Steering Through Uncertainty: How The European Union (EU) is Navigating Global Strategic Complexity with the Shifting Dynamics of the Middle East, the Ukraine Conflict, and the U.S. Electoral handover

By: Fabio A. AVERSA and Mario N. GRECO

Steering Through Uncertainty: How The European Union (EU) is Navigating Global Strategic Complexity with the Shifting Dynamics of the Middle East, the Ukraine Conflict, and the U.S. Electoral handover.

The EU is at a Crossroads

As the EU stands at a political crossroads in deciding if and how the Union could become a global strategic player, internal dynamics and significant global events shape risks, challenges, and perhaps opportunities ahead.

Severe turmoil in the Middle East has reverberated across the “Old Continent,” prompting critical reflections on Europe’s role in the increasingly interconnected “Global Village.”

These developments have profound implications, from energy security and migration to geopolitical alliances and economic stability.

In this article, we will explore the Union’s multifaceted future. The road ahead appears uncertain, but it also presents a chance for Brussels to redefine its identity and leadership in the global arena.

The EU’s Renewed Role in a Changing Global Strategic Landscape: Path to Strategic Autonomy

The European Union is navigating a volatile global strategic environment characterized by fluctuating power dynamics, hyper-geopolitical polarization and rivalry, technological advancements, and complex security challenges. In response, it has embraced the concept of “Strategic Autonomy,” which refers to the ability to act independently and assertively in economic, technological, and security matters. Achieving strategic autonomy will be a central objective in EU policy discourse, with crucial implications for the EU’s role as a global actor, particularly after the outcomes of the U.S. 2024 presidential elections. The United States’ prominent role in Europe will likely end as the second Trump administration pulls back, essentially leaving, for the first time, Europe to Europeans.

Therefore, the EU’s capacity to pursue its interests and values independently, without excessive reliance on external powers, becomes a strategic imperative rather than an legitime aspiration. It will represent an existential requirement for the newly established EU Commission.

Expanding from defense and security to economic resilience, technological sovereignty, and supply chain security, key dimensions of EU strategic autonomy include:

• Security and Defense Autonomy: Reducing dependence on NATO (primarily the U.S.) for military security (more substantive EU members’ responsibility within NATO) and maximizing the ability of the defense industrial sector to cooperate cohesively in long-term defense projects to provide standard weapons systems to all EU members’ armed forces. The EU is the second largest investor in defense, but in different separate projects, which are not concretely reflected in standard capabilities.
• Economic and Industrial Autonomy: Diversifying supply chains and ensuring resilience against disruptions in critical semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and energy sectors.
• Technological Autonomy: Strengthening Europe’s role in developing and governing emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), Quantum Computing (QP), Big Data Analysis (BDA), Human Bio Enhancement and Technologies (HBET), cybersecurity, digital infrastructure and Space.

The EU’s goal of achieving strategic autonomy showcases its desire for a more significant and independent stance in international relations, partnerships, and global affairs. This initiative also highlights the need to avoid exclusive reliance on the U.S. for security issues, empowering the EU to become an active and influential global actor. Furthermore, it enhances the EU’s internal unity and strengthens its capacity to tackle upcoming geopolitical challenges with assurance of unity.

Middle East: Recent developments impacting European security and energy.

Conflicts more often involve regional and global powers, leading to a rise in oil and gas prices that inevitably affect the European market. This occurred promptly during the current Middle East crisis, particularly the Syrian one, which has significantly impacted energy and security along with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

In recent years, the Middle East has experienced significant developments of high instability that have had direct and essential repercussions on security and energy in Europe. Here is an in-depth look at the key events and factors:

• Israeli-Hamas (and the others…) Conflict

Ever since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, one has heard persistently about the Axis of Resistance, composed of Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraqi militias, and Yemeni Houthis. However, its origins are older and sink into the ideological and geopolitical dynamics that affected the Middle East in the late 1970s and early 2000s. The Axis proved most effective during periods of regional instability: from post-Saddam Iraq to the civil wars in Syria and Yemen, Tehran was able to exploit the dynamics of individual conflicts to bind to itself actors with ideological and organizational peculiarities, such as radical opposition to the West and Israel, in particular.

For more than a year now, Israel has been waging a military campaign for its survival in the Gaza Strip as well as in Lebanon, fighting against its existential enemies. These enemies are certainly not regular armed forces but rather politico-military formations, subject to Iran’s conditioning, that make terrorism their typical tool of struggle. Terrorist assets cannot be fought and defeated by resorting only to the tactics used in clashes between regular armed forces.

