Europe is facing an increasingly difficult strategic balancing act between Washington and Moscow as the war in Ukraine, uncertainty over US policy and growing security pressures force governments to reconsider the continent’s long-term position. European leaders remain heavily dependent on the United States for military capabilities and the wider NATO security framework, while Russia continues to pose a major security challenge on Europe’s eastern flank. At the same time, disagreements within Europe over how far to pursue strategic autonomy and whether diplomatic channels with Moscow should be maintained are exposing differences over the continent’s future foreign and defence policy.
Why Is Europe Caught Between Washington and Moscow?
The central problem for Europe is that its security relationship with Washington remains indispensable even as questions grow about the reliability and direction of US engagement. The European Union and United States remain deeply interconnected economically and strategically, with bilateral trade in goods and services reaching €1.77 trillion in 2025. Together, the EU and US account for almost 30 per cent of global trade in goods and services and about 43 per cent of global GDP at current exchange rates.
Yet the security environment has changed considerably since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. European governments have increased defence spending, expanded military support for Ukraine and strengthened NATO’s eastern flank.
Russia, meanwhile, remains central to European security calculations. The European Parliament has described Russia as the main threat facing the EU and argued that member states need to close critical defence capability gaps while strengthening cooperation with other NATO partners.
This leaves Europe facing two simultaneous pressures: maintaining the transatlantic alliance while developing the capacity to act with greater independence if US support becomes less predictable.
How Has The Ukraine War Changed Europe’s Strategic Position?
The war in Ukraine has fundamentally altered European relations with Russia. Before 2022, major European economies maintained extensive commercial and energy links with Moscow. The invasion triggered sanctions, military assistance to Kyiv and a rapid reduction in many forms of economic dependence.
The consequences have extended beyond sanctions and energy policy. NATO has expanded its northern flank, while European states have increased military investment and focused on ammunition production, air defence, intelligence, cyber security and military mobility.
The European Parliament has argued that support for Ukraine is now a cornerstone of European defence policy. It has also stressed that Europe must invest more heavily in its own capabilities while maintaining interoperability with NATO.
However, this transition has not produced a single European strategic outlook. Governments remain divided over the balance between immediate military deterrence, diplomacy and long-term relations with Russia.
Are European Governments Divided Over Contact With Moscow?
Yes. One of the clearest signs of the division emerged in June, when EU leaders struggled to agree on whether the bloc should establish a back-channel to Moscow.
European Council President António Costa had proposed diplomatic contact with the Kremlin to ensure that European interests were represented if negotiations over the Ukraine war made progress. The initiative was not intended to create a separate European negotiating process from the US-led effort, but EU governments were unable to reach agreement.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate. Some European governments believe that maintaining diplomatic communication with Moscow is necessary because Russia will remain geographically close to Europe regardless of the outcome of the war. Others fear that premature engagement could weaken pressure on the Kremlin or undermine Ukraine’s negotiating position.
The issue is particularly sensitive for countries closer to Russia, which generally view Moscow primarily through the lens of territorial security and deterrence.
What Does Strategic Autonomy Mean For Europe?
Strategic autonomy refers broadly to Europe’s ability to protect its interests and act without depending entirely on another major power. In practice, the concept covers defence, energy, technology, trade, intelligence and diplomatic decision-making.
The debate has become more urgent because European policymakers increasingly recognise that military dependence on the United States creates vulnerabilities if Washington’s priorities shift.
A 2026 analysis published by Chatham House noted that European leaders have increasingly embraced the idea that Europe should reduce dependencies in areas including defence, technology, energy and trade. It also highlighted a central problem: European countries may agree on the principle of greater autonomy while disagreeing over its priorities and implementation.
Strategic autonomy does not necessarily mean abandoning NATO or separating Europe from the United States. European policymakers have repeatedly presented stronger European capabilities as complementary to the alliance rather than an alternative to it.
Could Europe Become More Independent From Washington?
Europe can increase its capacity to act independently, but doing so would require substantial investment and political coordination.
Defence remains the most difficult area. European countries possess significant military resources collectively, but their armed forces are divided among national structures, procurement systems and different weapons platforms. Developing common capabilities takes years and requires sustained political commitment.
The challenge also extends beyond military hardware. Europe needs stronger intelligence networks, air and missile defence, strategic transport, satellite capabilities, cyber resilience and domestic defence production.
The European Parliament has called for a stronger European defence pillar while maintaining complementarity with NATO. It specifically identified cooperation with countries including the United Kingdom, Norway and Canada as important to strengthening European capabilities.
How Is Russia Affecting Europe’s Security Calculations?
Russia’s activities continue to influence European defence planning even beyond conventional military threats.
European governments and security agencies have increasingly focused on what is often described as hybrid warfare, including cyber attacks, disinformation, sabotage, espionage and attempts to interfere with critical infrastructure.
A Carnegie Endowment analysis published in 2026 argued that Russian activity in the so-called grey zone represents an important near-term threat to Europe. It said European responses had achieved some success through law enforcement, intelligence and public communication, but warned that further measures were needed to create credible deterrence.
These concerns are adding urgency to European efforts to improve resilience. They also make a rapid return to pre-2022 relations between Europe and Russia increasingly difficult.
What Are The Economic Risks Of Europe’s Strategic Balancing Act?
Europe’s strategic dilemma also carries significant economic consequences.
The continent must maintain close economic relations with the United States while reducing vulnerabilities associated with geopolitical dependence. At the same time, sanctions against Russia and the restructuring of European energy supplies have altered longstanding trade patterns.
The US remains a crucial economic partner. The scale of transatlantic trade means that major disagreements over tariffs, energy, technology or defence spending can have consequences for European businesses and consumers.
Meanwhile, Russia’s continued isolation from much of the European economy has created a different challenge. Even if diplomatic relations eventually improve, restoring the economic relationship that existed before the invasion would be a complicated and politically sensitive process.
What Could Happen Next For European Foreign Policy?
Europe is likely to continue pursuing a dual-track strategy: preserving the transatlantic alliance while strengthening its own ability to act.
The immediate priority will remain the war in Ukraine and the question of how European governments can influence any future settlement. The possibility of renewed diplomatic engagement with Moscow will depend heavily on developments on the battlefield and in US-led negotiations.
At the same time, European governments are likely to continue increasing defence spending and investing in domestic military production. The debate over strategic autonomy is therefore unlikely to disappear, even if relations between Washington and European capitals improve.
For Europe, the central challenge is no longer simply choosing between Washington and Moscow. It is determining how to maintain the security benefits of its relationship with the United States while developing sufficient political, economic and military capacity to protect its interests independently. The outcome could shape Europe’s role in global affairs for decades, making developments in Ukraine, NATO, EU defence policy and US-Russia relations crucial indicators to watch.
