Pauline Veron looks at the upcoming European security strategy. It is expected to adopt a broad perspective, but unless it has political buy-in and can bring together the various dimensions of European security, the strategy risks becoming yet another document in an already crowded field.
The European Union has adopted a growing number of strategies, roadmaps and doctrines in recent years, spanning economic security, defence, preparedness and resilience. While these initiatives reflect a shifting (and increasingly nervous) geopolitical landscape, they also risk creating fragmentation and confusion, precisely when the EU needs to project credibility and clarity on its vision. Against this backdrop, the European Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) are preparing a new European security strategy – due by the NATO summit of July 2026 – expected to outline key threats and priorities. But does the EU need another strategy, or should it focus on implementing the ones it already has? Its relevance will depend on whether it offers a clear, integrated vision of security that connects defence, resilience, human and economic security, and societal cohesion – internally and externally.
A changing security environment
The EU faces a more volatile and contested global context than at any point in recent decades. Russia’s war against Ukraine, Trump’s threats against NATO, instability in the Middle East and intensifying geopolitical competition have exposed Europe’s vulnerabilities and limitations as a security actor. Traditionally reliant on soft power, the EU is now shifting towards a more assertive posture. This transformation is reflected in rising defence spending and a stronger focus on strategic autonomy. In 2025, military spending by European NATO members rose faster than at any time since 1953.
At the same time, the concept of security has broadened and is used in many different contexts and domains, including in relation to economic security. Resilience, strategic autonomy, reduced vulnerability to coercion and dependencies are also very relevant objectives in a context of heightened economic competition. In this context, a new security strategy could help clarify how these different dimensions fit together. Not doing so would represent a missed opportunity.
An already contested initiative
Debates among member states highlight differing views on what the strategy should achieve. While some advocate for a broad, integrated understanding of security, others caution against an overly expansive approach that could dilute focus or duplicate existing policies. This reflects a deeper challenge: the absence of a shared European concept of security (and peace) suited to today’s environment.
Moreover, the effectiveness of any EU-level strategy ultimately depends on member states. Defence and security remain largely national competencies, and EU initiatives often follow, rather than shape, national priorities. Without political buy-in, the security strategy risks becoming another declaratory document with limited impact.
There is also scepticism about the EU’s tendency to produce new strategies instead of implementing existing ones. To be credible, the security strategy must demonstrate how it builds on and streamlines current frameworks rather than adding another layer to an already crowded landscape of white papers, doctrines, strategies and roadmaps.
About the Author:
Pauline Veron is a policy analyst working in ECDPM’s European foreign and development policy, migration and mobility and peace, security and resilience teams. She is ECDPM’s Representative in The Hague.