Thread by @FaceDeBengals

1/
🚨 NEW STUDY: How has the Russia–Ukraine war reshaped the EU’s defense strategy?

Using 26,000+ official EU documents and AI analysis, Ünaldilar et al. (2025) map the EU’s evolving quest for strategic autonomy.

Here’s a breakdown of what they found 🧵

🔍 What is strategic autonomy?

The EU defines it as its ability to “make its own choices and shape the world around it” — especially in defense, tech, and industry — without overreliance on the US or NATO.

The war in Ukraine turned this from an aspiration into a necessity.

3/
📚 Method: The authors used text mining + topic modeling on 8034 European External Action Service (EEAS) docs.

They categorized discourse using the EU’s Strategic Compass, which has 4 pillars:
•Act
•Secure
•Invest
•Partner

4/
⚔️ ACT: Crisis response & military operations

Post-2022, the EU expanded its European Peace Facility to supply weapons to Ukraine — a historic shift.

It also launched its first-ever military training mission on EU soil: EUMAM Ukraine.

5/
📉 But here’s the paradox: While operational efforts expanded, the relative focus on “Act” stayed stable.

Why? Because many of these capabilities were already in planning pre-invasion. Ukraine accelerated deployment, not strategy reform.

6/
🛡️ SECURE: Cyber, hybrid threats, disinformation

Post-2022, attention to cyber diplomacy surged. The EU rolled out the Cyber Resilience Act and reinforced cyber/hybrid defense.

But… the bloc still lags far behind the US, China & Russia in offensive cyber capabilities.

7/
☢️ Nuclear tensions? The EU remains divided.

Austria & Ireland support nuclear disarmament. France (its only nuclear state) opposes the UN TPNW.

Ukraine hardened these divides, making EU cohesion on disarmament even tougher.

8/
💶 INVEST: Defense industry & capability building

Russia’s invasion sparked a defense spending spree:
•€8B Defense Fund
•€500M Common Procurement Act (EDIRPA)
•€1.5B Tech Sovereignty platform

Yet the market remains fragmented across member states.

9/
🧠 The authors warn: Strategic ambition ≠ Implementation.

Despite funding and frameworks, national procurement habits and lack of integration hold back a truly unified EU defense market.

10/
🌍 PARTNER: The EU’s global alliances

Post-invasion, EU-NATO ties deepened. Sweden & Finland joined NATO. The two blocs signed a 4th Joint Declaration in Jan 2023.

Yet, strategic autonomy remains blurry: Can the EU act without NATO or the US?

11/
🌐 The EU is also expanding ties with ASEAN, AU, and Indo-Pacific states.

But it’s losing ground in Africa and Central Asia to China, whose Belt and Road approach offers quick money with fewer strings.

The EU’s soft power has limits.

12/
📊 Key finding: The war didn’t radically change EU defense rhetoric. Instead, it accelerated pre-existing trends — particularly on partnerships and crisis response.

The Strategic Compass served as a stabilizer, not a disruptor.

13/
💡 The big lesson?

The EU’s move toward autonomy is incremental and constrained by:
•Diverging threat perceptions
•Political fragmentation
•Reliance on the US

Yet crises like Ukraine can nudge integration forward — under pressure.

14/
🎯 Bottom line:

The Russia–Ukraine war acted as both a catalyst and a stress test for EU strategic autonomy.

The EU made gains in operations and partnerships — but major gaps remain in industrial capacity, sovereignty, and unity.

15/
📖 Citation:
Ünaldilar, S., Aydoğan Ünal, B., & Kumova Metin, S. (2025).
“Navigating the storm: the impact of the Russia–Ukraine war on EU’s quest for strategic autonomy”. European Security.
🔗 doi.org/10.1080/096628…

Yet, it wasn’t Trump that shook up the EU. It was already a trend.

17/
🇺🇸 Ossa 2025, shows that from Clinton to Biden, US political leaders were broadly skeptical of EU defense autonomy — not because they oppose EU strength, but due to fear of duplicating NATO.

👉 For Washington, NATO = coherence. EU defense = possible fragmentation.

18/
🧠 Think tanks & analysts in the US are more divided.

Some see EU strategic autonomy as a welcome burden-sharing evolution. Others see it as a distraction from NATO cohesion — especially during crises like Ukraine.

There’s no unified US view — it’s factional.

19/
📌 Ossa’s key finding: US decision-makers show continuity in skepticism across administrations (Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden), whereas influencers (Brookings, RAND, Heritage, etc.) show more ideological divergence.

20/
This adds depth to Ünaldilar et al. (2025), who mostly focus on EU internal dynamics.

Ossa reminds us: autonomy isn’t just a European ambition — it’s also judged externally, especially by the US, who remains the EU’s primary security provider.

21/
🔄 Both studies agree: The tension between EU autonomy and transatlantic cooperation is structural, not temporary.

The EU cannot claim strategic independence while relying on US nuclear deterrence, intelligence, and operational command structures.

22/
🇫🇷🇩🇪 France sees strategic autonomy as emancipation.
🇵🇱🇪🇪 Poland and the Baltics see it as dangerous drift from NATO.

US leaders have often echoed Warsaw more than Paris — especially during Republican administrations.

23/
🤖 A missing link in both studies? The AI and cyber defense race.

While Ünaldilar emphasize the EU’s struggle to scale cyber capabilities, Ossa hints that US experts view EU digital sovereignty as important — if it’s complementary to shared goals.

24/
🔚 Final takeaway:

For EU autonomy to be viable, it must:
•Clarify its role vis-à-vis NATO
•Address US perceptions and misperceptions
•Deliver capabilities, not just speeches

Strategic autonomy that alienates allies is not strategic — it’s symbolic.

Heljä Ossa (18 Feb 2025): European strategic autonomy in the transatlantic
security context: American perceptions of European security and defence integration 1998–
2022, European Security, doi.org/10.1080/096628…