A Changing Strategic Reality

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally reshaped Europe’s security landscape. It has demonstrated not only Moscow’s long-term strategic intent, but also the limits of Europe’s current defense posture. At the same time, political developments in the United States—particularly debates over NATO commitments—have introduced new uncertainty into the transatlantic alliance.

This does not signal a rupture with the United States. However, it does highlight a critical reality: Europe can no longer assume that U.S. support will be automatic, immediate, or unconditional in every future crisis.

From Dependence to Responsibility

For decades, Europe’s security architecture has relied heavily on U.S. military power and leadership within NATO. While this partnership remains essential, overreliance has created structural vulnerabilities.

If a future conflict directly affects Europe and U.S. engagement is delayed, limited, or absent, the consequences could be severe. The possibility that Washington may prioritize other regions—or define certain conflicts as “not its war”—must now be factored into European planning.

Strategic autonomy is therefore not about distancing from allies. It is about assuming responsibility.

Expanding Risk Zones Across Europe’s Periphery

Russia’s actions in Ukraine suggest a broader willingness to test Western resolve. Several regions remain particularly vulnerable:

• Moldova, with the unresolved Transnistria conflict and limited defense capacity
• Georgia, partially occupied and exposed to renewed pressure
• The Baltic States, vulnerable to hybrid threats and rapid escalation scenarios
• Poland, a critical frontline state on NATO’s eastern flank
• The South Caucasus, where geopolitical competition intersects with Europe’s energy security

These areas are not isolated concerns—they are part of a wider strategic environment that directly impacts European stability.

Northern Europe as a Strategic Frontline

The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO has transformed the security dynamics of Northern Europe. Both countries now play a central role in the defense of the Baltic Sea region.

• Finland brings significant territorial defense capabilities and shares a long border with Russia
• Sweden, through control of Gotland, is vital for regional logistics and maritime security

In a scenario of reduced U.S. involvement, these countries—alongside other European partners—would form the backbone of regional deterrence and defense.

Building a European Defense Capacity

To address these challenges, Europe must move beyond incremental reforms and pursue a comprehensive strengthening of its defense architecture. Key priorities include:

• Developing a joint European defense industrial base to ensure supply chain resilience
• Establishing rapid deployment forces capable of responding to crises without external dependence
• Enhancing intelligence sharing and cyber defense cooperation
• Increasing defense spending and coordination across EU member states

Such measures are not alternatives to NATO, but necessary reinforcements to Europe’s role within it.

Energy and Strategic Resilience

Security is not limited to military capabilities. Europe’s previous dependence on Russian energy demonstrated how economic vulnerabilities can translate into geopolitical risk.

Reducing dependency—whether on Russia or any external actor—is central to strategic resilience. Investments in renewable energy, diversified supply routes, and critical infrastructure protection are essential components of a comprehensive security strategy.

Partnerships Without Dependence

Europe must also deepen partnerships with neighboring regions, including Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and countries in the South Caucasus. These relationships can strengthen regional stability and create a broader network of aligned interests.

However, such partnerships must be anchored in Europe’s own capacity to act—not as an extension of another power, but as a strategic actor in its own right.

Conclusion: A Stronger Europe for an Uncertain Future

The evolving global landscape demands a more capable and self-reliant Europe. This is not about replacing alliances, nor about viewing the United States as an adversary.

It is about preparedness.

Europe must be able to defend its interests, protect its territory, and respond to crises—even in scenarios where external support is limited or delayed. A stronger European Union, with credible defense capabilities and strategic coherence, is no longer optional.

It is essential.

European nations are planning to invest at least $109 billion in space-related capabilities by 2030. However, sharing the defense burden in space with the United States would require at least an additional $10 billion, while achieving full independence would demand another $25 billion.

In response to Russia’s war in Ukraine and Europe’s heavy reliance on U.S. space support, European governments have outlined plans to significantly expand their military space assets. This report explores how European allies could improve their ability to operate in and through space during a potential conflict in Europe.

Any large-scale Russian military action against NATO allies would likely involve a contested space environment. Russia already possesses operational counterspace capabilities, including anti-satellite weapons, electronic jamming, cyber attacks, and close-proximity satellite maneuvers. At the same time, European governments, militaries, and societies depend heavily on space-based services such as satellite communications, navigation systems like GPS and Galileo, and Earth observation. These systems—and their ground infrastructure—would be prime targets in a high-intensity conflict.

Despite growing ambitions, Europe still depends heavily on the United States for critical space capabilities. The most significant gaps include launch capacity, space-based intelligence and surveillance (ISR), missile early warning systems, and advanced space situational awareness (SSA). While cooperation with the U.S. remains essential, changing American strategic priorities and expectations around burden-sharing are pushing Europe to invest more in its own capabilities.

