NATO vs EU Defence: Between Autonomy and Dependence

Finding Balance in Europe’s Evolving Security Landscape

As Europe grapples with fresh geopolitical tensions, the issue of defense autonomy is back on the table, and it’s more pressing than ever. Can the European Union really carve out a path to true strategic independence while NATO remains the bedrock of European security? Recent comments from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (NATO, 2025) and various EU defense initiatives indicate that the future of Europe’s defense landscape will likely hinge on collaboration rather than separation. 

Parallel Ambitions, Shared Challenges

The European Union has made notable strides toward establishing a stronger defense identity, thanks to initiatives like the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund, which aim to enhance collaboration and boost industrial capabilities (European Commission, 2025). However, NATO still serves as Europe’s operational backbone, with the United States accounting for about 70% of the Alliance’s defense spending (RAND, 2021). In contrast, the EU’s mutual defense clause, Article 42(7) TEU, is seen as weaker and more politically uncertain compared to NATO’s binding Article 5 commitment (European Parliament, 2025).

A Question of Autonomy or Duplication?

While EU leaders, particularly from France, advocate for greater strategic autonomy, countries in Central and Eastern Europe are cautious about any moves that might weaken the transatlantic bond. This tension echoes the downfall of the European Defence Community in the 1950s, which faltered due to national distrust. Today, policymakers emphasize the importance of avoiding redundant structures and expenditures that could drain resources without improving security.

Complementarity, not competition 

At the NATO Summit in The Hague in 2025, member countries committed to increasing their defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 (NATO, 2025). At the same time, the EU pledged to strengthen its defense establishment while working closely with transatlantic partners (European Parliament, 2025). NATO focuses on providing deterrence and operational capabilities, whereas the EU has embraced the complementary task of developing its industrial apparatus, diplomatic leverage, and crisis-management capabilities. This clear division of responsibilities illustrate a practical balance between reliance and independence.  

Conclusion: The Future Lies in Coordination  

The development of European military establishment isn’t just about choosing between being independent from NATO or being completely subordinate to it. Instead, it hinges on coherence and complementarity. A robust European defense system boosts NATO’s effectiveness, while a strong NATO serves as a foundation for Europe’s security. As Rutte pointed out, “a stronger European defense is good for NATO, and a stronger NATO is good for Europe” (NATO, 2025). The real challenge lies in maintaining this synergy without undermining the credibility of either side.

References

• European Parliament “European defense industrial strategy” (EPRS BRIEFING, 2024 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/762402/EPRS_BRI%282024%29762402_EN.pdf?utm_ 

• European Parliament “The future European security architecture: Dilemmas for EU strategic autonomy” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/765785/EPRS_STU%282025%29765785%28SUM01%29_EN.pdf?utm_  

• NATO “The Hague Summit Declaration, 24 May 2024” https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_236705.htm?utm_ 

RAND Corp. “Time to reassess the costs of Euro-Atlantic Security”  https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/02/time-to-reassess-the-costs-of-euro-atlantic-security.html?utm_