Eagle Intelligence Reports
The Rise of Right-Wing Parties and Their Impact on Foreign Policy
The European populist right-wing parties are beginning to impose their doctrines on European politics. They are imitating populist approaches and posturing in the continental politics by borrowing the platforms and slogans of far-right parties.
This is taking place as a precursor to the traditional right’s rise in major European power centers.
So far, European right-wing parties are consolidating their hold in countries like Italy, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria. Though these countries are not among those shaping European politics, they possess varying degree of influence in European politics.
Meanwhile, the right wing is buckling its belt to take over major European countries like Germany, France, and England.
There are extreme estimates of the policies the far-right parties will pursue once they come in power. One measure is that they will change the face of Europe forever. They are expected to roll back all the gains of the previous eras. Those ranging from environmental policies, social rights, equality to immigration integration programs, among others.
“Most right-wing populist parties have a very narrow conception of national identity, often based on ethnicity or culture, which leads them to resist immigration and multiculturalism.”
However, another political school believes that the exact opposite will happen. Once these parties ascend to power, they will start see things differently and maintain the status quo – as opposed to their own pledges in the mass rallies.
These analyses bet on different courses these parties will follow after taking charge. One being they will moderate themselves and continue traditional politics. Another is: perhaps they will combine more than one approach together. Once in power, they might pursue populist programs by borrowing some leftist vocabulary to represent the weakest, least educated, and least opportune segments.
As a typical case to understand the ideological progression of far-right parties, researchers often refer to Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, who leads a country that belongs to the G7 group. She plays a relatively influential role in European politics. Though her role does not equal that of the French, German or British as of now, she holds adequate sway over Mediterranean policies.
Meloni made her way to the head of the Italian government from being just a bar waitress while she was leading a far-right party with fascist origins. However, she appears as a moderate figure today, as if she represents the European center-right parties.
Even on a personal level, she has abandoned harsh speeches, strong tones, and threats against the control of Brussels or against President Emmanuel Macron.
She was known for her strong stance against Brussels, French and European policies in Africa, and African migrants.
During Europe’s migrant crisis, Italy largely served as a transit hub for African refugees arriving by sea. Refugees, after landing on Italian shores, eventually marched on to richer countries in northern Europe. African migrants never settled at their first destination of arrival in Europe – Italy, because the far-right did not allow implementing immigration-friendly policies there.
Europeans accused the Italian government of its laxity in protecting its coasts and preventing the arrival of refugees.
Critics say Italy’s intention, in the first place, was never to bear the burden of refugees, who left the country as soon as they arrived.
Countering those accusations, Meloni bashed French President Emmanuel Macron and other leftist European leaders: “Before you accuse Italy, do you ask yourself why poor Africans arrive in Europe?” She went on, “They arrive because of the impoverishment of their countries at the hands of France, which plunders the resources and minerals of African countries.”
After such speeches and others like them, she rose to power. Since coming to power, she is trying to present herself in a responsible, moderate, and rational manner.
She also did not exude the usual admiration populist right bestows on personality of authoritarian leaders like Russian President Vladmir Putin. She was at the forefront calling on countries to support Ukraine and supplying it with weapons during the Russian invasion.
So, is this theory accurate? Will the populist right moderate once it takes charge? The truth is Meloni’s case alone does not suffice as a playbook on the behavior of the populist right.
However, far-right’s truth character will begin to show itself once it takes control of a major European government. Imagine the “Alternative for Germany” party holding the German chancellorship, or the French “National Rally” party entering the Elysee, or the “Reform Party” in 10 Downing Street in London. However, questions remain as to what the populist right-wing wants to change in politics.
Every European country is witnessing an increasing wave of migration; something Europe has found no way to stop. This is, to some extent, serving as catalyst to the rise of right-wing populism.
The slogans and programs of these parties focus internally and feverishly on stopping immigration as a first step. People of many European countries feel their countries are being stolen from them. They are helpless in the face of the upcoming demographic invasion and the high birth rate among immigrants.
“Aside from immigration policy, things in the European right-wing foreign policy landscape are more nuanced and cannot be reduced to a single ideological stance.”
Moving ahead, the right-wing is likely to follow more radical steps adopted by President Donald Trump in the US.