Several European actors—including the EU, Germany, and the UK—have set goals to strengthen their space defense capabilities by 2030. This report reviews current capabilities and plans across EU and European Space Agency (ESA) member states, focusing on key countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the UK (collectively referred to as EMSCA). It then assesses remaining capability gaps under two scenarios: one focused on burden-sharing with the U.S., and another aiming for full autonomy in supporting defense and deterrence against Russia.

Current investment plans are substantial but lack strategic coordination. Announced funding—including Germany’s €35 billion for space security, France’s €10.2 billion defense space budget, the EU’s €10.6 billion satellite connectivity program, and ESA’s €1.2 billion resilience initiative—totals at least $109 billion. However, these efforts are not guided by a unified strategy to close key capability gaps within the next decade.

The report estimates that addressing the most critical shortfalls under a burden-sharing model would require at least $10 billion more and take around ten years. Achieving full autonomy would require at least $25 billion in additional spending and would likely not be possible before 2040. These estimates do not include major costs such as ground infrastructure, personnel, training, cybersecurity, or broader program management—costs that would be especially high for full autonomy, since Europe would need to replace systems currently provided through NATO and the U.S.

Even with increased investment, Europe would still struggle within a decade to develop a fully independent missile early-warning system, match the global scale of U.S. intelligence and surveillance capabilities, or replicate the reach of the U.S. space monitoring network. Expanding heavy launch capacity would also remain a major challenge. Full independence would therefore take even longer, likely extending into the late 2030s or beyond.

The report highlights three main conclusions. First, while European countries—especially EMSCA members—are investing heavily in military and dual-use space systems, the lack of coordination means these efforts will remain fragmented rather than forming a unified operational system. As a result, dependence on the U.S. will not significantly decrease by 2030.

Second, the most critical capability gaps are also the hardest to close. These areas—such as missile warning, large-scale ISR, reliable heavy launch systems, and advanced space monitoring—are expensive, complex, and require global infrastructure.

Third, true autonomy in space is not just about launching more satellites. It requires a resilient and integrated system, including secure ground infrastructure, reliable launch access, coordinated command and control, strong data-sharing systems, and clear NATO operational procedures. Without these elements, additional satellites alone will not improve deterrence or wartime effectiveness.

In conclusion, while greater European independence in military space is technically achievable, it would be politically, financially, and industrially challenging. Success would require prioritizing the most critical capability gaps, improving coordination among European countries and institutions, and strengthening Europe’s industrial base in the space sector.

Executive Summary

The emerging global order is increasingly shaped by multipolar competition, protracted conflicts, and ecological stress. The European Union (EU), long a project of peace and integration, must redefine its strategic posture. This brief outlines how the EU can leverage its economic, normative, and diplomatic strengths to mitigate conflict, promote sustainability, and contribute meaningfully to global peace.

Context: A Fragmenting World Order

The post-Cold War liberal order is eroding. Great power rivalry, particularly among the United States, China, and Russia, has intensified. Regional conflicts—from Ukraine to the Middle East—highlight the limits of existing security frameworks. Simultaneously, climate change, resource scarcity, and migration pressures are amplifying instability.

In this environment, the EU faces both internal and external challenges. Internally, political fragmentation, energy dependencies, and economic disparities complicate unified action. Externally, the EU must navigate a landscape where hard power is resurging, yet global governance remains weak.

The EU’s Strategic Dilemma

Historically, the EU has relied on “soft power”—norm-setting, economic integration, and multilateralism. However, current conditions demand a more comprehensive approach that integrates security, resilience, and sustainability.

The EU’s dilemma is clear: how to maintain its identity as a peace project while adapting to a world where deterrence and strategic autonomy are increasingly necessary.

Policy Priorities

1. Strengthening Strategic Autonomy

The EU must reduce overreliance on external actors for security and critical resources. This includes enhancing defense cooperation through mechanisms such as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and investing in joint capabilities. Strategic autonomy does not imply isolation but rather the ability to act independently when necessary.

Energy independence is equally critical. Accelerating the transition to renewable energy reduces vulnerability to geopolitical shocks while aligning with climate goals.

2. Advancing Conflict Prevention and Mediation

The EU should expand its role as a mediator in regional conflicts. Its credibility as a non-imperial actor positions it uniquely to facilitate dialogue. Strengthening the European External Action Service (EEAS) and investing in early warning systems can improve preventive diplomacy.

Moreover, the EU should prioritize inclusive peace processes, recognizing that durable peace requires addressing root causes such as inequality, governance deficits, and social exclusion.

