Some of us inactive remember the celebrated beginning Communist Manifesto. "The spectrum is moving around Europe – the spectrum of communism. All the powers of old Europe have merged for the sacred hunt against this spectrum, the Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, the French radicals and German policemen." Could not the same words be utilized to describe how Europe is perceived today? The spectrum is moving around Europe – the spectrum of Eurocentrism. All the powers of old Europe and the fresh order of the planet have merged for the sacred hunt against this spectrum: Farage And Putin, AfD and Orbán, pro-immigrant anti-racists and defenders of conventional European values, Latin American leftist and arabian conservatives, Zionist from the West Bank and "patriotic" Chinese communists.
There is simply a clear similarity between Trump's impacts in the triad ecology/political correctness/LGBT+ and the conflict between Russia and Europe. Which civilization most full represents the slogans attacked by the president of the United States? Only one: European civilization as the latest form of enlightenment.
A Europe of transnational unity
In an interview given on 15 July 2018, just after a stormy gathering with EU leaders, Trump listed the European Union as 1 of the “adversaries” of the US, putting it higher in this respect than Russia and China. Today, he is trying to break up European unity, and his efforts are resonated in successive European countries (in Hungary, Germany, Austria, Britain...).
During The Munich safety Conference American Vice president J.D. Vance started by passing through violent, ideological assault on Europe, accusing her leaders of suppressing freedom of speech, not stopping illegal migration and cowardly escape from the actual convictions of the voters. He openly questioned whether today's European values deserve the United States to defend them.
Europe is present a field of ideological and political combat. Many European ideas compete with each another and in a sense impose on themselves: a conservative imagination of Europe as a continent of sovereign, Christian states, a technocratic imagination of Europe as an economical community and so on. So which Europe is so opposed to both Trump and European populists?
It is simply a Europe of transnational unity, aware that in order to face the challenges of modern times, it must transcend the limitations of national states. A Europe that is desperately trying someway to stay faithful to the enlightened spirit of solidarity with victims. A Europe conscious that present humanity is one, that we are all in the same boat (or, as we say, aboard the same Space Ship "Earth"), so that the misery of others is besides our problem.
This leads us to a scandalous spectacle called the Munich safety Conference. Timothy Garton Ash asked about her: ‘Is this area Chamberlain's area as we speak?’. My answer: yes, and it may turn out to be worse, due to the fact that we are surviving in a fresh era of multipolarity from the BRICS.
Europe towards the BRICS world
Both peaceful perspectives, which are presently addressed by the Trump administration – in Gaza and Ukraine – are exemplary examples of how the emerging BRICS planet will work. Yes, it will be multipolar, but in the sense that respective strong states will specify each of their own sphere of influence and limit the sovereignty of smaller neighbours. Trump's abroad policy full fits into the fresh reality: the US president admits that Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence, and insists that Canada, Greenland, Mexico and Panama are part of the US's sphere of influence.
This is why he immediately negotiated with Putin, openly excluding Europe from peace talks. Even if these 2 disagree on many things, they already talk the same language. So they do not surprise Trump's words that Russia should return to the G7 – signaling its re-normalization. So it is not just that Europe should unite to become another large power within BRICS. It should become an exception, a place that supports victims of fresh superpowers.
The announced takeover of Gaza by the Americans shows what is happening in the sphere of superpower influence: you can do what you want without keeping any appearances. erstwhile Trump announced his plan, the two-state solution previously rejected by Israel, only with a change in a tiny detail: not Israel and Palestine, but Israel and the United States.
What, then, happens if Trump succeeds and peace reigns in ethnically cleansed large Israel? Shakespeare wrote: “The evil deeds of men live after their death / Good, they are frequently buried / With their ashes.” Trump is accompanied by an even greater terror: if his evil deeds succeed, they will be remembered as good, something that brought peace.
The peace plan promoted by the U.S. will subject Ukraine to 2 colonizations: its east will be straight incorporated into Russia, and the west will de facto be turned into an economical colony – the large fields of fertile lands already are in possession of Western corporations, natural resources will be plundered, etc. The "Peace Guarantee" is simply a warrant for Trump from both sides (Ukrainian and Russian) that the US will have free access to Ukraine's natural resources to cover military aid costs. So Russia will halt (partly) its cookie, the USA (partly) will eat it, and Ukraine will be left with nothing – at best with any symbolic names.
