全球智库信息集成服务系统

• 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.

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'?

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  A brief overview of European defence integration

• Chapter Three

  Possible futures of European strategic autonomy in defence

• Chapter Four

  Implications of possible futures of European strategic autonomy in defence

• Chapter Five

  Policy options

• Annex A

  Future scenarios methodology

• Annex B

  Scenarios of European strategic autonomy

• Annex C

  Interview approach