3. Integrating Sustainability into Security Policy

Climate change is a threat multiplier. The EU must integrate environmental considerations into its security and foreign policy frameworks. This includes supporting climate adaptation in vulnerable regions, which can reduce conflict risks linked to resource scarcity.

The European Green Deal can serve as a global model, but its external dimension must be strengthened through partnerships, technology transfer, and climate financing.

4. Reinforcing Multilateralism
Despite its challenges, multilateralism remains essential for addressing transnational issues. The EU should lead efforts to reform and revitalize international institutions, ensuring they are more inclusive and effective.

Building coalitions with like-minded partners in Africa, Latin America, and Asia can enhance legitimacy and counterbalance unilateral approaches by major powers.

5. Promoting Economic Resilience and Equity

Economic instability fuels political unrest and conflict. The EU must address internal disparities while supporting sustainable development globally. Trade policies should incorporate social and environmental standards, fostering equitable growth.

Investments in digital infrastructure and innovation can also strengthen resilience, enabling societies to better withstand shocks.

Implementation Challenges

Achieving these priorities requires overcoming several obstacles. Divergent national interests among member states can hinder consensus. Budgetary constraints and competing priorities may limit investments in defense and sustainability.

Furthermore, balancing values and interests remains a persistent tension. The EU must navigate relationships with authoritarian regimes without compromising its commitment to human rights.

Opportunities for Leadership

Despite these challenges, the EU has significant assets. Its single market, regulatory influence, and experience in regional integration provide a strong foundation. By aligning its internal cohesion with external action, the EU can project stability and credibility.

The current global uncertainty also creates space for leadership. As other powers prioritize competition, the EU can differentiate itself by championing cooperation, sustainability, and rule-based governance.

Conclusion

The EU stands at a crossroads. Its response to today’s crises will shape its role in the emerging world order. By embracing strategic autonomy, investing in conflict prevention, integrating sustainability, and reinforcing multilateralism, the EU can help steer the world toward a more peaceful and sustainable future.

The path forward is complex, but the stakes are clear: a stable, equitable, and resilient global system depends in part on Europe’s ability to adapt and lead.

Cyprus is a small island, yet its geopolitical significance far exceeds its size. In recent weeks, tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean have intensified as France and Greece have coordinated military activities in the southern part of Cyprus, while Turkey has responded by deploying fighter aircraft to the Turkish Cypriot side of the island. The symbolism of these moves is unmistakable: multiple regional and European powers are signaling their presence in a conflict that has remained unresolved for more than half a century.

To understand the current situation, one must return to 1974. Following a military coup on the island supported by the Greek junta of the time, Turkey launched a military intervention that Ankara described as the Cyprus Peace Operation. Turkey argued that the intervention aimed to protect the Turkish Cypriot population and prevent potential ethnic massacres. The result was the division of the island into two parts: the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus in the south and the Turkish Cypriot state in the north, which is recognized only by Turkey.

Since then, Cyprus has remained one of Europe’s most enduring frozen conflicts. Despite numerous United Nations-led negotiations, a permanent political settlement has never been achieved.

Meanwhile, the island’s strategic importance has grown significantly over the past two decades.

The Eastern Mediterranean has emerged as a critical energy region. Natural gas discoveries, new energy corridors, and disputes over maritime economic zones have transformed the area into a geopolitical chessboard. For the European Union, Cyprus represents a frontline in energy security. For Turkey, the region is a matter of national security and geopolitical balance.

Turkey is not just another regional actor in this equation. The country possesses the second-largest military in NATO and has undergone significant military modernization over the past two decades. Turkey’s geostrategic location—bridging Europe, the Middle East, and the Black Sea—makes it a key security partner for the West. NATO’s military planning in the region is, in many respects, dependent on Turkey’s capabilities and its control over crucial maritime and land corridors.

Historically, the relationship between Turkey and the United States has been deep and strategically significant. During the Korean War, Turkish and American troops fought side by side against North Korean and Chinese forces. Turkey subsequently became one of NATO’s most important members throughout the Cold War. Although relations between Ankara and Washington have experienced periods of tension in recent years, Turkey’s strategic value to Western security structures remains undeniable.

This is why the current situation around Cyprus is particularly sensitive. A military confrontation between Turkey and Greece would not merely be a regional conflict—it would represent a potential war between two NATO allies. Such a scenario could fracture the alliance while simultaneously opening the door for other actors to expand their influence in the region.

France’s increasing presence in the Eastern Mediterranean must be understood within this broader strategic context. Paris has in recent years positioned itself as a security guarantor on the European Union’s southeastern flank. By supporting Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, France is signaling that the EU is prepared to defend its member states and its emerging energy interests in the region.

