Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges
Over the past five years, several political and security developments have made it increasingly necessary to look at European Union (EU) / North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) relations through a different lens.
The renewed emphasis on European strategic autonomy, a concept that lends itself to multiple and sometimes diverging interpretations, has been a cause for rising concern among NATO member states. While some of those concerns appear legitimate, there are many ways to increase Europe’s strategic autonomy without undermining the Alliance. As the EU and NATO have taken new steps to strengthen their cooperation over the past years, it appears more important than ever to reject false dichotomies when prioritizing efforts to strengthen European security, to look at opportunities to better coordinate EU and NATO capability development processes, and to identify which types of military capabilities European countries should invest in to make burden-sharing with the Alliance more effective.
This publication contains chapters written by Sven BISCOP, Corentin BRUSTLEIN, Luis SIMÓN and Dick ZANDEE.
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Mutual Reinforcement: CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges
Corentin BRUSTLEIN
Research fellow, coordinator of the Security Studies Center and head of the Deterrence and Proliferation program
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
From Corsairs to Private Military Contractors. Nonmilitary Maritime Actors and the Historical Continuities of Naval Warfare
Since late 2023, several Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have involved privately contracted armed teams conducting defensive engagements and coordinating immediate response efforts, often in the relative absence of regular naval forces during the immediate hostilities at sea. These cases highlight a strategic tension that increasingly confronts modern navies. On the one hand, they are expected to conduct persistent, low-intensity maritime security tasks such as counterpiracy, maritime policing, and the protection of commercial shipping. On the other hand, they face renewed pressure to prepare for high-intensity conflict against peer and near-peer adversaries amid the return of great power competition.
Framework Nation: A European Challenge and French Ambition
First appearing in the early 2000s, the framework nation concept follows several distinct rationales, whether it refers to a country assuming the leadership of a military operation, directing a multinational capability project, or commanding a permanent force structure. In every case, the country that takes on this role fully intends to derive from it additional politico-military influence.
The Nuanced Relationship Between Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
Public sentiment is something decision-makers must contend with, especially in democratic states. However, the extent to which public opinion shapes foreign policy varies. Three Council of Councils experts in France, India, and Nigeria reflect on how public opinion does—and sometimes does not—affect foreign policy decisions.
Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?