From Borrell’s Folly to EU’s Fragility: Time to Reassess the European Union’s Future
If you want to know who rules over you,
Voltaire
simply ask who you are not allowed to criticize.
Abstract
This essay presents an overview of the European Union (EU) considering both historical trends as well as the current state of affairs through multiple points of view, motivated by yet again a controversial and typically inept statement by Josep Borrell, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU. The EU stands at a critical juncture, grappling with financial instability, rising inflation, escalating immigration issues, and internal political strife that threaten its very foundations. The refusal to adequately support member states during economic crises, coupled with the selective allocation of resources to non-member states, has fueled public discontent. Inflation has reached alarming levels, forcing vulnerable populations to make difficult choices between basic necessities, while the immigration crisis places significant strain on frontline countries, leading to job losses and a black market for labor. The current trajectory suggests that without significant reforms, the potential for political fragmentation and social unrest becomes increasingly likely. As the Union grapples with its identity and role in the world, it must confront these challenges head-on. A reevaluation of its structure is necessary to ensure that member states can effectively address their unique challenges while maintaining economic cooperation. If the current trajectory remains unaddressed, the prospect of fragmentation will irreversibly become an unavoidable reality in any case, prompting a reconsideration of the very foundations of the EU project. In the opinion of the present author of this essay, it is imperative to dissolve or to radically restructure the EU the soonest possible in a controlled way, as the only viable remaining option remaining before it sinks like the Titanic, with all its crew and passengers onboard in full denial of the impending disaster.
1. The Essence of Diplomacy
At its very core, the art of diplomacy is rooted in the ancient Greek concept of “diploma (δίπλωμα),” which signifies a (folded) formal document or agreement. This etymological foundation underscores the paramount importance of structured communication, mutual respect, and the pursuit of common ground among nations in the conduct of diplomacy. The philosophical underpinnings of diplomacy can be traced back to the ideals espoused by Greek thinkers such as Aristotle, who emphasized the virtues of prudence, justice, and moderation in statecraft. This stands in stark contrast of the sorry state of affairs observed in the contemporary state of the EU throughout its “dominion” over its member states.
True diplomacy, as envisioned by these classical scholars, should embody the highest standards of consistency and integrity, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration among states. As Lord Palmerston, the renowned 19th century British statesman, aptly stated, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” This pragmatic yet principled approach to diplomacy, grounded in the promotion of national interests while respecting the sovereignty of others, is the hallmark of a truly effective and respected diplomatic corps.
In the modern era, statesmen and scholars alike have continued to emphasize the centrality of these timeless principles to the practice of diplomacy. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a highly controversial political figure himself, one who could be characterized as an amoral opportunist with utter disregard for human life and even out-rightly a war criminal with little doubt on this, in his seminal work “Diplomacy,” underscores the importance of balancing idealism with realism, stating, “Diplomacy is the art of restraining the possible from the impossible.” This delicate balance, achieved through skillful negotiation, open communication, and a steadfast commitment to international law and standards, should be the essence of diplomacy at any period of time.
It is worth noting here that Kissinger was also of a similar frame of mind in terms of double-speak like Borrell, as if afflicted by a split personality disorder, although of a much higher intellect and skills. For example he tended to state the dry facts which are true, all the meanwhile he practiced strictly opportunistically with complete amorality. An interesting also statement attributed to him is: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” It is interesting to not that no real diplomat representing the interests and the image of “his” country would ever make such a statement which in effect not only casts in doubt the standing of his country but actually tarnishes it for all future history! But, the statement clearly speaks the absolute truth as observed over the history of the U.S. over the past years especially, as well as the complete suicidal path Europe has been set on by its subjugation through the central now full control of Brussels on all member states of the EU in complete compliance to Washington’s orders.
As the world grapples with increasingly complex global challenges, the need for principled and effective diplomacy has never been more pressing. By upholding the timeless ideals of consistency, integrity, and mutual respect, while adapting to the evolving realities of the international system, diplomats can play a vital role in fostering peace, stability, and cooperation among nations. It is this enduring essence of diplomacy, grounded in the wisdom of the past and the exigencies of the present, that will continue to shape the course of international relations in the years to come.
2. Implications of Borrell’s Statement
Josep Borrell’s assertion that managing double standards is a necessary aspect of diplomacy carries profound implications for the European Union’s (EU) standing on the global stage. This is a statement he made in the usual for him low-standard presentation he gave in Oxford University this time! By suggesting that inconsistency is an inherent part of diplomatic practice, Borrell not only undermines the foundational principles of international relations but also jeopardizes the EU’s credibility as a proponent of democratic values and human rights. This perspective reflects a troubling acceptance of moral relativism that erodes the moral authority the EU has sought to establish in a world increasingly characterized by geopolitical tensions and ethical dilemmas.