However, military escalation also risks creating a classic security dilemma. When one actor strengthens its military posture, the opposing side often feels compelled to respond in kind. The result can be a spiral of mistrust, mobilization, and rising tensions.

The central geopolitical reality is that the Cyprus conflict today cannot be resolved through military force. After fifty years of separation, two distinct political realities have emerged on the island. The Greek Cypriot majority in the south and the Turkish Cypriot community in the north have developed their own institutions, economies, and political structures.

Any sustainable solution must therefore recognize the legitimate security concerns of both communities. For decades, international diplomacy has attempted to recreate a unified federal state on Cyprus, yet negotiations have repeatedly collapsed.

A more pragmatic alternative may lie in a framework where two self-governing entities coexist within a broader European structure. Such a model could include open borders, shared economic zones, and international security guarantees for both populations.

Under such circumstances, Cyprus could evolve from a zone of conflict into a platform for cooperation. The island holds the potential to become a hub for energy transit, commerce, and diplomacy linking Europe and the Middle East. Achieving this vision, however, requires political courage from all relevant actors—Ankara, Athens, Brussels, and Washington.

History demonstrates that military victories rarely produce lasting stability. Peace does. For more than half a century, Cyprus has symbolized one of Europe’s unresolved geopolitical disputes. The question now is whether regional leaders are prepared to transform it into a model of geopolitical compromise and sustainable peace.

The Eastern Mediterranean does not need another war. What it needs is a new political imagination.

Research Brief

EU Energy Security – Reducing Dependency for a Stable Future

Agenda Nexus Think Tank
January 2026

Executive Summary

The European Union faces a critical juncture in energy policy. Decades of dependence on Russian gas and oil have left the EU vulnerable to economic shocks and political pressures. The ongoing war in Ukraine, combined with heightened East-West tensions, underscores the urgent need for a strategic, long-term approach to energy security.

Diversification, renewable energy investment, and strengthened intra-European cooperation are not merely environmental imperatives—they are central to Europe’s economic resilience, political autonomy, and democratic stability. Agenda Nexus evaluates the risks, dynamics, and pathways for Europe to achieve a more secure and sustainable energy future.

EU Dependence and Strategic Vulnerability

The EU’s reliance on Russian energy has been structural for decades, driven by industrial growth and rising energy demand. While convenient historically, this dependency has created a significant geopolitical vulnerability. Any disruption in supply—whether due to conflict, sanctions, or political leverage—could threaten economic stability, inflate energy costs, and strain social cohesion across member states.

The 2022 invasion of Ukraine exemplified this vulnerability, highlighting how energy dependency can be leveraged as a tool of geopolitical influence, directly impacting the EU’s decision-making capacity and strategic autonomy.

Russia’s Energy Leverage

Russia derives substantial revenue from gas and oil exports, funds critical for military operations and domestic governance. This economic model has historically incentivized continued energy supplies to Europe despite rising tensions.

However, global market shifts could weaken Europe’s leverage. If Russia successfully redirects exports to Asian markets or prioritizes domestic consumption, its need to accommodate European demand diminishes. A scenario where Moscow no longer depends on European markets would strengthen its geopolitical bargaining position, leaving the EU economically exposed and politically constrained.

Strategic Imperatives for the EU

To mitigate risk, Europe must accelerate the transition to diversified and sustainable energy systems. Key priorities include:

1. Expanding renewable energy production– solar, wind, and green hydrogen infrastructure reduce reliance on external suppliers while contributing to climate targets.

2. Enhancing energy efficiency– across industry, transport, and urban planning to lower overall demand.

3. Diversifying imports– securing energy from stable, democratic partners outside Russia to reduce geopolitical vulnerability.

4. Strengthening the internal energy market– developing strategic reserves, cross-border infrastructure, and mechanisms for EU-wide cooperation.

5. Investing in innovation and resilience– supporting technology that enables energy independence and flexibility.
   

These measures are not short-term fixes but foundational strategies for long-term stability, economic growth, and political sovereignty.

Policy Implications

The EU’s energy strategy must balance immediate supply concerns with long-term resilience. Dependence on authoritarian energy exporters compromises both democracy and security. By prioritizing diversification, intra-EU collaboration, and renewable energy investment, the Union can reduce its exposure to coercive influence, strengthen member states’ resilience, and position itself as a global leader in sustainable energy governance.

Conclusion

The EU’s current energy dependency is a strategic liability. Without decisive action, Europe risks economic disruption and reduced geopolitical leverage, especially if Russia successfully pivots away from Europe as an energy market.

Agenda Nexus advocates a proactive, strategic approach: investing in renewable energy, diversifying supply, and enhancing European cooperation. Only through long-term, evidence-based solutions can the EU safeguard its economy, democracy, and energy independence in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.