Omneya Elkafafy

Europe stands at a historic crossroads. The old imperatives that shaped the post–Cold War order — stable democracy, economic integration, and a U.S. security umbrella — are fraying under the pressure of geopolitical competition, internal fragmentation, and the blunt reality of a more assertive Russia. An increasingly vocal school of European thought now asks not just how to defend the continent, but whether the European Union as we know it can survive the strategic turbulences ahead.

A Continent Under Pressure — Not Just from Moscow

There is little doubt in EU capitals that Russia represents a direct and multifaceted threat. Leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron have repeatedly warned that Europe must design its own security framework independently of external guarantors, underscoring Russia’s aggressive posture and Europe’s geographic vulnerability. Macron asserted at the 2026 Munich Security Conference that Europe must “redesign its security independently,” including a possible shared “holistic” nuclear deterrence among European allies, because “our geography will not change.”

This is more than rhetorical posturing. In March 2025, EU leaders endorsed a landmark plan to massively increase defence spending — a proposed €800 billion initiative under the Readiness 2030 framework designed to harness joint procurement, interoperability, and new capabilities to strengthen Europe’s deterrence and defence industry.

“Europe Could Die”: Leadership Speeches and Existential Warnings

Unlike cautious private diplomacy of the past, today’s European leaders are openly raising the stakes. Macron previously warned that there was a risk “our Europe could die” if the continent failed to address its military, economic, and technological weaknesses. He and other officials have emphasised that Europe’s future should not be “decided in Washington or Moscow” but rather shaped by Europeans themselves.

Such remarks are stark — not apocalyptic in a literal sense but framed to prod policymakers and publics out of complacency. They reflect a broader sentiment within Brussels and national capitals: that the EU’s survival as a geopolitical actor depends on its willingness to invest strategically and act collectively — even under external pressure.

An Eroding Security Guarantee? The U.S. Factor

A central driver of European strategic recalibration is the evolving posture of the United States under President Donald Trump. What was once an anchor of European defence is increasingly seen as uncertain, even at times competitive. Trump’s flirtation with acquiring Greenland, suggesting the U.S. might secure influence over the Arctic territory “one way or the other” and refusing to rule out the use of force, prompted unified condemnation from Denmark, the UK, and EU states.

That episode symbolised something deeper:

Europe can no longer assume American strategic priorities will align unconditionally with its own.

Coupled with U.S. unilateral interventions (such as military actions in Venezuela that were not coordinated with European partners), many in Europe now view the U.S. not as a guaranteed protector but as a variable power whose commitments may wax and wane depending on its domestic politics.

You can also read: New Era of Trumpism

The net effect is profound: Europe is questioning its post-1945 security assumptions and exploring strategic autonomy — a future in which Europeans can act independently when necessary while still partnering with the U.S. when interests align.

From Rhetoric to Reality: Rising Defence Spending

The EU’s defence transformation is not abstract. Concrete spending patterns show a strategic shift:

·      NATO allies — including many EU states — have agreed on a 3.5 % GDP spending target for 2035, with additional spending earmarked for critical infrastructure and defence innovation.

·      France plans to allocate €413 billion to defence between 2024 and 2030, a significant expansion of its military budget as part of this broader European shift.

These figures illustrate a continent intent on reversing decades of relative neglect of its military capabilities — a shift driven not by rivalry with Americans, but by fear of strategic abandonment should the U.S. retreat from Europe’s frontlines.

Joint Capability and Industrial Base: The Hard Part

Europe’s strategic challenge is not only spending more — it is spending wisely. Under the Readiness 2030 plan, up to €800 billion is earmarked to build European defence capacity, with mechanisms for large-scale joint procurement and standardisation to enhance interoperability. Initiatives like the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) loans and the European Defence Fund aim to accelerate domestic production of weapons, ammunition, air and missile defence systems, and cyber capabilities.

While the European Union’s common defence budget remains modest — rising from virtually nothing in the early 2010s to around €7–8 billion in the 2021–27 period — the larger strategic signal is clear: Europeans are investing not just money but also collective effort in shared security.

NATO, European Defence, and Dual Tracks

Despite the push for autonomy, Europe’s strategic posture is not an outright decoupling from NATO. Secretary-General Mark Rutte has urged members to strengthen weapons, cyber, and border capabilities, stressing that danger will persist even after major conflicts ease. Most EU states remain committed to NATO’s core mission while advocating for a more assertive European defence arm.

The emerging paradigm is dual: enhance NATO’s deterrence role, while building a European security architecture capable of acting with or without full U.S. engagement. This is not isolationism, but recognition of geopolitical realities.

Internal Strains and the Survival Question

European military rearmament coincides with deep internal pressures: divergent views on migration, energy security, economic competitiveness, and democratic legitimacy all test the cohesion of the 27-member bloc. Populist leaders in some states articulate visions at odds with deeper integration; others call for a clearer geopolitical identity anchored outside traditional American support.

You can also read: What if the Khamenei Regime Falls: Geopolitical Implications for the Region

Yet despite these strains, there is an overarching consensus among strategic elites that inaction is not an option. The alternative — a fragmented Europe unable to deter threats or project influence — could fundamentally weaken the Union’s political and economic project.

Conclusion: A New European Strategic Reality

Europe today is neither fully dependent nor fully independent; it stands somewhere between a 20th-century security order and a future defined by autonomous capability and political will. What unites most European policymakers is the conviction that the EU’s survival does not depend solely on external powers, and that strategic autonomy — backed by credible military capability — is the only sustainable path forward.

Europe’s choices now will determine not only its defence posture but its role in the global architecture of the 21st century. Will it emerge as a resilient, united strategic actor — capable of deterrence, cooperation, and defence of its interests? Or will it falter under external pressures and internal contradictions? The next decade may well decide the answer.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Himalayan Research Institute Pakistan (THRIP)

_________________________________ 

Omneya Elkafafy is pursuing her master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies at Middle East Technical University (METU), Türkiye. She specialises in regional politics and strategic policy analysis and contributes to research on Middle Eastern dynamics and global diplomacy.