Scenario matrix

We end our comparison by placing the scenarios on the matrix of our two main drivers. Starting with the horizontal EU capacity axis, it is clear that the Patchwork scenario should be placed at the lowest end of that axis. Even if some countries under the Patchwork scenario may spend a lot on defence, others will not and, moreover, the capacity of the EU as a whole to coordinate or finance defence is very low under this scenario. From that starting point, the EU capacity to act on defence and security will increase parallel to the increase of defence spending. Starting from a status quo of 2 % spending, we can place the Antagonism, European NATO and EU Defence Union scenarios each one step further to the right on the horizontal axis. This placement is not only defined by the spending percentage, but also by the nature of the EU’s contribution to the security architecture. Although the EU may have substantially more capacity under the Antagonism scenario than it has today, the EU will remain a complementary pillar to NATO. That pillar is likely to be stronger under the European NATO scenario and obviously the strongest under the EDU scenario, which will be put at the high end of the axis. There was some discussion among experts on the placement of the Cooperative co-existence scenario. Initially, it was put on the very left end of the capacity axis – at the current position of Patchwork – under the assumption that, in a harmonious world, there would be no need for defence spending. This position was also based on a comparison with the 1990s. However, experts agreed that a certain level of defence spending would be required to uphold capacities in each of the security blocs and to cover the costs of an arms control system including inspections. Because experts considered it likely that the EU would take part in such activities, the Cooperative co-existence scenario was finally even placed to the right of the status quo situation, suggesting a necessary EU capacity comparable to the one under the Antagonism scenario. It would depend on the institutional arrangement of the Cooperative co-existence scenario, whether it would possibly have to be placed even more towards the right, entering the upper right quadrant. Such a high EU capacity would not necessarily mean high spending. It would for instance be the case if the EU were to play a bigger role in upholding the cooperative order than a renewed OSCE.
As regards placement on the vertical axis of world order, all experts agreed that the Cooperative co-existence scenario should be at the top of the hostile-cooperative axis. Experts also generally agreed that the Antagonism scenario should be at the other end of this axis, describing a hostile bipolar world. Experts were less united on the placement of the European NATO and EDU scenarios. On the one hand, they argued that these scenarios would require an equally hostile environment to come to development. Some even argued that, for EDU, an extreme situation of threat and hostility would be needed to make EU Member States take the step towards federalisation. On the other hand, they assumed that, in a very hostile global environment, the US would be less inclined to disengage from Europe. Even if US priorities lay in the Pacific region, the US would need transatlantic cooperation to manage security in what the US often calls the Eurasian part of the world. Experts assumed, therefore, that the US would only take the step towards disengagement if they considered the situation in Europe stable enough to leave it to Europeans to take care of security in that region. The combination of these considerations led to the conclusion that the European NATO and EDU scenarios should be placed higher on the vertical axis than Antagonism, but lower than the status quo, because they would need a higher amount of hostility than the current situation to materialise. Similarly, between these two scenarios, experts argued in both directions, for EDU to be placed in a more hostile environment (which it would need to pressure Member States into cooperation) or a less hostile environment than European NATO. There was a tendency to follow the first reasoning, suggesting that, in a more hostile environment, the UK and Türkiye would follow national security interests and choose the safer option of liaising with the US than with the new experiment of a federalised EDU. Only Norway might go this way, because of its close ties to other Nordic countries. Therefore, European NATO is placed somewhat higher on the axis than EDU, which requires a more hostile environment, reflected in Russian advances. As regards the vertical placement of the Patchwork scenario, experts concurred that it would probably not develop in a hostile world. In such a world, countries would overcome their differences and form some sort of alliance to face the threats. However, Patchwork would also need a certain level of hostility, or at least perceived hostility, in order to form certain security groups or arrangements. This resulted in placing Patchwork in a somewhat less hostile position than the status quo (which tends to more hostility), but clearly lower than Cooperative co-existence. This position also reflects the nature of Patchwork as a diluted status quo of NATO versus Antagonism as an enhanced status quo of NATO.