Europe in the New World Order

Europe and the emerging New Global Order

On March 31, 2025, Heinrich Kreft, Jochen Richter, and I presented our new book „Europe and the Emerging New Global Order“ [1] during an online event hosted by the Diplomatic Council. This event was part of a broader series of presentations held in various cities and countries.

What is the book about?

Security – narrowly defined, broadly conceptualised

From a book titled "Europe and the Emerging New Global Order", readers should expect comprehensive insights into how this new global order might take shape. Furthermore, it should provide perspectives on the key players and the forces involved. Our book aims to do precisely that.

After an introductory preamble and foreword, 19 contributors cover a wide range of issues across 524 pages in twelve detailed chapters:

1. Prologue
2. What is Security?
3. The evolving global order
4. Reform needs for the rules-based international order
5. Europe’s role in a multipolar world
6. Deterrence and its meaning in the 21st century
7. Tackling Disinformation in the Context of Hybrid Threats
8. Strengthening cyber resilience is more urgent than ever
9. European societies in defence – Resilience concepts
10. Securing Supply Chains – Reflections from Industry
11. Addressing climate change – two perspectives
12. Call to Action

Here are the authors, listed alphabetically:

1. Dr. Alina Bârgăoanu, Professor, Member EDMO Advisory Board
2. Răzvan Ceuca, International Relations Expert at New Strategy Center, Romania
3. Simona Cojocaru, State Secretary Defence for Romania
4. Stacy A. Cummings, NSPA General Manager
5. Dr. Judith Curry, President Climate Forecast Applications Network
6. Andreas Dripke, Executive Chair Diplomatic Council
7. Dorin Gal, Policy adviser Romania's Defence Ministry, diplomacy expert
8. Stephan J. Kramer, President of the Thuringian State Intelligence Office
9. Prof. Dr. Heinrich Kreft, President Diplomatic Council, Ambassador (ret.). Editor
10. Dr. Ciro Maddaloni, political Opinionist “Giornale Diplomatico”
11. Michael Mattis, Founder and CEO Silicon Valley Europe
12. Jamal Qaiser, Peace Activist. Diplomatic Council Commissioner for UN Affairs
13. Jochen M. Richter, Chair Diplomatic Council Global Security Forum. Editor
14. Marc Ruberg, Officer in charge Baden-Württemberg University Network
15. Prof. Dr. Peter Schallenberg, Prof. Moral Theology and Theological Ethics
16. Dr. Harald Schönfeld, Founder & CEO hutterflymanager and United Interim
17. Andre Schulte-Südhoff, Managing Director and shareholder of Schüko
18. George Scutaru, Founder and CEO New Strategy Center, Romania
19. Dr. Horst Walther, Diplomatic Council Commissioner for UN Affairs, Editor

It is inevitable that although the authors address a shared topic, their views do not uniformly align. This diversity reflects the broader contemporary discourse and is beneficial rather than detrimental. Only the relativising chapter on climate change lacks a strong opposing viewpoint. We therefore offer such a necessary perspective: Europeans for the Planet’s "Leave no Trace – on Climate Change and Beyond" [2].

Security, however, forms a consistent thematic thread throughout these contributions—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. The scope of the discussion ranges from philosophical reflections to practical, operational demands related to the ongoing conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine, some of which may already have been overtaken by recent events.

Having initially tackled the more philosophical question of "What is security?"—considered either objectively (absence of threats) or subjectively (feeling secure)—we proceed to the vital question of how we can achieve this security. This question feels more urgent now than we anticipated even recently. At the time of writing, it was merely a troubling premonition.

Is it enough for Germany simply to make its armed forces "fit for war" [3]? Is it sufficient to open new giant budgets for weapons, an “epochal change” (Zeitenwende) [4], infrastructure, and costly election giveaways? This approach seems more like handing out "free beer for all".

Or do we require something more substantial—more cohesion, capability, reliability—an independent, autonomous, and self-confident Europe, whose member states cannot be individually blackmailed by either friend or foe?

Friends? – A short digression on "MAGA" and "America First"

Are we witnessing the desperate battle cry of an empire in decline, as former Bridgewater investor Ray Dalio [5], among others, suggests? Dalio identifies eight measurable indicators of decline:

1. Education
2. Competitiveness
3. Innovation & Technology
4. Economic Output
5. Share of World Trade
6. Military Strength
7. Financial Market Strength
8. Reserve Currency Status

Some analysts already perceive signs of decline in the last indicator. This minimal yet significant erosion of the dollar’s dominance is driven by both internal and external forces, notably its weaponisation, which has accelerated the creation of parallel monetary systems.

Or is America renewing itself, continuing a 19^th-century doctrine known as "Manifest Destiny"—the "sacred right" to forceful expansion, a term coined by journalist John O'Sullivan? If so, where is Europe's place in this scenario? It seems our role is either to serve this agenda or face serious consequences.

Europe, however, is not central to America’s considerations. The US priority is global dominance, and currently, the epic struggle is between the US and China. Europe is invited to join on the American side.

Initially, the West believed that China's integration into global trade would inevitably transform it into a Western-style democracy or lead to failure. But China has "failed to fail" [6].

Ironically, today Washington’s economic policy resembles China's past ten-year strategy—a "Chinese policy with American characteristics" [7]..

For Europe, these developments are troubling. The relatively small European states risk being crushed by the dominant geopolitical forces.

Friedrich Merz’s proclamation "Germany is back" rather offers little reassurance [8].

Europe faces a decisive choice

Returning to the book: Europe must reinvent itself to avoid becoming collateral damage in this epic clash between superpowers. Our publication explores this expanded concept of security, posing some fundamental questions:

What kind of Europe do we desire?

Which model could succeed?

For what vision should we fight?

Is it the geographically defined Europe?

