For years, European leaders have talked about strategic autonomy-the idea that the EU should make its own security and foreign policy decisions without always waiting for Washington’s green light. But when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the EU didn’t just talk. It acted. It sent billions in military aid, imposed sweeping sanctions, and took in over 8 million refugees. Yet now, in late 2025, as the war drags on and peace talks seem more distant than ever, the real question isn’t whether Europe can help Ukraine-it’s whether Europe can lead the peace process without the United States.
Why Strategic Autonomy Matters Now
Strategic autonomy isn’t a new buzzword. It was first pushed by France and Germany in the early 2010s as a response to U.S. military withdrawals from the Middle East and growing political unpredictability under Trump. But it wasn’t until after the 2022 invasion that the EU turned theory into action. The European Peace Facility has funded over €11 billion in weapons deliveries to Ukraine. The EU’s own defense industry is now producing artillery shells at three times the rate it did in 2021. Poland, the Baltics, and Finland have all doubled their defense budgets. Sweden joined NATO. Even traditionally neutral Austria and Ireland have started sending non-lethal aid.But here’s the catch: none of this means Europe can replace the U.S. as the architect of peace. The U.S. still controls the most powerful intelligence networks, the most advanced missile systems, and the only military that can project power across the Black Sea and into Russian territory. The EU has logistics, money, and moral authority. But it lacks the command structure, the nuclear deterrence, and the global diplomatic leverage that Washington still holds.
The Limits of EU Diplomacy
When the EU tried to host peace talks in 2023, it fell flat. Ukraine wanted security guarantees. Russia wanted territorial concessions. The EU offered mediation. No one trusted it. Why? Because the EU doesn’t have a unified foreign policy. Hungary still buys Russian gas. Slovakia refuses to send tanks. Bulgaria blocks sanctions on Russian oil. Meanwhile, France and Germany are divided over whether to push for negotiations now or wait until Ukraine regains more ground.Compare that to the U.S. approach. In 2024, the Biden administration quietly brought together Ukrainian, Saudi, and Chinese officials for backchannel talks in Riyadh. The U.S. didn’t announce it. It didn’t need to. It had the credibility to bring the table together. The EU couldn’t even get a joint statement from its own 27 members.
Even the EU’s own diplomats admit they’re not ready. A leaked 2025 European External Action Service memo said: “We are not a global power. We are a regional power with global aspirations.” That’s not a critique-it’s a reality check.
What Europe Can Do That the U.S. Can’t
But that doesn’t mean Europe is useless in peace talks. It has strengths the U.S. doesn’t. For one, Europe is on the ground. Over 200,000 EU citizens work in Ukraine-doctors, engineers, teachers, aid workers. They’re not just delivering aid. They’re building trust. Ukrainian officials talk more openly to German inspectors than to American generals.Europe also has the tools to rebuild. The EU has already pledged €120 billion for reconstruction. It’s drafting laws to freeze Russian assets and funnel them into Ukraine’s recovery. It’s training Ukrainian judges to handle war crimes cases. It’s setting up a digital registry for stolen cultural artifacts. These aren’t flashy. But they’re lasting.
And then there’s the moral weight. The EU is the only major actor that hasn’t been accused of using Ukraine as a proxy in a larger U.S.-China rivalry. China is quietly pushing for a negotiated settlement that leaves Russia in control of Crimea and parts of Donbas. India is selling weapons to both sides. Turkey is playing both ends against the middle. The EU, for all its flaws, still speaks with a voice that many in Kyiv see as honest.
The Real Barrier: Internal Division
The biggest threat to European leadership isn’t Russia. It’s Brussels.The EU’s decision-making requires unanimity on foreign policy. That means one country-Hungary, Slovakia, or even Cyprus-can block a peace initiative. In 2024, Hungary blocked an EU statement condemning Russian war crimes because it wanted to keep its energy deals with Moscow. In 2025, Slovakia refused to join a proposed EU peace monitoring mission because it feared backlash from its own voters.
Meanwhile, public opinion is shifting. In Germany, 52% now believe the EU should push for negotiations-even if it means accepting some Russian gains. In France, support for sending troops to Ukraine has dropped below 30%. In Italy, the government openly questions whether Ukraine can win. These aren’t fringe views. They’re mainstream.
Without a unified European position, any peace proposal will look weak. Russia knows this. It’s waiting. It’s not rushing. It’s counting on European fatigue.
Can Europe Lead Without Washington?
