Hubbry Logo
Strategic autonomyStrategic autonomyMain
Open search
Strategic autonomy
Community hub
Strategic autonomy
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Strategic autonomy
Strategic autonomy
Strategic autonomy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Strategic autonomy is defined as the ability of a state to pursue its national interests and adopt its preferred foreign policy without depending heavily on other foreign states.[1]

In the European context, strategic autonomy is the ability of the European Union to not be overly reliant on the United States, defend Europe, and act militarily for the strategic purposes of affording a political autonomy independent from US foreign policies.[2]

European Union

[edit]
Strategic autonomy
European Council, 2017
Date2016–present
ThemeGeopolitical great power competition
Participants EU

An early reference to strategic autonomy in the discussions of the European Council can be dated back to December 2013, when it called for the development of European defense capabilities to enhance the strategic autonomy of the European Union.[3]

In 2016, strategic autonomy became part of the European Union Global Strategy doctrine to improve the EU's defense capabilities, including the creation of a European Defence Fund in 2017. Strategic autonomy also became central to the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen.[4] Members of the Von der Leyen Commission, including Josep Borrell and Thierry Breton, claimed that Europe's soft power needs to be complemented by a harder power dimension.[5]

After the 2020 United States presidential election, France advocated for European strategic autonomy.[6] Strategic autonomy for the EU is a concept that includes economic, energy and digital policy[7] as well as initiatives such as GAIA-X. EU Member States display different preferences than France when it comes to the priorities of a strategic autonomy policy.[8] Strategic autonomy expanded to digital policy of the EU to ascertain European sovereignty against China.[9]

Biden era

[edit]

As early as December 2020, strategic autonomy was a priority in European defense policy. This was professed by Josep Borrell, who saw Donald Trump as an unreliable partner in a retrospective speech.[10] The goal of strategic autonomy was not to act alone militarily and to characterize the EU as non-interventionist.[7]

The election of Joe Biden in the United States brought expectations of a Euro-Atlantic unity to be reconciled with the strategic autonomy of the EU.[6] The New York Times saw Biden's election bringing discord between France and Germany over the future of European defense and strategic autonomy.[11] In November 2021, the Biden administration urged the EU to develop its own credible military capabilities.[12]

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was perceived by Emmanuel Macron as an attack on the institutions of the EU and a test of European strategic autonomy.[13]

On 2 December 2022, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said that Europe must strengthen its defenses because they are currently “not strong enough” to stand up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine alone, and have been relying on American support.[14]

In April 2023, after a three-day state visit to China, Macron called for the EU to reduce its dependence on the US to attain European strategic autonomy away from Washington and avoid being drawn into a confrontation between the US and China over Taiwan.[15] Macron had also advocated that Europe should become a "third superpower.”[15] According to Macron, Europe should focus on boosting its own defense industries and on reducing dependence on the extraterritoriality of the US dollar.[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Strategic autonomy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Strategic autonomy denotes the capacity of a , such as a nation-state or supranational entity like the , to independently pursue its core interests in security, defense, , and economic domains by minimizing vulnerabilities arising from dependencies on external powers. Originating in French defense as early as 1994, the concept gained traction within policymaking following the 2016 Global Strategy, which framed it as the ability to "act autonomously when and where necessary and with partners where possible," often qualified as "open" to emphasize multilateral alongside . In practice, EU strategic autonomy encompasses efforts to bolster indigenous defense capabilities through mechanisms like (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund, which allocate billions in funding to reduce reliance on non-European suppliers for military equipment. Economically, it manifests in "de-risking" policies targeting critical dependencies, such as semiconductors and rare earths from , while promoting diversified supply chains and technological sovereignty via initiatives like the . These pursuits reflect empirical imperatives driven by geopolitical shifts, including Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which exposed Europe's underinvestment in defense—collectively spending about 1.7% of GDP on military budgets pre-2022, far below —and overreliance on imported energy and components. Defining characteristics include a tension between aspiration and capability gaps: while proponents highlight enhanced resilience against coercion, as in diversifying from Russian gas post-2022, empirical assessments reveal persistent shortfalls in deployable forces, unified command structures, and R&D scale, rendering full autonomy improbable without sustained increases in spending and integration that rival U.S. contributions to . Controversies center on its implications for , with Eastern European states and U.S. skeptics arguing it duplicates functions and signals reduced American commitment, potentially inviting aggression from adversaries like or ; conversely, recent U.S. policy shifts post-2024 elections have endorsed European burden-sharing as complementary to alliance cohesion. Despite rhetorical emphasis, causal analyses indicate that strategic autonomy functions more as a hedging amid U.S. retrenchment risks than a viable standalone , constrained by internal EU divisions and fiscal realities.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

Strategic autonomy refers to the ability of states or supranational blocs to independently pursue core interests in , , and economic spheres without excessive reliance on external actors, thereby preserving freedom amid geopolitical competition. Rooted in realist paradigms of , it prioritizes power balances and self-sufficiency over idealistic multilateral frameworks that may subordinate national agency to collective constraints. Its scope spans dimensions, including autonomous force projection and deterrence capabilities to avoid dependency on allies for defense operations; economic aspects, such as resilient supply chains to counter vulnerabilities exposed by global disruptions like the 2020-2021 shortages during the crisis and Europe's 2022 energy dependencies amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict; and technological domains, encompassing reduced reliance on foreign entities for like networks and AI systems. Fundamentally, strategic autonomy bolsters deterrence and leverage through causal mechanisms of accumulation—such as defense budgets exceeding 2% of GDP and indigenous R&D investments—rather than rhetorical commitments, enabling entities to shape outcomes in anarchic global environments without veto-prone partnerships.

