Brussels' strategic autonomy does not add up as expected

Some politicians of the European Union seem to have developed an expensive habit: confusing ambition with arithmetic. At the bloc's two-day summit in Brussels, which concluded on Friday, leaders struggled to agree on a long-term budget, quarreled over energy policy and confronted another €70 billion ($78.66 billion) request from Ukraine. The bloc insists that it is pursuing "strategic autonomy". Yet almost every entry in its increasingly uncomfortable ledger suggests the opposite: higher costs, fewer choices and greater dependence on outsiders.

Consider the fiscal arithmetic. The European Commission's proposed €1.76 trillion budget for 2028-34 was already contentious before Ireland, holder of the rotating EU presidency, suggested cutting the budget by about €141 billion. Sweden's caretaker prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, complained that the original proposal would increase his country's net contribution by roughly 60 percent. Germany and the Netherlands are similarly reluctant to pay more. France, Italy and others want agricultural subsidies and cohesion funds protected. Everyone wants a more powerful Europe. Few want the invoice.

The disagreement is not merely about money. It reflects the contradiction between Europe's expanding strategic ambitions and its unwillingness to finance them collectively. Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, has scheduled another summit for Nov 26. But chances of a consensus being reached look grim given the gap between different countries' requirements.

The energy arithmetic is uglier. Since the Ukraine conflict began, Europe has sought to escape dependence on Russian fossil fuels. However, it has traded one set of vulnerabilities for another. Renewed tensions in the Middle East have driven energy prices higher, with eurozone energy inflation reaching 18.8 percent in September. Overall inflation climbed to 3.8 percent.

The resulting argument over the EU's emissions-trading system exposed another uncomfortable choice. Italy, Poland and several other countries want to postpone its expansion to shield consumers and industry. Germany, France and Nordic governments fear that retreating from climate commitments would undermine green investment. Both sides have a point. But neither can make Europe's steel mills competitive simply by adjusting the language of a summit communique.

Security presents an even more embarrassing calculation. Ukraine now seeks another €70 billion from the EU, despite an earlier €90 billion loan package for 2026-27. European governments must somehow finance that commitment while increasing their own defense spending. Meanwhile, Washington's changing approach to Russian energy sanctions and military assistance has exposed Europe's limited ability to determine its own security outcomes.

The EU has spent years proclaiming independence from external powers while remaining reliant on the United States' military technology, intelligence and strategic decisions. More defense expenditure has not yet translated into commensurate strategic freedom.

Trade completes the picture. Brussels falsely treats its merchandise deficit with China as evidence of economic vulnerability. Yet customs figures obscure the complexity of integrated supply chains. Nearly half of China-EU trade involves intermediate goods, while European businesses also benefit from services exports, intellectual-property revenues and investments.

The EU's underlying problem is declining industrial competitiveness, aggravated by expensive energy and structural weaknesses. Tariffs and administrative restrictions cannot restore productivity. Nor can squeezing China compensate for Europe's declining competitiveness elsewhere.

Recent China-EU trade consultations produced 16 concrete outcomes after extensive negotiations. That progress demonstrates what technical engagement can achieve. Attempts to portray it as the fruit of European pressure risk poisoning precisely the relationship that could help ease Europe's economic difficulties.

The political arithmetic is becoming equally troublesome. As competing forces gain ground in Germany and France, the consensus underpinning European integration grows more fragile. Governments facing anxious voters have diminishing room to compromise over budgets, climate policy and foreign commitments.

None of this means strategic autonomy is an unworthy ambition. It means autonomy cannot be purchased with declarations while economic competitiveness deteriorates, fiscal divisions deepen and external dependencies multiply.

Some EU leaders have become adept at adding strategic objectives. They remain considerably less accomplished at balancing the books.