Catching Up: Europe’s Path to Strategic Autonomy in the Defence Industry

Over the past decade, strategic autonomy in defence has become a defining objective in European policymaking. At its core lies a clear but demanding proposition: Europe must be able to defend itself and sustain military operations without excessive reliance on external actors, most notably the United States. As Europe’s security environment has deteriorated and transatlantic relations have become more uncertain, this challenge has become particularly acute in the defence-industrial domain. In practical terms, strategic autonomy depends on Europe’s ability to design, produce, sustain and upgrade critical military systems under European control.

Despite unprecedented political attention and increased spending, the European Union continues to struggle to translate ambition into a coherent defence-industrial posture. Defence planning, production and procurement remain predominantly national, resulting in persistent coordination challenges across the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB). Dependencies on external suppliers, especially for high-end platforms, digital enablers, and critical inputs, remain a recurring concern.  

This new joint Clingendael and HCSS report puts forward the following overarching recommendations for EU member states: 

1. Match industrial ambition with predictable demand and long-term funding 

2. Strengthen the link between capability development and EU investments 

3. Prioritise strategic autonomy where control is most critical 

4. Accept managed dependence in other areas 

5. Reduce fragmentation through clusters and pragmatic prioritisation 

6. Position smaller member states strategically within platform-driven dynamics 

7. Partner more, but on purpose 

HCSS author Davis Ellison notes:

“Supply chains are complex both within and outside the European Union, with most military capabilities being reliant on a variety of subsidiaries spanning across the continent.”

“While the EU possesses key defence capabilities, their fragmented nature and uneven implementation prevent the EU from independently meeting the needs of a modern military,” adds HCSS Strategic Analyst Ron Stoop.

Moving forward does not necessarily require a grand overhaul, but rather pragmatic steps to balance readiness, industrial development, consolidation, competition and partnerships. This begins with taking stock of long-term dependency risks in national procurement choices – aligning not just with urgency and convenience, but with the broader autonomy objectives of the continent. Crucially, autonomy should not be framed as a pursuit of isolationist self-sufficiency, but as the active management of interdependence. This means securing the freedom to act through diverse, resilient partnerships and reciprocal safeguards. Ultimately, the ‘strategic autonomy of the European defence industry’ is not a fixed destination, but a long-term discipline of decision-making.

Authors: Floor Stoelinga (Clingendael), Karen van Loon (Clingendael), Davis Ellison (HCSS), Ron Stoop (HCSS) and Dick Zandee (Clingendael)

Cover image: AI-generated with OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

The research for and production of this report has been conducted within the PROGRESS research framework agreement. Responsibility for the contents and for the opinions expressed, rests solely with the authors and does not constitute, not should be construed as, an endorsement by the Netherlands Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence.