European elites are demonstrably using NATO as a necessary and irreplaceable security foundation while simultaneously accelerating the construction of an independent EU defense structure as a long-term strategic hedge.

This dual approach, often called the pursuit of "strategic autonomy," is not a secret rivalry, but a pragmatic political strategy driven by the recognition that the U.S. commitment to European defense is no longer a given in perpetuity.

NATO is the immediate, high-end insurance policy against existential threats (like Russia), while the EU's defense initiatives are the slow-but-sure mechanism to establish independent military and industrial agency.

I. NATO: The Non-Negotiable Fallback

For European elites, especially in Eastern and Nordic countries, NATO remains the primary and indispensable security organization for three critical, non-replicable functions:

1. The Nuclear and Deterrence Guarantee 

NATO’s cornerstone is the collective defense clause, underpinned by the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent. No current or foreseeable EU defense initiative can replace this high-end, existential guarantee. In the face of a large-scale conventional threat from Russia, the coordinated command structures, integrated defense planning, and sheer weight of U.S. military power within NATO are essential. For frontline states (Poland, the Baltics), there is zero appetite for any EU structure that might be perceived as undermining NATO's primacy.

2. Strategic Enablers and Command

The EU currently lacks the strategic "enablers" for sustained, high-intensity operations far from its borders, such as strategic airlift, satellite intelligence and reconnaissance, and air-to-air refueling. These capabilities are overwhelmingly provided by the U.S. and integrated through NATO's decades-old command structure. European elites know they can't simply snap their fingers and acquire these assets overnight; therefore, using NATO's existing framework is a matter of operational necessity, not just preference.

3. Immediate Crisis Coordination

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reaffirmed NATO’s role as the primary military coordination hub for arming and assisting a non-member state in a major war. While the EU mobilizes financial and economic sanctions, NATO is the organization best suited to managing the flow of heavy military equipment, coordinating regional defense plans, and providing the military "gold standard" for interoperability.

II. Strategic Autonomy: The Long-Term Hedge

The drive for an independent EU defense structure—the slow build—is fundamentally a political response to the perceived unreliability of the United States and the need for the EU to become a genuine geopolitical actor. This is where the concept of a "fallback" most accurately applies.

1. The Trump-Proofing Imperative 

The primary political catalyst for the EU's accelerated defense build-up is the recurrent prospect of U.S. isolationism or a transactional foreign policy, often epitomized by the Trump administration's rhetoric. European leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel have explicitly stated that Europe can no longer fully rely on the U.S. to solve its security problems. The current focus on EU military capabilities and defense industrial capacity is a direct hedge against a future U.S. administration that might choose to withdraw troops or conditionalize Article 5 protection.

2. Building an Industrial Base (The "Back Office")

The EU's initiatives are less about creating a duplicate "EU Army" overnight and more about tackling the structural flaws in Europe's defense ecosystem. Key programs include:

• European Defence Fund (EDF): Uses the EU budget to incentivize joint research and development of military equipment among member states, fostering a single European defense technology base.

• Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO): A framework for binding military cooperation, including projects like Military Mobility, which streamlines the movement of troops and equipment across Europe's borders.

• European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS): Aims to move the EU towards an "economy of war readiness" by facilitating joint procurement, ensuring supply chain security, and providing financial incentives to European defense manufacturers.

These initiatives use the EU’s unique economic and regulatory competencies to strengthen military capacity—a domain NATO simply doesn't govern. By investing in European-made equipment and harmonizing procurement, European elites are ensuring that Europe is capable of sustaining and deploying its own forces for both NATO and non-NATO missions.

3. The Shift from Crisis Management to Territory Defense

The EU's Strategic Compass (2022), adopted shortly after the invasion of Ukraine, outlined a significant shift. While the EU’s past security policy focused primarily on crisis management (peacekeeping missions, training missions in Africa/Balkans), the Strategic Compass emphasizes greater capacity for territorial defense and the creation of a Rapid Deployment Capacity (RDC) of up to 5,000 troops. This is a gradual, deliberate step toward acquiring the hard power options previously outsourced to NATO.

III. A Pragmatic, Two-Track Strategy

The question of whether European elites are using NATO as a "fallback" is best answered by understanding the time horizons they are operating on:

1. Short-Term-

   NATO is the absolute primary guarantor. No European elite is currently planning a genuine break from the Alliance. Their focus is on meeting NATO's 2% defense spending target and strengthening the Alliance's Eastern Flank.

2. Long-Term-

   The EU's strategic autonomy is the essential project. It is the plan to ensure that in a less predictable world, a major defense crisis in Europe (or its neighborhood) does not automatically hinge on a phone call to the White House. This long-term project is building industrial depth and military capability that, once complete, will make Europe a more capable and responsible pillar within NATO, but also more autonomously capable if the U.S. were ever to disengage.

In essence, European elites are not waiting for NATO to fail; they are proactively securing their future by gradually internalizing the responsibility for European defense, while relying on the stability and deterrence of the U.S.-led Alliance to manage current, high-level threats. The final structure is intended to be a stronger European pillar within a revitalized NATO, with the strategic option for independent action when necessary.