the Paradox of Eu Strategic Autonomy: Centralised Ambitions and Decentralised Diplomatic Action

Strategic autonomy has been increasingly articulated as a guiding objective of the EU’s external action since the mid-2010s. Particular significance was attached to this concept following the adoption of the EU Global Strategy in 2016 and, more decisively, in the context of the full-scale war launched by Russia against Ukraine. Against this background, strategic autonomy has been framed as the Union’s ability to act independently in safeguarding its security, interests, and values in an increasingly unstable international environment. Strategic autonomy is commonly understood as encompassing not only defence and security, but also foreign policy, crisis management, energy resilience, and economic sovereignty. It has been presented as a response to structural vulnerabilities exposed by external shocks, including armed conflict in Europe, geopolitical rivalry, and disruptions of global supply chains. However, the practical implementation of this objective has been hindered by a persistent gap between centralized ambitions at the Union level and decentralized diplomatic practices of Member States. A defining feature of this paradox lies in the manner in which external action is organised. While common strategic narratives, policy frameworks, and collective instruments have been developed at the EU level, diplomacy continues to be exercised primarily through national channels. Member States retain extensive control over diplomatic representation, bilateral engagements, and political messaging, even in situations where common positions have been formally agreed. As a result, EU external action is frequently characterised by parallel, and occasionally competing, diplomatic initiatives. This structural decentralisation is not the result of institutional malfunction but reflects the intergovernmental foundations of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Strategic objectives may be articulated collectively, yet their operationalisation depends on national political priorities, threat perceptions, and historical experiences. The Russian war against Ukraine has vividly illustrated this dynamic. While unprecedented levels of unity have been achieved in areas such as sanctions, financial assistance, and military support, diplomatic engagement with third states and international partners has often remained fragmented, with national governments playing a dominant role. The coexistence of centralised ambition and decentralised practice produces mixed outcomes. The EU has demonstrated an enhanced capacity to mobilise resources, coordinate restrictive measures, and project normative influence in response to the war against Ukraine. On the other hand, inconsistencies in diplomatic signalling and external representation have persisted, affecting the clarity and credibility of the Union’s international posture. Strategic autonomy, under these conditions, functions less as a mechanism of unified action and more as a flexible framework for coordination among sovereign actors. It is therefore argued that strategic autonomy should be understood as a hybrid construct rather than a fully consolidated strategy. The paradox of EU strategic autonomy thus appears to be intrinsic to the Union’s political and legal architecture. Rather than representing a temporary deficiency, it reflects the structural tension between supranational ambitions and the continued centrality of the state in foreign policy. In the context of the Russian war against Ukraine, this tension has become particularly visible, shaping both the possibilities and the limits of the EU’s role as a geopolitical actor.