Europe's response to the US-Israeli strikes on Iran exposes a continent locked in dependency and struggling to find its voice.

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.

  • chasteinsectEnglish
    63·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • chasteinsectEnglish
        3·
        1 day ago

        Because it isn‘t a single state?

        Yes. How can you be a superpower when a single country like Hungary can veto important decisions?

        It doesn’t even have it’s own army. Only 27 separate militaries with different languages, commanders, equipment and it relies on US-led NATO for security.

        For all the recent announcements, Europe has little strategic autonomy. Military capacity is outsourced to Washington, technology platforms are American, energy reliance has shifted from Russian gas to American liquefied natural gas, and the dollar’s reserve role leaves European economies exposed to decisions made in the White House. Europe never built the political architecture to address any of this. The fundamental question remains unanswered: is this economic integration to manage a single market, or political integration with genuine collective agency? Decades of deferring that answer have left Europe divided, dependent, and sidelined.

    • Pip@feddit.orgEnglish
      21·
      2 days ago

      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

      • chasteinsectEnglish
        91·
        2 days ago

        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.