Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Confusion? The EU’s Foreign Policy Dilemma Ahead of the Ankara NATO Summit
- Valentina Orbacchi
- May 29
- 5 min read
With the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara approaching, the European Union’s foreign policy dilemma is becoming increasingly prominent. Three factors are driving this uncertainty: the ongoing war in Ukraine, increasing instability in the Middle East, and doubts about the US's long-term security commitments to NATO. What was initially thought to be a short conflict in Ukraine, has now entered its fourth year and is exposing the EU’s inability to bring the conflict to an end, despite its continuous diplomatic and military involvement.
At the same time, instability in the Middle East, which started with the 7th October attack on Israel by Hamas, has evolved into a broader regional crisis that involves multiple state and non-state actors. The risk of further spillovers threatens the EU’s stability and calls for a unified foreign policy response.
Deteriorating these already urgent challenges is the increasing uncertainty concerning the US’s involvement in European security. Washington is cautious about maintaining its current level of engagement in Europe, due to budgetary pressures and the need to strengthen its presence in the Indo-Pacific. Together, these developments create a highly unstable geopolitical landscape for the EU, which appears uncertain about what strategic autonomy truly means in practice. Despite its ambition, the Union remains divided and dependent on NATO.
In recent years, French President Emmanuel Macron has championed Europe’s strategic autonomy and envisioned the EU as an independent global power. Independence from NATO and China in defense and technology are prerogatives of this view. He advocates for reducing Europe's dependence on NATO in security matters, arguing that the alliance, established in the aftermath of WWII, no longer aligns with today’s geopolitical realities. He urges the EU to assert itself as an independent third pole in global affairs and to navigate global powers’ disputes on its own strategic terms rather than passively aligning with American policy.
When Macron first articulated this vision in his 2017 Sorbonne speech, it was met with widespread skepticism: critics viewed the policy as an attempt by France to spearhead EU militarization or to position itself as a replacement for NATO. These ideas nevertheless gained renovated traction in later years, especially amid the COVID-19 global crisis, fluctuating US foreign policy, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In 2022, European media and politicians framed the war in Ukraine as a direct assault on European values. In response, EU leaders took the unprecedented step of providing military support to Ukraine, a move that signalled the Union’s recognition that the Pax Americana of the post-Cold War era had definitively ended. Despite the EU’s ambition, implementing Macron’s paradigm has proven quite difficult, partly because the EU’s mandate does not include foreign policy and partly because of the different, and sometimes competing, interests of EU members.
Beyond French strong support for independence, most Eastern European states, especially those bordering Russia, rely heavily on NATO and the US for security. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has reinforced this idea even further, making these countries quite skeptical towards proposals involving security independence. Germany, despite its increased defense spending after 2022, remains cautious towards a more militarized EU foreign policy. Similarly, Southern European states tend to prioritize other issues such as migration, instability in North Africa and the Middle East, and energy security.
These differing priorities reveal a deep problem with the EU: despite its rhetoric of unity, the Union does not yet possess a truly coherent strategic culture and member states continue to disagree regarding the future of European foreign policy. This fragmentation raises an important question ahead of the Ankara NATO Summit: can the EU realistically pursue strategic autonomy if its own members remain divided on what the Union’s strategic prerogatives should be?
The Ankara NATO Summit will take place amid growing uncertainty for the transatlantic alliance. NATO has gained renewed relevance following the war in Ukraine, but the summit has also become a reflection of growing anxieties about the future of the EU’s security and American leadership. For decades, the US has carried the majority of NATO’s military and financial responsibilities. Now, increasing polarization in Washington has cast doubts on America’s future role in NATO.
Europeans are therefore facing a difficult reality: they must improve their military and defense capabilities and at the same time recognize that achieving true strategic autonomy will be a lengthy process that requires significant financial investment—something not all member states are willing to commit to—and may necessitate difficult trade-offs, such as potential reductions in welfare spending.
The Ankara Summit reflects this tension and highlights that the future role of European allies within NATO is no longer merely a technical debate but has become a matter of European geostrategic identity and future. The Summit also exposes the absence of a clear and unified vision for what greater strategic responsibility will actually look like. Many leaders agree that the EU should become a stronger military power, yet there is little consensus on whether this should occur primarily through NATO structures or through independent European initiatives.
The risk is that this ambiguity could create confusion not only within the alliance but also outside it. If the EU presents itself as seeking greater autonomy without clearly defining its foreign policy objectives, it might jeopardize the Union’s credibility as a coherent geopolitical actor. Far from being a simple routine NATO meeting, the Ankara summit symbolizes a transitional moment in which Europe is trying to redefine its role within an increasingly unstable global order.
This debate raises a fundamental question: does the EU possess the political structure and strategic clarity to act as a true geopolitical power? The EU increasingly utilizes the language of power politics, but its institutional limitations continue to constrain its ability to respond decisively to international crises. The EU’s decision-making process is probably one of the main structural weaknesses of the Union: foreign and security policy requires unanimity among members, making collective action easily blocked or delayed. This can significantly hinder the EU’s capacity to respond to global crises, making its decision-making much slower than that of other, more centralized governments such as the US, China, or Russia.
Beyond institutional challenges, the EU also faces a problem of strategic coherence. European leaders frequently describe the Union as a geopolitical actor, yet there is no fully shared understanding of Europe’s long-term strategic priorities. Is the EU primarily a military actor, an economic power, or a normative force? In practice, the Union attempts to balance all three roles simultaneously, sometimes producing contradictory policies and unclear messaging.
Within this complex context, the Ankara Summit should not become another occasion for discussing defense spending targets or burden-sharing within the alliance. Instead, it should represent an opportunity for European leaders to clarify the position they envision for the EU. If they call for greater strategic autonomy, they must move beyond mere rhetoric and embrace a coherent, long-term strategy that includes increased military expenditure, as well as deeper political cooperation, faster decision-making mechanisms, and a clearer, unified definition of the EU’s strategic priorities. Otherwise, strategic autonomy risks remaining an ambitious yet unattainable project.
At the same time, the Summit should refrain from framing European strategic autonomy as a departure from NATO structures. Rather, it should be presented as a way to strengthen Europe’s contribution to the Alliance. A more capable and strategically coordinated Union could reduce existing imbalances within NATO and reinforce collective security at a moment when it is strongly needed. In this sense, the Ankara Summit offers Europeans a critical opportunity to redefine the EU’s place in the Alliance. Whether the EU emerges from this moment as a more confident geopolitical actor or remains trapped between ambition and fragmentation will largely depend on its ability to translate strategic discourse into coordinated political action.
This article written by Valentina Orbacchi, an International Relations researcher specialising in political communication, global governance, and contemporary conflict. She is currently UK & EU Regional Lead at Egypt Time Co. UK and holds an MA in International Relations from the University of Westminster. Her work focuses on the relationship between communication, power, and international politics.
Comments