Key Principles and Dimensions

Strategic autonomy operates on principles of cultivating the capacity for independent decision-making and action in domains vital to national or , while selectively engaging in interdependent relationships grounded in mutual benefit rather than compulsion. This approach emphasizes minimizing existential vulnerabilities through verifiable self-sufficiency, such as reducing over-reliance on singular suppliers that could exploit dependencies for leverage. For instance, prior to 2022, the derived approximately 45% of its imports from , illustrating how unchecked interdependence can enable external during crises. Empirical benchmarks, including defense expenditures averaging around 1.5% of GDP across states in 2021—below the guideline of 2%—underscore the need for measurable progress in capability-building to underpin , rather than aspirational declarations. Unlike , which rejects external ties outright, strategic autonomy endorses chosen interdependence where partnerships enhance resilience without creating irreversible dependencies; it prioritizes options for disengagement when alliances falter. This entails rigorous assessment of risks, favoring arrangements that align with core interests over ideological affinity. True implementation demands causal realism: dependencies must be diversified proactively, as passive reliance on or often proves inadequate against determined adversaries wielding . The concept manifests across key dimensions, each requiring distinct capabilities for effective autonomy.
  • Security Dimension: Encompasses the ability to deploy forces and sustain operations independently, free from vetoes by partners, necessitating a defense industrial base capable of producing essential equipment without external approval or supply disruptions. This contrasts with over-optimistic views privileging multilateral norms or "" as substitutes for readiness, which empirical failures in rapid-response scenarios reveal as insufficient for deterrence.
  • Economic Dimension: Focuses on securing supply chains for critical resources, exemplified by efforts to diminish dependence on China, which controls over 90% of global processing essential for electronics and renewables. Autonomy here involves building alternative extraction, refining, and stockpiling capacities to mitigate coercion risks, rather than mere trade diversification without domestic production scaling.
  • Technological Dimension: Involves fostering indigenous innovation and infrastructure to safeguard data and , as seen in the EU's initiative launched in 2019 to establish federated cloud services compliant with European standards, prompted by U.S. laws like the 2018 enabling foreign data access. This dimension prioritizes interoperability standards that prevent lock-in to dominant providers, ensuring reversibility in tech dependencies.
In all dimensions, strategic autonomy hinges on tangible investments in , infrastructure, and R&D, eschewing regulatory measures alone that fail to address underlying production gaps. Sources advocating "open strategic autonomy" through partnerships without hardened capabilities, often from institutional analyses, overlook how such optimism has historically amplified vulnerabilities in asymmetric competitions.

Historical Evolution

Origins in Post-World War II Europe

Following , grappled with economic ruin and military impotence, fostering dependence on aid via the [Marshall Plan](/page/Marshall Plan), which disbursed roughly $13 billion between 1948 and 1952 to rebuild infrastructure and avert communist expansion. This reliance amplified vulnerabilities exposed by the Anglo-American atomic monopoly, spurring French policymakers to advocate for indigenous capabilities amid strains that eroded imperial leverage and highlighted alliance limitations. Early impulses toward crystallized in debates over and integrated defense, as European leaders recognized that U.S. guarantees could not fully offset dynamics without ceding strategic initiative. The proposed European Defense Community (EDC), outlined in the 1950 Pleven Plan and formalized by treaty signature on May 27, 1952, represented an initial bid for collective by pooling forces from , , , , the , and into a supranational army under civilian oversight, ostensibly to rearm while insulating from sole U.S. protection. Ratification faltered when the French National Assembly voted it down 319-264 on August 30, 1954, citing fears of diluted sovereignty, inadequate supranational authority, and domestic political divisions exacerbated by the Indochina War's fallout. This collapse underscored empirical realities of alliance fatigue—national interests trumped federalist visions—and pivoted efforts toward bilateral or unilateral paths, as evidenced by the subsequent framework that permitted limited German integration without full EDC supranationalism. France embodied these tensions under , who upon returning as president in 1958 accelerated the Force de Frappe nuclear program—initiated in 1954 but tested successfully on February 13, 1960—to forge an independent deterrent unbound by U.S. extended guarantees. 's March 7, 1966, directive expelled NATO's integrated command from French soil and withdrew national forces from its structure, effective by year's end, to reclaim operational sovereignty amid perceived American unreliability post-Suez Crisis and amid decolonization's geopolitical shocks. The resulting —encompassing airborne, land-based, and submarine-launched components—achieved full operational status by 1972, with the first commissioned in December 1971, enabling strictly national deterrence calibrated to French vital interests rather than alliance contingencies. These steps empirically mitigated dependencies born of postwar asymmetries, prioritizing causal self-reliance in an era of bipolar confrontation and imperial retreat.

Cold War Developments and Gaullism

Charles de Gaulle's return to power in 1958 marked the inception of Gaullist foreign policy, which prioritized France's grandeur and independence from U.S. dominance within NATO during the Cold War's bipolar framework. Rejecting the integrated command structure as subordinating French sovereignty to American strategy, de Gaulle advocated for a multipolar world where France could mediate between blocs, drawing on first-principles of national self-determination over alliance dependency. This approach causally linked policy independence to reduced vulnerability, as France avoided automatic alignment with U.S. containment, exemplified by de Gaulle's public criticism of American interventionism. A cornerstone of Gaullist autonomy was the pursuit of an independent nuclear deterrent, the force de frappe, to obviate reliance on the potentially unreliable U.S. . On February 13, 1960, France conducted its inaugural atomic test, Gerboise Bleue, detonating a plutonium implosion device yielding approximately 70 kilotons in the desert of , four years after initial program authorization. This achievement, achieved without foreign technological aid, enabled France to develop a triad of delivery systems by the late , sustaining defense expenditures at 3-4% of GDP through the decade—higher than many peers—and fostering veto power in alliance decisions without full integration. Diplomatically, de Gaulle operationalized autonomy through outreach to adversaries and non-aligned states, circumventing U.S.-Soviet duopoly. His June state visit to , the first by a leader since , secured Franco-Soviet declarations on European and non-aggression, while critiquing 's structure as perpetuating division; this maneuver pressured the U.S. amid its entanglements, preserving French flexibility as American priorities shifted eastward. Similarly, de Gaulle's July 24, 1967, speech in , culminating in "Vive le Québec libre!", asserted French cultural diplomacy against Anglo-American hegemony in , galvanizing sovereignists and underscoring Gaullism's global projection unbound by alliance strictures. Gaullist policies yielded a self-sustaining defense-industrial base, with independent platforms like the Dassault Mirage III fighter—first flown in 1956 and exported to over 20 nations including Israel and South Africa by the 1970s—generating revenues that offset R&D costs and built export prowess. By the 1980s, this sector's sales reached 2.4% of GDP, with cumulative Cold War investments enabling technological sovereignty amid critiques of NATO strain; empirically, France's non-participation in U.S.-led escalations, such as Vietnam, validated autonomy's causal role in safeguarding national interests against superpower distractions, countering narratives framing dependency as inherent stability.