Traditionally, Europe is seen geographically as a subcontinent of Eurasia, stretching from Norway’s Kinnarodden to Spain’s Punta de Tarifa, from Portugal’s Cabo da Roca to Russia’s Ural Mountains.

Notably, Russia's Tsar Peter the Great politically defined the eastern boundary, firmly placing Russia within Europe—a stance maintained to this day.

Clearly, geography alone proves to be insufficient.

Is it today’s European Union?

After all, this entity already exists - as a loose confederation of states. Today's EU is undoubtedly a remarkable achievement, as Dr. Christoph Heusgen impressively explains in his wonderful introduction to our book.

However, an increasing number of voices call for reforms or further integration. Scepticism is increasing. Particularly within core EU countries major parts of the population have already completely turned their backs on the idea of a united Europe. Some speak openly of a misconstruction. In any case, development has clearly come to a standstill, a dead end.

Also, there is no good reason to limit the desired entity of Europe to the members of the current EU.

On the other hand, not all member states will be prepared to take another bold joint step. Some states would prefer to take the unpromising path of being sovereign individual states.

I share the view of Ian Bremmer (whom I will quote below) that the EU as a whole is incapable of acting effectively and collectively under pressure.

Obviously, it will not be the European “Union” either.

Is it a community defined by European values?

There is indeed something that makes Europe unique, a feature that fundamentally distinguishes us from the rest of the world, something that we can be proud of and that we should defend if necessary.

We are talking about the achievements of the European Enlightenment over the last 300 years. Immanuel Kant once characterized this philosophical movement as „man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage." [9], [10] These ideas are the root of modern Europe. The force that unites us and of which we can rightly be proud originates from the very ideas of the Enlightenment that were developed over three centuries ago. These ideas form the foundation of our identity, guide the principles of our actions and define the boundaries of the unity that we can also call the Europe of values.

What else distinguishes Europe - positively - from the rest of humanity?

Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality of opportunity, the rule of law and respect for human rights are also the values on which the European Union is founded. However, they are not always respected.

And that would be the Europe of our desires.

Where, then, are Europe's borders?

But where then are the limits for admitting new members and perhaps excluding existing ones? Where are the limits for integrating migrants from other cultures?

The statement is: Europe's geographical borders are ultimately determined by the limits of social consensus. These borders are best summarized by the theorem known as the "Böckenförde Paradox." [11] It is named after the German constitutional lawyer Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde. It points to a fundamental tension in liberal democracies that simply cannot be ignored. It reads: "The liberal, secularized state thrives on preconditions it cannot guarantee itself."

According to this, a democratic, liberal state presupposes certain moral and social values ​​of its citizens. These include civic engagement, mutual trust, and a shared sense of purpose. However, these values ​​cannot be imposed or enforced by the state. They must emerge from civil society itself, particularly from non-state institutions such as the family, religious organizations, and cultural traditions.

If these preconditions are not met from the outset, or if their social foundations were eroding, the state cannot force citizens to maintain liberal democracy. Herein lie the true limitations for an entity that wants to call itself Europe—for both the membership of states and the integration of migrants.

It will not be easy to rigorously apply this principle and it remains unclear by which mean to do so. Failing to live by it however will mean the end of all hope for civil liberties and all other achievements since the idea of enlightenment was incepted.

4. Europe must therefore reinvent itself

This is a "call to action" and by no means just my eccentric individual opinion.

It would be strategic suicide if we relied on the hostile US for our survival, Sigmar Gabriel recently stated in an interview with Gabor Steingart in the Pioneer Newsletter. [12].

The US-American Ian Bremmer of GZero Media says [13]:

„After years of complacency, European leaders seem to have finally gotten the message that the United States under Trump is not just an unreliable friend but an actively hostile power. They understand they need to drastically increase Europe’s sovereign military, technological, and economic capabilities – not just to survive without America but also to defend their borders, economies, and democracies against it. Whether they can muster the political mettle to act on this realization, however, is Europe’s greatest test since 1945.

…

The irony is that Europe has the resources and capacity to stand up for itself, its values, and its fellow Europeans. What’s missing is the collective courage to act like it’s 1938, not 1989. For Ukraine’s sake and its own, that needs to change.“

Constanze Stelzenmüller of the New York Times writes [14]:

„One of the great ironies of Trump is that he is proving to be the great unifier of Europe. You can't overestimate how shocked the Europeans are by what's happening here.”

These are great prospects for us Europeans, aren't they? Our European leaders have certainly suffered the shock. The corresponding implied work, however, still needs to be done.

None of the three authors cited – nor anyone else utters any advice about how this should happen.

Therefore, we are making a move here.

What is required now is the transition from confederation to federation – monolithic externally and diverse and federal internally.

What a change – but does it really come a surprise?

Many people feel as if we are suddenly living in a completely different world. But perhaps we have simply been rudely awakened from an illusion we have been living in thanks to, admittedly, very skilful deceptive US foreign policy.

"There is great disorder under heavens," one might be inclined to quote Mao Zedong. [15].

The disorder is definitely real. As a result, our politicians convey a rather helpless impression. They are simply unable to re-calibrate their views that quickly.

Even if they could, they wouldn't know where the journey would take them. They are simply not prepared for this. The paternal advice from the White House, according to the motto “speaking softly while carrying a big stick [16]“ which has been blindly followed so far, is not forthcoming any longer.

From there rather shrill tones emerge. Meanwhile, the red guards of the great oligarchic cultural revolution are on the rampage in the administrations that have so far guaranteed continuity there.

Test question to you: from which source DOGE or Mao does the motto originate “Bombard the Headquarters” [17]?

Visionaries pursuing goals – not poll-driven career politicians

Slowly, very slowly, the realization is penetrating our collective consciousness that the necessary step—the transition from a confederation to a federal state—will not be possible while leaving it to the actors currently in power.

They are all career politicians. For them, politics is a profession—not a calling. Their motivation for action is the attainment of personal power.

