A Shifting World Order and Europe’s Place In It

For much of its modern history, the EU has depended on the United States for security, allowing European governments to scale back their own military capabilities under the assumption that NATO would always be there. This was not just a passive European choice but an arrangement that aligned with Washington’s strategic interests. By ensuring Europe remained reliant on American military protection, the US was able to extend its influence across the continent and beyond, using NATO as a tool to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War and, later, to counterbalance Russian influence.

European disarmament allowed the US to dictate security priorities while preventing European states from pursuing independent defence policies that might conflict with American objectives. However, the US has been gradually disengaging for some time now, both globally and—more notably—from Europe, as Washington has become increasingly preoccupied with countering China’s rise. Despite this reality, Europe remains structurally dependent on American military assets.

If Europe is to function without US security guarantees, it must develop the coordinated naval, air, and air defence capabilities needed to protect its own interests and safeguard its borders. This is easier said than done. Any serious move towards European security coordination will have to acknowledge the reality that defence priorities differ widely among member states.

Rather than attempting to impose a single European defence policy, a more viable approach would be for the EU to play a stronger role within NATO, ensuring that Europe remains prepared both in the event that the US maintains its current commitment and, crucially, if Washington decides to walk away.

Energy independence must also be a fundamental pillar of this shift. The EU remains heavily dependent on imported energy—whether Russian gas, Middle Eastern oil, or American LNG—leaving it vulnerable to supply shocks and geopolitical coercion. While renewables are a long-term solution, they are not enough to guarantee energy security in the near future. The only viable path to true energy sovereignty is nuclear power.

France has already recognised this, ramping up investment in nuclear energy to stabilise its power grid and shield its economy from price volatility. Other European nations must follow suit, accelerating nuclear development to reduce reliance on external suppliers. Beyond civilian energy, nuclear power also raises the question of deterrence—an issue Europe has yet to address seriously.

Ukraine: Missed Opportunities and Hard Realities

Europe’s most pressing challenge remains the war in Ukraine. While Russia had already demonstrated imperialist ambitions in places like Georgia, there is no denying that Western efforts to draw Ukraine closer to the EU and NATO presented Russia with a legitimate security concern while giving Putin a pretext for war.

The ideal scenario would have been for Europe to pursue a strategy of keeping Ukraine neutral, with its security guaranteed by Europe rather than being caught between competing power blocs. However, decisions have been made, and we are where we are today.

As things stand, instead of pursuing the unrealistic goal of bringing Ukraine into the EU and NATO, the EU should adopt a pragmatic strategy: sustaining military support for Ukraine while recognising that a prolonged, frozen conflict remains the most likely outcome. The recently proposed ceasefire highlights the need for Europe to balance deterrence with diplomatic engagement, ensuring any settlement does not come at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty or long-term security.

Whether we like it or not, Europe will have to maintain some form of relationship with Russia. Geography and economic ties make complete disengagement unrealistic, and while military deterrence remains necessary, diplomacy will play an increasingly important role in shaping a sustainable post-war order.

A Coherent European China Policy 

Then there’s China. Here again, Europe’s approach cannot be reduced to a simple choice between aligning fully with Washington or pivoting towards Beijing. Rather than being drawn into a binary dictated by global power struggles, Europe must adopt a pragmatic strategy—one that prioritises its own interests over reflexively following American policy.

China’s economic influence has grown significantly, presenting both opportunities and risks. Concerns over industrial espionage, supply chain vulnerabilities, and technological dependencies are valid, and European intelligence agencies have echoed U.S. warnings on these issues. However, Washington has also shaped this narrative to serve its own strategic objectives—something Europe must recognise.

This does not mean abandoning the transatlantic alliance. Rather, Europe must ensure that its economic and foreign policy decisions are shaped by its own interests. The increasing use of economic and trade warfare—sanctions, technological restrictions, and financial isolation—should not be dictated by Washington’s objectives but assessed on their merits for Europe.

Recent policy decisions highlight this imbalance. Europe’s alignment with the U.S. in banning Huawei, for instance, weakened its technological autonomy without delivering meaningful security gains. Similarly, sanctions on ASML, a Dutch company producing vital semiconductor technology, have shown how the EU is being drawn into Washington’s economic battles in ways that do not necessarily align with Europe’s long-term strategic interests. Europe should focus on securing its own supply chains, protecting its industrial base, and ensuring that its economic policies serve European priorities.

Engagement with China should be based on economic pragmatism, not geopolitical alignment. Instead of antagonising Beijing simply to maintain favour with Washington, Europe must establish a more balanced, interest-driven relationship—one that allows it to benefit from economic cooperation while safeguarding its strategic autonomy. A militarily and strategically independent Europe would be far better placed to take such a position without fear of American backlash.

The EU’s Leadership Crisis And The Need To Change Tack

The EU’s failures are not just external but internal. Rather than tackling governance, security, and economic stability, its leadership has diverted energy into ideological projects that, while valid, have lacked broad public support. Too often, they prioritise politically convenient policies that do not require strong leadership, instead of confronting the deeper structural issues that demand real governance. Many feel these policies have been forced upon them without democratic consensus, fuelling disillusionment and making them more susceptible to populist movements and foreign influence.

Rather than imposing top-down social engineering, European leaders should focus on inclusive dialogue, ensuring just transitions where no community feels marginalised. Societies evolve at different speeds, and forcing change at the pace of the most vocal is a recipe for backlash. A return to pragmatic, consensus-driven politics is long overdue.

The world the EU was built for no longer exists, and yet its institutions remain locked in outdated ways of thinking. If it wants to remain a centre of stability, prosperity, and security, it must focus on protecting its core interests while avoiding unnecessary entanglements in global rivalries. If it fails to do so, the EU risks being left behind in a world that has already moved on without it.