As Europe faces a shifting global security landscape, the continent’s leaders find themselves at a critical crossroads. The European Council’s summit in Brussels on October 24, 2025, underscored both the ambition and the anxiety gripping the bloc as it seeks to chart a path toward strategic defense autonomy. Yet, with the United States poised to reprioritize its global defense commitments—placing Europe lower on its list of priorities—and internal European divisions stalling bold action, questions abound: Can the European Union (EU) truly stand on its own, or will it remain dependent on American military might for years to come?
At the heart of the summit’s agenda was continued support for Ukraine, a country whose fate has become a litmus test for Europe’s unity and resolve. The European Commission has been pushing a plan to use frozen Russian assets—primarily the vast sums held by Euroclear in Belgium—to back a 140 billion-euro “reparation loan” for Ukraine. The idea is straightforward in theory: Ukraine would only be required to repay the loan after Russia itself pays war reparations. In practice, however, things are far more complicated.
After heated debate, EU leaders reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine but punted the contentious issue of using Russian assets to the next meeting. According to Xinhua, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever emerged as a key obstacle, insisting on guarantees that all EU countries would share any legal and financial risks if Russia retaliated. De Wever warned he would "do everything" in his power to block the plan unless other countries also tapped Russian assets, reflecting the deep fissures within the bloc.
Others voiced their own reservations. Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Luc Frieden declared he would only support the loan if it was "legally sound." Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni emphasized the need to "safeguard the financial and monetary stability of our economies and the euro area" before taking any steps involving Russian assets. These concerns, echoed across the continent, highlight the legal, financial, and political minefield Europe must navigate as it seeks to punish Russia and support Ukraine without destabilizing its own foundations.
Yet, the debate over Ukraine is just one facet of a much larger dilemma. The EU’s ambition for strategic defense autonomy—articulated in the Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030—aims to build a modern, robust military capability independent of outside powers. The roadmap identifies four flagship projects: the European Drone Defense Initiative, the Eastern Flank Watch, the European Air Shield, and the European Space Shield. These initiatives are designed to close critical gaps in Europe’s defenses and reduce its reliance on the United States and NATO.
But as Fabian Zuleeg, chief economist at the European Policy Center, told Xinhua, turning these ambitions into reality will be anything but easy. "Turning ambition into real capability will require overcoming political hesitation, industrial bottlenecks and tight national budgets," Zuleeg said. Some member states remain wary of binding commitments and joint procurement, and progress will hinge on whether Europe can translate pledges into contracts and build a genuinely integrated defense industrial base by 2030. "This will not be easy," he cautioned.
Indeed, the summit’s careful language—calling on member states to "operationalize" the roadmap rather than explicitly endorsing it—reflects the lingering reluctance among EU countries to cede control over such a core aspect of sovereignty. Major players like France and Germany have bristled at what they see as European Commission overreach into national defense policymaking, limiting the scope for genuine integration. As Jian Junbo of Fudan University noted, the roadmap remains "largely a conceptual framework" and is likely to remain so as long as member states remain divided.
Financial constraints only add to the challenge. Several EU countries are already under fiscal strain, and the proposal to use Russian assets—despite its legal risks—illustrates just how tight the bloc’s resources have become. Jian pointed out that flagship projects like the European Space Shield or advanced drone defense systems face "uncertain prospects due to funding shortfalls." Even if procedural progress is made, he warned, these initiatives are likely to remain "largely on paper in the near future."
Complicating matters further is the evolving stance of the United States. As reported by The Strategist, the imminent release of the US National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Global Force Posture Review is expected to codify a shift in American priorities. The US is likely to focus first on homeland defense, then the Indo-Pacific (especially deterring China), followed by the Middle East—leaving Europe as, at best, the fourth priority. The Pentagon has even considered merging its European and African commands, and may reduce or halt the enhanced rotational troop presence on NATO’s eastern flank—currently about 20,000 troops sent after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
US budget cuts, including a $580 million reduction that could hit security assistance for the Baltic states, further signal a waning American commitment. While a large-scale withdrawal of the roughly 65,000 permanent US troops in Europe remains unlikely in the short term—due to strategic leverage, nuclear control concerns, and logistical hurdles—even incremental reductions could send a "dangerous signal to Moscow," as The Strategist warns. Such moves would also undermine European allies’ trust in US security guarantees, a trust already shaken by shifting White House rhetoric.
For now, experts agree, Europe simply isn’t ready to defend itself without American help. The continent remains heavily dependent on the US for intelligence, reconnaissance, satellite communications, command capabilities, and the suppression of enemy air defenses. Air defense is a particularly acute vulnerability: in September, NATO was forced to use advanced F-35 missiles—costing millions of euros—to shoot down Russian decoy drones made of little more than wood and cardboard during an incursion into Poland. The episode starkly illustrated the gap between Europe’s ambitions and its current capabilities.
What’s the solution? According to analysts cited by The Strategist, Europe must urgently rebuild its defense-industrial base, recruit and train military personnel, reinforce critical infrastructure, and foster more resilient societies. The June advisory report to the Dutch government spelled out the areas of greatest dependence on the US, and the list is daunting. As one expert put it, "Europe needs everything." The challenge is immense, but the alternative—continued reliance on an increasingly distracted and unpredictable United States—may be even riskier.
Amid these uncertainties, the EU’s best short-term strategy may be to maintain a "businesslike transatlantic relationship," keeping the US engaged as a credible deterrent against Russian aggression. But in the long run, only a united, well-resourced, and technologically advanced Europe can hope to secure its own future. The coming years will test whether Europe can rise to that challenge—or whether its ambitions will remain, as so often before, just out of reach.
