Putin requires Europe’s full clout

Europe can only stop Russia’s advance in Ukraine if it stands united and joins forces. If the continent presents a fragmented image to the outside world, it will be crushed by the other major powers.

Geopolitics is back on the political agenda: Russia is threatening Europe; China is laying claim to dominance in Asia; the USA is considering where else in the world it wants to take responsibility; Iran is demonstrating its power in the Middle East; Turkey is emphasising its claim to be a regional power between East and West – to name just a few examples.

This is a huge challenge for the EU – probably even the biggest since it was founded. It must project itself into the future – in direct contrast to those countries and empires that refer to their past and want to turn back the wheel of history. And to do this, European countries must overcome their own history, once again. Europe is therefore facing the most massive feat of strength since the end of the Second World War.

Just how difficult this is has not only been evident since Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Whether in relation to the USA or China, the European member states have always focussed primarily on their own history. Even under Donald Trump’s presidency (2017-2021), Europe should have focused much more on its own defence capabilities. Germany was reluctant to rearm and thus even potentially enter into a logic of war – with a view to its history. Although French President Emmanuel Macron fuelled the debate with the concept of ‘strategic autonomy’, he ultimately also followed his country’s historical line, which has engaged in an interplay of proximity and distance with NATO since Charles de Gaulle.

Key EU countries have always had their own history in mind.

Great Britain broke away from the European Union because conservative forces referred to the old Empire, even invoking the myth of the Commonwealth – as if this union of former colonial countries under British leadership would still play any role today. And perhaps Italy was even reminiscing about the time when Venice still dominated maritime trade, when it agreed to co-operate with China’s Silk Road project.

Many EU countries, many voices

These different views and approaches continue today, when it comes to supporting democratic Ukraine in its fight against the encroachment of the Russian autocrat. Apart from the sanctions decisions, the heads of state are finding it difficult to speak with one voice. After all, the individual member states are concluding agreements with Ukraine, but they are reluctant to act jointly and decisively. The Union should have the courage to initiate an industry that also serves its own defence: today in Ukraine, tomorrow perhaps in its own country.

Unfortunately, this hesitation is evidence of tactical short-sightedness, because it is difficult to imagine that China or Russia will ‘calm down’. And it is simply foreseeable that the USA will sooner or later fold down its protective umbrella over the continent again – regardless of who holds the next presidency there.

The world is in turmoil and there are signs of a possible reorganisation. Strategic foresight would therefore mean that European heads of state in particular would have to prepare themselves for a world in which Europe can only have a serious political existence as a united continent. In his recently published book World in Turmoil, the German political scientist Herfried Münkler develops a scenario according to which various regional poles will emerge – five of them, to be precise. According to this scenario, a balance of power would emerge, which has obviously proven itself time and again in history and works better than unipolar or bipolar orders.

Common foreign policy only on paper

In the future, he surmises, these powers would continue to be the USA and – hopefully – Europe in the democratic camp, China and Russia in the autocratic camp and, as a tipping point, India. In such a world, Europe would have to be united if it does not want to be crushed by the other big players.

Autocrats do not need to ask anyone for their opinion.

A prerequisite for this would be a common foreign and security policy. Although this exists on paper, it has not yet materialised in reality. The reason for this also lies in the democratic constitution of the European countries. The historian and politician Alexis de Tocqueville had already identified foreign policy as a potential weak point in his study of America’s still young democracy. For all his enthusiasm about the high level of municipal autonomy – the ‘ordinary government’ for everyday matters, as he called it – a democracy, according to the republican analyst, absolutely needed an ‘extraordinary government’ for the general interests of the country, i.e. the united interests of the outside world.

To this day, foreign policy remains the greatest difficulty in democratic Europe. The governments of the member states are dependent on the support of their voters, and their own interests take precedence. Autocrats, on the other hand, do not have to ask anyone for their opinion. What’s more, they can distract from internal problems by demonstrating toughness to the outside world, i.e. wars.

What does Europe need to be one on the outside? No distraction, but only the realisation that Putin is a common external enemy whose defence can only succeed with united forces.

Europe must overcome its historical rifts

After the Second World War, it was the United States of America that promoted the union of the arch-enemies Germany and France and other war-torn states in the ‘Coal and Steel Community’. It is the origin of the prosperous European single market. Today, it is up to Europe itself to take the next step in defence of its achievements. Here, too, the various countries can refer to their history, as this shows that it has been possible to successively overcome the most diverse rifts.

BORDER CROSSINGS Op-ed by Katja Gentinetta, published at PRAGMATICUS