In this regard, we quote the Washington Post: “Israel is at war on several fronts against Hamas in Gaza, against Hezbollah in Lebanon, against new Palestinian militants in the West Bank, against the Iran-allied Houthi Yemenis, against other pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq, and against the theocratic regime in Tehran itself, which will be a certain target for retaliation after its missile attacks. Now, the United Nations can also be added to this list: Israel views the UN as an organization dominated by hostile forces capable of bending the principles of international legality to their calculations of geopolitical interests. An example of this is UNIFIL, which has refused to leave the border area in southern Lebanon, as requested by the Israeli army. Despite recent attacks that left five people wounded, UN forces decided to remain in place to facilitate de-escalation.”

As of today, we are unable to know when Israel intends to end its armed response to these heinous terrorist attacks, which began with the October 7, 2023, pogrom. However, in any case, the effects of this regional conflict will last for years.

• Return of Sanctions against Iran

The energy crisis resulting from the ongoing conflicts must be added to the sanctions imposed on Iran. These sanctions limited Iran’s oil exports, creating higher demand from other producers. As a result, the European Union has sought to diversify its energy sources, investing in renewable energy and initiating cooperation with alternative suppliers such as Qatar and Azerbaijan.

In addition, sea routes in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf are crucial for energy transportation. Recent tanker attacks or tensions in the Strait of Hormuz affect the energy flow to Europe, requiring a coordinated and firm security response.

• Energy Crisis and Green Transition

As expected, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has intensified Europe’s energy vulnerabilities, prompting European nations to pursue more secure and sustainable energy sources. This situation has hastened investments in green technologies and increased interest in importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Middle East.

All recent developments in the Middle East present challenges and opportunities for security and energy in Europe. The region continues to be a key player in the global energy landscape, and its stability is critical to ensuring secure and sustainable energy supplies. International cooperation and a strategic approach are essential for addressing the changing dynamics and promoting peace and stability.

• The very recent bloodless war in Syria raises many questions, among them: what if it is “simply” a matter of gas and power?

Global energy interests may be hiding behind the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, the U.S.-backed Turkish Qatari pipeline; on the other hand, the Iranian pipeline is backed by Russia. Both projects were planned to pass through Syria, but with Assad choosing Moscow, the country has since become the ground for a kind of proxy war.

• Diplomatic Initiatives

The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process: The EU has continued to support dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, seeking to facilitate negotiations that will lead to a two-state solution. Senior European officials have often reiterated the importance of keeping communication channels open to prevent escalation.

• Humanitarian Response

The humanitarian crisis in the Middle East has reached critical levels, with thousands of displaced people affected by conflict and instability. The EU has responded with a range of humanitarian measures.

• Refugee Aid

The EU is one of the largest aid donors to Syrian refugees. Through the EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis program, the EU has funded projects to support refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, seeking to ensure access to essential services such as education and health care.

• Joint Interventions

For several months, the EU has collaborated with NATO and the U.S. on security dossiers, particularly counterterrorism and crisis management.

• Challenges

Despite EU efforts, diplomatic and humanitarian responses face several challenges. Internal divisions and differences among member states regarding foreign policies make reaching a consensus on key issues difficult. However, the EU’s recent developments in the Middle East reflect an ongoing commitment to stability and well-being in the region. While the EU faces significant challenges, its mediation capacity and humanitarian support remain crucial for addressing crises and promoting a peaceful and secure future.

The Abraham Agreements, aimed at normalizing relations between Israel and certain Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have opened new opportunities for energy cooperation. Once peace is restored to the troubled Middle East, these developments may stabilize the region and ensure more reliable and solid energy supplies for Europe, which will be essential.

The Ukraine Conflict

Undoubtedly, the outcome of the U.S. elections, with the Republican candidate Donald J. Trump elected President of the United States (POTUS), will have a significant and still not wholly assessed impact on how the variegated coalition of Western countries views this phase of the war.

During his electoral campaign, Mr. Trump expressed a willingness to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Despite the uncertainty regarding the consistency and credibility of such statements, it seems realistic to imagine that the new administration will consider reducing its financial, military, political, and structural support for Ukraine’s war effort.

Most European leaders, and indeed the newly established and fully empowered EU Commission, remain persuaded that preserving Ukraine’s independence, potentially restoring its territorial integrity, resisting Russian aggression, and thus containing Moscow’s assertiveness along the eastern borders of Europe are crucial to the entire continent’s security and stability. Yet, they acknowledge that more European efforts may be needed to ensure Ukraine maintains its positions on the battlefield, and such weakness could represent a decisive blow to Russia.

Undeniably, Western countries, with or without U.S. agreement, could consider several other lines of action to achieve the strategic objective of heavily (or possibly fatally) damaging and depleting the Putin autocratic regime, including:

• Continuing to support the Ukrainian war efforts without limitations (authorizing the use of weapon systems on Russian territory).
• Confirming and tightening economic sanctions on the Russian economy and applying secondary sanctions on countries that help Russia evade them. (On March 25, the criminalization of the circumvention of sanctions will enter into force.)
• Allowing or supporting the use of hybrid and covert operations by Ukrainian (para) military assets in Africa to counter Wagner’s and the African Legion’s employment . Deploying and utilizing such private military assets would impede Russia from receiving large payments and substantially increase Moscow’s active revenue annually. Several customers, including the Chinese, ask the Russians to protect their activities, infrastructure, and personnel in Africa.

In essence, the strategic objectives for Ukraine remain clear and include:

• To resist, hold the front line, survive the horrific and indiscriminate Russian attack against energy and industrial infrastructures, particularly during the winter, and potentially counter-maneuver and attack the enemy in the fall, creating new strategic surprises and unbalances.
• To agree and implement with Western partners a robust, effective, politically, and legally binding security guarantee package of measures and requirements to ensure Ukraine’s security, sovereignty, and independence while minimizing the risk of another Russian attack in the future.

From a longer post-war perspective, gaining access to the EU and NATO would meet Ukrainian civil society’s strong aspirations to embrace Western values and progressive standards maturely. This includes combating corruption as a hallmark of civility, upholding the rule of law, and adhering to comprehensive democratic principles and human rights.

EU’s support for Ukraine: sanctions and military aid

At this very moment, no single EU leader (including Ms. Giorgia Meloni, despite her very solid relationship with the EU Commission, Parliament, and the new U.S. administration’s top leadership) has the political strength at the national level to realistically nurture the aspiration to lead an independent, long-term strategic coalition to support and sustain this effort vis-à-vis Russia and, in a more prolonged and problematic perspective, China. A new assertive EU leadership can only play this role with a reasonable chance of success.

Ms. Kaja Kallas and Mr. Antonio Costa visited Kyiv on their first day in office in the second von der Leyen Commission term, reaffirming the enduring comprehensive EU support for Ukraine from any perspective.

U.S. Electoral Outcomes and its implications for transatlantic relations and EU adaptation

It is also true, nevertheless, that since the Cold War, European countries have increased their defense spending to the highest levels. In parallel, several lawmakers agree that “President Biden is probably the last U.S. president who is truly transatlantic in the traditional sense, and that is why Europe must take on more responsibility, especially regarding security.”

Therefore, accelerating the political debate about how and when to initiate a serious discussion and irreversibly trigger the process of establishing an effective and reliable EU defense and security structure to achieve strategic autonomy seems inevitable.

The European Union (EU) would likely approach this new phase of its relations with the U.S. pragmatically, in preparation for a different, unpredictable, and potentially controversial partnership. Such uncertainty is fueled by what most EU officials—under rigorous anonymity—cite as Trump’s eloquent unpredictability during his first term.

The European Union might face considerable political pressure to expedite defense initiatives, including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), aiming to diminish its dependency on the U.S. in security and defense matters. This may enhance the EU’s political discussions to advocate for a more independent European security and defense approach. NATO’s well-organized and advanced capabilities would support this position, particularly in the initial stages of development.

The second D.J. Trump presidential term poses several strategic questions for EU and European NATO members as they navigate shifts in U.S. foreign policy, which requires careful consideration.

What actions can the Alliance take to guarantee enduring U.S. commitment? In response to U.S. burden-sharing concerns, NATO could consider solidifying the U.S. role as a reliable partner by enhancing European defense contributions and spending, reaching all members and requiring 2% of national GDP.

This brings us to a second point about Transatlantic Cooperation and Defense Autonomy: Should NATO support greater European defense autonomy? If U.S. policy were to take a more transactional global approach, some European allies might push for a more robust European defense mechanism within NATO or even outside it. To protect the center of gravity (unity, cohesion, and solidarity), NATO must strategize how to support both U.S. interests and Europe’s autonomy aspirations.