In our scenario, however, they would have to cede influence to a somewhat greater vision. They won't be ready for that.

They base their decisions on poll results. Here, however, they must pursue immutable goals. They also ask their people what should be done. But the people expect leadership.

Nor are they as independent in their decisions as they claim. In many cases they were being remotely controlled in their decisions by the White House.

What we Europeans need now more than ever, are visionaries with goals who will lead the broadest possible social movement, a grassroots movement.

Who can this movement be? – Quite simply, all of us!

And in fact, this movement already exists and is prepared for you to join: Europeans for the Planet.

---

References

[1] Diplomatic Council. (2025, January 15). Europe and the Emerging New Global Order. Diplomatic Council. https://www.diplomatic-council.org/news-and-events/news/europe-and-emerging-new-global-order

• This article introduces the book Europe and the Emerging New Global Order, published by the Diplomatic Council ahead of the Munich Security Conference. The book, subtitled "Rethinking Europe’s Security Framework," features contributions from 21 renowned experts who address pressing questions of European security policy in a dynamically changing world order. The foreword, written by Ambassador Dr. Christoph Heusgen, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, emphasizes the need for Europe to adapt its policies, respond to citizens’ concerns, and uphold the European dream amidst internal and external challenges. The article highlights the book's significance for those concerned with Europe's future and its role in the evolving global landscape.​

[2] Europeans for the Planet. (2024, 31. Dezember). Leave no Trace - on climate change and beyond. Europeans for the Planet. https://europeansfortheplanet.blogspot.com/2024/12/leave-no-trace-on-climate-change-and.html ​

• This article discusses a philosophical approach to sustainable human existence. Three main positions on climate change are analysed: Climate Alarmists, Climate Moderates, and Climate Sceptics. The article highlights the perspectives of prominent representatives of each stance and examines their arguments in the context of human activity and its impact on the planet and concludes with a rigorous position.

[3] Pistorius, B. (2025, 13. Januar). Gebot der Stunde: Pistorius will Kriegstüchtigkeit erhöhen. ZDFheute. ​

• In this article, ZDF heute reports on the call by Defence Minister Boris Pistorius (SPD) to increase the “war capability of the Bundeswehr”. Pistorius emphasizes the need to strengthen Germany's defence capability and advocates higher defence spending, which could go beyond the NATO target of two percent of gross domestic product.

[4] Scholz, O. (2022, 27. Februar). Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz am 27. Februar 2022. Deutscher Bundestag. ​

• In his government statement to the German Bundestag on February 27, 2022, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz describes the Russian attack on Ukraine as a “turning point” in European history. He announces that he will provide the Bundeswehr with a special fund of 100 billion euros and increase defence spending to over two percent of gross domestic product in order to strengthen Germany's defence capability.​

[5] Dalio, R. (2021). Principles for dealing with the changing world order: Why nations succeed and fail. Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster.

• In this comprehensive work, Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, examines the cyclical patterns of economic and political powers over the past 500 years. He identifies recurring factors that contribute to the rise and decline of nations, emphasizing the importance of education, innovation, and economic productivity. Dalio's analysis offers insights into current global dynamics and provides principles for navigating the evolving world order. ​

[6] Kristof, N. D. (2018, November 18). The land that failed to fail. The New York Times.

• In this insightful article, Nicholas D. Kristof explores China's unexpected economic resilience and its defiance of numerous predictions forecasting its collapse. He examines how China's unique blend of market reforms and authoritarian governance has contributed to its sustained growth, challenging conventional Western perspectives on economic development and political stability.

[7] Froman, M. B. G. (2025, March 25). China has already remade the international system. Foreign Affairs.

• In this insightful article, Michael B. G. Froman, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, examines how China's economic strategies have influenced global economic policies. He highlights the irony that, after decades of criticizing Beijing for its high tariffs and state-led economic practices, the United States is now adopting similar measures—what he terms "Chinese policy with American characteristics." Froman discusses the implications of this shift, suggesting that China's approach has effectively reshaped the international economic order, prompting the U.S. to reconsider its own strategies in response.

[8] n-tv.de. (2025, 18. März). Merz: "Deutschland ist zurück" – SPD sieht "historisches Signal". n-tv Nachrichten.

• This article reports on the agreement on a comprehensive debt-financed package worth billions to strengthen Germany's defence, economy and infrastructure. CDU leader Friedrich Merz describes the agreement as a “clear message” to friends and foes, while the SPD speaks of a “historic signal”. The Greens also see the agreement as strengthening climate protection once again.​

[9] Kant, I. (1784). Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? Berlinische Monatsschrift, December 1784, 481-494.

• In this influential essay, Immanuel Kant defines Enlightenment as "man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage" and explains that nonage is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from others. Kant argues that Enlightenment is achieved when individuals dare to think for themselves and take responsibility for their own intellectual freedom. He emphasizes that the process of Enlightenment is ongoing and requires the courage to question established authority. This essay is considered a foundational text in modern philosophy and the Enlightenment movement.

[10] Kant, I. (1996). An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), Practical Philosophy (pp. 11-22). Cambridge University Press.

• This translated version of Kant’s 1784 essay provides an accessible introduction to his thoughts on the Enlightenment. The translator, H. B. Nisbet, offers a clear rendition of Kant’s argument for the value of intellectual independence and autonomy, themes that remain crucial to contemporary discussions of freedom, reason, and progress. This edition is part of Cambridge's "Practical Philosophy" collection, which contains many of Kant's most important ethical writings.

[11] Böckenförde, E. W. (1991). State, Society, and Liberty: Studies in Political Theory and Constitutional Law. Berg Publishers.

• This work contains Böckenförde’s key writings on the relationship between the liberal state and society, including his famous paradox about the limitations of state power in fostering the social conditions necessary for democracy. A must-read for understanding the theoretical foundations of the liberal state.