The “infamous” US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is expelling migrants in large numbers. The American administration is canceling all programs related to integration of immigrants. The government is revoking citizenship based on one’s suspicious involvement in terrorism or alleged support to extremist and violent ideologies. Many are losing their legal status for merely sympathizing with radical organizations such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, or Hezbollah. People are also being deported over trivial matters such as not learning the language and not finding a job.
However, implementing similar programs in Europe requires the far-right to overcome long-established values of European institutions.
The European Parliament along with the European Organization for Human Rights, the Dublin Agreement, and the liberal press will pose significant hurdles to such far-right designs in Europe. In addition, far-right’s such recourses will lead to clashes with European laws and courts.
The extreme right’s authoritarian programs that despise long judicial processes, or litigation before the Human Rights Council or the European Court will face tremendous resistance from vibrant European societies. Bypassing the decisions of long-standing European institutions would mean elimination of the principle of division of powers itself.
In addition, third- and fourth-generation immigrants will not accept their fate as imagined by the populist right with calm and resignation.
In addition to the difficulty of implementing these policies, there are consequences that arise from them.
Europeans have long been accustomed to ignoring manual professions such as carpentry, gardening, roof repair, construction work, and mail delivery, among others. Since the era of European prosperity in the 1950s, immigrants from developing countries mostly filled these jobs.
After the Iron Curtain was destroyed with the fall of the Berlin Wall, more migrants from Europe’s lesser developed countries joined the pre-existing immigrants. The new European migrants benefited from their countries’ accession to the European Union.
The stereotypical jobs — rejected by Europeans and taken up by immigrants — have changed a lot since the beginning of the second millennium. The fourth or fifth generation of immigrants, who arrived after World War II, are much more skilled today. They hold prominent positions such as lawyers, engineers, filmmakers, parliamentarians, and media people in contemporary European society.
A glance over the state of basic services in major European countries shows that health services have declined to the point where public health is under threat. Social programs for the less fortunate in society are unable to meet the increasing demands.
Today, the most common joke in Germany is: if refugees are banned from working there, German hospitals will only have patients as immigrants comprise most of the medical staff.
The left sank and floundered in gender policies as an alternative to social justice programs. This drove people to right-wing populism.
Right-wing populist programs, which were on the political margins of Western Europe, are starting to appear at the forefront.
Right-wing populist parties have come to represent groups that found themselves outside globalization: the remnants of the working class and the ruins of industrial smokestacks in Yorkshire destroyed by cheap Chinese goods.
These white Christians suddenly found themselves threatened in their culture and the identity of their country.
Meanwhile, their educated European elites have chosen alternative homelands for themselves in North America and Australia.
France has rehearsed with chaos and anarchy with the Yellow vests movement for years.
President Macron’s indulgence towards more banking and neoliberal policies led to nothing being achieved.
France narrowly escaped because the suburbs did not participate in the protests and did not see their image in protesting Yellow vests. Had they participated, we would have been talking about France in a quite different way today.
A mixture of harsh neoliberal policies on the most deprived groups, murderous identity politics, and the corruption of the elites, and their subservience to a dominant and hegemonic social class. All these paths will inevitably lead to policies that are even further removed from the dreams of those who desire a more just social model.
The right-wing populist parties’ wager is like that of President Trump in the United States. The US president believes imposing customs tariffs will raise the price of goods, leading to putting pressure on American capitalists to manufacture within the country by mobilizing US workers.
The right-wing populist parties are inclined to toe the same line. With their anti-immigrant policies, they might think that the absence of immigrants will push Europeans to return to work in manual labor, factories, and difficult professions.
However, neither Trump’s nor the right-wing populist parties’ policies have been put to the test.
Aside from immigration policy, things in the European Union do not seem to be as divisive as they are in the United States. Even gender policies are not so contentious.
It is true that some reference to homosexuality in the opening address of the 2024 Paris Olympics angered the French right-wing “National Rally”. However, that anger faded away after making it to a few newspaper articles and condemnation on social media.
The main dilemma in Europe is the identity crisis, and how each country defines itself.
Though the far right does not seem to be overly attached to the Christian identity of Europe, it has, nevertheless, focused on the same issue in some countries.