Related to the previous two, how does NATO (and the EU) strategically address the expansion of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea’s “malign alignment”? Would NATO’s approach to Russia, China, and their opportunity partners change? Mr. Trump has historically always advocated for better relations with Russia, which could hamper NATO’s deterrence and defense posture in Eastern Europe and cause profound dissatisfaction among Eastern allies.

The fourth point relates to Operational Funding and Future Planning: How will NATO ensure ongoing funding for operations and modernization? A second Trump administration is expected to advocate for stabilizing NATO defense spending at 2% of GDP for all members, emphasizing justification of strategic essentials. In this probable scenario, including U.S. funding adjustments, NATO will need contingency plans to ensure that resources are available for deterrence and modernization.

Finally, on Climate Change and Non-Traditional Security, how could NATO adapt its approach to emerging threats like climate change? A Trump re-election could shift U.S. climate policies, affecting NATO’s climate agenda.

Could, on a broader perspective, the 2024 U.S. vote outcomes unravel global alliances, particularly from a European perspective?

Yes, the 2024 U.S. election outcomes could significantly impact global alliances. Suppose the U.S. shifts its foreign policy toward isolationism or adopts a more transactional approach, keeping a distance from the traditional transatlantic commitment. This may complicate relations with conventional allies within NATO, the EU, and Asia. Critical factors like support for Ukraine, the stance on China, climate initiatives, and global trade could face setbacks, creating uncertainty and affecting bilateral initiatives among partners and historical ties with friends. Allies may be forced to rethink their reliance on the U.S., potentially leading to stronger regional partnerships or independent defense initiatives, ultimately reshaping the global power balance.

From a European perspective, EU leaders might feel compelled to reevaluate transatlantic relations regarding security guarantees and expedite EU defense initiatives to establish the European Union Defense and Security mechanism and framework while adopting a more strategically independent stance in global matters and affairs.

In this setting, NATO will protect the Center of Gravity by cherishing its cohesion, adaptability, and strategic resilience and addressing any assertive and provocative attempts to jeopardize or diminish U.S. presence. Meanwhile, the EU will enhance its strategic autonomy, particularly within the defense and security sectors, in alignment with its Strategic Compass framework.

A unified EU Strategy and commitment to restore stability and promote cooperation and multilateralism in a volatile world.

The European Union (EU) faces a challenging international landscape marked by political shifts, economic uncertainties, and emerging security concerns. In response, the EU is advancing a unified strategy centered on stability and cooperative resilience, emphasizing internal cohesion and a consistent approach to global partnerships. Recent developments, including the outcomes of the latest U.S. presidential elections, underscore the importance of this approach, as the EU seeks to maintain strong transatlantic relations while asserting its priorities on the global stage.

With the U.S. elections introducing potential foreign policy paradigm shifts, the EU focuses on a different and more proactive stance. This strategy aims to secure EU interests in defense trade, climate action, and technology. By fostering more substantial intra-EU alignment on key issues and reinforcing collaborative ties with neighboring regions, the EU hopes to navigate any diplomatic or economic volatility that may arise from evolving U.S. policies.

Additionally, the EU is committed to resilience in areas like cybersecurity, defense cooperation, and economic stability. Such efforts reinforce internal stability and signal the EU’s role as a steady, reliable partner for allies and a leader in multilateral initiatives. This balanced approach—upholding cooperation with the U.S. while strengthening European autonomy—supports the EU’s goal of fostering stability in an unpredictable global environment.

Through this unified strategy, the EU demonstrates a robust commitment to maintaining global cooperation and stability, projecting itself as a force for continuity and resilience amid shifting alliances and uncertain times.

Is the EU politically empowered and authoritative enough to suggest that NATO act as a military asset provider (including the U.S., Canada, and Turkey)?

Currently, the European Union (EU) does not have direct political or legal authority to propose or direct NATO to conduct military operations. NATO and the EU are distinct organizations with different memberships, legal frameworks, and mandates.

However, the EU can collaborate with NATO and encourage operations in areas of mutual interest, leveraging its influence through diplomatic and strategic mechanisms. Below is a brief explanation of the relationships, responsibilities, and limitations:

We all know they are separate Organizations:

• NATO is a military alliance established under the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). Its primary focuses are collective defense (Article 5) and crisis management.
• The EU operates under its treaties, such as the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), and has a broader mandate that includes economic, political, and security objectives.

There is also an overlap of Memberships:

• Most NATO members are also EU members, but not all EU member states are part of NATO (e.g., Ireland and Austria).
• Non-EU NATO members, such as the United States, Canada, and Turkey, play significant roles in all of NATO’s decision-making processes.