Borrell’s remarks resonate with historical precedents where leaders have grappled with the complexities of diplomacy. For instance, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, another highly controversial political figure of equal or worse amorality and opportunism as Henry Kissinger as well as a provocatively genocidal person, once stated, “We can’t be the world’s police, but we can be the world’s conscience.” This sentiment underscores the expectation that diplomatic actors should uphold a standard of ethical conduct, striving for consistency in their principles and actions. She herself though did not practice what she preached, quite the opposite as is usual with such individuals actually, for example by her justifying in public that “the sacrifice of half a million children in Iraq was a necessary price to pay”, just as Borrell’s comments suggest a retreat from such ideals, implying that the EU may prioritize expediency over ethical considerations, thereby consistently alienating allies and emboldening adversaries.
The implications of Borrell’s statement are further compounded by the context in which they were made. His criticism of Ursula von der Leyen’s pro-Israel stance during the recent Israel-Hamas conflict underscores a significant rift within EU leadership. Borrell’s assertion that von der Leyen’s position has “carried a high geopolitical cost for Europe” highlights the potential ramifications of divergent foreign policy approaches within the EU. This internal discord not only confuses the EU’s external messaging but also raises questions about its ability to present a cohesive and principled stance in international affairs.
Borrell has insisted on the necessity of criticizing Israeli government actions without being labeled an anti-Semite reflects a broader struggle within diplomatic circles to navigate the complexities of identity politics and historical grievances. His assertion that “the catastrophe in Gaza is not the result of an earthquake or a flood: it is the consequence of devastating military action” challenges the narrative often employed by political leaders who seek to frame conflicts in terms of natural disasters rather than human agency. This relatively bold statement coming from an EU dignitary, while necessary for honest discourse, and absolutely correctly stated in the opinion of the present author, risks further polarizing opinions and complicating diplomatic efforts aimed at conflict resolution particularly because the EU appears to be both playing the part of the supporter of Israel in every conceivable way to carry out its own atrocities against the Palestinian people (at the very least!), and doing so for decades by turning a blind eye, all the meanwhile through the mouth of Borrell seems to also contradict itself!
The normalization of double standards in diplomacy, as suggested by Borrell, give the impression that the EU suffers from a literal split personality disorder and could also have long-lasting repercussions for the EU’s relationships with non-European nations. As the EU seeks to position itself as a global leader in promoting human rights and democratic governance, the acceptance of inconsistency completely and utterly undermines its moral standing, as well as casts it as a totally unreliable and non-serious political player. Critics argue that such a stance perpetuates a narrative of Western superiority, where the lives and rights of individuals in non-Western nations are deemed less significant (in actuality as totally insignificant when viewed from what is taking currently in Gaza and Palestine overall). This perception not only alienates potential allies but also emboldens adversaries who may exploit the EU’s inconsistencies to further their own agendas.
3. Sensationalism vs. Pragmatism
While some may be inclined to interpret Josep Borrell’s provocative comments as a reflection of pragmatic realism in the face of complex geopolitical realities, a more critical examination reveals them to be sensationalist in nature and very naively and stupidly actually intended to be so. Such inflammatory statements, rather than advancing constructive dialogue, serve primarily to generate headlines and spark controversy. In doing so, they contribute to an environment of cynicism and mistrust, where the public and international partners increasingly question the sincerity and coherence of the EU’s diplomatic efforts.
Borrell’s admission of the necessity of managing double standards in diplomacy has been echoed time and again by leaders from the Global South, who have long criticized the EU’s inconsistent responses to conflicts around the world. For instance, the EU’s robust support for Ukraine (and its insistence in not facilitating immediate serious peace negotiation interventions to this date and on the contrary taking a forceful stance of setting the Ukrainian side effectively on a futile suicide mission against Russia as a proxy, openly, for its destruction and outright fragmentation!) stands in stark contrast to its more tepid response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where Israeli military actions have resulted in the deaths of countless civilians, including women and children – numbering in the hundreds of thousands in the estimation of the present author either directly by bombings and mutilations or by the intentional infliction of famine, diseases and pestilence on the Palestinian population. And overtly done so by direct statements of the leadership and acceptance of the vast population of the state of Israel. This disparity has fueled absolutely logical and well-founded accusations that the EU operates under a hierarchy of lives, prioritizing certain conflicts and populations over others based on geopolitical considerations rather than principles of human rights and international law.
The sensationalist nature of Borrell’s remarks is further underscored emboldening adversaries of the EU and undermine its credibility as a neutral arbiter in international disputes. And can any rational person really blame them for this? By normalizing the idea that double standards are an inherent part of diplomacy, the EU is perceived as a completely hypocritical actor, more concerned with political expediency than upholding the values it claims to champion. This perception is particularly damaging in the context of the EU’s efforts to position itself as a global leader in promoting democracy, human rights, and the so-called “rules-based international order” it so boldly advocates parroting the mantras and slogans emanating from the United States. Given the totality of rapidly unfolding geopolitical events and conflicts, this “train has long left the station”.