France, for instance, projects itself as a strictly secular country. This secular definition is considered the reason for its existence. To it, there is nothing more important than discarding religion from public life.
“Similarly, extreme secularists avoid criticizing other religions, particularly Islam, while fiercely opposing any Christian influence in public life, creating a paradox in the liberal-right debate.”
And in some extreme cases, it even criticizes and mocks religion. This theoretical premise deteriorates greatly at a practical — implementation level. Truth is the French nation is extremely concerned about what girls wear to school, or what necklace one should wear, or the type of swimsuit suitable to wear on beaches, or how newborns are named.
Such thinking tends to ignore the country’s path of social development and collective memory. It vastly differs among old and contemporary French generations and divides the generations. The old French generation are driven by the sentiments of the French Revolution, freedom, and hostility to the Church (“May the last nobleman be strangled with the intestine of the last priest”).
But newer French generations — mostly Muslims coming from North Africa, Senegal, the Ivory Coast or even Eastern Europe — do not embrace the concept of extreme secularism. Religion still plays a spiritual role in an individual’s life in the countries they come from.
The contexts in their places of origin differ vastly when compared to Western Europe. The development of the Church and its participation in power beside the kings during the great European empires – this was not the case for them. Peace and Orthodoxy never ruled their countries.
Now, young students are compelled to listen to lessons that criticize Prophet Muhammad. This creates permanent tension between the state and its citizens. French President Macron and his Algerian-origin Minister of the Interior portray dissenting citizens as separatists. Such classification permanently alienates young generations living in the suburbs.
Similar phenomena are recurring in Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. What provokes the feelings of the newer generation is the criticism, specifically directed against Islam, while the Church remains unsullied. As such, no one engages with it anymore.
Similarly, extreme secularists avoid criticizing Judaism, for fear of being called anti-Semitic. And this general public secular confrontation is solely with Islam.
“The development of the Church and its participation in politics has created a fusion between religious conservatism and right-wing populism in some Eastern European countries.”
European Evangelicals vs. Secular Libertarians
Dominated by Christian Democrats, Western European countries are becoming accustomed to extreme secularism.
Britain, which still considers the king to be the head of the church, is now seen in likeness of Islamic, Hindu, or Sikh countries by Europe. A vast number of immigrants from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent populates the UK.
Leader of British far-right ‘’Reform Party’’ Nigel Farage often stokes the general feeling about religious identity, warning that religion has largely fallen out of the discussion in Europe.
In Germany, the number of people identifying themselves as atheists has exceeded those who prefer their Protestant or Catholic identities.
France, on its part, does not want to hear anything about religion in public life.
In this way, Europe lacks real effort to reformulate a unified identity — consistent with new demographic realities — for each European nation. It also fails to adopt models similar to Canada or the United States (before the emergence of MAGA), or Australia or New Zealand. These countries lack a clear religious identity or dominant ethnicity. And Europe still clings to modern national identity theories from the eighteenth century.
Without adopting a new, unified identity — embracing all and alienating none, Europe will continue its quest for answers in the wrong places.
In the process, the right-wing populist parties will gain hold and fulfill their promises. Refugees will be expelled, citizenships of slowly integrating immigrants will be revoked. The courts, human rights legislations, the vote of parliaments and the media will be discarded. In other words, the face of Europe will change, but in a different way.
Another, probably the most controversial issue in Europe is the European Union itself.
Most right-wing populist parties have a terribly negative view of Brussels, headquarters of the European Commission. The reason for this is the control of a group of unelected bureaucrats over the policies of elected governments.
The far-right holds the view that the Commission’s policies limit the margin of maneuver for countries like France and Germany in the face of global competitors like the US and China. Furthermore, the Euro deprives European countries of control over flexible interest rates that can help in times of crisis.
Far-right parties also regard several European countries like Greece, Spain, and Poland as parasites. They accuse these countries of not taking their economy seriously and depending on European aid.
These parties are clear about the European Union requiring immediate reforms. Or else, they foresee, European countries exiting the EU and reinstating their previous national currencies like the German mark and the French franc.