Post-Cold War Shifts

Following the in 1991, the emerged as the unchallenged global superpower in what political commentator termed the "unipolar moment," characterized by American military, economic, and ideological predominance without a peer competitor. This period presented European states with opportunities to cultivate greater strategic autonomy, leveraging the absence of bipolar confrontation to develop independent foreign and security policies amid reduced reliance on U.S. security guarantees. However, efforts were hampered by internal divisions, fiscal constraints post-reunification in and elsewhere, and persistent dependence on infrastructure dominated by Washington. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty established the European Union's (CFSP) as the second pillar of the newly formalized EU, aiming to coordinate member states' external actions and promote a unified voice in international affairs. Yet, this framework revealed empirical shortcomings in operational capabilities; during the 1999 Kosovo intervention under NATO's Operation Allied Force, European allies contributed only about 20% of the air sorties and strike capacity, with U.S. forces providing the overwhelming majority—approximately 80% of precision-guided munitions and combat airpower—highlighting Europe's inability to project power independently without American leadership. In response, , a longstanding advocate of European defense independence, spearheaded the launch of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) at the 1999 Helsinki , committing to rapid reaction forces and capability targets to enable autonomous . Tensions escalated with the 2003 , where French President and German Chancellor publicly opposed U.S.-led military action absent UN Security Council authorization, coordinating their stance to block a resolution and exposing deep transatlantic rifts alongside intra-European divisions—Eastern members like supported Washington, fracturing the "old Europe" consensus on autonomy. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty advanced institutional mechanisms by enshrining a mutual defense clause in Article 42(7), obligating member states to provide "aid and assistance by all the means in their power" to any state victim of armed aggression on its territory, while respecting commitments. However, the clause lacked provisions for a unified command structure or binding enforcement, perpetuating reliance on national forces and coalitions. Compounding these institutional steps, European defense spending stagnated at around 1.5-1.7% of GDP through the 1990s and 2000s—down from peaks near 3%—despite emerging threats like post-9/11 and regional instabilities, as fiscal priorities shifted toward welfare states and amid the unipolar U.S. security umbrella. This underinvestment underscored failures to translate doctrinal ambitions into robust capabilities, fostering a capabilities-expectations gap that deferred substantive autonomy until subsequent geopolitical pressures.

Applications in the European Union

Policy Emergence and Macron's Influence

The resurgence of strategic autonomy as a central theme in policy gained momentum following Russia's annexation of in March 2014, which underscored the bloc's dependence on external actors for security responses and prompted a reevaluation of collective capabilities. This context informed the Global Strategy, published in June 2016, which explicitly called for the Union to develop the capacity for "" in foreign and to address crises without sole reliance on partners like the or . The strategy marked a shift from earlier post-Cold War optimism toward a more pragmatic acknowledgment of geopolitical fragmentation, though its implementation faced immediate hurdles from divergent national priorities among member states. French President significantly amplified this rhetoric upon taking office in May 2017, framing strategic autonomy as essential for Europe's sovereignty amid perceived unpredictability in U.S. leadership under President Donald Trump, including questions about 's reliability. In his September 26, 2017, speech at the Sorbonne in , Macron urged the to build "autonomous operating capabilities" in defense, complementing but not subordinating to , and proposed initiatives like a European Intervention Initiative to enable rapid, independent responses. His advocacy influenced the formal launch of (PESCO) in December 2017, involving 25 member states in collaborative defense projects aimed at enhancing capabilities such as mobility and cyber defense. However, Macron's push highlighted supranational ambitions that often clashed with national divergences; for instance, France's resistance to halting arms exports to in 2018, despite German calls for an -wide pause amid the Yemen conflict and Khashoggi murder, demonstrated unilateral action over bloc consensus, revealing hesitancy in unified autonomous policy. Empirical progress under these leadership-driven efforts has been modest, underscoring limited traction beyond rhetorical commitments. By May 2023, PESCO encompassed 68 projects focused on and capability development, yet it lacks dedicated supranational funding, relying instead on national contributions and partial support from the European Defence Fund, which allocated €8 billion overall for 2021–2027 but prioritized broader research over operational scale-up. This pales against U.S. defense expenditures exceeding $800 billion annually and aid flows, such as over $50 billion to by 2023, exposing the gap between autonomy aspirations and fiscal realities. Eastern member states like have resisted supranational overreach, prioritizing NATO's collective defense framework—evidenced by Warsaw's emphasis on deterrence against over EU-centric autonomy—further fragmenting implementation and questioning the causal effectiveness of top-down pushes in diverse geopolitical contexts.

Defense and Security Initiatives

The European Defence Fund (EDF), with a budget of €8 billion for 2021-2027, supports collaborative to address capability shortfalls in areas like and space surveillance. Allocated as €2.7 billion for and €5.3 billion for development, the fund prioritizes projects reducing fragmentation, yet its scale—less than 1% of aggregate EU member state defense budgets exceeding €200 billion annually—limits impact amid duplication across 17+ national programs for similar systems like tanks. Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), initiated in 2017, encompasses over 60 projects involving 26 member states, such as the Cyber Rapid Response Teams (CRRT) for incident response and resilience-building through shared tools and training. CRRT, led by with participants including and the , has supported operations in and , deploying experts for threat hunting. However, PESCO's efficacy is hampered by uneven funding—totaling under €1 billion mobilized—and overlapping with efforts, resulting in only 10% of projects reaching full operational capability by 2024 due to binding commitments often falling short. EU Battlegroups, designed for rapid crisis response with 1,500-troop units on standby since achieving full operational capacity in January 2007, have remained unused despite 20+ rotations, primarily due to veto-prone unanimous and insufficient political will for deployment. Costs exceeding €100 million annually for maintenance without activation exemplify inefficiency, as member states prioritize national assets over pooled forces. Russia's 2022 invasion of exposed these limitations: the European Peace Facility (EPF), an off-budget instrument, disbursed €5 billion in a 2024 top-up for lethal like , elevating total Ukraine-specific support to €11.6 billion by mid-2024. Yet EPF deliveries lagged, with only 30% executed by 2023 owing to procurement delays and dependencies, contrasting sharply with U.S. totaling over €55 billion in equivalent value by 2025—more than double EPF's Ukraine allocation—highlighting EU operational reliance on American for targeting and logistics. This disparity perpetuates the "capability-expectations gap," a concept articulated by Christopher Hill in 1993 to describe how EU strategic rhetoric outpaces deliverable power, enabling free-riding on U.S.-led capabilities while autonomy initiatives yield marginal, duplicated outputs.

Economic and Technological Autonomy Efforts

The , adopted in 2023, aims to bolster production through public investments exceeding €43 billion, targeting a 20% global market share in advanced chips by 2030 to reduce reliance on external suppliers. Despite this, Taiwan-based firms, particularly , continue to produce approximately 90% of the world's most advanced as of 2024, underscoring persistent EU vulnerabilities in critical supply chains. In energy, the plan, launched in May 2022, sought to end dependence on Russian fossil fuels by accelerating renewables, efficiency, and diversification, reducing Russian pipeline gas imports from over 40% of total in 2021 to about 11% by 2024. This shift, however, entailed sharp cost increases, with surging more than tenfold by mid-2022 compared to pre-crisis levels due to rapid sourcing from alternatives like LNG. Technological efforts include the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective from May 25, 2018, which imposes strict data handling rules to assert sovereignty over digital flows, yet the EU market remains dominated by U.S. providers holding about 72% share amid a regional market valued at over €140 billion in 2023. , the EU's flagship R&D program with a €95.5 billion budget for 2021-2027, funds innovation but trails U.S. initiatives like in scale and breakthrough output, as evidenced by Europe's lag in AI and patents. These initiatives have coincided with a surge in state aid, with member states notifying over €3.1 trillion in COVID-19-related measures by 2023, often distorting through subsidies that prioritize short-term resilience over long-term gains, akin to protectionist policies without commensurate efficiency improvements. dependencies persist—e.g., over 90% for advanced chips and heavy reliance on non- energy alternatives—highlighting how regulatory pushes have mitigated some risks but failed to achieve full amid higher costs and market distortions.

