Fragmented Europe in a Shifting World Order: Three Strategic Lines within the EU

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

Europe has entered one of the most complex geopolitical moments since the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war in Ukraine continues to reshape security priorities, while tensions in the Middle East have intensified following U.S. and Israeli-coordinated unilateral military actions against Iran. 

Meanwhile, transatlantic relations are experiencing renewed strain as the United States pursues a more assertive international approach. At the same time, economic fragmentation, ideological polarisation, and cultural controversies - from military alliances to the events such as the Eurovision Song Contest - illustrate a broader struggle over Europe’s identity and strategic autonomy.

Recent disputes between the U.S. and Europe's governments demonstrate the depth of these tensions. Spain’s latest refusal to support American military operations against Iran, its rejection of threats of economic retaliation and strong opposition against Israel in the name for international order, highlights a widening transatlantic divide.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez warned that the escalating conflict in the Middle East could be like “Russian roulette with the destiny of millions.”

At the same time, he rejected U.S. pressure to allow American forces to use Spanish military bases.

Three political and strategic lines

On the other hand, within the EU itself, the crisis is not producing a unified response. Instead, it reveals currently three distinct political and strategic lines emerging among European leaders. These “lines” differ basically in their approach to the United States, global conflicts, and Europe’s own historical identity.

The first group might be labelled as “Merz line,” strongly Atlanticist and closely aligned with U.S. geopolitical priorities and with an extensive support to Israel as the closest ally of the U.S.

The second is the “Macron line” which emphasises European autonomy and does not hesitate to criticise U.S. or Israel, and sometimes, with a strong historical, democratic and humanitarian tone, remains embedded within the transatlantic system.

The third represented most clearly by Spain under Pedro Sánchez, attempts to articulate a mostly humanitarian and progressive European voice - one that seeks to balance moral rhetoric with geopolitical realities.

Together, these competing approaches illustrate the “Old Continent” searching for direction in an increasingly unstable new world order.

'Merz Line': Atlanticism and the persistence of historical dependence

The “Merz line” represents the most traditional approach in European politics. Named after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, this approach embodies a strongly Atlanticist worldview, emphasising close alignment with the United States and Israel in security and foreign policy.

Historically, this alignment has deep roots. Since the creation of NATO in 1949, Western European security architecture has been heavily dependent on American military leadership. At that time, the perception of Germany and rapidly intensifying Cold War institutionalised this dependence. Although the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the fundamental structure of transatlantic security cooperation remained intact.

In contemporary politics, proponents of the Merz line argue that the geopolitical environment - particularly Russia’s war in Ukraine and increasing tensions with China - requires even closer coordination with Washington. From this perspective, American leadership remains indispensable for European defence and attempts to distance Europe from the U.S. risk weakening the Western alliance.

Baggage and dilemmas

However, critics argue that this line carries significant historical baggage and ethical dilemmas. First, the Atlanticist position often implies acceptance of controversial U.S. policies, including military interventions in the Middle East and global economic sanctions regimes. European governments that follow this approach frequently find themselves supporting strategies that generate domestic opposition or raise questions about international law.

Israel’s latest unilateral actions that made substantial damage - not only in Gaza and the West Bank but all over the Middle East - have intensified the critical tone against Merz who had supported Israel’s policies in Iran and the Middle East.

Secondly, the Merz line can reinforce perceptions of European strategic subordination. Critics argue that Europe’s economic and political power should allow it to act as an independent geopolitical actor rather than a subordinate partner within an American-led order.

Finally, there is an historical dimension that complicates Germany’s leadership role. The legacy of the twentieth century continues to shape debates about German power, military expansion, and the ethics of strategic alliances. For many observers, a Germany that appears too eager to align with U.S. military strategies risks reviving uncomfortable historical associations.

Despite these concerns, the Merz line remains influential in Europe, particularly in countries such as Italy under Giorgia Meloni, conservative Austria, and several Eastern European states.

It also resonates with policymakers who regard Russia as the continent’s primary security threat. For them, transatlantic unity must remain the cornerstone of European stability whatever the social and humanitarian costs will be in the wider regions outside Europe.

• Germany’s Merz says EU must build partnerships with Türkiye, India, Brazil
• 'World order no longer exists,' German Chancellor Merz warns at Munich Security Conference

'Macron Line': Strategic Autonomy with Limits

A second approach is often associated with French President Emmanuel Macron. It is also partially supported by other European leaders, such as Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and aims to strike a more nuanced balance between cooperation with the United States and European independence.

Hence, Macron has repeatedly argued that Europe must develop “strategic autonomy” - the ability to act independently in military, economic, and diplomatic matters. His vision includes strengthening “European defence capabilities”, reducing dependence on American security guarantees, and creating a more “unified European geopolitical identity”.

Macron’s criticisms of U.S. economic and political pressure on Europe illustrate this tension. In recent debates, he has suggested that Washington’s policies - such as threats of tariffs against European states - could undermine European unity and weaken the continent’s economic autonomy.