Britain, for instance, never abandoned the pound sterling while it was in the European Union several years ago. Despite being a European Union member country, it was never a part of the Eurozone.
The disastrous effects of a reversed European model can only be imagined on relatively young democracies such as South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina. In the Middle East and Africa, the effects will be more devastating and more violent.
The more pressing question is what Europe’s foreign policy will look like, if far-right parties take control of major European countries.
The Case of Hungarian Prime Minister
A prominent politician offering a sharp vision of European foreign policy from the far-right perspective is Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister. Considering Orban’s stance, it becomes clear that concepts of democratic traditions, separation of powers, and human rights will be relegated to the fringes.
The desired model is like Putin’s Russia, where anything is permissible to reach power and maintain hold onto it. The ideals are to silence the press, persecute opponents, and accuse team members of treason and disloyalty, if they ever disagree with the ruler. Moreover, loyalty is to extend on a personal level to the ruler rather than the state.
So, models of authoritarianism and tyranny would be the desired model. But Europe was offering a completely different model. Europe was not just an idea, but a model worthy of imitation across the world. It is a dream to emulate the model that eludes Arab, Iranian, African, and Chinese youth.
However, Europe of the populist right-wing will fail to offer exemplary models such as the European one. This will deeply affect Europe, and it will further sink into authoritarianism and elitism in the lack of intellectual clarity.
The European model, once worthy of imitation on a global level, will be lost forever. In turn, democracy will lose its lackluster amid new ideals and models coming from outside of the West.
The rest of the world will gradually come to find the aspiring Europe Dream falling into oblivion.
Meanwhile, authoritarian rule in Europe will continue to face resistance from newer, more intelligent, liberal generations and human rights institutions.
Internal disintegration of the European Union
The populist Reform Party in Britain imposed a referendum to leave Europe and succeeded, but Britain did not achieve anything even after Brexit, and governments fell quickly. Perceiving the European Union as the problem instead of the solution did not produce any benefits for Britain.
In fact, after Brexit, separatist tendencies increased in Scotland and Wales. Britain miraculously managed a complex solution for Northern Ireland to maintain an economic link with the Republic of Ireland, which remained in the European Union.
It is unclear whether the programs of the populist right in Europe will be a recipe for a solution or of civil war.
The idea that the solution lies in getting rid of Europe to minimize problems and find national solutions will push the regions to think in the same way.
For instance, if the far-right Vox party says the solution for Spain is to move away from Europe. Then, the Catalan or Basque regions may as well seek regional solutions and want to break away from Spain.
Similar opinions will ignite separatist calls in Belgium and the Flemish region. Why won’t the same story repeat within the borders of Germany itself? Bavaria may find that Prussia is too liberal, welcomes refugees, is proud of gays, and is so much green. Why don’t we separate from it?
Certainly, Bismarck is turning in his grave now, alongside the Italian Garibaldi, who found that a section of his Italian compatriots in the northern Lombardy region did not resemble their brothers in the south in Naples and Palermo very much.
Therefore, Giorgia Meloni, a politician with fascist roots, who vehemently sought Italy’s independence from Brussels in the past, has today transformed herself into the most enthusiastic defender of Europe.
As with the Iran nuclear deal, Washington has excluded Europe from political negotiations to achieve peace in Ukraine. In both cases, Washington’s point man is Steve Witkoff, a former real estate developer, who has no links with the European Union.
Meanwhile, Europe is desperate – trying to figure out where things are headed.
To make matters worse: the US is not conducting negotiations via official channels such as the US Secretary of State or the State Department. Europe’s secure connections with departmental experts — regardless of Republican or Democrat President is in the White House — are dysfunctional. The Europeans are kept in the dark and are wondering about how things will pan out.
The deal forwarded by Washington in Ukraine has become noticeably clear: Ukraine will give up the Crimean Peninsula to Russia and find resolutions for other Russian-occupied regions such as Donbas, Donetsk, and Luhansk. These solutions could be legal exits to give the three provinces a special status – like autonomous regions.
Perhaps, the only consequential outcome will be Russian withdrawal from the occupied parts of Kherson province. Meanwhile, the US will obtain exclusive privilege to explore and mine precious minerals in Ukraine.
