Strengthening of the EU’s Common Security Policy as a source of possible conflict in Transatlantic relations
Więcej
Ukryj
Data publikacji: 20-05-2026
Myśl Strategiczna 2026;5(1):117-136
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
STRESZCZENIE
The idea of a common EU security policy, originating from the so
called Pleven Plan announced in October 1950, has experienced
many ups and downs. Never fully realized, it is now subject to two
opposing impulses. The first was the dramatic deterioration of
the European security environment caused by Russia’s aggression
against Ukraine; the second, President Trump’s announcement that
the American “security umbrella” over European NATO members
would be conditional on their radical increase in defence spending.
Analysing the United States’ attitude toward its European allies,
the article points out that throughout nearly the entire existence of
NATO, this attitude has also been subject to significant fluctuations.
This attitude results from the interplay of two conflicting needs:
maintaining an adequate level of the United States’ own military
equipment resources and retaining the ability to influence the
decisions of its allies. The strength of this influence, apart from the
level of the threat environment and the state of American resources,
is also conditioned by the allies’ capacity to acquire military
equipment. The current international situation has made most
European NATO states realize that their armed forces are unable to
fulfil their primary task – defending their own territory – and that
domestic defence industries cannot rapidly supply the necessary
equipment for this purpose.
REFERENCJE (25)
2.
Blankenship B.D., The burden-sharing dilemma: Coercive diplomacy in US alliance politics, London 2023.
3.
Burilkov A., Mejino-Lopez J., Wolff G.B., The US defence industrial base can no longer reliably supply Europe,
https://www.bruegel.org/analys... [access: 5.03.2025].
4.
Clapp S. et al., ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2023, „EPRS Briefing” 2025, no. 4.
5.
Deni J., NATO and Article 5: The Transatlantic Alliance and the twenty-first-century challenges of collective defense, Lanham 2017.
7.
Giles K., Who will defend Europe? An awakened Russia and a sleeping continent, London 2024.
8.
Gwadera Z., US allies question extended deterrence guarantees, but have few options,.
10.
Haglund D.G., Alliance within alliance? Franco-German military cooperation and the European pilar of defense, New York 2018.
11.
Hallams E., The United States and NATO since 9/11: The Transatlantic Alliance renewed, New York 2010.
13.
Inoguchi T., Ikenberry J., Sato Y., The U.S.–Japan Security Alliance, Cham 2011.
14.
Koivula T., Ossa H., NATO’s Burden-sharing disputes: Past, Present and Future Prospects, Cham 2022.
15.
Lansford T., Tashev B., Old Europe, new Europe and the US: Renegotiating Transatlantic Security in the post 9/11 era, Burlington 2005.
16.
Longhurst K., Zaborowski M., Old Europe, new Europe and the transatlantic security agenda, New York 2005.
19.
Progress and shortfalls in Europe’s defence, an assessment, An IISS strategic dossier, London 2025.
20.
Ratti L., NATO and the CSDP after the Ukraine war: the end of European strategic autonomy?, „Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies” 2023, no. 2.
21.
Rohac D., Castellet Nogues E., Funding Europe’s firepower: how the EU can funnel Its wealth into its defence, Foreign Affairs 19.09.2025,
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/fix....
23.
Rynning S., NATO: From cold war to Ukraine, a history of the world’s most powerful alliance, London 2024.