Moreover, Borrell’s provocative statements have the potential to alienate even allies and partners who expect the EU to maintain a principled and consistent approach to foreign policy. The EU’s ability to effectively mediate conflicts and foster international cooperation hinges on its perceived integrity and moral authority. By engaging in sensationalist cavalier rhetoric that suggests a willingness to compromise on core values, Borrell and other EU leaders have utterly undermined the very foundations upon which the EU’s diplomatic influence rests.
In contrast, a pragmatic approach to diplomacy would emphasize the importance of nuance, context, and long-term strategic thinking, something one has to recognize that both Russia and China in tandem now capitalize on. Rather than resorting to inflammatory language, EU leaders should strive to engage in constructive dialogue, seeking to understand the perspectives of all parties involved and working towards mutually acceptable solutions. This requires a willingness to acknowledge the complexities of geopolitical realities while remaining steadfast in the pursuit of ethical principles and the promotion of universal human rights. And to do so without any trace of discrimination.
4. The Detrimental Impact on EU Representation
Josep Borrell’s clumsy and inept articulation of diplomatic principles not only reflects poorly on his personal credibility and sheer incompetence for the position he holds, but also casts a long shadow over the European Union’s (EU) collective representation on the international stage. As the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Borrell is expected to embody the EU’s values and promote a coherent foreign policy. However, his statements, particularly those that suggest a normalization of double standards, will undoubtedly alienate allies and embolden adversaries, even create new ones, leading to a perception that the EU is not serious about its commitments. This perception is detrimental to the EU’s ability to function as a cohesive actor in global governance, where a unified consistent ethical front is essential for effective diplomacy.
The EU’s representation in international institutions has often been characterized as a “patchwork power,” where the Union struggles to “speak with one voice.” This fragmentation arises from the complex interplay of institutional factors, member state interests, and the EU’s own coordination mechanisms. Borrell’s remarks exacerbate this issue by introducing further discord within the EU’s leadership, undermining the very essence of collective representation that the EU seeks to project. The Lisbon Treaty aimed to enhance the coherence of EU foreign policy by establishing the European External Action Service (EEAS) and delineating the roles of various EU institutions and member states in diplomatic representation. However, statements that reflect internal divisions and inconsistencies only serve to weaken the EU’s position in international negotiations and diminish its influence in global affairs. These become particularly inflammatory and contradictory when international law is abandoned blatantly in favor of obscure and yet obviously self-serving agendas.
Expanding on the previous paragraph, Borrell’s comments diminish public trust in the EU’s ability to navigate complex international issues. Citizens expect their leaders to uphold high standards of conduct and to engage in diplomacy that prioritizes ethical considerations. When representatives like Borrell convey a message that seems to accept double standards as “normal,” it contradicts the very ideals that the EU seeks to promote. This cognitive dissonance can lead to skepticism among the public regarding the EU’s commitment to its foundational values, further eroding the legitimacy of its diplomatic efforts.
The detrimental impact of Borrell’s statements is compounded by the EU’s existing challenges in maintaining a coherent external representation. The hybrid system of diplomacy, where both member states and EU institutions play roles in representation, often leads to competing narratives and fragmented messaging. This situation is further complicated by the rise of digital diplomacy, where the EU must navigate the complexities of online and offline interactions to project a unified identity. Borrell’s sensationalist rhetoric risks overshadowing the EU’s efforts to foster a sense of collective belonging and coherence in its diplomatic engagements.
5. The Simplistic and Destructive Rhetoric and Policies of EU Leadership
The leadership landscape within the European Union (EU) is marked by a growing discontent among the populace toward the bureaucratic elite in Brussels, who are increasingly perceived as distant and unaccountable. This sentiment echoes historical critiques of imperial governance, drawing parallels between the EU’s structure and that of the Roman Empire, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, far removed from the citizenry, effectively forming a tight oligarchy. The EU’s decision-making processes, characterized by layers of impenetrable opaque bureaucracy and a lack of direct electoral accountability, contribute to a perception of a political elite increasingly disconnected from the realities faced by ordinary Europeans. And this is beyond evident now in Europe and the world at large.
Critics argue that the EU operates in a manner reminiscent of an imperial system, where decisions are made by unelected officials who wield significant influence over the lives of citizens without direct accountability. This perception is exacerbated by the complex institutional framework of the EU, which often obscures lines of responsibility and authority. The recent scandals involving EU officials, such as the “Qatargate” scandal, have amplified public disillusionment with the EU’s leadership, raising questions about the integrity of its institutions and further eroding public trust.