As for Ukraine’s NATO membership, it has become a story of the past. To compensate for this, Putin is likely to agree and acknowledge Ukraine’s right to build an army and defend itself and extend guarantees to protect Ukraine.
These outcomes starkly contrast European musings in Ukraine by the end of the war.
EU plans were to make Ukraine Europe’s front line of defense against Russia. The Europeans hoped to besiege Russia from the Baltic Sea in the north and the black sea in the south. Their hopes bolstered after Sweden and Finland joined NATO.
So far, European objectives are far from being realized, and Europe has already lost a lot.
Apart from war expenses, it lost cheap Russian energy supplies and neighboring gas and oil. European companies lost the Russian market due to EU sanctions on Moscow. And the losses are likely to continue. Putin has pledged not to allow Europeans to return to the market, even if a peace agreement is struck in Ukraine.
Europe received over a million Ukrainian refugees since the war started. Fearing the refugees’ numbers would rise further, Europe paid billions of dollars to support Ukraine economically. It also spent billions more on weapons and ammunition sent to Ukraine. Some European countries fully exhausted their military reserve stockpile. Except for huge losses, Europe does not have any valuable accomplishment to show in the three-year war.
Moreover, the anticipated US-brokered peace in Ukraine will only strengthen US-Russia ties, especially with Trump in the White House.
If things pan out in this way, Europe will face great political repercussions.
The most important repercussions will reflect on European governments.
In fact, European governments are already starting to see the effects, with the devastating defeat of Green-Yellow-Red alliance, led by Social Democratic Party in Germany.
From a strategic perspective, the world is keenly observing European governments facing defeat. The defeats have already weakened their position in the world. Further, their stature is slipping before international players in world affairs.
Notably after the war, Washington’s close relations with Moscow will reduce Europe to a marginal player in international politics. Under such circumstances, will Europe’s voice — even in its own affairs – carry any weight?
As such, the European Union will appear as a frail political system, lacking confidence and authority.
The idea of the Union of about thirty countries has already shaken since Brexit. Factor this with the rise of right-wing populist parties in EU member nations like Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, and Hungary. The far-right parties are already talking about exiting the European Union.
A potential US-Russian agreement may include Russian pledges not to compete with American oil in European markets, leaving the European market under the mercy of American gas and oil supplies.
The import of American gas in Europe began immediately after the start of war. But the cost of imports does not resemble Russian energy prices. Western Europe was receiving Russian gas in natural gaseous state from nearby Russian ports via Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. The pipeline infrastructure currently is in ruins after Ukrainian intelligence agents blew it up.
Europeans will have to import liquefied gas via tankers. The liquefied gas will have to undergo regasification for use in European factories. In addition, transatlantic transportation costs come into play as the gas will arrive from American ports of Texas and Louisiana.
Increasing energy costs will affect the competitiveness of German industries, which are already lagging in competing with cheaper Chinese goods.
Moreover, if Russia emerges as a victor in Ukraine, Europe will go through constant anxiety – militarily, apart from the preexisting social and economic troubles and towering American hegemony.
Victory in Ukraine will whet Kremlin’s appetite to provoke the Baltic states and Poland. Kremlin may want to hold them accountable for three years of military support to Ukraine and the imposition of European economic sanctions on it.
Amidst these, we need to remember US President Trump does not extend military guarantees to Europe for free. Admittedly, in his own words, “Europeans have nothing to protect them from Russia.”
He frequently complains of Europeans not paying for American military protection.
Ever since he came to power last January, NATO that was established after the Normandy landings is not the same as before.
In this regard, European solutions are familiar and along recurring themes. French President Emmanuel Macron’s favorite playback is the creation of a unified European army — an idea he returns to every now and then.
The idea, though, does not find any reciprocity from Macron’s closed allies, the leaders of Germany or the rest of the continent. Britain, on its part, is least concerned with such a proposal because of its primary military relationship with the US.
Apart from the concept of the European army, proposals are floated in Europe to increase the number of armed forces, either through enrollment or by way of conscription. Either way, the idea of widening the doors of military institutions to European youth is also no less strange than the idea of the European army.