Interactions with NATO and Transatlantic Relations

European strategic autonomy initiatives, particularly in defense from 2016 to 2022, have been framed by figures like French President as complementary to rather than substitutive, aiming to enhance Europe's operational capabilities without undermining the alliance. In practice, this complementarity has faced challenges, as evidenced by internal divisions at the 2023 Summit, where and delayed Sweden's accession through vetoes tied to bilateral disputes, highlighting how non-EU members can constrain EU-driven cohesion efforts. United States perspectives have underscored dependencies, with former President Donald Trump's 2018 NATO Summit remarks labeling European allies "delinquent" for insufficient defense spending, which fueled discussions of EU autonomy as a response to perceived transatlantic imbalances. Under President , the 2021 Brussels Summit reaffirmed U.S. commitment to NATO's Article 5 mutual defense clause as a "sacred obligation," effectively binding EU security to transatlantic structures despite autonomy rhetoric. Empirically, 's burden-sharing has improved post-Russia's 2022 invasion of , with 16 of the 21 EU NATO members meeting the 2% GDP defense spending guideline by 2024, up from fewer pre-invasion. Yet, the U.S. accounts for approximately two-thirds of NATO's total defense expenditures, providing critical capabilities like intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strategic lift that lacks in sufficient scale. Such autonomy advocacy risks signaling disunity to adversaries, potentially eroding deterrence, as reliance on U.S.-led assets exposes initiatives to transatlantic policy shifts; for instance, European conventional forces remain under-equipped for independent high-intensity operations without American enablers. This dynamic prioritizes realism—leveraging 's integrated command and U.S. dominance for credible defense—over fragmented bloc , given Europe's persistent shortfalls in deployable power and .

National-Level Strategies

France's Enduring Gaullist Approach

France's pursuit of strategic autonomy traces its roots to Charles de Gaulle's doctrine of national independence, emphasizing self-reliance in defense and foreign policy, which has persisted across successive administrations despite shifts in global contexts. Following de Gaulle's withdrawal from NATO's integrated military command in 1966, this Gaullist legacy manifested in sustained investment in independent capabilities, such as the force de frappe nuclear deterrent. Under President in the 1980s, despite initial socialist skepticism toward nuclear weapons, the administration prioritized modernization of the nuclear arsenal, including upgrades to submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers, to maintain credible deterrence without reliance on alliances. This continuity underscored France's structure, enabling executive-led decisions unencumbered by supranational vetoes, in contrast to broader efforts often stalled by member-state consensus requirements. Key enablers of this approach include robust defense investments and operational assets. France's military expenditure reached approximately 2.1% of GDP in 2023, exceeding NATO's 2% guideline and supporting autonomous force projection. The country maintains an estimated 290 operational nuclear warheads, deliverable via submarines and air-launched systems, bolstering its independent deterrent posture. Complementing this, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier , commissioned in 2001, provides capabilities unique among non-U.S. navies, enabling deployments without host-nation dependencies. Arms exports, valued at around €19 billion in orders for 2024, generate revenues that offset domestic procurement costs and reinforce industrial autonomy. In contemporary practice, President has revived Gaullist elements through an strategy articulated in 2018, prioritizing France's overseas territories and partnerships to counterbalance U.S.-centric alliances. The 2021 AUKUS pact, which led to Australia's cancellation of a €50 billion contract with in favor of U.S. and UK nuclear-powered vessels, exemplified the risks and assertions of this autonomy: recalled ambassadors and recalibrated ties, yet persisted in regional engagements without subordinating to trilateral pacts. Similarly, (2014–2022), a unilateral French-led counterterrorism effort in the involving up to 5,000 troops, demonstrated flexibility—launching interventions in without NATO preconditions or EU-wide approvals, though it ended amid local political shifts. This national-level efficacy contrasts with dilutions at the scale, where veto-prone has hampered collective defense initiatives, such as fragmented or delayed responses to crises. France's centralized allows for rapid, uncompromised action, as seen in Barkhane's execution, preserving Gaullist amid alliance frictions. Empirical outcomes—sustained nuclear monopoly in and expeditionary successes—validate the doctrine's viability for a unitary power, though export dependencies introduce vulnerabilities.

India's Multi-Alignment Doctrine

India's approach to strategic autonomy originated with Jawaharlal Nehru's advocacy for non-alignment in the 1950s, formalized through the 1955 and the term "non-alignment" coined by Nehru in 1954 to avoid entanglement in blocs while pursuing national interests. This doctrine emphasized independence from rivalries, enabling to engage both Eastern and Western blocs on issues like and . Post-, it evolved into strategic autonomy, prioritizing diversified partnerships without formal alliances, and under Narendra since 2014, shifted to multi-alignment, involving simultaneous deepening of ties with multiple powers to maximize leverage amid rising multipolarity. A hallmark of multi-alignment is India's pragmatic balancing of security partnerships, exemplified by its revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) in 2017 with the United States, Japan, and Australia to address Indo-Pacific maritime challenges, particularly China's assertiveness, while proceeding with a $5.43 billion contract signed in October 2018 for five Russian S-400 air defense systems despite U.S. threats under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Deliveries commenced in November 2021, with the U.S. ultimately granting India a sanctions waiver in 2022 to avoid alienating a key partner against China. Russia accounted for 36% of India's arms imports in 2020–2024, down from 58% in 2014–2018, reflecting gradual diversification amid ongoing reliance for legacy systems. The June 2020 Galwan Valley clash with , which resulted in 20 Indian soldier deaths and marked the deadliest border confrontation in decades, accelerated multi-alignment by prompting intensified U.S.-India defense and technology cooperation without binding commitments. This included the launch of the U.S.-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging (iCET) in January 2023, co-led by national security advisors to foster collaboration in semiconductors, AI, quantum computing, and space, bypassing traditional bureaucratic hurdles. India's nominal GDP reached approximately $3.91 trillion in 2024, supporting indigenous defense production growth—up 62% since 2020 to $14.8 billion annually—and enabling broader supplier diversification. In the U.S.-China rivalry, multi-alignment allows to preserve operational flexibility, engaging Quad partners on shared concerns like while maintaining energy and arms ties with , which supplied discounted oil post-2022 invasion. However, escalating Pacific tensions, including risks, have strained this approach, as India's border vulnerabilities with incentivize selective U.S. alignment without endorsing broader "rules-based order" frameworks that could limit . Empirical data from 2024 analyses indicate that while multi-alignment has hedged risks—evident in diversified imports and tech pacts—it faces trade-offs, such as U.S. pressures on Russian dealings, underscoring the doctrine's emphasis on pragmatic, interest-driven balancing over ideological consistency.