[12] Gabriel, S.(2023, 16. Dezember). Kann man sich noch auf die USA verlassen, Sigmar Gabriel? [Podcast-Episode]. In World Briefing. The Pioneer. ​

• In this podcast episode, Sigmar Gabriel discusses with Chelsea Spieker the geopolitical challenges in the run-up to the US elections in 2024. Gabriel expresses concerns about the reliability of the US as a partner and emphasizes the importance of a more independent European foreign and security policy.

[13] Bremmer, I. (2025, March 26). The end of the transatlantic relationship as we know it. GZERO Media. https://www.gzeromedia.com/by-ian-bremmer/the-end-of-the-transatlantic-relationship-as-we-know-it

• In this insightful article, Ian Bremmer, President and Founder of GZERO Media and Eurasia Group, examines the significant shifts in the transatlantic relationship during Donald Trump's second term as U.S. President. Bremmer highlights how Europe's alliance with the United States has been fundamentally altered, facing unprecedented challenges. He discusses the broader geopolitical implications of this transformation, emphasizing the need for Europe to reassess its strategic positioning in light of evolving U.S. foreign policies.

[14] Stelzenmüller, C. (2025, March 12). Europe's Strategic Awakening: Navigating a New World Order. The New York Times.

• In this insightful article, Constanze Stelzenmüller, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, examines Europe's evolving role in the shifting global landscape of 2025. She discusses the continent's response to emerging geopolitical challenges, including the recalibration of transatlantic relations and the necessity for Europe to assert greater strategic autonomy. Stelzenmüller emphasizes the importance of cohesive foreign and defence policies among European nations to effectively navigate the complexities of a multipolar world.

[15] Zedong, M. (n.d.), "There is great disorder under heaven; the situation is excellent."

• This statement is attributed to Mao Zedong, reflecting his perspective during periods of significant upheaval. He believed that societal chaos could create opportunities for revolutionary change. While the exact origin of this quote is debated, it encapsulates Mao's strategic approach during tumultuous times.

[16] Roosevelt, T. (1901, September 2). Address at the Minnesota State Fair.

• In his address at the Minnesota State Fair on September 2, 1901, Vice President Theodore Roosevelt articulated his foreign policy philosophy with the phrase, "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Roosevelt attributed this saying to a West African proverb, though its exact origins remain unclear. This speech marked one of the earliest public uses of the phrase, encapsulating Roosevelt's belief in negotiating peacefully while maintaining the readiness to enforce policies through strength if necessary. This approach became a cornerstone of his presidency, influencing U.S. foreign policy decisions during his tenure.

[17] Zedong, M. (August 5, 1966), "Bombard the Headquarters – My Big-Character Poster."

• On August 5, 1966, Mao Zedong authored a big-character poster titled "Bombard the Headquarters," signalling the start of the Cultural Revolution. In this poster, Mao criticized certain Communist Party leaders for enforcing a bourgeois dictatorship and suppressing the proletarian movement. This document played a pivotal role in mobilizing the masses against perceived counter-revolutionary elements within the Party.​

Zeit für Europa, den Reset-Knopf zu drücken

"Große Unordnung herrscht unter den Himmeln – die Lage ist ausgezeichnet"

(天下大乱形势大好).

Diese Worte von Mao Zedong im Jahr 1967, ausgesprochen während einer seiner Inspektionsreisen durch verschiedene Regionen Chinas, waren nicht nur eine Feststellung, sondern vielmehr eine Bestätigung seines Glaubens an die transformative Kraft der Unruhe. Auf dem Höhepunkt der Kulturrevolution hatte die weitreichende Mobilisierung der Massen das Land in tiefes Chaos gestürzt – ein Zustand, den er als vorteilhaft betrachtete.

Vor wenigen Wochen erlebte ich ein Déjà-vu. Die disruptiven Aktivitäten von Elon Musks „DOGE-Team“ junger Führungskräfte, die in den Vereinigten Staaten ganze Regierungsbehörden systematisch demontieren, um den sogenannten „Deep State“ – ein Konstrukt, das sowohl er als auch seine politischen Verbündeten verachten – zu zerschlagen, riefen in mir eine ferne, aber unbestreitbare Parallele zur Großen Proletarischen Kulturrevolution Maos hervor.

Mein erster Reflex war, eine Künstliche Intelligenz zu konsultieren. Diese warnte mich zwar vor allzu simplen Vergleichen, erkannte jedoch ebenfalls bemerkenswerte Ähnlichkeiten. Auch stehe ich mit dieser Wahrnehmung nicht allein. Zahlreiche aktuelle Publikationen ziehen Parallelen zwischen Musks Eingriffen in die US-Regierung und historischen Umwälzungen wie Maos Kulturrevolution. Analysten wie Orville Schell [1], John Feffer [2] und MacDonald [3] haben auf die weiterreichenden Implikationen dieser neuen Form techno-autoritärer Disruption hingewiesen.

Doch ist Elon Musks Kulturrevolution von oben keine Nachahmung chinesischer Radikalreformen. Vielmehr folgt sie einem klar westlichen Muster – einem, das erschreckende Ähnlichkeiten mit George Orwells dystopischer Vision in “1984” [4] aufweist, beginnend mit der Manipulation der Sprache selbst. Die Schaffung eines zeitgenössischen „Neusprech“ [5] und die Veränderung des politischen Diskurses sind Anzeichen einer tiefgreifenden Transformation – eine, die Orwells prophetische Warnungen erneut ins Bewusstsein rückt.

Wir Europäer könnten versucht sein, dieses Spektakel jenseits des Atlantiks als eine weitere amerikanische Eigenheit abzutun. Doch Selbstzufriedenheit wäre ein fataler Fehler. Dies ist kein isoliertes Ereignis. Es ist Teil einer größeren geopolitischen Verschiebung. Das Ziel ist nichts Geringeres als ein umfassender globaler Reset – eine Agenda, die von Donald Trump selbst vorangetrieben wird.

