When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it not only shattered post-Cold War illusions of perpetual peace in Europe but also forced the continent into an existential reckoning.

For decades, Europe prided itself on being a “postmodern” power—defined more by trade, diplomacy, and integration than by hard military force. 

The Ukraine war has brought this model under strain, pushing Europeans to reconsider their defense posture, strategic autonomy, and reliance on the United States. As the conflict drags on, one question looms: is Europe truly becoming a more militarized continent, or has the war only underscored the depth of its dependency on Washington?

The Shock to Europe’s Strategic Assumptions

Before the Ukraine war, much of Europe lived under what many analysts called a “peace dividend.” Defense budgets had stagnated, and NATO commitments were more rhetorical than practical for many member states. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, had long resisted significant military investment. Meanwhile, countries like France and the UK carried disproportionate responsibility for Europe’s hard power.

The invasion of Ukraine disrupted this strategic complacency. Suddenly, defense spending surged: Germany announced its historic €100 billion “Zeitenwende” (turning point) fund for the Bundeswehr; Poland unveiled plans to double its military size; Nordic states scrambled to accelerate defense modernization; and Finland and Sweden abandoned decades of neutrality to join NATO. Across the continent, the realization dawned that hard power was back in the center of geopolitics.

This militarization trend is undeniable. Yet at the same time, the war has also reinforced Europe’s reliance on U.S. leadership, weaponry, intelligence, and logistics—raising doubts about whether the EU is becoming a true independent security actor or merely doubling down on its junior role under NATO’s U.S.-dominated framework.

NATO’s Centrality: A Revival Under Fire

The war in Ukraine has revitalized NATO, which French President Emmanuel Macron had famously called “brain dead” in 2019. Far from irrelevance, NATO has emerged as the central pillar of Europe’s security response. The alliance coordinated massive military aid shipments, reinforced its eastern flank, and provided the political umbrella for Ukraine’s survival.

Crucially, it was U.S. leadership that made much of this possible. Washington delivered advanced weapons systems, shared real-time intelligence, and allocated tens of billions in military and financial aid. European contributions, though significant, paled in comparison. As of mid-2023, U.S. commitments to Ukraine stood at around $75 billion, dwarfing any single European nation’s contribution.

This reality underlines Europe’s structural dependency. Without U.S. capabilities—particularly in air defense, long-range strike, and satellite surveillance—Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia would be far weaker. Even NATO’s deterrence in Eastern Europe depends heavily on American troops, bases, and nuclear guarantees.

Europe’s Push Toward Militarization

Despite this dependency, it would be a mistake to dismiss Europe’s militarization as merely symbolic. The Ukraine war has triggered a genuine shift in attitudes and budgets. Consider the following:

1. Germany’s Zeitenwende: Long reluctant to invest in military strength, Berlin has pledged not just €100 billion in upgrades but also a sustained commitment to meeting NATO’s 2% of GDP spending target. This marks a cultural as well as financial transformation.

2. Poland’s Military Ambitions: Warsaw is positioning itself as Europe’s military heavyweight, aiming to field the largest land army in the EU. It has invested heavily in tanks, artillery, and U.S.-made fighter jets, signaling both militarization and dependence on American suppliers.

3. Nordic Security Shift: Finland’s NATO accession and Sweden’s pending membership represent historic breaks with neutrality, reflecting a willingness to anchor their security in a military alliance framework.

4. EU Defense Initiatives: The EU has sought to complement NATO by launching programs like the European Defence Fund, encouraging joint procurement, and pushing for greater defense industrial integration. While modest, these steps signal recognition that Europe cannot rely indefinitely on U.S. arsenals.

Thus, Europe is militarizing, but in a patchwork fashion—uneven across member states, and still tethered to the American security umbrella.

Strategic Autonomy: Ambition or Illusion?

The Ukraine war reignited debates over Europe’s “strategic autonomy.” France, in particular, has long advocated for a Europe capable of acting independently of U.S. dictates. President Macron has argued that Europe must avoid being trapped in Washington’s rivalry with Beijing or subordinated in perpetuity to U.S. security guarantees.

Yet, the war has revealed the fragility of this vision. In practice, European unity on Ukraine has depended heavily on NATO structures and U.S. leadership. The EU’s attempts at collective defense, while important, remain embryonic. Europe lacks the logistics, command structures, and nuclear deterrence needed to replace the U.S. role. Moreover, political divisions—between hawkish Eastern states and more cautious Western ones—limit the feasibility of autonomy.

In this sense, the Ukraine conflict has not so much propelled Europe toward independence as it has bound it more tightly to Washington. For many Eastern Europeans, U.S. guarantees are seen as indispensable against Russia. For others, autonomy is desirable but distant.

The Energy and Economic Dimension

Militarization and dependency are not just military questions; they are deeply linked to Europe’s energy and economic security. Before the war, much of Europe was heavily dependent on Russian gas, which constrained its foreign policy choices. The war forced a dramatic reorientation, with Europe scrambling to diversify energy supplies, build LNG infrastructure, and accelerate the transition to renewables.

The U.S. again played a central role here—becoming a leading supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe. While this reduced vulnerability to Moscow, it deepened reliance on Washington and exposed Europe to U.S. energy politics.

Economically, the war has also reinforced Europe’s dependence on U.S. technology and defense industries. European militarization often means buying American—whether F-35 fighter jets, Patriot missile systems, or HIMARS rocket launchers. This strengthens transatlantic ties but hampers the growth of an autonomous European defense-industrial base.

Europe’s Identity Crisis

At its core, the Ukraine war has sparked a deeper identity crisis for Europe. Is the continent destined to remain a civilian power, focused on economic integration and diplomacy, or is it evolving into a militarized actor in its own right? Can it balance values of peace and multilateralism with the hard realities of deterrence and warfighting?

One interpretation is that Europe is entering a phase of “reluctant militarization.” Unlike the U.S. or Russia, Europe does not seek global military dominance. But the war has forced it to arm itself more seriously, even at the cost of diluting its postmodern identity.

Another interpretation, however, is that Europe’s militarization is superficial—dependent on American leadership, technology, and nuclear guarantees. In this view, the EU is unlikely to evolve into a true strategic power as long as NATO, and by extension Washington, remains the indispensable guarantor of European security.

Looking Ahead: Militarized Dependency?

The Ukraine war will shape Europe’s trajectory for decades to come. Several scenarios loom:

1. Deeper NATO Entrenchment: The most likely scenario is a Europe that continues to militarize under the NATO umbrella, with U.S. leadership central. This ensures deterrence but preserves dependency.

2. Gradual Strategic Autonomy: If Europe can sustain defense investment, strengthen industrial cooperation, and resolve internal divisions, it could move toward genuine autonomy. But this requires political will and long-term vision.

3. Fragmentation and Fatigue: If the war drags on without resolution, Europe could face domestic political backlash, economic fatigue, and divergent national policies, weakening both NATO unity and EU cohesion.

Conclusion: Between Militarization and Dependency

The Ukraine conflict has not only transformed geopolitics in Eastern Europe but also forced the continent to grapple with its identity as a security actor. On the surface, Europe is militarizing at an unprecedented pace. Beneath that surface, however, the reliance on U.S. leadership remains profound. For now, Europe is neither a fully independent power nor merely a passive civilian bloc—it is something in between: a militarized but dependent partner, caught in the balance between autonomy and alliance.

Whether the Ukraine war will ultimately propel Europe toward greater independence or lock it into deeper dependency may be the defining question for Europe’s future in the 21st century.