Comparative Examples in Other States

Turkey's acquisition of Russia's S-400 air defense system, with initial deliveries commencing on July 12, 2019, exemplified a pursuit of strategic autonomy that strained its commitments, prompting U.S. sanctions and exclusion from the F-35 program due to interoperability concerns with alliance systems. This move enabled tactical balancing with amid tensions over and energy dependencies, contrasting with the EU's supranational constraints by allowing unilateral decisions in a framework. Post-2020, leveraged this autonomy through Bayraktar TB2 drone exports, which proved decisive in Azerbaijan's victory in the , destroying over 200 Armenian assets and spurring a six-fold surge in arms sales to allies, thereby enhancing Ankara's defense industry independence. China's , announced in 2013 by President , advanced an "independent " through infrastructure investments totaling approximately $679 billion in projects from 2013 to 2021, ostensibly reducing reliance on Western-led systems but often masking new dependencies on host-country stability and debt repayment streams. Unlike the EU's fragmented efforts, China's centralized approach facilitated rapid deployment across over 150 countries, yet empirical outcomes reveal vulnerabilities, such as stalled projects in and due to fiscal strains, underscoring limits to purported autonomy in a unitary authoritarian structure. Brazil's emphasis on BRICS since its 2009 inception has yielded limited empirical influence compared to its role, with BRICS summits producing declarative reforms but failing to rival the G20's crisis responses, such as liquidity injections during the 2008 financial meltdown, where Brazil's leverage remained marginal despite hosting ambitions. This highlights how non-unitary emerging powers, pursuing multi-alignment akin to India's but without comparable scale, often achieve tactical gains in forums like the —evident in Brazil's coordination of the 2024 Rio de Janeiro summit—over BRICS' aspirational autonomy, which has not measurably elevated its global bargaining power.

Criticisms and Analytical Debates

Theoretical Critiques from Realist Perspectives

Realist posits that the international system is anarchic, compelling states to prioritize survival through power maximization and balancing against threats, rather than pursuing normative ideals like strategic autonomy that assume cooperative interdependence. Critics from this perspective argue that autonomy fosters strategic illusions by underestimating relative power dynamics, where secondary actors like the risk exploitation by great powers seeking . John Mearsheimer's framework highlights how such pursuits ignore the imperative for buck-passing or with dominant powers, potentially inviting aggressive balancing by rivals unencumbered by commitments. Robert Kagan extends this critique by contrasting Europe's Kantian emphasis on rules and institutions—embodied in rhetoric—with the Hobbesian realities of , where military capability gaps render multilateral a form of denial rather than viable . , in realist terms, signals weakness to adversaries, undermining deterrence premised on credible threats rather than vague normative appeals. Recent frames this through "bind versus " dynamics, where European efforts may inadvertently facilitate rivals' strategies—exploiting intra- fissures—over binding mechanisms that lock in U.S. commitments for collective defense. This perspective rejects interdependence as an inherent virtue, often normalized in liberal academia despite evidence that enduring alliances like —operational since —succeed through enforced power balances and deterrence records absent direct great-power invasions of core members, contrasting with autonomy's unproven theoretical abstractions. Realists contend that autonomy's causal logic falters by privileging internal cohesion over external threat calibration, exposing actors to in suboptimal equilibria amid systemic uncertainty.

Empirical Shortcomings and Failures

Despite initiatives to enhance European strategic autonomy in defense, empirical metrics reveal persistent shortfalls in collaborative . In 2024, intra- defense trade accounted for only about 20-25% of total defense market value, far below targets like the European Defence Fund's aim to reach 35% by 2030, indicating limited progress toward joint acquisition goals. This fragmentation has resulted in duplicated capabilities across member states, with studies estimating annual inefficiencies from lack of coordination—exacerbated by national autonomy preferences—at €18-57 billion, equivalent to 15-30% of collective defense spending. Such duplication, evident in parallel development of fighter jets and armored vehicles by multiple countries, undermines cost efficiencies and capability . India's pursuit of multi-alignment as a form of strategic autonomy has similarly failed to reduce reliance on for . Crude oil imports from surged from 2% of India's total in 2021 to 36% by 2024, reaching over 87 million tonnes in 2024-25, driven by discounted prices post- despite diversification rhetoric toward Middle Eastern and Western suppliers. This dependence persisted into 2025, with supplying 1.75 million barrels per day in the first half of the year, highlighting the limits of when economic incentives override geopolitical diversification. The 2021 AUKUS pact exemplified credibility erosion in 's autonomy strategy. abruptly canceled a €50 billion submarine contract with 's in favor of U.S.- nuclear-powered submarines, prompting to recall ambassadors from and Washington and decry a "duplicitous" betrayal that undermined Paris's regional presence. This diplomatic fallout exposed vulnerabilities in 's Gaullist outreach, as bilateral deals proved susceptible to shifts in U.S.-aligned partnerships, reducing French export leverage and strategic footing in key theaters. European efforts to sustain the 2015 JCPOA after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 demonstrated the constraints of without transatlantic buy-in. The 's INSTEX mechanism, launched in 2019 to facilitate non-dollar with and bypass U.S. sanctions, processed only minimal transactions—totaling under €1 million by 2021—failing to deliver promised economic relief and prompting to exceed uranium enrichment limits by 2020, effectively collapsing the deal's compliance framework. This outcome underscored how EU unilateral tools lacked the market depth to counter U.S. financial dominance, rendering initiatives impotent against extra-regional powers.

