Lock the White House Watch Newsletter for free
Your Guide to What Trump’s Second Season Means Washington, Business and World
The author is co-executive of the itinera Institute, a Brussels-based think tank, and is the author of “Superpower Europe: The European Union’s Silent Revolution.”
The EU is facing the challenge of a new world order. May 9th marked the official “European Day.” This is a celebration of peace and unity that is in stark contrast to the world beyond. Europe sits strategically alone. Russia is the enemy, China is the enemy and partner, and Donald Trump’s US is threat or liable.
There are basically three main options for blocks: One: We will be doing Europe’s America geopolitical. That is, it develops what is needed to project European power, bringing together third countries together Europeans built in a large market with integrated technology and security capabilities, and ultimately adjacent to a renovated NATO.
To get there, Europe must economically go to China. It is about rebuilding the strong industrial and technology foundation. In that case, it rules hostile Russia, not just in Eurasian theatres, but also in the wider world, while achieving some degree of geopolitical independence.
The second option is to abandon the placement of the EU as the final fortress of Globalization. It follows in the footsteps of the US under the Joe Biden administration, working with like-minded countries, protecting strategic industries with protectionist fences.
This strategy will ultimately involve either China or the US as a security backstop. However, as far as Trumpism means we are indifferent or worse, the EU may have to consider doing its own “reverse kissinger.” Europe’s position on Russia would be limited in normalisation of trade and diplomacy rather than hostile control.
The third option is for the EU to continue playing the second fiddle for the US. In the short term, this means reestablishing the block as a strategic asset on America’s first agenda. It means attacking US-friendly trade contracts with Trump, allowing US restructuring and mining profits, and tripping China’s US line while paying bills for Ukraine’s stability.
In return, Europe will benefit from minimal US security assurances while continuing to integrate into US-led technology and financial markets. In the medium term, deeper partnerships could reappear as the US maintains rivalry with China while fewer isolationists.
Which of these options is currently being taken by the EU? Simple answer: All of the above are at the same time. It develops general defense and security capabilities while pursuing industrial policy. China production in Europe continues to promote international trade, including trade between the EU and China. He will bring US protections to justice, particularly in relation to Ukraine, while exploring the art of a trade contract with Trump.
This shows amazing political creativity. But Europe has not skillfully hedged bets in a world of increasing obstacles. Instead, it sticks to the status quo while only the fragmentary response to external shock is capable.
If Europe cannot be aggressive and strategic, the geopolitical transverse current will ultimately divide it politically and geopolitical alienate it. European countries are inevitably facing the challenge of a new world order, not necessary. They either succeed in channeling responses through the EU, or individual responses from countries gradually stand by the bloc. The emergence of ad hoc “rejoice coalition” is a benign precursor of what could be an existential threat.
If Europe once again becomes a master of its own destiny, setting up a geopolitical compass should be easy. To hold Russia down ourselves, we need a significant hardworking ability and autonomy with the United States, as well as adequate economic independence from China. The latter ensures that Europe can explore a post-Trump transatlantic reset with the US. This is a scenario that will be damaged by deepening trade ties with China in the short term.
European countries need to be aware that the “European Project” is a hard power project that requires a geostrategic footprint beyond current boundaries. We were here before. In the early 1950s, postwar Europe tried and failed to institutionalize political and defence cooperation. At that time, it was America’s protection and the European Economic Community that enabled peace and prosperity. Today we are cute for ourselves. Failure is not simply an option due to economic development that is subordinate to geopolitics.