The Ukrainian conflict and the ongoing massacre in Gaza serve as critical case studies in understanding the broader context of EU leadership. Many analysts and critics argue that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are driven by a desire to protect its national interests and cultural integrity, pointing clearly to the narrative surrounding NATO’s expansion and the EU’s involvement as being pivotal in the precipitation of this conflict. Scholars such as John Mearsheimer contend that NATO’s eastward expansion was been perceived by Russia as a direct and imminent intentional threat to its sphere of influence, complicating the simplistic framing of the conflict as a straightforward case of aggression. This perspective suggests that both sides are navigating a complex geopolitical landscape, influenced by historical grievances and security concerns.
At the same time, the EU’s unwavering support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, despite the mounting civilian casualties, including women and children, highlights a troubling double standard in its foreign policy. The EU’s failure to condemn the grossly, to say the least, disproportionate use of force by Israeli forces and its reluctance to hold Israel accountable for potential war crimes undermine its credibility as a champion of human rights and international law. This contradiction between the EU’s rhetoric and its actions further complicates its position on the global stage, where it is expected to uphold the values of democracy and human rights. Talking the talk is not the same as also walking to the walk, to use a common cliché term here.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s initial stance of neutrality and peace has shifted dramatically in response to the conflict, raising questions about the pressures he faces both domestically but more so from Western allies. His pivot toward a more confrontational rhetoric against Russia highlights the challenges of reconciling national aspirations with external influences. The failure to fully implement the Minsk agreements, designed to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict very early on in 2022, underscores the complexities of the situation and the role of Western pressures and manipulation in shaping Ukraine’s trajectory. This cannot and should not be ignored or overlooked by any serious politician or analyst wherever they may reside.
The derogatory rhetoric employed by EU leaders, such as Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell, further complicates the diplomatic landscape. Borrell’s assertion that Europe is a “garden” while the rest of the world is a “jungle” reflects a Eurocentric-supremacist worldview that fails to acknowledge the rich cultural contributions of non-European nations. Such statements not only diminish the achievements of countries like China, Russia, and Palestine but also reinforce a narrative of Western superiority that alienates potential allies and exacerbates tensions. Von der Leyen’s comments regarding the technological capabilities of Russia, suggesting they rely on “chips from dishwashers” for their weaponry, exemplify a dismissive attitude that undermines the historical and cultural significance of Russian contributions to science and the arts.
Moreover, the EU’s self-perception as a promoter of democracy and human rights is often at odds with its very dark historical legacy of colonialism and exploitation. The utterly barbaric colonial practices of European powers have left lasting scars on many nations, and the ongoing exploitation of African countries by Western nations, particularly by France to this date, continues to evoke resentment. This historical context raises important questions about the EU’s moral authority to critique other nations while still grappling with its own past.
In light of these complexities, the EU’s approach to diplomacy must evolve if it is to survive as a form of Union in the short term. A more nuanced understanding of international relations that acknowledges the historical and cultural contexts of other nations is essential for fostering constructive dialogue. Rather than resorting to derogatory rhetoric and simplistic narratives, EU leaders should strive to engage with their counterparts in a manner that respects their sovereignty and cultural identity. But that may be too much to ask of the currently homogenized low-standard and intellect European elites one might argue here…
To conclude this section of this essay, the interplay of historical grievances, cultural identity, and geopolitical interests complicates the narratives surrounding the Ukrainian conflict and the ongoing massacre in Gaza, which make the EU as well as the West appear totally and starkly duplicitous to the entire world. Acknowledging the multifaceted nature of these issues is crucial for developing a more effective and respectful approach to diplomacy that can address the underlying tensions and foster a more stable international environment. Only through a concerted effort to present a consistently ethical united front, respecting also the individuality and national interests of its own member states to begin with, can the EU hope to reclaim its moral authority and effectively navigate the pressing global challenges that lie ahead.
6. Critique of the Present Structural State of Affairs of the EU
The current structural state of the European Union (EU) reveals significant shortcomings that undermine its effectiveness and credibility on the global stage. The ineffectual nature of the EU Parliament is a glaring issue, as it often struggles to exert meaningful influence over critical decisions. This lack of power diminishes the democratic legitimacy of the EU, leaving citizens feeling disenfranchised and disconnected from the political processes that affect their lives.
Moreover, the quality of leadership within the EU institutions has come under scrutiny, with figures such as Josep Borrell, Ursula von der Leyen, and Charles Michel exemplifying a troubling trend of low competency and ineffective governance. Their rhetoric often lacks the nuance and depth required for effective diplomacy, leading to a perception that the EU is ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of modern international relations, as it appears to be staffed by downright incompetent or illiterate individuals as many critics comment. This perception is further exacerbated by the tendency of these leaders to engage in sensationalist rhetoric that alienates potential allies and undermines the EU’s moral authority, with every single statement and utterance they make.
