Realism is Back with a Vengeance: Europe is Struggling to Adapt

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

After decades of discussions on the obsolescence of political realism, we are back to hard power dominating global politics. The U.S. became the biggest global power to accept this change after unveiling the new National Security Strategy last week.

Analysts were quick to suggest that the document is aimed squarely at Europe. But that interpretation is only partly correct. Yet it perfectly underscores why the U.S. is more influential than the European Union.

The deeper meaning of the new strategy lies in the U.S. changing its policy from containing strategic adversaries to actively increasing its influence via transactional diplomacy, alongside traditional containment tools.

One paragraph is particularly important for understanding the new approach that the U.S. intends to pursue.

“President Trump single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken American assumptions about China: namely, that by opening our markets to China, encouraging American business to invest in China, and outsourcing our manufacturing to China, we would facilitate China’s entry into the so-called “rules-based international order,” the new strategy points out.

The new strategy posits that every foreign policy interaction needs to contribute to the growth of American power. This approach makes perfect sense from a logical and academic standpoint, as it is the most reliable way to guarantee decision-making autonomy, which is something that the EU currently lacks due to a complicated decision-making process and incompatible interests among the member states.

The European Union perceived the world through norms and a rules-based order for an extended period. This approach stems from the post-Cold War era, when the main threat to European security self-imploded. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the bloc bet that fostering economic ties with Russia would prevent future tensions. Almost three decades later, the strategy failed to achieve its goal.

The war in Ukraine laid bare the pitfalls of that political miscalculation. An order based on rules can exist under one condition—a state must have the capacity to enforce those rules.

The war in Ukraine is a perfect example. Initially, the war was assumed to be a short-lived affair, due to the asymmetry in military capabilities between the belligerents. However, the trajectory of the conflict suggests that those who considered the war to end quickly were mistaken. The war continues, mostly due to the ingenuity of Ukrainian armed forces and support offered by allied states. International law, rules, and norms did not lead to peace, contradicting the idealist view that rules alone can maintain peace.

Ultimately, a nation’s ability to secure its national interests depends on its military and strategic capabilities. For this reason, the U.S. plays a more decisive role in this conflict compared to the EU. Washington is better suited to shape the outcome due to its ability to change the dynamics of the war. The U.S. may use foreign policy tools, such as introducing sanctions or adjusting military aid volume.

The same cannot be said about the EU. The bloc’s structural constraints, fragmented decision-making capabilities, and high reliance on the U.S. for security would mean that the gap in relative power between the European nations and the U.S. will widen further. This shift presents a serious challenge for the EU, as the bloc might become unable to secure its interests in neighboring regions when they do not coincide with the American position.

There are two possible approaches that the EU can take to maintain its relevance. One way is to become a secondary player in the U.S.-led initiatives. Another option is to increase its military and diplomatic power to restore its prestige in the neighboring regions.

But if realism is back with a vengeance, then we are very likely to see increased competition and stronger multipolarity. The future direction of international politics largely depends on how states will interact in this system, which has the capacity to lead to increased rivalries.

The return to the realism-driven logic signals a critical point for the EU. The bloc cannot rely solely on rules and international norms. Unless the EU develops the capacity to enforce those rules militarily, it risks being relegated to the role of spectator in regions crucial to its interests.

The case of Ukraine clearly demonstrates that military and strategic capabilities dominate political outcomes while norms and rules become secondary when not enforced. The United States, with its superior hard power, is better suited to shaping the outcomes, while the European Union has fewer tools to influence the outcomes due to internal divisions, decision-making issues, and reliance on an external partner for security. 

Copied