Diese Behauptung ist wiederum keineswegs nur meine eigene Spekulation. Eine Reihe aktueller Publikationen stützt diese Annahme. Alastair Crooke argumentiert in Eurasia Review in seinem Artikel [6] „Europe Faces a MAGA ‘Vibe-Shift’ as Trump Moves to His Primordial Objective: The Global Reset“, dass Trumps Bemühen, eine rasche Lösung des Ukraine-Konflikts herbeizuführen – angeblich zur Normalisierung der Beziehungen zu Russland – in Wahrheit ein Vorbote einer umfassenden geopolitischen Neuordnung sei. Crooke zeichnet ein düsteres Bild der Zukunft Europas und seiner Führer, die seiner Ansicht nach die Tragweite der aktuellen Entwicklungen nicht erfassen.

Ähnlich beschreibt Hal Brands [7] in seinem Foreign Affairs-Artikel „The Renegade Order“ [8] die US-amerikanische Weltanschauung – eine Sichtweise, die auf den ersten Blick rational und kohärent erscheint. Doch bei genauerer Betrachtung wird deutlich, dass die Realität dafür erheblich zurechtgebogen wurde, um eine bestimmte Botschaft zu untermauern.

Es offenbart sich eine Kontinuität der Doktrin aus dem 19. Jahrhundert, die unter dem Begriff Manifest Destiny bekannt wurde, geprägt durch den Journalisten John O’Sullivan. Die Vorstellung, dass Trump diese expansionistische Mission lediglich weiterverfolgt, wird nicht hinterfragt – sie wird vielmehr bewundert. Einzig die Sorge, dass er damit scheitern könnte, sorgt bei Brands für Unbehagen.

Doch welche Rolle spielt Europa in diesem Konzept? Die Antwort ist eindeutig: Wir sollen dieser Mission dienen. Falls Europa sich weigert, diesem amerikanischen Konzept zu folgen, könnten die Konsequenzen drastisch ausfallen. Martin Wolf, Chefkommentator für Wirtschaft bei der Financial Times, warnt deutlich [9]: „Europa wird entweder die Herausforderung annehmen oder zerfallen. Die Europäer müssen eine weit stärker kooperieren, einen robusten Rahmen liberaler und demokratischer Normen schaffen. Falls sie dies nicht tun, werden sie zwischen den großen Mächten der Welt zerrieben.“

Wolf unterliegt jedoch einer Wunschvorstellung, wenn er fordert, Europa müsse die Ukraine vor einer angeblichen US-russischen Verschwörung retten – als ob Europa bereits für eine solche Aufgabe gewappnet wäre.

Tatsächlich verfolgt die USA keine reine Pro-Russland- oder Pro-Ukraine-Politik Ihre strategischen Interessen liegen woanders. Washingtons Handlungen zielen darauf ab, sowohl Russland als auch Europa zu schwächen und so die eigene Dominanz über Eurasien zu erhalten beziehungsweise zu festigen. Dies ist ein klassisches Beispiel für Offshore Balancing, eine Strategie, die ebenso gegen China im sogenannten Indo-Pazifik angewendet wird. Darauf weist der chinesische Akademiker Han Heyuan hin [10], indem er sich auf die Arbeit des britischen Geopolitik-Strategen Halford Mackinder bezieht. In seiner 1904 veröffentlichten Arbeit „The Geographical Pivot of History“ [11] argumentierte Mackinder, dass die Verhinderung der Vorherrschaft einer einzigen Macht auf dem eurasischen Kontinent stets das zentrale strategische Ziel der angelsächsischen Seemächte gewesen sei. Die USA hätten danach dieses Erbe schlicht vom Britischen Empire übernommen.

Heyuan betont auch eine unbequeme Wahrheit: Im anhaltenden Ukraine-Konflikt gibt es nur einen eindeutigen Gewinner – die Vereinigten Staaten. Die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen sind hierfür bezeichnend. Der Krieg hat eine Umstrukturierung globaler Lieferketten erzwungen, wobei die USA als größter Profiteur aus Europas Energiekrise hervorgehen. Im Jahr 2022 stiegen die EU-Importe von amerikanischem Flüssigerdgas (LNG) um 154 %, zu Preisen, die dreimal höher waren als jene für russisches Pipelinegas. Gleichzeitig florierte die US-Rüstungsindustrie, mit Konzernen wie Raytheon und Lockheed Martin, deren Aktienkurse um über 200 % anstiegen.

Der Internationale-Politik-Experte Timothy Hopper formuliert es noch deutlicher [12]: „Die Welt erlebt eine Renaissance des Großmachtrivalität und des Neokolonialismus – jedoch mit einem entscheidenden Unterschied: Europa ist nicht mehr die dominierende Kraft oder Kolonialmacht – es ist nun selbst das Ziel. Historisch spielte Europa eine zentrale Rolle in der Gestaltung globaler Politik und Ressourcenverteilung. Doch heute steht es im Kreuzfeuer rücksichtsloser geopolitischer Konkurrenz zwischen den USA, China und anderen aufstrebenden Mächten.“

Und tatsächlich – unsere Führungseliten straucheln. Im Gegensatz zu Mao damals und Trump heute betrachten sie das Chaos in der Welt keineswegs als eine günstige Gelegenheit. Konfrontiert mit einer neuen Wirklichkeit, auf die sie nicht vorbereitet sind, wirken sie vielmehr ratlos. Ihre jahrzehntelang gehegten Annahmen über die globale Ordnung hat diese Realität innerhalb weniger Wochen zerstört.