During the U.S.- and Israeli-led strikes against Iran, Macron adopted a notably critical tone, particularly toward Israel’s actions. He pointed to the impact of attacks in southern Lebanon, where strikes on civilian areas and infrastructure have contributed to growing humanitarian concerns.

But, despite this “independent spirit”, the “Macron Line” faces also some structural limitations. First, the European Union remains militarily fragmented. While France possesses significant military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, most European states still rely heavily on NATO structures dominated by the United States.

Second, political divisions within the EU make a unified foreign policy difficult to achieve. Central and Eastern European states often prioritise security guarantees from Washington over the idea of strategic autonomy.

Third, like Merz, the “Macron Line” itself carries the same traditional dilemma: a negative historical baggage.

Despite Macron’s moderate, relatively liberal and milder style compared to the contemporary harsher voices in world-politics, France’s role in colonial conflicts and past military interventions complicates attempts to present European autonomy as a purely humanitarian or progressive project.

Nevertheless, the “Macron Line” represents still an important attempt to redefine Europe’s role in the world. It seeks to transform the continent from a passive participant in global politics into an actor capable of shaping international norms and policies.

In practice, however, this vision often results in a delicate balancing act - one that criticises American dominance while ultimately remaining within the broader framework of the “Western alliance”.

• France denies U.S. pressure to exclude South Africa from G7, invites Kenya ahead of Macron visit
• Macron warns of renewed tensions with U.S., urges EU to push reforms

'Sánchez Line': Humanitarianism and progressive realpolitik

The third emerging approach in European politics is most clearly embodied by Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Unlike the Merz Line’s strong Atlanticism or the Macron Line’s cautious autonomy, the Sánchez-line attempts to combine “progressive ideals” with “geopolitical realism”.

In recent months, Spain has taken positions that highlight this distinctive approach. Sánchez strongly criticised U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran, warning that escalating violence could destabilise the entire international system. Spain also refused to allow American forces to use its military bases for attacks against Iran, despite threats from the United States to impose economic sanctions or cut trade ties. And lastly, Spain decided to withdraw its ambassador from Israel permanently as a clear sign of its strong stance.

For many commentators, this attitude reflects a broader Spanish foreign policy orientation that emphasises international law, diplomacy, and humanitarian concerns. Sánchez has repeatedly argued that military solutions to geopolitical conflicts often create long-term instability.

The same humanitarian logic can be observed in Spain’s position on cultural diplomacy. Spain has been among the leading European countries questioning Israel’s participation in international cultural events such as the Eurovision Song Contest due to the Gaza war. This stance highlights what Spanish officials describe as double standards in international institutions. Such positions resonate with “progressive political movements” across Europe, particularly those concerned with human rights, anti-war activism, and global inequality.

Yet, when analysing Sánchez Line’s own contradictions, firstly we may argue, Spain does not have any other reasonable option than NATO. Consequently, as a NATO member state, Spain continues to cooperate with Western allies on many critical and security issues. Moreover, Spain’s economic ties with the United States -including reliance on American liquefied natural gas - limit how far it can diverge from U.S. policy.

Thus, it is not wrong to think that the Sánchez line may be best understood as a form of “progressive Realpolitik.” It seeks to maintain alliances while asserting moral and humanitarian principles that challenge the logic of militarised geopolitics.

For many observers, this approach will continue to represent the attempts to redefine European leadership from the perspective of social democracy and international law.

• U.S. may stop trade with Spain over refusal to use military bases
• Spanish PM Sánchez says it's 'unfair' for people around the world to bear cost of U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran

Continent in 'strategic transition' with an 'identity question'

Together with all these lines and developments, Europe is confronting a fundamental question: What kind of geopolitical actor does it want to be? The current European crisis cannot be reduced to a single geopolitical dispute or diplomatic conflict. Instead, it reflects a broader struggle over the continent’s future direction.

The so-called “Merz line” represents continuity with the post-World War II Atlanticist order, emphasising security cooperation with the United States but risking strategic dependence.

The “Macron line” seeks greater European autonomy while remaining within the Western alliance, offering a vision of strategic independence that remains constrained by institutional and political realities.

“The Sánchez line” - receives increasing support from youth and third parties all over the world - introduces a more openly humanitarian and progressive discourse, challenging militarised geopolitics while attempting to reconcile ideals with inevitable practical alliances.

• Europe’s strategic dilemma amid escalation in the Middle East
• EU top diplomats arrive in Ukraine to mark Bucha massacre amid signals to scale back energy sector attacks
• Eurozone consumer confidence drops as Iran war fuels economic strain

These three lines illustrate the diversity - and fragmentation - of European political thought at a time when the international system is undergoing profound transformation. Whether Europe ultimately moves toward deeper integration, renewed Atlanticism, or a more independent and humanitarian geopolitical role remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the Old Continent is no longer able to avoid the question of its strategic identity.

Tags

News Politics European Union Facing the New World Order Europe EU World order