Strategic Autonomy

Strategic autonomy is the capacity of a state or international organization to independently determine its own priorities in strategic areas such as foreign policy, security, economy, technology, energy, defense industry, and supply chains; to make its own decisions without requiring intervention from any external actor; and to possess the institutional, political, economic, and material power to implement these decisions either in cooperation with third parties or unilaterally when necessary.

Conceptually, strategic autonomy is also described as a coherent combination of two interdependent core elements. The first component of this whole is strategy, which encompasses the process by which an actor organizes its limited resources most efficiently to achieve its objectives, manage long-term threats, and assess opportunities. The accompanying autonomy refers to the capacity of an entity to make decisions without yielding to external pressures, guided instead by its own internal dynamics, interests, and values.

Conceptual Framework

The concept of strategic autonomy is generally associated with realism theory due to its foundation in utility maximization. Within this framework, actors in the international system are seen as strengthening their sovereignty, reducing dependencies, and enhancing their capacity for self-reliance. The concept gains greater visibility particularly during periods when power balances in a multipolar international system become uncertain and alliance relationships are questioned.

However, the pursuit of absolute strategic autonomy faces various criticisms in light of the structural realities of today’s global system. It is argued that no actor within the international system can construct absolute autonomy across all domains, as globalization inherently intertwines strategic areas through mutual dependencies.^【1】 Multilayered structures such as technology, energy supply chains, transnational security threats, and digital infrastructure demonstrate that absolute autonomy is not feasible in today’s international system; rather, flexible cooperation and selective strategic orientations are viable alternatives. Thus, strategic autonomy is understood not as a claim to absolute independence but as a direction aimed at reducing dependencies in strategic domains.^【2】

The theory of complex interdependence, developed by leading neoliberal institutionalists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, emerges as an analytical complement to the concept of strategic autonomy. According to this theory, relations among states are not confined solely to military and political domains; multidimensional interactions also occur in economic, environmental, technological, and social spheres.^【3】 In a system where mutual dependencies deepen, actors must balance their pursuit of strategic autonomy against these interdependence patterns.

Historical Development

Although the concept of strategic autonomy has long been present in European politics, it reemerged more prominently after the end of the Cold War, driven by shifting power balances and alliance structures. From the 2010s onward, intensified debates over a multipolar international order provided greater maneuvering space for non-Western powers and regional actors. During this period, both major powers and middle powers such as Türkiye, as well as rising powers like India, began to visibly incorporate strategic autonomy into their foreign policies.

On the European Union front, key turning points in the emergence of the concept include: tensions in US-EU relations, uncertainties regarding NATO’s future, the security environment created by the Russia-Ukraine War, the Covid-19 pandemic, Brexit, internal political integration challenges within the EU, and the stance of US President Trump toward Europe. In particular, Trump’s pressures on collective security policies and trade relations within NATO transformed the pursuit of strategic autonomy from a preference into a necessity for EU member states.^【4】

Strategic Autonomy in the Context of the European Union

Within the European Union, the concept of strategic autonomy is regarded as a guarantee of the Union’s future and security. The EU’s strategic autonomy requires strengthening internal integration, unity, and coherence, while also assuming greater risks and responsibilities in its immediate neighborhood and surrounding regions.

The EU’s pursuit of strategic autonomy is also concretely manifested in efforts to enhance its defense industry capacity. The Union has decided to allocate 80 billion euros over a four-year period from 2026 to 2030 to build a self-reliant European defense industry. Joint statements by German and French leaders and EU leadership affirming the necessity for Europe to construct its own security capacity demonstrate the political legitimacy of this vision.^【5】

One significant area in which the EU’s strategic autonomy is tested is its Mediterranean policy. The Union initially initiated its policies toward Mediterranean countries in a bilateral framework in the early 1960s and has since maintained them within an institutional structure, especially after adopting the European Neighborhood Policy in 2004. However, while the EU’s initiatives in the Mediterranean are recognized as reflections of strategic autonomy, implementation shortcomings and deficiencies reveal the absence of a clear strategy required of a strategic actor.^【6】

One of the most concrete tests of the EU’s strategic autonomy policy occurred during the Ukraine war. In response to Russia’s aggression, the EU sought to develop a common stance on defense and security policy; however, policy differences among member states constrained the Union’s strategic capacity.

NATO and Transatlantic Relations

The concept of strategic autonomy is directly linked to dynamics within the NATO alliance. NATO membership provides member states with collective security guarantees while simultaneously imposing certain policy alignments. Consequently, alliance members often face the challenge of balancing their national interests against alliance expectations.

Despite being a NATO member, Türkiye has expanded its strategic autonomy domain by diverging from Western alliance positions on certain issues. In this context, Türkiye’s Syria policy, its procurement of the S-400 air defense system from Russia, its balancing policy during the Russia-Ukraine War, and its stance in the Eastern Mediterranean serve as concrete examples of how strategic autonomy is applied within alliance relationships.^【7】 Türkiye sought to acquire the Patriot system from its NATO allies to ensure its security but, after receiving an unfavorable response, was compelled to procure the S-400 from Russia. This development clearly revealed the tensions between strategic autonomy and alliance relations.

India, as a non-alliance actor, applies its strategic autonomy policy within a different framework. India’s foreign policy is based on maintaining balanced relations with major powers, preserving strategic flexibility, and leveraging its political and economic power as a tool.

On the transatlantic front, the EU’s pursuit of strategic autonomy has become a significant source of tension in its relations with the United States. The EU’s efforts to build its own defense capacity necessitate a redefinition of US-EU relations and deepen debates about the future of the alliance.