from an initial focus on defence to inclusion of a much broader set of security considerations such as the economy, health or technology, to name just a few. At its core, however, the concept retains an important defence dimension.

Yet the path towards greater EU defence integration has been bumpy and focused on setting up new institutions, frameworks and programmes often without providing adequate resources, sustained political support or clear outputs. This legacy raises questions for the future of European strategic autonomy in defence and means many experts still view the concept with scepticism.

This study examines the implications of three different possible futures of European strategic autonomy in defence, using a scenario methodology. A first scenario envisages the development of a strong European pillar of NATO on the basis of current trends. A second scenario considers a faltering EU defence integration and transatlantic fragmentation. A third and final scenario envisages a strong EU defence that does not rely on NATO for access to military capabilities and structures. Through these scenarios, this study seeks to answer the fundamental question of 'What does European strategic autonomy in defence mean for the EU, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and EU-US relations'?

Key Findings

  • There is a lack of clarity associated with the term 'European strategic autonomy', hampering constructive dialogue and action. The fundamental differences between EU member states' understanding and hopes for what European strategic autonomy in defence is and should be, are likely to perpetuate the ambiguity underpinning these discussions. The perceived mismatch between expectations, ambitions and actions also results in a degree of US scepticism vis-à-vis European strategic autonomy.
  • Most of the study's interviewees identified a stronger Europe as a benefit to both NATO and the U.S., balancing out the potential risks of diverging interest and ambitions. From a US national perspective, justifying investment in European defence matters to the US public would likely be more difficult if European nations chose not to invest in strengthening their defence contribution to NATO.
  • While the rhetoric and stated intentions are aligned for an EU-NATO complementarity, the practical reality of achieving greater coherence and avoiding duplication within this cooperation have been insufficient. The success of EU-NATO complementarity on an implementation level continues to be a challenging process not least due to tensions that exist between some members of one but not the other forum, preventing a genuine programme of information sharing and common planning.
  • The strategic autonomy of Europe is intimately tied up with the actions and intentions of the U.S., its internal politics, as well as its foreign, defence and security policy and power projection abroad. It is also shaped by other external influencers such as the UK, Turkey and ambitions, policies and actions of China and Russia.

Recommendations

  • A continued dialogue at all levels among EU and US partners could help avoid misperceptions and tackle common challenges.
  • An unambiguously supportive approach to European strategic autonomy in defence by the U.S. would benefit all: the EU, the U.S. and NATO.
  • Constructive NATO-EU relationship demands a clear articulation of EU ambition and agreement on threats and areas of responsibility.
  • Restoring a constructive relationship with the UK would benefit the EU, NATO and the U.S. in their response to threats and challenges.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Retter, Lucia, Stephanie Pezard, Stephen J. Flanagan, Gene Germanovich, Sarah Grand-Clement, and Pauline Paillé, European Strategic Autonomy in Defence: Transatlantic visions and implications for NATO, US and EU relations, RAND Corporation, RR-A1319-1, 2021. As of September 16, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1319-1.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Retter, Lucia, Stephanie Pezard, Stephen J. Flanagan, Gene Germanovich, Sarah Grand-Clement, and Pauline Paillé, European Strategic Autonomy in Defence: Transatlantic visions and implications for NATO, US and EU relations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1319-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

Funding for this research was made possible by the independent research and development (R&D) provisions of RAND's contracts for the operation of its US Department of Defense federally funded R&D centres. The research was conducted within RAND Europe.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.