Europa hat lange Zeit in der Illusion eigener Autonomie gelebt – eine Illusion, die vor allem durch die geschickte US-Außenpolitik aufrechterhalten wurde. Doch diese Illusion wird uns nun genommen. Unsere politischen Repräsentanten sind darauf nicht vorbereitet. Führungspersönlichkeiten wie Emmanuel Macron und Keir Starmer scheinen die tektonische Verschiebung in Washington, wo traditionelle Werte wieder dominieren, noch nicht ganz erfasst zu haben.

Unglücklicherweise ist diese neue Realität nämlich unvereinbar mit den Karriereplänen der bestehenden politischen Klasse in Europa. Wenn es hier also zu einem Wandel kommen sollte, wird er nicht von oben kommen. Stattdessen muss er von unten kommen.

Gerne zitiere ich hier eine Erkenntnis, die Newton-John, ein Schriftsteller aus Down Under, kürzlich gewonnen hat, nachdem er sich der respektablen Herausforderung gestellt hatte, 100 Geschichtsbücher zu lesen: „Plötzlich wurde mir klar, dass die Insel des Friedens und des Wohlstands, auf der ich mein privilegiertes Leben lang wohnte, genau das war“, schreibt er, „eine Insel, auf allen Seiten von einem Abgrund aus Gewalt, Aufruhr und Grausamkeit umgeben“. Diese kleine und zerbrechliche Insel darf nicht erneut von den tosenden Fluten des stürmischen Meeres, das sie umgibt, überspült werden.

Da also in den höheren Etagen unserer Gesellschaft keine der jetzt wünschenswerten Heilsbringer zu finden sind, sollten wir Europäer nicht länger auf ein Wunder warten. Es ist an der Zeit, unser Schicksal in unsere eigenen Hände zu nehmen. So wunderschöne Deklarationen wie „Wir, das Volk“ und „Das Volk ist der Souverän“ müssen mehr sein als schöne Rhetorik. Sie müssen zu einer Aufforderung zum Handeln für jeden Einzelnen werden - eine Aufforderung, die nicht nur auf unserem Kontinent, sondern auf dem gesamten Planeten widerhallen muss.

Zeit ist gekommen, unsere Zukunft selbst zu gestalten jeder von uns: Du, ich, wir alle.

---

[1] Schell, O. (2025, February 19). Trump's cultural revolution. Project Syndicate. (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/donald-trump-mao-zedong-cultural-revolution-parallels-by-orville-schell-2025-02)

• Orville Schell zieht Parallelen zwischen dem jüngsten politischen Kurswechsel von Präsident Donald Trump und der Kulturrevolution von Mao Zedong und weist auf mögliche Auswirkungen auf die Außenpolitik der USA hin.

[2] Feffer, J. (2025, February 20). The Trump-Musk cultural revolution. Eurasia Review. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/20022025-the-trump-musk-cultural-revolution-oped/)

• John Feffer diskutiert die Allianz zwischen Präsident Trump und Elon Musk, vergleicht ihr Handeln mit Maos Kulturrevolution und untersucht die möglichen gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen.

[3] MacDonald, L. (2025, March 12). Understanding Trump as Mao. Medium. (https://medium.com/@ClimateBoomer/understanding-trump-as-mao-d17c6a85f657​)

• In diesem Artikel zieht Lawrence MacDonald Parallelen zwischen Donald Trump und Mao Zedong und untersucht die Ähnlichkeiten in ihren Führungsstilen und die gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen ihrer Politik. MacDonald, der seine Erfahrungen als ehemaliger Auslandskorrespondent in China nutzt, gibt Einblicke in die Art und Weise, wie beide Führer etablierte Normen und Institutionen aufbrachen, um ihre Macht zu festigen. Der Beitrag geht auch auf die anti-intellektuellen Einstellungen beider Persönlichkeiten und die Folgen solcher Haltungen für Staat und Gesellschaft ein. ​

[4] Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.

• George Orwells dystopischer Roman schildert eine totalitäre Gesellschaft unter ständiger Überwachung, in der die Wahrheit manipuliert wird, um die Macht zu erhalten. Die Erzählung dient als abschreckendes Beispiel für die Gefahren repressiver Regime und die Aushöhlung individueller Freiheiten und ist nach wie vor relevant für Diskussionen über Privatsphäre, Freiheit und staatliche Übervorteilung.

[5] Burnett, I. S. (2025, March 18). Operation Newspeak. CounterPunch. (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/03/18/operation-newspeak/)

• Ipek S. Burnett untersucht die Manipulation der Sprache durch die Trump-Administration und zieht Parallelen zu George Orwells Konzept des „Newspeak“ in 1984 sowie zu dessen Auswirkungen auf kritisches Denken und Dissens.

[6] Crooke, A. (2025, March 12). Europe faces a MAGA 'vibe-shift' as Trump moves to his primordial objective: The global reset. Eurasia Review. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/12032025-europe-faces-a-maga-vibe-shift-as-trump-moves-to-his-primordial-objective-the-global-reset-oped/)

• Alastair Crooke erörtert die geopolitischen Auswirkungen der Maßnahmen von Präsident Trump zur Beilegung des Ukraine-Konflikts und zur Normalisierung der Beziehungen zu Russland. Er untersucht, inwiefern diese Schritte Teil einer umfassenderen Strategie zur Schaffung einer neuen Weltordnung sind, die Europa dazu veranlasst, sich an diese bedeutende geopolitische Veränderung anzupassen.​

[7] Brands, H. (n.d.). Author profile. Foreign Affairs. (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/authors/hal-brands)

• Hier ist das Autorenprofil von Hal Brands auf Foreign Affairs, in dem er seinen Hintergrund als Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs an der Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies und seine Beiträge zu diesem Thema beschreibt.

[8] Brands, H. (2025, February 25). The renegade order: How Trump wields American power. Foreign Affairs. (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/renegade-order-trump-hal-brands)

• Hal Brands analysiert den unkonventionellen Ansatz von Präsident Trump in den internationalen Beziehungen und seine möglichen Auswirkungen auf die globale Ordnung. The Renegade Order, How Trump Wields American Power, Hal Brands, März/April 2025, veröffentlicht am 25. Februar 2025.