Modern European youths
After seven decades of peace in Europe, European youths have changed a lot from what their grandparents’ generation was. They are remarkably diverse today and mostly comprised of young new immigrants or third and fourth generations of old immigrants.
The culture of peace has become an essential part of European culture. It is difficult for modern European youths to abandon it.
Not every young European today dreams of spending his youth in the trenches of the Somme like in World War I or entering into devastating wars like World War II.
Perhaps calls for volunteering will resonate well with young new immigrants. The new immigrants may see this as an opportunity for social advancement.
The situation will be similar to when African Americans joined the US Army in hordes during World War I.
A quick recap of history tells us that Europe’s first immigrants were those enlisted in the French and English armies during the two World Wars or serving in the colonial armies. After the end of colonialism, Europeans returned with their armies. Along came the enlisted immigrants to Europe.
In the narrowest of scenarios, joining the military will be an available job opportunity with a good salary for young new immigrants.
However, European strategists fail to see that the resulting European army will primarily be composed of soldiers and officers, who migrated from Algeria, Morocco, Senegal, Turkey, India, and Bosnia, and most of them are Muslims.
In this light, the rising European far-right may perceive the composition of the European army itself as more imminent threat than Russia.
What does all this mean? Are the horizons really blocked for Europeans to find social, economic, and military solutions? Will Europe discover a way out of an unseemly future — which by some account, could even be a difficult one?
These questions concern Europe, a continent conceiving most of the revolutionary and progressive ideas of the world in the last four centuries. Stubborn Europe, which immersed in two devastating wars in the 20th century, defeated fascism and Nazism, and developed a long path towards social and human rights, will not give up easily.
US Vice President’s Visit
A single visit by US Vice President J.D. Vance and a handful of statements by the famous billionaire Elon Musk against Europe were sufficient enough to escalate US-Europe tensions to reach a level not seen since World War II.
Speaking at Munich Security Conference, the US vice president issued a scathing criticism of Europe.
Stating that Russia, China, or any other external party were not worrying him, he expressed his concern about Europe’s retreat from its fundamental values, especially freedom of expression. He said that freedom of expression in Europe was on the decline.
Criticizing European immigration policies, he said the will of European voters on the issue was ignored.
Musk, on his part, was more explicit about what the US wanted to see in Europe, saying that only the populist ‘’Alternative for Germany” party could save Germany.
The new administration in Washington D.C. rejects the process of excluding far-right parties from government coalitions in Europe. It criticizes left-wing and center-right parties for leaving right-wing parties out of coalition governments.
The Trump-Vance administration wants to see the participation of the Spanish Vox party, the Flemish Interest Party, the Danish People’s Party, and the likes in European governments. Participations similar to of Geert Wilders-led Freedom Party in the Netherlands, or Sweden Democrats in Sweden.
The gist being: consider the right-wing an integral part of European political life, not on the margins — as was the case over the past decade.
The administration of President Trump, including Vice President Vance, Musk, and others in the “Make America Great Again” movement, have a specific vision of the transatlantic alliance.
The common values that unite the two sides of the Atlantic can be summarized as White race dominant countries; embracing Protestant or Catholic Christian values; taking anti-immigrant, anti-left, and anti-gender political stance; and embracing family values.
These same values are vocally shared by the ruling Polish Law and Justice Party and the Hungarian Civic Union at present.
This US vision presents a Europe flipped upside down.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Eastern Europe dreamt of following in the footsteps of Western Europe. However, Western Europe is now required to adopt the approach of authoritarian rulers in Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland.
And with President Trump, the issue is no longer just ideological but has moved to another level.
The next day, Trump imposed high tariffs on European products and then froze those tariffs so that Europeans would come to the negotiating table.
Europe, as Trump sees it, is much worse. In Trump’s eyes, it is just a parasite that drains America financially through unfair intra-trade, the trade balance of which is greatly skewed in Europe’s favor.
Trump has said that Europe does not buy American cars or American agricultural products, and that America for the Europeans is nothing but a gigantic market to exploit, and this must end.
He frequently complained of Europeans not paying for American military protection.
Making things worse, he spelled out Europe’s worst nightmare. He admitted that Europe was in danger and lacked defensive natural barriers with Russia, unlike the US, which has Pacific and Atlantic oceans to protect it from adversaries.