The absence of strong individual nation-state leaders who can assert their national interests within the EU framework is another critical concern. Member states often find themselves subdued by the central authority of Brussels, resulting in a lack of representation for diverse national perspectives. This dynamic stifles meaningful debate and compromises the ability of individual countries to advocate for their own priorities in the face of EU-wide policies that may not align with their interests. The situation is particularly pronounced in the context of leaders like Viktor Orbán of Hungary, who have faced threats of punitive measures from EU officials for diverging from centrally managed policies.
Ursula von der Leyen’s imperious language further exemplifies the challenges within the EU’s leadership structure. Her frequent assertions that “we have tools” to discipline member states that disagree with EU policies reflect a troubling authoritarian tendency. This approach not only undermines the sovereignty of member states but also fosters resentment among leaders who feel their rights to define their domestic and foreign policies are being disregarded. The threats to withhold funds or remove voting rights from countries like Hungary serve as stark reminders of the EU’s willingness to impose punitive measures rather than engage in constructive dialogue among equal members of the Union it is supposed to represent in Europe.
The EU’s selective approach to financial support for its member states further highlights the inconsistencies in its policies. While the Union has been quick to provide hundreds of billions of Euros in aid to non-member states like Ukraine to fight Russia effectively on its behalf, it has been totally willing to extend a helping hand to member states facing economic crises. The refusal to bail out Greece and Cyprus during the Eurozone crisis, forcing these countries into prolonged recessions and austerity measures, stands in stark contrast to the EU’s “generosity” towards Ukraine. This double standard not only undermines the principle of solidarity that underpins the European project but also erodes public trust in the Union’s commitment to its own members.
Moreover, the EU’s decision to appropriate Russian assets in response to their intervention in Ukraine raises serious concerns about the rule of law, international or otherwise, and the sanctity of property rights. While the motivation behind this move may be understandable on some level, the lack of clear legal justification and the potential consequences for the European financial system, particularly for institutions like Euroclear, highlight the need for a more thoughtful and measured approach to such actions. The nonchalant manner in which this Rubicon has been crossed raises questions about the EU’s commitment to the principles of due process and the protection of property rights that are essential, even sacrosanct, for a well-functioning economy and society.
In light of these structural deficiencies, the EU must confront the urgent need for reform. A more democratic and accountable governance model is essential to restore public trust and ensure that the voices of citizens and member states are heard. By fostering an environment of collaboration and mutual respect, the EU can work towards a more cohesive and effective approach to addressing the pressing challenges it faces. The selective application of financial support and the appropriation of assets without clear legal justification must also be addressed to ensure that the EU’s actions are consistent with its stated values and principles.
Overall, the current state of the EU reveals a complex interplay of ineffectual governance, low-quality and very low-competency leadership, and a lack of respect for national sovereignty. As the EU grapples with its identity and role in the world, it must prioritize reforms that enhance democratic accountability and empower member states to assert their interests. Only through such changes can the EU hope to reclaim its moral authority and effectively navigate the multifaceted challenges of the contemporary geopolitical landscape.
7. EU Current Political and Financial State and its Future Predicted Trajectory
The European Union (EU) stands at a critical crossroads, grappling with a multitude of challenges that threaten its political cohesion and economic stability. Over the past few years, the trajectory of the EU has been marked by ever-increasing financial strain, rising inflation, escalating out-of-control immigration issues, and a growing sense of disillusionment among its citizens. As the Union navigates these turbulent waters, it faces a stark comparison to its global competitors, such as Russia and China, which appear to be weathering sanctions and economic pressures with relative resilience. While damaging to them, the EU and Western sanctions on Russia and China seem to affect more harshly those who impose them rather than on those who they are intended to be imposed – the proverbial boomerang effect in full action!
Financially, the EU has been beset by a series of crises that have exposed its vulnerabilities. As mentioned in the previous section of this essay, the refusal to provide adequate bailouts to member states like Greece and Cyprus during their economic crises has left these nations struggling under the weight of austerity measures and crippling debt. In the case of Cyprus, citizens were forced to endure a “haircut” on their savings to stabilize their banking sector, a move that has had lasting repercussions on public trust in both national and EU institutions. Meanwhile, as also mentioned in the previous section of this essay, the EU has funneled hundreds of billions of euros to non-member states, such as Ukraine who’s “democratic status” is highly questionable openly now as well as it is well-established as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, if not the most corrupt one, ostensibly to support its fight against Russian aggression. This financial commitment raises questions about the priorities of the EU, especially when member states are left to fend for themselves amid economic hardship.
The inflationary pressures faced by EU citizens have escalated, with many experiencing real price increases that far exceed official reports. In countries like Cyprus and Greece, consumers have reported price hikes of 20-40% on essential goods within the last year or so, meanwhile forcing individuals across Europe, particularly pensioners, to make heartbreaking choices between basic necessities such as food and heating. This dire situation reflects a broader trend across Europe, where rising living costs are contributing to a growing sense of economic insecurity and dissatisfaction with the EU’s handling of these issues.
