What is the EU Strategic Compass?
At a Brussels summit, EU leaders endorsed the Strategic Compass, the bloc’s first coherent defense strategy. It serves as an action plan for security in the near term, designed to lift member states to a higher level of readiness and capability. Work on the Compass has spanned two years and will continue as a regular cadence, with the next edition due in 2025.
The title fits the content: this 42-page document offers a broad, somewhat classified view of EU security concerns across multiple fronts. Front and center are Russia and the associated situations in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
Reports from Politico indicate the document emphasizes this issue following Russia’s actions in Ukraine. In the original November draft, Russia did not appear as a threat, but over the following months the document increasingly references Moscow, rising from six mentions to nineteen. References to engaging Russia on selective issues also diminished.
The Compass also notes a historic decision by the EU to provide roughly €500 million in military aid to Ukraine for the first time.
Beyond Russia, the plan identifies risks from China, instability in the Western Balkans, Islamic extremism in the Sahel, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Arctic challenges, and threats from cyberspace and even outer space. Other potential risks cited include tensions in the Indo-Pacific region and Latin America. The text makes no bold claim of creating a full European army, either.
Currently, EU military spending stands at about 1.5 percent of GDP, roughly €200 billion. Josep Borrell, the top European diplomat, notes that this level is close to four times Russia’s military outlay and nearly matches China’s defense spending. Despite this, Brussels argues that more and better spending is necessary.
We should spend more and we should spend better, Borrell asserted.
How will the EU protect itself?
The Compass outlines four pillars for future EU security work: rapid and decisive action in crises; protecting citizens from shifting threats; investing in skills and technology; and cooperating with other states and organizations to pursue common goals.
A notable feature is a plan to form a rapid deployment force capable of assembling up to 5,000 troops quickly in various crisis scenarios, with Germany offering to provide the backbone for such a unit.
A second innovation is regular, realistic exercises at the EU level, something not previously undertaken on such a scale.
Other goals focus on strengthening command and control, speeding up and making decision-making more flexible, and boosting resilience against cyber threats, disinformation, and external meddling.
Investments are planned in next generation capabilities and strategic defense tools, including a new center within the European Defence Agency. The EU will also advance its own space strategy.
Despite these moves, NATO remains a key framework. The Compass emphasizes enhanced partnerships through more structured political dialogue and closer operational cooperation. Partner nations include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, the Western Balkans, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
A more hostile security environment calls for sharper action and greater readiness, the European Council stated in its defense concept. Borrell pledged continued pressure on all member states to translate promises into results, noting that Europe faces direct security challenges in Ukraine and must act accordingly. He warned against treating the Compass as a routine document, stressing that its deadlines apply to all states with mandatory actions.
Will the EU be able to reduce its reliance on NATO?
Experts interviewed for this analysis caution that the Compass does not signal a new era of European strategic autonomy. Fyodor Lukyanov of Global Affairs suggests the move is symbolic in nature, designed to show that Europe intends to take its military responsibilities seriously, while still recognizing the enduring role of NATO as essential for deterrence and security. He notes worries about changing alignments in Europe and North America, especially in shifting political climates, but sees no credible path to fully stepping away from NATO’s military-political leadership anytime soon.
Pavel Zolotarev of the USA and Canada Institute argues that EU nations are not in a position to depart from NATO reliance. He points out that EU structures have long served as tools in NATO military operations and emphasizes that measures to bolster EU security are meaningful, even if it remains unclear how far they will be implemented in practice.
Oleg Barabanov of the Valdai Discussion Club describes the move as a long-running effort that periodically gains momentum. Since the late 1990s the EU has pursued an autonomous defense policy, yet persistent ties to NATO and external pressures have hindered real independence. Although the 2016 global strategy laid groundwork, observers doubt the EU will fully diverge from NATO given current threats and strategic dynamics.
In sum, the Compass signals a shift in tone and intent rather than a dramatic overhaul of European defense. It marks a commitment to strengthen capabilities, modernize coordination, and sustain cooperative security arrangements, all while navigating the practical realities of alliance-based defense. The document remains a milestone in the ongoing debate about Europe’s security architecture and its future path within NATO and beyond.