“We are not in danger because there are the two beautiful Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to protect us, while the Europeans have nothing to protect them from Russia.”
He constantly rues about the US solely paying a substantial amount of money to Ukraine.
The US President has asked Europeans to increase their contribution in NATO expenses, raise their defense budget, and buy more American weapons.
Amidst all, Europe is trying to figure out a way to respond to the situation.
A comprehensive European solution seems impossible in the current circumstances as it requires consensus. In any case, any solution is bound to face opposition from member nations like Eastern European countries.
The European collective’s unified response also gets hindered by Franco-German rivalry within it. This drives each European country to seek personalized solutions with back door diplomacy.
On Greenland
The European collective response was perceived lukewarm and unconvincing even on most explosive Trump demands to annex the Danish island of Greenland.
Afterwards, the Danish prime minister was forced to conduct a European tour to obtain solidarity.
The best thing she heard was calls for self-restraint and dialogue with the US.
EU’s Predisposition towards US
There is a political school in Europe with regard to the US that advocates restraint against the US.
Regardless of the level of abuse coming from the US, the Europeans are to bow down and let the storm pass. Calm and procrastination are required for four years, or maximum eight – in the “worst” scenarios. After that, the American administration will change and the relationship between the two shores of the Atlantic will return to former glory.
The Case of War on Iraq
This political school’s advocacy seems to be a working one. Let us look back when the then George W. Bush administration declared war on Iraqi. The then administration presented no evidence that Baghdad obtained weapons of mass destruction or played a role leading to 9/11 attack. The declaration of war was not even put before the UN Security Council.
In such scenario, French and German foreign ministers Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer clashed with US Secretary of State General Colin Powell. This clash led to Villepin and Fischer being heavily criticized by the Europeans. They deemed the two ministers ruining Europe’s relationship with Washington.
In the aftermath of Iraq war, the Republicans lost the elections in 2008, and Democratic President Barack Obama took charge. And with that, the excellent Europe-US relationship restored instantly, and everyone lived happily until Trump arrived in the White House in 2017.
Therefore, demure European response to Washington’s behavior is to calm down and wait for the worst to pass.
Trump’s Time & Play
But the play seems different this time. In his first term, Trump talked about a revolution but did nothing. Now, he is actually starting it and even mulling about a third term. His Vice President Vance is still young and more extreme than Trump himself.
If the US administration succeeds to cement and continue Trump’s policies relating to tariffs and resultant financial abundance, or the return of manufacturing to America, or large trillion-dollar investments in the American economy, the wait for Europeans may extend longer than expected, leaving Europe scrambling for the pieces of the pie.
The rest of the European resolves may turn out as mere wanting for long. Ideas are floating within the EU of forming close alliance with Canada or Canada joining the EU, to ouster the US from EU cooperation. If Trump’s American ideals outlast himself, Europe will only be trying to find alternative world markets to the American one.
All of this does not constitute a clear plan or a path that could result in something specific.
The strange thing is that European officials have not dared to speak about the forbidden taboo – exploring cooperation with Russia.
Oil and gas rich Moscow can, according to many experts, provide a solution to the European energy problem. Europe may also negotiate security coordination with Moscow within European frameworks. It may be the best alternative to militarization and increasing defense budgets at the expense of social, health and environmental allocations.
In fact, during the era of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Europe reached an understanding with Russia on security issues. Then, Russia was seen in role of an observer in some NATO and European military structures. Why was that relationship destroyed? The Europeans say that Yeltsin’s Russia was clipping its nails and busy with its internal affairs. Today, Putin’s Russia is aggressive and wants expansion.
But is all this really true? Some researchers, such as French Emmanuel Todd, reject all these theories. They find it hard to believe that a country spanning over 17 million square kilometers with a relatively small population and a minimal birth rate wants expansion.
The French researcher says that Russia, with its 150 million people, produces more wheat than the US, which has a population of more than 350 million people. Therefore, its goal is aggression.
European Hostility Towards Russia
Todd views Europe itself destroyed its relations with Russia. Citing Former French President Francois Hollande and German ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s admissions after leaving office, he says the Europeans agreed to the Minsk Agreement on Ukraine only to stall and arm Ukraine. Thus, the intentions were ready from the beginning.