Geopolitical Trade-Offs and Risks

Pursuits of strategic autonomy frequently impose geopolitical trade-offs by eroding cohesion, as independent postures can signal reduced commitment to partners. In the , intensified rhetoric for defense autonomy following the U.S. withdrawal from in August 2021 highlighted dependencies on American logistics and intelligence, straining . European frustration over limited consultation and the chaotic evacuation prompted leaders like French President to advocate decoupling from U.S. decision-making, which U.S. observers critiqued as fostering fragmentation and free-riding on American security guarantees. India's strategic autonomy similarly manifests in restrained engagement with the (QUAD), balancing cooperation against with avoidance of binding alliances. This hesitancy preserves flexibility in relations with but risks isolating India amid escalating Indo-Pacific tensions, as eschewing formalized commitments may undermine deterrence against Beijing's territorial claims in the and along the . Autonomy signals can embolden adversaries by conveying irresolution, altering their risk assessments. Russian President Vladimir Putin's authorization of the February 24, 2022, invasion of Ukraine factored in perceived Western disunity, including European divisions on dependencies and NATO's prior hesitancy to arm robustly after the 2014 annexation. This calculus of limited collective resolve encouraged escalation, as analyses indicate Putin viewed European fragilities and transatlantic inconsistencies as opportunities for limited intervention with minimal repercussions. Economic derisking amplifies these risks through self-inflicted shocks absent viable substitutes. The EU's sanctions and diversification from Russian hydrocarbons post-invasion triggered the 2022 energy crisis, with imports dropping 60% and benchmark gas prices surging from €20 to over €300 per megawatt-hour by August, exacerbating and industrial shutdowns. Such causal blowback from autonomy-driven decoupling demonstrates vulnerabilities in transitioning from adversarial suppliers without parallel capacity builds. Realist theory underscores that alliances counter these trade-offs by pooling resources for amplified deterrence, as NATO's framework leverages the economic scale of its members—where European allies and alone account for defense spending at 2.02% of GDP in , integrated with U.S. capabilities—to exceed what fragmented efforts could achieve amid veto-prone and spending disparities.

Contemporary Developments

Effects of the Russia-Ukraine War

The Russia-Ukraine war, initiated by Russia's full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, catalyzed a sharp rise in member states' defense budgets, with expenditures increasing over 30% in real terms from 2021 to and totaling €326 billion in . This surge included Germany's €100 billion special defense fund announced by Chancellor on February 27, 2022, and -level mechanisms like the European Peace Facility, which disbursed over €6 billion in to by mid-. However, these measures exposed the practical constraints of strategic autonomy, as 's defense relied critically on U.S.-supplied advanced weaponry, including HIMARS systems that constituted nearly 70% of its multiple-launch rocket capabilities and enabled precision strikes essential to frontline operations. EU-imposed sanctions on , encompassing 14 packages by October 2024, aimed to curtail Moscow's financing but generated blowback effects on European economies through disrupted imports and supply chains. The resulting price spikes contributed to inflationary pressures and growth deceleration, with the IMF revising down GDP forecasts in 2023 owing to the 's indirect shocks, including a 2022-2023 slowdown where growth fell to 0.4% amid heightened fiscal strains. Despite optimistic narratives in some European policy circles portraying the crisis as a catalyst for autonomous defense revival, aid flow data from trackers like the Kiel Institute reveal that NATO-led coordination—predominantly reliant on U.S. intelligence sharing and initial weapon deliveries—filled early gaps that production scales could not, with only surpassing U.S. commitments in new contracts by mid-2025 after three years of . National variations underscored uneven autonomy pursuits: France preserved diplomatic channels with Russia, as evidenced by President Emmanuel Macron's July 1, 2025, call with —the first since September 2022—pressing for an immediate ceasefire while critiquing escalation risks. , adhering to its multi-alignment , deepened economic engagement with by importing discounted volumes that reached 1.5 million barrels per day in 2023-2024, mitigating domestic costs without aligning fully with Western sanctions and thereby exemplifying strategic flexibility amid the conflict. Overall, the war empirically demonstrated that while prompting expenditure hikes, high-stakes contingencies amplified transatlantic interdependencies and internal fragmentation, limiting the feasibility of decoupled decision-making.

Responses to US Policy Under Biden and Beyond

Under the Biden administration, efforts to revitalize transatlantic ties through , including the June 2021 in that reaffirmed commitments, did not halt European pursuits of strategic autonomy. The formally adopted its Strategic Compass for Security and Defence on , 2022, outlining measures to bolster the bloc's independent and defense capabilities by 2030, even as it emphasized partnerships with the . This initiative proceeded amid heavy dependence on logistical and intelligence support for aid following Russia's February 2022 invasion, revealing gaps in autonomous operational readiness. Biden officials, while supportive of enhanced European capacities, viewed such autonomy as complementary to rather than divisive, yet empirical transatlantic divergences—such as prioritization of theaters—underscored the need for hedging against inconsistencies. Prospects of a post-Biden shift, amplified by Donald Trump's 2024 campaign threats to withhold defense of members failing to meet 2% GDP spending targets, prompted accelerated European defense enhancements as a precaution against potential disengagement. European allies' collective defense expenditures surged 11.7% in real terms to $457 billion in 2024, with 23 of 32 members achieving the 2% threshold by year's end. EU Commission President proposed an €800 billion rearmament framework in March 2025, explicitly linking it to contingencies like reduced reliability, while the European Defence Fund saw adjusted priorities for collaborative projects exceeding €50 million annually. These steps reflect a realist assessment that policy oscillations, from Biden's engagement to prospective retrenchment, necessitate capability-building to mitigate risks without supplanting alliances. Specific state-level adaptations illustrated this dynamic. France asserted regional influence independently in July 2023, when President toured Pacific nations including and , denouncing "" from powers like and committing to bolstered French presence and infrastructure aid as a non-exclusive alternative to -led frameworks. , meanwhile, hedged via deepened partnerships—evident in 2023-2025 initiatives for joint manufacturing hubs—while advancing expansion in 2024 to include new members, thereby diversifying supply chains and diplomatic options amid export controls. Such maneuvers empirically position strategic autonomy as an insurance against unpredictability, prioritizing in domains like and where alliance support proves variable.

Implications of US-China Competition

The intensifying in , , and supply chains has compelled states pursuing strategic autonomy to prioritize diversification of dependencies, particularly from , rather than pursuing illusory self-sufficiency. The European Union's 2023 de-risking strategy, formalized through the , acknowledges acute vulnerabilities, with the bloc importing over 90% of processed rare earth elements—essential for , renewables, and defense—from -dominated supply chains, exposing economies to controls as demonstrated by Beijing's 2025 restrictions on rare earths amid escalating tensions. Similarly, India's multi-alignment doctrine navigates rivalry via deepened partnerships, including Quad initiatives, despite a October 2024 border patrolling pact with along the , which stabilizes but does not resolve underlying territorial disputes fueling Himalayan . These efforts underscore causal pressures: over-reliance on adversarial suppliers invites , as seen in 's leverage over global battery minerals, where it controls 60-70% of and 85-90% of capacity. In semiconductors, the rivalry manifests as a "chips war," with Taiwan's holding approximately 90% of global capacity for advanced nodes below 7nm, critical for AI, military systems, and consumer tech, rendering neutral posturing precarious amid risks. export controls since 2022, tightened in , alongside reciprocal Chinese restrictions, have fragmented supply chains, straining multi-alignment by inflating costs— tariffs on Chinese goods averaged 19% by late , up from prior levels, while proposals for 60% hikes signal further escalation. Achieving meaningful demands colossal investments; the EU's Chips Act allocates €43 billion in public funds through 2030, aiming to attract €100 billion in private capital, yet falls short of the estimated $1 trillion global capex required for diversified advanced manufacturing, highlighting fiscal constraints and technological gaps that self-reliant bids cannot bridge without allied integration. Empirical precedents from the rivalry favor alignment with dominant coalitions over rigid autonomy gambles. NATO-aligned states deterred Soviet expansion through collective defense and , yielding post-1991 security dividends, whereas non-aligned nations like faced internal collapse or coercion despite initial maneuverability, and even prosperous neutrals such as incrementally tilted Westward for without forgoing core independence. In the current bipolar-like contest, neutral diversification risks suboptimal equilibria—exposed to tariff-induced disruptions and tech denial—whereas embedding in US-led frameworks, as pragmatically pursues via defense pacts, empirically correlates with enhanced deterrence and innovation spillovers, outweighing autonomy's theoretical allure amid causal realities of power asymmetries.