EU’s Role in Security and Defense:

• The EU has developed its security framework through the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). This includes initiatives like the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) to develop defense capabilities.
• However, the EU lacks a command, control, and force employment framework, whereas NATO, instead, has relied on Allied armed forces or ad hoc coalitions for military action.

NATO Decision-Making Process:

• NATO operations are decided through consensus among its member states, guided by the North Atlantic Council (NAC).
• The EU cannot directly propose or dictate NATO’s actions, as NATO’s decision-making operates independently of EU institutions.

Strategic Cooperation:

• NATO and the EU collaborate through the NATO-EU Strategic Partnership, addressing shared security challenges such as terrorism, cyber defense, and hybrid threats.
• Standard agreements, such as the Berlin Plus Agreement (2003), allow the EU to access NATO’s assets and capabilities under certain conditions for EU-led military operations.

Military Assets and Capability Sharing:

• The EU contributes to shared military capability development that can benefit NATO operations (e.g., PESCO projects that enhance military mobility).

Limitations:

• The European Union does not have authority over NATO assets or their associated decision-making processes.
• Its influence is limited to the extent its member states can advocate for EU-aligned objectives within NATO.

Essentially, while the EU cannot legally or politically dictate NATO operations and plays a supportive role in influencing NATO priorities through shared members, collaborative initiatives, and strategic partnerships, we argue that the EU should have the capacity to suggest that NATO carry out military operations on its behalf.

So far, the EU’s influence has been indirect, relying on diplomatic persuasion and the overlapping membership of its states in NATO. Today, this may not be sufficient! If we want a stronger Europe, we must step forward.

What political balance will develop following the EU and the US electoral processes?

As a premise, we should recognize that only a political decision to establish a constant, coordinated, and structural increase in national defense budgets will provide European NATO allies and EU Member states with autonomous, adequate capabilities to deter and protect from external (traditional, hybrid, and cyber) aggressions, in the medium and long term.

This will represent the logical step toward crucial European integration and taking higher responsibilities within the Alliance. The essential factor will be the political decision to establish a European security mechanism and defense architecture based on a significant and structural increase in defense spending.

There are two reasons to sustain this approach:

• The authoritarian, malign alignment between Russia, the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of North Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is a strategic challenge (not only) for Europe against which deterrence and the capability to defend must be credible and committed.
• According to the U.S. geopolitical perspective, the world is a continuous, complex, multipolar strategic environment in which Europe represents only one crucial, extensive area of interest. However, the EU can be Washington’s most vital peer and ally if it acquires a reliable level of security autonomy, credible deterrence, and the ability to defend itself.

How can Europe forge new security connections with the United States by building a practical and strategic asset solution?

A second open-ended question: “How can Europe establish new security ties with America?” We have imagined a hypothetical Strategic Line of Sight, jointly approved by the leaders of the U.S. and European allies.

We have identified – utilizing elements of strategic foresight and comparative assessment – critical decision-making points along this imaginary line, which extends from the present to the limit of a strategic horizon and is meant to help an organization achieve, preserve, or maintain strategic relevance, prevalence, or dominance in a hypothetical, long-lasting strategic confrontation. This allows us to imagine how the Alliance and Europe can evolve their relationship regarding security and defense issues and challenges.

From this perspective, a few major political initiatives and decisions should be agreed upon and implemented between 2025 and 2050 while the United States slowly decreases its military presence on European soil.

• A bipartisan U.S. plan on the evolution of NATO in coordination with European leaders.
• European countries are gradually raising their military budgets to 2/3/4% of GDP. In the broader context of reforms and new agreements, they will coordinate industrial production, standardize specific military capabilities, and agree on optimizing defense and security expenditures to expand the deterrence and defense capability of the nascent European Defence.
• US strategic logistics support, intelligence, nuclear deterrence, and the Art. 5 clauses remain active.

As a result of this very long and tortuous strategic trajectory, there may be interconnected and progressive geopolitical changes, including:

• The US can relinquish its geopolitical influence and all-domain power toward other geo-strategic interests (East Asia and Space).
• European Allies have started playing an increasingly important, complementary, and decisive role within NATO while assuming a more substantial protagonist role as a Union in the global strategic environment. This is in light of the augmented contribution of high-end capabilities through the pluriannual, structural increase in defense spending.
• The (reformed) European Union has a new security architecture and defense mechanism built upon a military budget of around 4% of GDP. Brussels is finally capable of projecting soft and hard power to address global challenges and threats to its security, coordinated with Allies and partners, including the US.