The rules-based order was always partly a legitimation device for American hegemony, but it was a device that required European buy-in — and that buy-in gave Europe real leverage. Trump has abandoned the legitimation mechanism entirely. He does not need Europe’s moral endorsement because he has dispensed with the need for legitimacy altogether. Power is its own justification. That is precisely what makes the European establishment’s eager compliance so self-defeating.
Sánchez is dragging Europe’s centre-left toward articulating a foreign policy grounded in international law, genuine multilateralism, and the understanding that the international order is rebuilt through principles consistently applied, not selectively invoked. What makes the S&D shift notable is that arguments long dismissed as too radical — when made by voices like Yanis Varoufakis — are now coming from governing parties.
Two enemies of the EU are fighting. Why is it in the best interest of the EU to stop that?
Because energy prices spike, resulting in another (or worse) round of inflation, like the last one after Russia’s invasion?
Because refugees from the Middle East typically end up in Europe (well, at least those who go further than their neighbouring countries, who usually take in the most)?
Because Europe likes to pretend to be on the moral high ground and watching your enemies fight and snicker about it is not said high ground?
Small price to pay to not be in a war with the US over Canada or Greenland. Also it gives the EU better climate laws and a much needed boost in population.
So the same should do the others if EU is bombed…
China, India, Brazil, USA, Indonesia, South Africa and so forth have not voted in the UN for lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine either. So why would any sane person expect them to act different, if the EU were bombed.
The article is such obvious nonsense. Its central argument is that vocal protests will give Europe a weight in the world (Spain). Keeping a low profile while building Europe’s strongest armed forces and energy independence will detract from Europe’s weight in the world (Germany). Who honestly believes this?
EU is not a superpower like US Or China. Mid-sized powers rely on international law and multilateralism to survive and exert influence. If the world devolves into a purely “might makes right” arena (which the author argues Trump is doing), Europe inevitably loses.
Based on what assumption is China a super power but the EU isn‘t? Because it isn‘t a single state? Because economically it plays in the same league.
If the EU is not a superpower, then it does not have the influence on the world to maintain a rules based world order (international law, mutlulayeralism) against the USA, China, Russia, India, … This is wishful and illogical thinking
The EU’s Single Market is still large and wealthy enough that it routinely forces the US and China to adapt to its rules. That is a massive form of global influence.
Also, multilateralism isn’t the EU trying to unilaterally enforce rules against the USA, China, Russia and so on. It’s the EU teaming up with other like-minded middle powers (like Japan, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc.), and international institutions to create diplomatic and economic costs for rule-breakers. But if EU is inconsistent in this regard (like it was with US Iran situation) no one will take it seriously. Rules cannot apply only when it’s convenient to you. That is what the author was pointing out.
But you’re not wrong. He’s approaching the issue from a Liberal Institutionalist perspective, while you’re viewing it through the lens of Structural Realism. Both valid perspectives. One point that both of you will agree on is that EU needs to get independent from the US ASAP.
Excellent article. Good to see parts of the European centre-left stirring.