The EU is also grappling with escalating immigration problems, particularly in Southern Europe, where both legal and illegal immigration have surged. In 2023, approximately 380,000 irregular migrants crossed the EU’s borders, marking the highest figure since 2016. This influx places significant financial strain on countries like Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Spain, which are often the first points of entry for migrants. A recent statistic places Cyprus in first place, with 13 refugee status seekers for every 1000 citizens of the country! The resulting competition for jobs has led to job losses for local citizens, the emergence of a black market for labor, and demographic distortions that further complicate social cohesion. As the EU struggles to manage these immigration flows, the potential for increased social unrest and political fragmentation looms large. And the increasing perception of EU state citizens across the board is that this demographic dilution and distortion is intentional by the ruling political class elites in their homogenized way of behaving in the EU.
In stark contrast, Russia and China have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt and grow despite facing extensive sanctions. Russia, for instance, has managed to maintain a degree of economic stability and significant growth, leveraging its energy and other natural resources and establishing new trade relationships with non-Western nations. Similarly, China continues to expand its influence globally, capitalizing on its manufacturing capabilities and strategic investments in infrastructure across developing countries. India, despite its regional differences with China over the past, seems poised to resolve this and assume a more central role as a founding member of what is now BRICS+. As the EU grapples with its internal challenges, it is increasingly being left behind in the global economic race, increasingly isolated by its own policies.
The EU’s current trajectory also raises concerns about its political cohesion. The lack of strong individual nation-state leaders who can assert their national interests within the EU framework has led to a sense of subservience to Brussels. This dynamic stifles meaningful debate and compromises the ability of member states to advocate for their own priorities in the face of EU-wide policies that may not align with their interests. Ursula von der Leyen’s imperious and despicably disrespectful language, often characterized by statements like “we have tools” to discipline dissenting member states, reflects a troubling authoritarian tendency that undermines the sovereignty of nations within the Union.
Moreover, the EU’s decision to appropriate Russian assets in response to the invasion of Ukraine raises serious concerns about the rule of law and the sanctity of property rights, as mentioned earlier in this essay. While the motivations behind such actions may be understandable, the lack of clear legal justification and the potential consequences for the European financial system, particularly for institutions like Euroclear, highlight the need for a more thoughtful and measured approach to such actions. The nonchalant manner in which this Rubicon has been crossed raises questions about the EU’s commitment to the principles of due process and the protection of property rights that are essential for a well-functioning economy and society. Clearly, once this Rubicon is crossed, any rational person can see a domino effect taking place, and doing so rapidly, by divestment of other big investors from European, and of course Collective West financial institutions. This is a certain inevitability evident to everyone.
Looking ahead, if these trends continue unchecked, the EU could face a future characterized by increased political fragmentation, social unrest, and economic instability. The combination of rising living costs, ineffective immigration policies, and a lack of strong leadership may lead to a growing backlash against the EU’s central authority. In the next two to five years, basing this timeline on recent observed trends, the potential for political upheaval and the rise of populist movements could further challenge the EU’s cohesion, as citizens increasingly demand accountability and representation.
In conclusion, the current political and financial state of the EU reflects a complex interplay of internal and external pressures that threaten its future trajectory. As the Union grapples with its identity and role in the world, it must confront these challenges head-on, prioritizing radical reforms that enhance democratic accountability and empower member states to assert their interests. Only through such changes can the EU hope to reclaim its moral authority and effectively navigate the multifaceted challenges of the contemporary geopolitical landscape, ensuring a stable and prosperous future for its citizens. But as discussed later in this essay, the time to do so may be already long-gone, with an irreversible dissolution trend now in place.
8. The Complete Failure of the EU: A Sociopolitical and Economic Analysis
The European Union, once hailed as a beacon of economic prosperity and political unity, at least perceptually and qualitatively if not also quantitatively, now finds itself at a crossroads. The policies and ideologies that have shaped the EU’s trajectory over the past decades have had far-reaching consequences, both positive and negative.
The critical analysis presented in this section delves into the fundamental issues plaguing the EU, examining the historical context, economic implications, and sociopolitical ramifications of the prevailing neoliberal agenda.
The following points constitute a comprehensive assessment of the EU’s current state, highlighting the factors that contribute to its inevitable short to medium term decline if drastic measures are not taken to address these pressing concerns.
Historical Context of Neoconservativism and Neoliberalism
Ideological Foundations
Neoconservativism and neoliberalism are fundamentally intertwined ideologies that have dominated Western policy since the end of the Cold War, particularly under leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. These ideologies promote a globalist agenda, emphasizing free markets and minimal state intervention as the keys to economic success. This ideological shift has reshaped the present economic landscape of the EU and its member states, often to their detriment.