So what can Europe do in a situation that Janis Warufakis accurately described as “the last chance to rip out their autonomy to the United States”? quite a few things. As far as Gaza is concerned, Europe could easy go a step further than simply condemning Trump's moves and organising a major relief operation, bringing to Gaza by sea and from Egypt a large deal of essential resources: food, medical equipment, tents. If the U.S., not only Israel, had blocked this aid, the fact would have become much more hard to ignore, and Trump would gotta rise his sophistry to a full fresh level, arguing, for example, that concrete aid to Palestinians and Palestinians in Gaza unnecessarily causes them suffering...
Trump will retreat the U.S. from NATO? I hope so.
As for Ukraine, you just gotta draw the consequences from what was February 15, 2025 in Munich said Zelenski“ Let us be honest. present we cannot regulation out the anticipation that America will say no Europe on a case that threatens it. Many, many leaders have said that Europe needs its own army – a European army."
The hard choice between the US and Europe is besides facing Ukraine itself. So far, she could have leaned on both poles, present the gap between them. The U.S. government's message is clear: negotiations will only begin with the US and Russia, Ukraine will join them later. In short, it will stay to sign what the large 2 have decided, and if they dare to say no, it will be left to itself. And Europe, which is besides left out in negotiations today, even though this war is taking place in its territory.
J. D. Vance's earlier message on Europe clearly shows that the change of American politics in relation to the war in Ukraine is actually aimed not at Ukraine, but at Europe itself, at its emancipative heritage. This raises the question: will Putin take these negotiations seriously at all, or are they just another point in the ongoing Russian expansion? The answer is not within the Russian soul – much depends on how others respond to its policy.
So what should and could Europe do to confirm its autonomy? Firstly, it must be clearly defined, and this is where problems arise with associate States and populist forces who argue both the united Europe and the legacy of emancipation. Secondly, this redefining includes military autonomy. John Bolton providesThat Trump would retreat the U.S. from NATO. Let us hope that this happens and NATO will become an armed force of united Europe.
Thirdly, Europe will request to rethink its economical policy, towards greater coordination and – I will usage the forbidden word – planning. Large-scale, mandatory planning, not only of general “coordination” and “cooperation”. There is no another way to face the crises that endanger our survival.
Planning during many crises must combine features that may seem to be mutually exclusive: their effects cannot be predicted, let alone optimal responses, but that is why we should organise ourselves well for their coming. After carefully drawing out conflicting trends, we must act with full awareness that we will gotta change our position as a consequence of the unexpected consequences of our actions.
It may sound utopian, but it's not. Just mention any of the most effective countries in the world, whose economy is strictly regulated and controlled by state apparatus – from Sweden to Singapore and South Korea.
Let's bet on the principled pragmatism
In another words, Europe should now take a position of principled pragmatism. Groucho Marx stated: “This is my policy, and if they don’t like it... Well, I have another ones too." This is simply a expression of pragmatism without rules: people in power change their principles only to stay in power. In ongoing negotiations on peace in Ukraine Trump presents himself as a pragmatic realist, proposing to all parties a choice of lesser evil. But, as no 1 else said, like Jerry Garcia, “a consistent choice of lesser evil is inactive a choice of evil.”
On the another hand, we have dogmatic rules: we stick to them, even if they lead to economical or social disturbances. However, principial pragmatism is not about the pursuit of any golden means between 2 opposites, but about something more precise: erstwhile the situation is radically changing, we request to change a large part of our positions precisely in order to stay faithful to our basic principles.
In the case of Europe, this aspect of the rule refers to unconditional fidelity to the inheritance of enlightenment, and the aspect of pragmatism to many unpredictable, hard decisions. Today, Europe is clearly not treated as the main ally of the US, so 1 should consider, among another things, the anticipation of a strategical alliance with China against the fresh axis of the US, Russia and India – although China is closer to Russia in the context of the war in Ukraine, it besides sends clear signals that they are not entirely on the side of aggressive Russian policy.
Europe should embrace the ongoing crisis as an chance to establish its position and regain its strength. Macron rightly held an extraordinary summit of European leaders in Paris. But again, the problem is how far this group can and will go. Will it end with another declaration, serving as an excuse to do nothing? In fresh decades, Europe has had more like it.
My conclusion will so not be cautiously optimistic, but pessimistic, with the hope of a miracle. The conflict is almost, but not completely lost. We hear over and over again that Europe is falling behind the US and China in the field of digitisation and artificial intelligence. Sometimes it's good to be late. In this way you can give others inevitable mistakes and enter the process in a more appropriate way. The maxim of Nietzsche is worth mentioning: “What doesn’t kill me will strengthen me.”
Aleksandra Paszkowska translated from English.
