This final HCSS “Draghi Report Revisited” conclusion delivers a clear message – Europe has not fixed the problems Draghi highlighted, and in some areas it is slipping further back. The EU has launched initiatives, announced action plans and promised reforms, but the real gap remains: delivery is too slow, funding is too limited, and national politics still blocks a united strategy. The overall picture is gloomy. Europe faces tougher global competition, rising security threats, and a fragile economic base – yet it still struggles to act like a serious power.

This HCSS “Draghi Report Revisited” edition argues Europe’s defence push is still not matching the scale of the threat. The Ukraine war forced leaders to talk tougher and spend more, but the real delivery is lagging. Europe remains fragmented, slow and dependent on the US for critical capabilities. The harsh message is that Europe is trying to rearm in a hurry after decades of neglect – and it is discovering it doesn’t have the industrial muscle, political unity or operational readiness to do it properly.

This ECFR analysis raises a frightening scenario Europe has not taken seriously enough – China could exploit hidden dependencies in Europe’s power system and trigger serious disruption, even without a conventional military conflict. As Europe electrifies its economy and pushes renewables, it is also importing critical hardware, software and components that can become strategic choke points. The warning is clear: Europe’s green transition is building a new vulnerability, and Beijing may have ways to weaponise it.

This Stimson Center piece asks a question that cuts straight through European slogans: what is the EU actually going to be in the US-led security order? Europe wants to sound like an autonomous strategic actor, but the reality is messier. The EU depends on American power, NATO capabilities, and US intelligence, while trying to build its own defence identity at the same time. The article suggests Europe is being squeezed into a security role shaped in Washington, not Brussels – and Europe’s internal divisions make it even harder to respond with clarity.

This Stimson Center Trialogue episode with Glenn Diesen is a bleak diagnosis of Europe’s trajectory. The argument is not that Europe faces one single crisis – it’s that the continent is being pulled apart by multiple forces at once: the Ukraine war, US strategic dominance, economic decline, and a security mindset that is turning Scandinavia and Europe into a militarised frontline. Europe wants to look united and strong, but the discussion paints a continent losing independence, losing stability, and possibly losing the EU project itself.

This CER analysis argues Europe is learning three hard lessons about trade in a world run by power politics, not polite rules. The EU likes to see itself as a global trade giant, but the past year has exposed how vulnerable it really is. Washington can pressure Europe without fear, Beijing can undercut Europe with state-backed industry, and Brussels struggles to respond because it is divided and dependent. The message is grim: Europe’s trade model was built for yesterday’s world – and it is being punished for it.

This ECFR article delivers a blunt warning – the EU is drifting into danger not because it lacks strategies, but because it lacks speed. From climate policy to defence readiness, Europe is moving too slowly to keep up with a world that has turned brutal and competitive. While rivals act fast and take risks, the EU debates, delays and waters things down. The core message is simple: Europe’s biggest enemy may not be Russia or China, but its own inertia.

This Institut Montaigne piece argues that Europe is being forced into an uncomfortable choice it has spent years trying to dodge. The EU talks endlessly about “strategic autonomy”, but in reality it remains squeezed between America’s hard power and China’s economic pull. The article’s message is blunt – autonomy is not a slogan, it is a cost. And Europe has not paid it. Faced with Beijing’s rise and Washington’s pressure, the EU cannot keep pretending it can have full independence without major compromises.

This EUISS brief delivers an awkward truth for Europe’s defence ambitions – the EU can talk about deterrence all it wants, but it still struggles with the basics of moving forces quickly across the continent. Roads, railways, bridges, ports, paperwork and national rules all slow things down. In a real crisis, those delays could be fatal. The report argues the EU must treat military mobility as a strategic priority, because right now Europe’s infrastructure and bureaucracy are undermining its own security.

This EPC paper warns that Europe’s subsea infrastructure – the cables and pipelines that keep its internet, energy and economy running – is far more vulnerable than most Europeans realise. The EU has launched an action plan, but the analysis argues this is not enough. Threats are rising fast, from sabotage and espionage to accidents and geopolitical pressure. Meanwhile Europe’s response remains fragmented, slow and underpowered. The hard truth is that Europe depends on undersea networks it does not fully control and cannot reliably defend.

This ECFR analysis argues the EU is facing a historic choice on enlargement – either move fast and bring in new members amid rising geopolitical tension, or risk losing influence and credibility on its borders. But the text also makes clear this is not a clean victory story. Enlargement is turning into a high-risk gamble, because the EU’s own machinery is slow, its politics are fragile, and its institutions are already under strain. Brussels wants a “big bang” moment. The danger is that the EU may not survive the shock.

This Bruegel policy brief delivers an uncomfortable message Europe keeps dodging – the EU’s defence “autonomy” talk collapses the moment you look at the receipts. Europe is heavily dependent on US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) for key weapons systems, especially as countries rush to rearm after Russia’s war in Ukraine. The problem is not just political pride. Reliance on US arms sales creates delays, reduces Europe’s control, and risks leaving European militaries exposed if Washington changes priorities. Europe wants to be taken seriously as a security actor – but it is still shopping like a client, not building like a power.

This EUISS commentary warns that Europe is walking into a brutal new era where critical raw materials are no longer “commodities” – they are weapons. The return of Trump-style protectionism, combined with China’s dominance over many supply chains, is turning minerals into tools of pressure, punishment and price warfare. Europe is dangerously exposed: it needs these materials for defence, batteries, renewables and industry, yet it lacks control over both supply and processing. The EU talks about resilience – but in a real showdown, it is the one most likely to be squeezed.