Yet for years, strategic autonomy remained more of a slogan than a practical reality. Ambitious statements were rarely followed by adequate funding or political action, mainly because of internal conflicts among member states. However, a series of shocks – from the unpredictability of the US foreign policy under the Trump presidency to Russia’s war in Ukraine, Brexit, and the US-China competition have highlighted the urgent need for autonomy.

Among these, Trump’s unpredictable and transactional approach to NATO has unsettled European leaders the most. They are weary of his abrupt policy shifts, public questioning of NATO’s worth, and explicit threats to condition U.S. security guarantees on increased European defence spending. Trump’s demand that European states increase their defence budgets to 5% of GDP at June 2025 NATO summit or else he would reevaluate the strength of America’s commitments, further added fuel to fire. These developments have left Berlin and Brussels wondering whether strategic autonomy is an imperative or choice.

As Almut Möller of the European Council on Foreign Relations notes, “Strategic autonomy is a concept that can sometimes feel abstract—almost like something developed in a laboratory. However, it’s deeply rooted in real-world challenges.”

Defense Dependence and NATO’s Role

Europe’s military reliance on the United States and NATO remains the most defining constraint on its autonomy. In 2024, the European members of NATO collectively spent around €290 billion on defence, which is equivalent to 2.2% of their GDP. Although, it represents an increase from 1.4% over the past ten years, it still falls short of the U.S., which spends about 3.8% of its GDP on defence. Furthermore, only nine EU nations fulfilled the requirement set by NATO to allocate at least 2% of their GDP to defence.

Although, recent initiatives such as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) aimed to enhance interoperability and joint procurement, the tangible progress remained fragmented. It is largely because of member countries divided national interests and slow bureaucratic procedures at EU-level. Moreover, countries in Eastern and Northern Europe, feeling directly threatened by Russia, strongly prefer the security guarantees offered by the U.S., viewing any dilution of NATO ties as strategically risky.