References

  1. https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019RP04/
  2. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/03/the-eus-strategic-autonomy-trap?lang=en
  3. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/european-strategic-autonomy-after-macrons-trip-china
  4. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/why-european-strategic-autonomy-matters_en
  5. https://www.iris-france.org/en/eu-defence-industrial-policy-and-strategic-autonomy-how-to-square-the-circle-with-nato/
  6. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/strategic-autonomy-and-european-economic-and-research-security_en
  7. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/45/4/7/100571/Illusions-of-Autonomy-Why-Europe-Cannot-Provide
  8. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1319-1.html
  9. https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/europes-strategic-autonomy-fallacy
  10. https://www.csis.org/analysis/united-states-now-wants-european-strategic-autonomy
  11. https://nato-veterans.org/not-de-coupling-but-de-risking-nato-europes-bid-for-strategic-autonomy/
  12. https://www.gmfus.org/news/necessity-and-impossibility-strategic-autonomy
  13. https://www.e-ir.info/2024/12/03/european-strategic-autonomy-how-realism-best-explains-why-it-remains-a-failure/
  14. http://warontherocks.com/2020/11/strategic-autonomy-and-u-s-indian-relations/
  15. https://ecfr.eu/special/independence_play_europes_pursuit_of_strategic_autonomy/
  16. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733589/EPRS_BRI%282022%29733589_EN.pdf
  17. https://koreaonpoint.org/articles/article_detail.php?idx=431
  18. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA1300/RRA1319-1/RAND_RRA1319-1.pdf
  19. https://www.statista.com/chart/35028/volume-of-natural-gas-imported-to-the-eu/
  20. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=EU
  21. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1drqeev36qo
  22. https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/gaia-x-takes-major-step-toward-sovereign-european-digital-infrastructure-607862
  23. https://nl.usembassy.gov/marshall-plan-1947-2017/
  24. https://npolicy.org/books/Getting_MAD/Ch2_Tertrais.pdf
  25. https://www.frstrategie.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/recherches-et-documents/2020/202001.pdf
  26. https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/1c8aa583-8ec5-41c4-9ad8-73674ea7f4a7/bd191c42-0f53-4ec0-a60a-c53c72c747c2
  27. https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/803b2430-7d1c-4e7b-9101-47415702fc8e/f631cc13-af3d-43dd-8965-bd15e658155b
  28. https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceOrigin.html
  29. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v13/introduction
  30. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_160672.htm
  31. https://www.frstrategie.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/recherches-et-documents/2020/202004.pdf
  32. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
  33. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R4229.pdf
  34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qd1sh
  35. https://daily.jstor.org/nuclear-frances-empire-of-the-bomb/
  36. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=FR
  37. https://www.nytimes.com/1966/05/29/archives/what-de-gaulle-wants-in-moscow.html
  38. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/de-gaulle-and-vive-le-quebec-libre-feature
  39. https://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD106.html
  40. https://2024.sci-hub.se/4264/a9fb9dce39ed5f48bcad327cfbe63ee1/10.1080%4010242690500115915.pdf
  41. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1990-01-01/unipolar-moment
  42. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmfaff/545/54506.htm
  43. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/RAND_MR1365.pdf
  44. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/22/germany.france
  45. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html
  46. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/3/pdf/240314-def-exp-2023-en.pdf
  47. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/global-strategy-european-unions-foreign-and-security-policy_en
  48. https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2017/09/26/president-macron-gives-speech-on-new-initiative-for-europe
  49. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024/2024-03-PESCO-Deepening-defence-cooperarion.pdf
  50. https://www.france24.com/en/20181024-french-macron-questions-saudi-arms-deals-merkel-german-khashoggi-murder
  51. https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/ukraine-conflicts-impact-european-defence-and-permanent-structured-cooperation-pesco
  52. https://www.boell.de/en/2021/01/08/poland-and-baltic-states-preference-renewed-west
  53. https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/european-defence-fund-edf-official-webpage-european-commission_en
  54. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/10/08/eu-defence-funding/
  55. https://pesco.europa.eu/project/cyber-rapid-response-teams-and-mutual-assistance-in-cyber-security/
  56. https://www.pesco.europa.eu/pressmedia/pescos-cyber-rapid-response-teams-support-safeguarding-moldovas-elections-and-eu-referendum/
  57. https://icds.ee/en/eu-defence-series-pesco-must-step-up/
  58. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/factsheet_battlegroups.pdf
  59. https://euradio.ideasoneurope.eu/2023/05/19/from-the-eu-battlegroup-concept-to-the-rapid-deployment-capacity-a-gear-change-in-the-eus-rapid-deployment-capabilities/
  60. https://www.cer.eu/insights/eu-army-four-reasons-it-will-not-happen
  61. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/03/18/ukraine-assistance-fund-council-allocates-5-billion-under-the-european-peace-facility-to-support-ukraine-militarily/
  62. https://epthinktank.eu/2024/09/03/ukraine-the-european-peace-facility-and-additional-financing/
  63. https://www.kielinstitut.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
  64. https://e-ir.info/2018/05/11/the-capability-expectation-gap-in-eu-foreign-policy-after-the-lisbon-treaty/
  65. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
  66. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/chips-act
  67. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/19/taiwan-semiconductor-industry-booming
  68. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/
  69. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/energy/repowereu_en
  70. https://www.bruegel.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/PC%252014%25202022_0.pdf
  71. https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/
  72. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leave-room-reality-check-european-cloud-alternatives-benjamin-hermann-nm4pe
  73. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f107d76-acbe-11eb-9767-01aa75ed71a1
  74. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/supporting-jobs-and-economy-during-coronavirus-pandemic/state-aid-cases_en
  75. https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-happened-natos-vilnius-summit
  76. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/09/erdogan-orban-nato-sweden/
  77. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-nato-secretary-general-jens-stoltenberg-bilateral-breakfast/
  78. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/06/14/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-3/
  79. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/772846/EPRS_ATA%282025%29772846_EN.pdf
  80. https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/unprecedented-rise-global-military-expenditure-european-and-middle-east-spending-surges
  81. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2025/8/pdf/250827-def-exp-2025-en.pdf
  82. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-2-percent-look-how-nato-allies-have-increased-their-defense-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
  83. https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/0582-europe-as-a-power-european-sovereignty-strategic-autonomy-a-debate-that-is-moving-towards-an
  84. https://www.csmonitor.com/1983/0201/020148.html
  85. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA421940.pdf
  86. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2023-07/nuclear-notebook-french-nuclear-weapons-2023/
  87. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/01/08/rafale-jets-submarines-push-frances-defense-exports-to-19b-in-2024/
  88. https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/after-aukus-how-could-france-reboot-its-indo-pacific-strategy
  89. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/timeline-what-led-france-to-withdraw-its-troops-from-mali
  90. https://unherd.com/2025/02/are-we-all-gaullists-now/
  91. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/non-alignment-was-coined-by-nehru-in-1954/articleshow/2000656.cms
  92. https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/empire-decolonisation/the-non-aligned-manifesto/
  93. https://www.cidob.org/publicaciones/indias-foreign-policy-reconfiguration-non-alignment-multi-alignment
  94. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/jaishankar-modi-doctrine-indias-multi-alignment-approach
  95. https://www.csis.org/analysis/defining-diamond-past-present-and-future-quadrilateral-security-dialogue
  96. https://www.orfonline.org/research/india-s-purchase-of-the-s-400-understanding-the-caatsa-conundrum
  97. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/us-caatsa-india-russia-s400-missile-weapons-system-8016536/
  98. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at_2023.pdf
  99. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/how-china-india-relations-will-shape-asia-and-global-order/evolution-border-dispute
  100. https://in.usembassy.gov/fact-sheet-united-states-and-india-elevate-strategic-partnership-with-the-initiative-on-critical-and-emerging-technology-icet/
  101. https://tradingeconomics.com/india/gdp
  102. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-offers-cheap-loans-arms-targeting-russias-traditional-customers-2025-04-16/
  103. https://www.cfr.org/blog/india-between-superpowers-strategic-autonomy-shadow-pacific-conflict
  104. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/10/multipolar-dreams-bipolar-realities-indias-great-power-future?lang=en
  105. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-india-relationship-between-cooperation-and-competition
  106. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/world/europe/turkey-russia-missiles.html
  107. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/12/russian-missile-delivery-to-turkey-strains-allys-relations-with-us
  108. https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-russian-missile-that-could-end-the-u-s-turkish-alliance/
  109. https://www.insightturkey.com/articles/the-role-of-turkish-drones-in-azerbaijans-increasing-military-effectiveness-an-assessment-of-the-second-nagorno-karabakh-war
  110. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkish-arms-sales-azerbaijan-surged-before-nagorno-karabakh-fighting-2020-10-14/
  111. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
  112. https://www.gao.gov/assets/880/871278.pdf
  113. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/brics-summit-emerging-middle-powers-g7-g20?lang=en
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9522544/
  115. https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/evaluating-the-2024-brics-summit-outcomes/
  116. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
  117. https://samuelbhfaure.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s2-mearsheimer-2001.pdf
  118. https://www.aei.org/articles/critical-review-of-robert-kagans-of-paradise-and-power/
  119. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07036337.2025.2537362
  120. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07036337.2025.2537370
  121. https://www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/european-defence-industrial-strategy-hostile-world
  122. https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/military-unification/
  123. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/europe-protects-us-opportunities-eu-defense
  124. https://www.spf.org/iina/en/articles/takahashi_07.html
  125. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e3786p01qo
  126. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-already-cutting-russian-oil-imports-by-50-after-us-talks-white-house-2025-10-16/
  127. https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/c25/european-reactions-aukus-and-implications-eu-strategic-autonomy
  128. https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/4/1307/6628367
  129. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03932729.2021.1876861
  130. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/603515/EXPO_IDA%282020%29603515_EN.pdf
  131. https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2020/will-europes-latest-move-lead-demise-iran-nuclear-deal
  132. https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2021/09/autonomy-minus-a-strategy?lang=en
  133. https://www.nbr.org/publication/india-and-the-quad-when-a-weak-link-is-powerful/
  134. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09735984251342231
  135. https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/weakness-lethal-why-putin-invaded-ukraine-and-how-war-must-end
  136. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-real-reason-russia-invaded-ukraine-hint-its-not-nato-expansion/
  137. https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2022C33/
  138. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/energy/eu-action-address-energy-crisis_en
  139. https://www.bruegel.org/newsletter/great-2022-european-energy-crisis-what-actually-happened-and-how-did-europe-cope-0
  140. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/trackers-and-data-visualizations/nato-defense-spending-tracker/
  141. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf
  142. https://academic.oup.com/yel/advance-article/doi/10.1093/yel/yeaf003/8112000
  143. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/05/07/eu-member-states-defence-budgets/
  144. https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/side-effects-of-the-russo-ukrainian-war/
  145. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253
  146. https://theins.ru/en/politics/279881
  147. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/
  148. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/10/13/tr-101323-european-department-press-briefing-economic-outlook-in-europe
  149. https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-now-leading-spender-on-weapons-production-for-ukraine/
  150. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250701-macron-urges-putin-accept-ukraine-ceasefire-first-phone-call-since-2022-russia-france
  151. https://southasianvoices.org/geo-c-in-n-india-ukraine-russia-strategic-autonomy-10-14-2024/
  152. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/indias-sovereignty-paradox-neutrality-oil-and-the-price-of-multi-alignment/
  153. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2025.2517031?src=
  154. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-chips-act_en
  155. https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/10/27/why-is-china-restricting-rare-earth-exports-and-how-will-the-eu-respond
  156. https://www.usip.org/publications/2024/10/how-india-china-border-deal-impacts-their-ties-and-us
  157. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2023/europes-fear-dependence-china-critical-minerals-overblown
  158. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/1-number-may-ensure-tsmcs-market-dominance
  159. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2019/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart
  160. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-europe-aims-to-achieve-strategic-autonomy-for-semiconductors/
  161. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/blog/defence-non-alignment
  162. https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-284
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.