BACKGROUND

The Russia-Ukraine war has catapulted discussions around European defence and strategic autonomy into the limelight. The conflict is now well into its second year, and the Ukrainian defence, sustained by European and American assistance, has raised many questions about the implications of the ‘return of war to Europe’. The renewed importance of NATO has highlighted the impact of Europe’s continued and overwhelming dependence on the United States for its security. At the same time, multiple Western European leaders have mentioned strategic autonomy as an aspirational strategy for Europe.

However, the continent and the European Union remain fractured on the matter. Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), with their proximity and heightened concerns regarding Russia, does not trust Western Europe to stand up to Russia and rejects the idea of strategic autonomy from the US. ​​​Against this backdrop, this webinar sought to understand the various points of divergence between Western  Europe and Central Europe defence challenges.

Key questions discussed were:

1. What are the major points of contention between Western Europe and CEE regarding European defence and strategic autonomy?

2. What would a European form of strategic autonomy, if realised, look like and what are the implications for NATO?

3. There has been talk that meaningful strategic autonomy would require, along with increased defence spending, much deeper integration. Does that appetite currently exist within the EU?

KEY TAKE-AWAYS

• Increased European military expenditures must not create the illusion that Europe is fit to engage in warfare and rivalize Russia in military matters. ·Without US aid, Ukraine would have collapsed within a week, despite European assistance. The United States is still the economic and military powerhouse, which
  strengthens European unity in the Ukrainian invasion.
• The undeniable dependence of European states to the United States is emphasized by NATO regaining its importance. With the war in Ukraine, it has resurfaced as the main security architecture. EU member states have called for more weight with regards to the European pillar in NATO by increasing its cooperation with the EU, the US remains the unofficial figurehead of the organization.
• Europe is plagued by a divergence in views: The transatlantic camp including Eastern and Central Europe and Scandinavia and the camp in favor of a stronger Europe less dependent on the United States. Europe's inability to determine its ultimate objective in the war in Ukraine has prevented an adequate response. Moreover, the neutral camp calls for negotiation and dialogue vis-a-vis the resolution of the Russian invasion. The polarization has also been observed in other continents. Asian players such as India, Indonesia, and Japan have remained neutral, not opposing Russia directly.
• Although Russia has failed its early strategic objectives, Ukraine has not yet won the war. Panelists argue that the ‘western’ public opinion in favor of continuing the conflict will steadily falter. Without public support from its own people and the international community, Russia will be encouraged, and will win the war.
  

To access the full report, please click on the PDF link on this homepage.