Shift Towards Globalism
The transition towards a “soft economy” prioritizes service-based industries and financial control centers, leading to a focus on global economic dominance rather than local resilience. This shift has resulted in significant vulnerabilities within the EU’s economic framework, which are examined in the remaining points of this enumerated list presentation in this section of our essay.
Consequences of Neoliberal Policies
De-industrialization and Educational Decline
The neoliberal agenda has directly caused the de-industrialization of Western economies, particularly within the EU. This trend is accompanied by a decline in educational standards, as privatization erodes access to quality education. The narrowing of skill sets, especially in STEM fields, is stark when compared to countries like China and Russia, which now outpace the EU in producing several millions of qualified graduates. This decline in educational output severely undermines the EU’s global long-term competitiveness.
Job Market Dynamics
The focus on a service-oriented economy has resulted in a lack of diverse job opportunities within the EU. This reliance on low-cost imports has devastated local industries, such as agriculture and fisheries, as well as the production of manufactured goods, leading to a significant rise in unemployment and economic instability across various regions.
Impact of Corporate Monopolies
Monopolistic Growth
EU policies, masquerading as free-market principles, have overwhelmingly favored the growth of monopolistic corporations. This has stifled the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are essential for fostering innovation and job creation. The concentration of economic power in the hands of a few multinational conglomerates undermines local businesses and reduces overall economic resilience.
Regional Disparities
The economic policies implemented by the EU have created stark disparities between regions. Southern European countries, once rich in agricultural potential, are now relegated to dependency on imports, transforming them into second-class economies within the Eurozone — one even might argue here as internal colonization of the European South by the European North. This marginalization exacerbates social and economic inequalities, further entrenching regional disparities.
Vulnerability of the EU
Dependence on Soft Power
The EU’s near-exclusive reliance on “soft power” through financial dominance and fiat currencies has rendered it increasingly vulnerable in a rapidly changing global landscape. By outsourcing production to countries with cheaper labor, the EU has weakened its domestic industries, creating a dangerous dependency on external markets for essential goods and services, as well as on external (horizontal) supply chains for any of its remaining (but fast-declining) manufacturing sector.
Naivety in Global Economic Relations
The expectation that emerging economies would not invest in their own growth has proven to be a grave miscalculation. As these nations develop their economic capabilities, the EU’s position as a global player is jeopardized, leading to a rapidly evolving now decline in its influence on the world stage.
Social Expenditure and Competitiveness
Divestment from Social Services
The systematic reduction of social expenditures across the EU has compounded the challenges faced by member states. This divestment undermines social safety nets, exacerbating inequalities and leaving citizens ill-equipped to navigate economic transitions and job market fluctuations.
Impact on Political Stability
The cumulative effects of these policies have fostered widespread dissatisfaction among EU populations, leading to the rise of populist movements. As citizens react to perceived disenfranchisement and loss of sovereignty, and with good reason in perceiving these, nationalist sentiments gain traction, challenging the established political order. In the absence of other political forces that would moderate and even counter the centrally exerted top-down control of Brussels on individual member states in the EU, one can also view such movements as being the only viable options left to its citizenry by this very centralized and autocratic control structure itself.
Leadership and Governance Issues
Inadequacies of Current Leadership
The ineptitude of current EU leadership is glaringly evident and contributes to the widespread disillusionment noted in the previous item above in this enumerated list. Leaders such as Macron, Scholz, and most others completely fail to address the pressing needs of their constituents, resulting in a crisis of legitimacy within EU institutions.
Absence of True Leadership
The lack of cohesive and effective leadership has created a disconnect between the ruling elite and the populace. This alienation fosters frustration and resentment, further fueling populist movements that seek to reclaim national sovereignty and address local concerns.
Emergence of Populism and Nationalism
Reactions to Totalitarian/Autocratic Control
The rise of populist movements is a direct reaction to the overreach of bureaucratic control from Brussels. Citizens perceive the increasing centralization of power and the now overt suppression of dissenting voices as a threat to their freedoms, leading to a climate of fear and self-censorship.
Challenges to Democratic Norms
The erosion of public discourse and the tightening grip on media freedom raise serious concerns about the state of democracy within the EU. As citizens grapple with the implications of these policies, the perception of the EU as a bastion of democratic values is increasingly called into question.
The Inevitable Decline of the EU
The cumulative effects of these policies and leadership failures indicate that the EU is without doubt on an unsustainable trajectory. The combination of mounting economic vulnerabilities (which of course are inextricably linked with security vulnerabilities), increasing social unrest, and political disillusionment leads to an inevitable decline. Without significant reforms and a shift towards more inclusive and sustainable policies, the EU is increasingly becoming irrelevant on the global stage, resulting in severe geopolitical and domestic repercussions.