Meanwhile, the populist right-wing parties in Europe demanding an understanding with Moscow pose a question: What do we want from freedom in Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus? They view these countries are Moscow’s backyard, and favor leaving Moscow up to its interests there.
But after the bitter hostility during the three-year war in Ukraine, is it really possible to restore understanding with Moscow? Many see it as extremely difficult.
The hostility that Europe showed towards Russia during the war is devastating — not only political, but covering trade, energy, and Russian culture. European universities, in utter recklessness, also banned teaching literature of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. At the height of absurdity, a European meeting removed Russian cuisine from the menu.
Does all this mean that the Europeans have no way out, except to submit to the American will? Does this mean Europeans will surrender to all of American commercial and military demands? The answer is not easy.
What is obvious is that the current European leaders do not resemble Winston Churchill and his speech in which he said, “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight on the hills; we shall never surrender.” Most of the current leaders are not particularly enthusiastic in their speech, and some are merely technocrats with no clear features. However, the battle is still in its initial stages.
The answer is yes. Europe is facing an existential threat, no less. Without getting carried away with exaggerations, the current threat appears of a greater nature than the Nazi threat itself.
The German expansion into Western Europe at the beginning of World War II was neither exceptional nor unusual for Europe. It has experienced many imperial expansions. Such as the campaigns of Napoleon and Napoleon III, Austro-Hungarian hegemony, the Swedish wars, and Bismarck’s ambitions. All of these ended in devastating wars, causing massive waves of transatlantic migration, famine, poverty, and epidemics. However, compared to all previous instances, this time the threat is both intrinsic and extrinsic at the same time.
The economy is ailing. There are trade pressures from the US, the threat of a Chinese industrial invasion looms large alongside a military incursion from Russia.
Conflicts
The entire European Union’s periphery and backyards are engulfed in conflicts.
In Syria, a faction of Al Qaeda has come to rule the devastated country; Egypt is almost bankrupt; North African countries are experiencing increasing troubles; the Gaza war has become part of daily and political life in France and Germany; separatist tendencies are emerging in the regions, and social media is witnessing an unprecedented explosion.
Blurring Political factions
The conditions of the political class, bar the populist right-wing parties, are not pleasant at all. Since the inception of the “Third Way’’ approach, the traditional right-wing and left-wing parties have abandoned their traditional programs.
In fact, distinguishing the rule of the Labor from that of Conservatives in Britain has become impossible, or the rule of the Gaullists or Socialists in France. The differentiating factors have faded away.
The extreme right has emerged after politics stopped giving viable solutions. The far-right’s ideology sounded like music in the ears of voters left in despair by the traditional parties.
Are Far Right’s Solutions Viable?
Do right-wing populist parties have the answer to all of this, as US Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk seek? Do the programs of the populist right-wing parties offer any solution?
Perhaps yes, but only if they are realistic. If these parties are able to, by some miracle, stop immigration; expel all non-assimilating refugees; sign deals in the Middle East and stop the flow of migrants from Africa. Achieving all these is also dependent on having a calmer political Islam and improved performance of Arab governments. The redressal of energy problem in favor of competitiveness, and, finally, putting an end to bureaucratic maniacs in Brussels.
If all of these take place, perhaps the far-right will succeed.
However, all of this is easier said than done. Leaders know that giving scathing speeches in front of angry crowds is much easier than turning ideas into successful policy.
All of this is unfolding as a reckless President, angry at Europe, is seated in the White House; a leader in the Kremlin eager to push the nuclear button; giant supply chains coming from China; and a European neighborhood mired in a state of bloody conflict and impending economic failure. European governments are falling down quickly and not completing their terms in Germany and Britain.
Meanwhile, the threat of right-wing populist parties sweeping upcoming elections in France, Germany and Britain is becoming more intense and real in all likelihood.
Considering all possibilities, this decade may herald the end of the era of peace, prosperity, and justice that Europe has known since the end of World War II. This may well be considered the end of jubilant history in which democracy, human rights, environmental issues, and the market economy won against all odds.
Today seems that it is not the end of history but merely a passing chapter in it.