Europe's Future Depends on Confrontation, Not Compromise

Politico

18 hours ago

So far, Europe has not been able to mount an effective response to the threat from Russia, because to do so requires an entirely new, and bold, paradigm for European governance. Instead, we have seen European countries floundering, taking scattershot actions in the direction of their goal, with no real appetite for confrontation. The history of sanctions imposed on the Putin regime over the course of the war in Ukraine is a perfect illustration. Eighteen tranches of sanctions have been signed into law, and yet Putin is still able to wage his war, maintain the offensive on the battlefield, and engage in business with his international cronies. There is still plenty of room to inflict economic damage on the regime, even after all these rounds, because none of the sanctions were designed to deal a decisive financial blow. They are exemplars of the incremental approach to policy-making that the EU embodies, one that aims to nudge the adversary to the negotiating table gently. Of course, this kind of approach does not work on a dictator; indeed, it only feeds their aggression.
Another example is the 1 million 155-millimeter artillery shells that were supposed to be sent to Ukraine. Half a year later, Europe had to admit that a union of 27 countries was unable to produce or procure that amount. To add insult to injury, Russia announced that North Korea had provided 1 million shells from its own stockpiles. One of the poorest nations in the world had, apparently, out-performed the most prosperous continent in supplying ammunition to its wartime ally.
In the absence of European leaders willing to accept authorship for its new path forward, the continent's future might very well be written in Moscow. If Putin were to attack a NATO country that is also a member of the European Union, that would shake the foundations of European unity like nothing before. And so it is worth asking whether a Europe that is unable to defend its own people can have any meaningful future. A meeting held after the bombing of a European capital to discuss a compromise resolution would serve only as the tombstone for the European project itself.
Even if the worst-case scenarios do not materialize, the Union's current ineffectiveness has already become crippling. Could today's Europe have the vision and ability to create something like the Schengen Area or the monetary union? Can it meaningfully enlarge if deadlock eventually reduces it to the status of a mere spectator in the war against Ukraine, the hybrid war against Moldova, or the non-military takeover of Georgia?
The inescapable conclusion is that the EU is risking irrelevance and evaporation unless fundamental changes are made to the Treaty itself. This is obviously a monumental task, but after witnessing so many bottlenecks and breakdowns in the current system we at least have a clear picture of what the necessary changes would need to look like. And the basic proposal isn't even new.
In 2017, German and French leaders floated the idea of a 'multi-speed Europe,' proposing the most fundamental overhaul of the framework of the EU to date. Had it not been for the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's war on Ukraine that followed, this proposal could have evolved into a more vocal debate on the regionalization of the Union. This idea still has the potential to make a comeback, particularly in the Nordic-Baltic region, where countries are actively seeking stronger security and defense integration, and where the Russian threat is clearly understood. Meanwhile, parts of Western Europe are already diverging in interests from those in the North. And in the illiberal bloc, Hungary and Slovakia are eagerly awaiting elections in Czechia, hoping a new government will join their anti-European, pro-Russian ranks.