[9] Wolf, M. (2025, February 25). The US is now the enemy of the West. Financial Times.

• Martin Wolf argumentiert, dass die jüngsten außenpolitischen Entscheidungen der USA, einschließlich der Aufgabe der Ukraine, das Land zu einem Gegner westlicher Interessen machen.

[10] Heyuan, H. (2025, March 12). Weaken and control: The US strategy for Eurasia and China ThinkChina. (https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/weaken-and-control-us-strategy-eurasia-and-china)

• Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit der Strategie der USA, sowohl Russland als auch Europa zu schwächen, um ihren Einfluss auf Eurasien und China zu wahren.

[11] Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437.

• In diesem bahnbrechenden Werk stellt der britische Geograf Halford John Mackinder die Heartland-Theorie vor, die besagt, dass die zentrale Region Eurasiens (das „Heartland“) aufgrund ihrer strategischen und ressourcenreichen Lage der Schlüssel zur globalen Vorherrschaft ist. Diese Arbeit hat das geopolitische Denken und die Politik im 20. Jahrhundert nachhaltig beeinflusst.

[12] Hopper, T. (2025, March 17). Trump and the return to economic colonialism: Coercive diplomacy as a new tool. Eurasia Review. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/17032025-trump-and-the-return-to-economic-colonialism-coercive-diplomacy-as-a-new-tool-oped/)

• Timothy Hopper erörtert Präsident Trumps Taktik der Zwangsdiplomatie und ihre Ähnlichkeit mit dem historischen Wirtschaftskolonialismus, wobei er sich auf den jüngsten Umgang mit europäischen Staaten konzentriert.

Time for Europe to Press the Reset Button

“There is great disorder under the heavens – the situation is excellent”

(天下大乱形势大好).

Mao Zedong’s words in 1967, spoken during his inspections across various regions of China, were not merely an observation but an affirmation of his belief in the transformative power of upheaval. At the height of the Cultural Revolution, the widespread mobilisation of the masses had plunged the country into profound chaos—a condition he considered advantageous.

A few weeks ago, I experienced a striking sense of déjà vu. The disruptive activities of Elon Musk’s “DOGE Team” of young executives, systematically dismantling entire government agencies in the United States in a bid to eradicate the so-called ‘Deep State’—a project both he and his political allies vehemently despise—evoked in me a distant yet undeniable parallel with Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

My immediate response was to consult an AI assistant, which, while cautioning me against drawing simplistic comparisons, nonetheless acknowledged certain striking similarities. Nor am I alone in this perception. Several recent publications have drawn parallels between Musk’s actions within the U.S. government and historical upheavals such as Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Analysts like Orville Schell [1] and John Feffer [2] have pointed to the broader implications of this new breed of techno-authoritarian disruption.

Yet this is no imitation of China’s radical purges. Rather, it follows a distinctly Western blueprint—one that eerily resembles George Orwell’s dystopian vision in “1984” [3] beginning with the reconfiguration of language itself. The emergence of contemporary ‘newspeak’ [4] and the manipulation of political discourse signal a deeper transformation—one that warrants revisiting Orwell’s prophetic warnings with renewed urgency.

Europeans might be tempted to dismiss this spectacle across the Atlantic as another American idiosyncrasy. But complacency would be a grave mistake. This is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader geopolitical shift. The goal is nothing less than a comprehensive global reset—an agenda championed by Donald Trump himself.

This assertion is not mere speculation. A number of recent publications lend credence to the argument. Writing in Eurasia Review, Alastair Crooke contends in his article [5], Europe Faces a MAGA ‘Vibe-Shift’ as Trump Moves to His Primordial Objective: The Global Reset, that Trump’s eagerness to expedite a resolution to the Ukraine conflict—ostensibly to normalise relations with Russia—is in fact a prelude to a far-reaching reconfiguration of the global order. Crooke paints a bleak picture of the future for Europe and its leaders, who, in his view, remain oblivious to the gravity of the moment.

Similarly, Hal Brands [6], in his Foreign Affairs article [7] The Renegade Order, presents a clear and coherent articulation of the U.S. worldview—one that appears, at first glance, to be a rational and logical framework. Yet upon closer examination, it becomes evident that reality has been significantly contorted to fit a particular narrative.

What emerges is a continuity of the 19^th-century doctrine encapsulated by the term Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined by journalist John O’Sullivan. The notion that Trump is merely extending this expansionist tradition is not questioned—it is, in fact, lauded. The only apprehension among his supporters is the possibility that he might fail to realise his objectives.

But where does Europe fit into this grand design? The answer is unambiguous: we are expected to serve this mission. Should Europe choose not to align with this American vision, the repercussions may be severe. As Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at The Financial Times, starkly warns [8], “Europe will either rise to the occasion or disintegrate. Europeans will need to create far stronger co-operation embedded in a robust framework of liberal and democratic norms. If they do not, they will be picked to pieces by the world’s great powers.”

Wolf, however, falls into the trap of wishful thinking, arguing that Europe must ‘save’ Ukraine from what he perceives as a U.S.-Russian conspiracy—as if Europe were equipped for such an daunting undertaking.

In reality, the United States is neither pro-Russia nor pro-Ukraine; its strategic objectives lie elsewhere. Washington’s actions are designed to weaken both Russia and Europe, thereby cementing its dominance over Eurasia. This is a classic example of offshore balancing, a strategy similarly employed against China in the Indo-Pacific. Chinese academic Han Heyuan highlights [9] this point, drawing upon the work of British geopolitical strategist Halford Mackinder. In his 1904 paper The Geographical Pivot of History [10], Mackinder argued that preventing the rise of a single dominant power on the Eurasian continent has always been the fundamental objective of Anglo-Saxon maritime powers. The United States has simply inherited this mantle from the British Empire.