We next turn our attention to the importance of understanding potential timelines for crises in order to prioritize actions and implement appropriate strategies. While precise predictions are inherently challenging due to the complexity of geopolitical and economic dynamics, it is indeed beneficial to consider general trends and indicators that could signal approaching challenges. Here’s a framework for thinking about potential timelines based on current trends and historical patterns:
Short-Term (1-2 years)
Economic Pressures:
Rising inflation, energy costs, and supply chain disruptions could lead to increased public dissatisfaction and social unrest. Countries experiencing economic hardship may see a rise in populist movements and political instability.
Political Fragmentation:
The next couple of years may witness increased polarization within member states, leading to challenges in governance and decision-making at the EU level. Elections in various member states could further complicate the political landscape.
Medium-Term (3-5 years)
Social Unrest: If economic conditions do not improve, we could see more widespread protests and social movements across the EU. This unrest may be driven by issues such as unemployment, rising living costs, and perceived governmental ineffectiveness.
Geopolitical Tensions: Continued geopolitical challenges, such as relations with Russia, China, and the impact of global trade dynamics, could exacerbate economic vulnerabilities. This period may see shifts in alliances and increased competition for resources.
Long-Term (5-10 years)
Structural Economic Changes: If current trends of de-industrialization and reliance on external markets continue, the EU may face significant challenges in maintaining competitiveness. This could lead to long-term economic stagnation or decline, particularly if member states do not adapt to changing global conditions.
Demographic Challenges: The ageing population in many EU countries coupled with the influx of migrants and refugees will increasingly strain social welfare systems, leading to potential crises in healthcare and pensions if proactive measures are not taken.
Crisis Point (10+ years)
Critical Threshold: If systemic issues remain unaddressed, the EU could reach a critical threshold where economic, political, and social systems become unsustainable. This could manifest as widespread economic collapse, significant political fragmentation, or even the disintegration of the EU as a cohesive political entity.
While these timelines are speculative and contingent on numerous variables, they provide a framework for understanding potential risks and the urgency of implementing reforms. By recognizing these trends, policymakers and stakeholders can prioritize actions to mitigate risks, enhance resilience, and foster a more sustainable future for the EU. Proactive planning and strategic investments in social, economic, and political stability will be crucial in navigating the challenges ahead.
9. Conclusion: Better to Call it Quits and Start Over!?
In light of the numerous and increasing challenges facing the European Union (EU), it is prudent to consider whether dissolving the Union and transitioning to a common market entity supported by bilateral agreements within Europe would be a more effective approach. Such a shift will undoubtedly enable member states to prioritize commercial collaboration as appropriate to their individual needs and priorities, while regaining full sovereignty and independent currencies. This will allow countries to tailor their economic, domestic and foreign policy strategies to their unique circumstances, fostering greater resilience and stability in the European Continent overall. In effect this is a mirror image of BRICS+ as they try to evolve currently, but applied to the European continent.
The current trajectory of the EU indicates that, without significant reforms, the potential for political fragmentation and social unrest is increasingly likely anyway, in our view an inevitability. And this will happen in a disruptive and potentially violent way if left to take place on its own rather than glide the “Union” down and transform it in a controlled manner. The rise of populist movements and growing disillusionment with the EU’s central authority suggest that member states should urgently prioritize their own interests over collective goals, i.e. over the malfunctioning Union in its present state.
As the EU grapples with its identity and role in the world, it faces a critical crossroads. A reevaluation of its structure may be necessary to ensure that member states can effectively address their unique challenges while maintaining economic cooperation. If the current trajectory remains unaddressed, the prospect of fragmentation is more than likely to become an unavoidable reality in any case, prompting a reconsideration of the very foundations of the EU project.
In this context, it is the strong opinion of the present author of this essay that “calling it quits” and starting anew is absolutely the most viable path forward for European nations. The alternative seems now like the Titanic and its passengers, along with its crew primarily (the Brussels well-paid bureaucracy and its related “elites”), remaining in denial until the very bitter end.
Look again at Ursula von der Leyen for example when she uses the royal “We have tools”: who does this royal “We” reflect? Who does she, just a bureaucratic functionary herself, think she represents and who gives her the right to treat theoretically (and by treaty!) equal member states as her subservient provinces she can just knock around and subdue as per her whims?!
This is completely absurd and very provocative for all the citizenry of the EU – let alone being directly very insulting and creating outright outrage and even justified hatred towards all EU functionaries behaving in this identical manner nowadays. Especially when their exorbitant monetary rewards far exceed the average pay of locally elected leaders even within EU states, as well as having several thousands of bureaucrats at various levels working in Brussels and achieving only in effect the dissolution of the EU member states on all fronts!
In the case of the EU elites though, they have reserved personal luxurious lifeboats for themselves with plenty of cash to survive the inevitable oncoming wreckage they are causing in their full knowledge and in glaringly plain sight for everyone to now see.
Photo by Sara Kurfeß on Unsplash