Brussels is preparing to unveil a new European Security Strategy ahead of the annual State of the European Union address, according to policy analysts. The initiative arrives just four years after the adoption of the EU’s Strategic Compass, driven by epochal shifts that include Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s accelerated economic dominance, and an increasingly unreliable United States.
Balancing Strategic Ambition With Military Reality
According to Max Bergmann, Director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Central and Eastern Europe must prioritize establishing a dependable European pillar capable of independently deterring and fighting Russia. European pillar capable Bergmann argues that NATO has not and will not ever build that specific capability for Europe. Meanwhile, Jiří Schneider, Senior Fellow at Visegrad Insight and a former Czech diplomat, cautions that aiming for a united hierarchy of threats is futile given the EU’s diversity. Instead, Schneider suggests that EU solidarity should be tested by respecting different regional threat levels and enabling structured defense cooperation backed by NATO capabilities.
Ulrich Speck, a non-resident senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, warns against declaring the EU the future center of European defense. Speck notes that critical military players like Britain, Turkey, and Ukraine remain outside the EU, and member states will continue to direct military policy. According to Speck, Brussels should focus on achievable goals such as military mobility, arms industry cooperation, and countering Russian hybrid warfare rather than pursuing a federalist fantasy.
Defining the Core Threats to European Security
Jan Truszczyński, former chief negotiator for Poland’s EU accession, states that the new European Security Strategy must remain clear-eyed about Russia as the permanent principal threat. Truszczyński highlights the EU’s Readiness 2030 goal, the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument, and alignment among the five largest European military powers—the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Poland, and Italy—as essential tools for containment. Dimitar Bechev, director of the Dahrendorf Programme on Europe in a Changing World at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, highlights the need to guard against traditional military might alongside subversion and sabotage, reflecting this same core concern.
Beyond traditional military risks, Judy Dempsey, a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, points to Russia’s growing dependence on China and its military ties with North Korea as an emerging axis that threatens European economic and political security. Velina Tchakarova, founder of the geopolitical consultancy FACE, adds that Europe faces simultaneous, mutually reinforcing crises driven by full-scale Russian hybrid warfare across the eastern flank, requiring urgent investments in layered air defense and critical infrastructure corridors.
What Brussels Can Actually Deliver
The credibility of the new strategy depends on staying within areas controlled by Brussels, such as the budget, single market, trade, and industrial policy, according to Ivan Us, Future of Ukraine Fellow at Visegrad Insight. Us outlines a defensible hierarchy of threats starting with Russian conventional and nuclear coercion, followed by sub-threshold hybrid war, U.S. disengagement, Chinese dependency, energy vulnerability, and internal cohesion erosion.
Justinas Mickus, a Resilient Futures Fellow at Visegrad Insight, notes that the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the integration of Ukraine into the EU’s defense framework will be critical tests of governance. Similarly, Roberts Kits, a researcher at the Latvian Strategy and Economic Research Institute, argues that the next MFF must reflect the heavy security burden carried by Central and Eastern European countries, ensuring their defense spending is adequately supported without creating long-term inequalities.
Did You Know? The European Commission’s push for a new security strategy comes just four years after the 2022 Strategic Compass, sparking debates among member states over whether the Commission is overstepping its traditional budgetary and regulatory mandate.
Integrating External Partnerships and Democratic Resilience
Atsuko Higashino, a professor at the University of Tsukuba, asserts that Ukraine’s security must be treated as inseparable from Europe’s own, backed by credible security guarantees and a clear accession path.
At the institutional level, Edward Lucas, founder of the Baltic International Security Centre, argues that the EU needs to import the security culture found in Finland and the Baltic states, where vigilance is embedded in daily life. Aliaksei Kazharski, a fellow at Visegrad Insight, stresses that defending democracy against authoritarianism and countering regional historical divides are vital priorities for long-term societal resilience.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of the new European Security Strategy?
The proposed strategy aims to address epochal shifts in Europe’s security environment, including the war in Ukraine, shifting transatlantic relations with the United States, and growing economic dependencies on China, by linking defense readiness with economic security and resilience.
Why are some EU member states concerned about the new strategy?
According to reports, several member states fear that the European Commission may use the strategy to overreach its authority in defense industrial policy and secure new external spending programs during difficult budget negotiations.
How does the strategy address the threat from Russia?
Experts contributing to Visegrad Insight emphasize that the strategy must treat Russia as the primary conventional and hybrid threat, prioritizing long-term deterrence, military mobility, joint procurement, and enhanced defense capabilities along Europe’s eastern flank.
Keep reading