The short answer: not alone. But it doesn’t have to be alone.Strategic autonomy doesn’t mean cutting ties with the U.S. It means having the capacity to act independently when the U.S. is distracted, unwilling, or unable. Right now, the U.S. is focused on Asia, domestic politics, and the 2026 midterms. It’s not going to lead peace talks in 2025. That’s a vacuum-and Europe is the only actor with the resources, legitimacy, and proximity to fill it.
But Europe needs to stop pretending it’s a superpower. It needs to stop trying to match U.S. military power. Instead, it should play to its strengths: reconstruction, legal accountability, humanitarian coordination, and long-term institution-building. It should lead the peace process not by demanding a ceasefire, but by offering a future.
Imagine this: the EU launches a “Ukraine Recovery Compact”-a binding agreement signed by Ukraine, the EU, Canada, Japan, and South Korea. It includes guaranteed funding for infrastructure, judicial reforms, and energy independence. It sets up an international tribunal for war crimes, funded by frozen Russian assets. It creates a European peacekeeping corps-non-NATO, non-U.S., made up of volunteers from 15 EU countries-to monitor borders and protect civilians.
Would Russia agree? Maybe not. But it wouldn’t be able to dismiss it as a U.S. plot. And China? It might even support it, if it’s not framed as an anti-Russia coalition.
The Path Forward
Europe’s path to leading peace talks isn’t through more tanks. It’s through more treaties. More courts. More schools. More hospitals. More transparency.It needs to stop asking, “Can we replace the U.S.?” and start asking, “What can we do that only we can do?”
That means building a permanent EU peace and security council-with real authority, not just a committee. That means creating a European Defense Union that can deploy forces without waiting for 27 approvals. That means investing in EU-wide intelligence sharing, not leaving it to national agencies.
And most of all, it means being honest with its citizens. No more pretending that peace is just around the corner. No more blaming Washington for every delay. Europe must own its role-and its limitations.
The war in Ukraine won’t end because of a single summit or a bold speech. It will end when people on both sides believe there’s a better future than the one they’re living. Europe is the only entity that can help build that future. It doesn’t need to lead with missiles. It just needs to lead with credibility.
Can the EU negotiate peace with Russia without U.S. support?
The EU can initiate and host peace talks, but it cannot enforce them without U.S. military backing or global credibility. Russia won’t agree to terms that risk its strategic interests unless it fears real consequences-and only the U.S. can deliver those at scale. The EU’s role is better suited to building the post-war framework, not forcing a settlement.
Why hasn’t the EU created a unified defense force yet?
The EU lacks the political will and legal framework. All defense decisions require unanimous approval from all 27 member states. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia block initiatives that challenge Russian interests. Even countries that want stronger defense, like Poland, resist giving up national command over their troops. Without a treaty change and a shift in public opinion, a true EU army won’t happen.
Is Europe’s economic aid more effective than U.S. military aid?
They serve different purposes. U.S. military aid keeps Ukraine fighting. EU economic aid keeps Ukraine functioning. The EU has funded power grid repairs, school reopenings, and pension payments. That’s not glamorous, but it’s what holds a society together during war. In the long run, reconstruction aid may matter more than missiles.
What’s stopping the EU from freezing more Russian assets?
Legal hurdles and political resistance. Some EU countries fear lawsuits from Russian oligarchs or damage to their banking sectors. Others worry about setting precedents that could be used against Western assets later. The EU has frozen over €300 billion in Russian assets, but only a fraction has been legally repurposed for Ukraine. The process is slow, complex, and politically risky.
Could China or India mediate peace talks instead?
China and India have offered to mediate, but neither has credibility with Ukraine. China has close ties to Russia and has blocked UN resolutions condemning its invasion. India continues to buy Russian oil and arms. Ukraine sees both as biased. The EU, despite its flaws, is still seen as a more neutral party because it’s directly affected by the war and hasn’t profited from it.
What happens if the U.S. stops supporting Ukraine?
If the U.S. withdraws military aid, Ukraine’s front lines would collapse within months. The EU could step in with more funding and weapons-but not enough to match U.S. levels. Europe would face a choice: escalate its own military spending to dangerous levels, accept a Russian victory, or risk a prolonged stalemate that drains its economy and unity. The most likely outcome? A frozen conflict with Europe bearing the long-term costs.
Europe’s future isn’t written in Washington. But it’s not written in Brussels either. It’s written in the choices each EU country makes-about solidarity, sacrifice, and strategy. The moment for strategic autonomy isn’t when Europe can fight alone. It’s when Europe can lead peace, even when the world isn’t watching.
