European elites balance their dependence on U.S. military power with their desire for “strategic autonomy” through a calculated strategy of "hedging" and "strengthening the European pillar" of NATO. This is not a zero-sum choice but a continuous political and military balancing act designed to guarantee security in the immediate term while building sovereign capacity for the long term.

They acknowledge that NATO remains the indispensable foundation for territorial defense against major threats like Russia, which is only possible due to the U.S. commitment of nuclear deterrence, intelligence, and high-end military enablers. Simultaneously, they pursue strategic autonomy—defined as the "ability to act" when and where European interests require it, independent of non-European powers—to create an insurance policy against a shifting or unreliable America.

The Foundational Tension: Dependence vs. Sovereignty

The core tension is rooted in two strategic realities:

• U.S. Indispensability: The U.S. provides the vast majority of "high-end" capabilities crucial for collective defense (Article 5): strategic lift, aerial refueling, command and control (C2), satellite intelligence, and, most critically, nuclear deterrence. No European nation or combination of nations can currently replace this umbrella. For Eastern European allies, this dependence is an existential necessity.

• The Unpredictable U.S. Pivot: European elites recognize that the U.S. is increasingly focused on great power competition in the Indo-Pacific and that its political commitment to Europe is not guaranteed, especially in an era of "America First" politics. This unpredictability creates a strategic imperative for Europe to take control of its own destiny, or risk being forced into alignment with U.S. foreign policy priorities that may not be its own (e.g., policy towards Iran, China).

The balancing act is executed across three key dimensions: political discourse, institutional frameworks, and military capability development.

1. Political & Rhetorical Balancing: "European Pillar of NATO"

European elites, led primarily by Germany and the majority of Eastern and Nordic states, frame strategic autonomy not as a challenge to NATO, but as strengthening the European pillar within the Alliance.

• Autonomy as Responsibility: This is the dominant, politically safe framing. It argues that a more capable Europe is a better ally. By spending more, integrating forces, and acquiring capabilities, Europe can take greater responsibility for its immediate neighborhood (the "flanks" and "crisis management" missions), thereby freeing up U.S. resources to focus on the Indo-Pacific. This narrative addresses U.S. demands for burden-sharing while advancing European capabilities.

• The French Vision (Autonomy as Emancipation): French elites, notably President Macron, often push the most assertive vision of strategic autonomy, sometimes referred to as "European Sovereignty." This aims for greater political freedom of action and the ability to conduct military operations without U.S. support when Europe’s interests demand it, even for territorial defense if the U.S. fails to fully engage. While rhetorically powerful, this maximalist vision is viewed with suspicion by many allies who fear it could de-link Europe from the U.S., weakening security.

• Josep Borrell's Pragmatism: The EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs has described strategic autonomy as the "ability to decide and to act," acknowledging it's a "journey, not a destination." This pragmatic language serves to unify member states by focusing on incremental capacity-building rather than an immediate break from the U.S.

2. Institutional Hedging: EU-NATO Complementarity

Elites use EU and NATO institutions in a complementary, yet competitive, manner to manage their dependence.

This institutional division allows for "dual-use" of new European capabilities. A tank, satellite, or drone system developed via the EDF can be used for an EU-led peacekeeping mission (autonomy) or contributed to a NATO operation (collective security), satisfying both strategic goals simultaneously.

3. Capability Development and Industrial Sovereignty

Ultimately, strategic autonomy is material, and European elites are balancing dependence by attempting to fix a decades-long problem of military fragmentation.

Focus on Industrial Base

The goal is industrial autonomy to reduce reliance on U.S. suppliers for key military technology.

• Joint European Projects (FCAS & MGCS): Major Franco-German initiatives like the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) and the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) aim to develop the next generation of European fighter jets and battle tanks. The explicit political driver is to ensure Europe has the sovereign right to export and use this high-end military equipment without needing U.S. licensing or approval, a significant source of American leverage.

• Addressing Critical Gaps: European elites are strategically investing in capabilities where U.S. dependence is most acute: intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), mid-air refueling, and missile defense. Acquiring these assets allows Europe to run operations (like the 2011 Libya intervention) without immediately hitting a capability wall that necessitates U.S. intervention.

The Role of Defense Spending

The most visible metric of balancing is the surge in defense spending following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While the spending largely flows into NATO-standard equipment (which often means U.S. equipment), the sheer increase in financial commitment signifies a long-term political will to close the capability gap.

The overall strategy is to move from dependence to interdependence. European elites want to transform their relationship with the U.S. from one where America is the indispensable sole provider of security to one where Europe is a highly capable and autonomous partner with shared, but not identical, global interests. This maximizes their freedom of action while retaining the essential U.S. security guarantee.