Heyuan also underscores an uncomfortable reality: in the ongoing Ukraine conflict, there is but one clear winner—the United States. The economic ramifications alone illustrate this dynamic. The war has precipitated a restructuring of global supply chains, with the U.S. emerging as the primary beneficiary of Europe’s energy crisis. In 2022, European imports of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) surged by 154%, at prices three times higher than those of Russian pipeline gas. Meanwhile, the U.S. military-industrial complex has reaped enormous profits, with defence contractors such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin seeing their stock prices soar by over 200%.

Concluding this chorus of critical voices, Timothy Hopper, an international relations scholar at American University, writes [11], “The world is experiencing a resurgence of great power rivalry and neo-colonialism, but with one crucial difference: Europe is no longer a dominant force or a colonial power—it is now a target. Historically, Europe played a central role in shaping global policies and resource distribution. However, it is now caught in the crossfire of ruthless geopolitical competition from the U.S., China, and other rising powers. As America pursues aggressive bargaining, sanctions, and military threats to strengthen its position, Europe finds itself no longer leading the game but struggling to navigate its growing vulnerabilities in an increasingly brutal global contest.”

And struggling our leaders certainly are. Unlike Mao in 1967 or maybe Trump today, they do not see the disorder under the heavens as an advantageous situation. Rather, they appear bewildered, suddenly confronted with a reality they neither anticipated nor prepared for—one that has shattered their long-standing assumptions about global governance.

For decades, Europe has enjoyed the illusion of autonomy, largely thanks to the careful orchestration of U.S. foreign policy. That illusion is now being dismantled, and our politicians appear woefully unprepared. Shall they remain reliant on guidance from the White House, guidance that is no longer forthcoming? Instead, Washington is preoccupied with internal convulsions, as in some kind of “Great Oligarchical Cultural Revolution” radical elements within the administration systematically dismantle institutional continuity.

Figures such as Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer seem out of touch with the seismic shift occurring in Washington, where darker traditionalist values are regaining prominence. Unfortunately, this new reality is irreconcilable with the career trajectories of Europe’s existing political class. If change is to come, it will not originate from the top. Instead, it must emerge from below.

I like to draw from an insight Newton-John, a writer from down under, recently gained after taking on the respectable challenge of reading 100 history books: “I could suddenly see that the island of peace and prosperity I inhabited in my privileged life was just that,” he writes, “an island surrounded on all sides by an abyss of violence, turmoil and cruelty…”. This small and fragile island must not be washed over again by the raging tides of the stormy sea that surrounds it.

As for the lack of saviours in our higher echelons, we Europeans must no longer wait for a miracle to occur. The time has come to reclaim our agency. Noble declarations such as “We, the people!” and “The people are sovereign” must be more than mere rhetoric. They must become a call to action for every individual—one that resonates not just across our continent, but across the entire planet.

---

[1] Schell, O. (2025, February 19). Trump's cultural revolution. Project Syndicate. (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/donald-trump-mao-zedong-cultural-revolution-parallels-by-orville-schell-2025-02)

• Orville Schell draws parallels between President Donald Trump's recent policy shifts and Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, highlighting potential implications for U.S. foreign policy.

[2] Feffer, J. (2025, February 20). The Trump-Musk cultural revolution. Eurasia Review. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/20022025-the-trump-musk-cultural-revolution-oped/)

• John Feffer discusses the alliance between President Trump and Elon Musk, comparing their actions to Mao's Cultural Revolution and exploring the potential societal impacts.

[3] Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.

• George Orwell's dystopian novel portrays a totalitarian society under constant surveillance, where truth is manipulated to maintain power. The narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of oppressive regimes and the erosion of individual freedoms, remaining relevant in discussions about privacy, freedom, and government overreach.

[4] Burnett, I. S. (2025, March 18). Operation Newspeak. CounterPunch. (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/03/18/operation-newspeak/)

• Ipek S. Burnett examines the Trump administration's manipulation of language, drawing parallels to George Orwell's concept of "Newspeak" in 1984, and its implications for critical thinking and dissent.

[5] Crooke, A. (2025, March 12). Europe faces a MAGA 'vibe-shift' as Trump moves to his primordial objective: The global reset. Eurasia Review. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/12032025-europe-faces-a-maga-vibe-shift-as-trump-moves-to-his-primordial-objective-the-global-reset-oped/)

• Alastair Crooke discusses the geopolitical implications of President Trump's actions aimed at settling the Ukraine conflict and normalizing relations with Russia. He explores how these moves are part of a broader strategy to establish a new world order, prompting Europe to adapt to this significant geopolitical shift.​

[6] Brands, H. (n.d.). Author profile. Foreign Affairs.(https://www.foreignaffairs.com/authors/hal-brands)

• This is Hal Brands' author profile on Foreign Affairs, detailing his background as the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and his contributions to the field.

[7] Brands, H. (2025, February 25). The renegade order: How Trump wields American power. Foreign Affairs. (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/renegade-order-trump-hal-brands)

• Hal Brands analyses President Trump's unconventional approach to international relations and its potential effects on the global order.The Renegade Order, How Trump Wields American Power, Hal Brands, March/April 2025, Published on February 25, 2025,

[8] Wolf, M. (2025, February 25). The US is now the enemy of the West. Financial Times.

• Martin Wolf argues that recent U.S. foreign policy decisions, including the abandonment of Ukraine, position the country as an adversary to Western interests.

[9] Heyuan, H. (2025, March 12). Weaken and control: The US strategy for Eurasia and China. ThinkChina.(https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/weaken-and-control-us-strategy-eurasia-and-china)

• This article explores the U.S. strategy to weaken both Russia and Europe to maintain its influence over Eurasia and China.

[10] Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437.

• In this seminal paper, British geographer Halford John Mackinder introduces the Heartland Theory, positing that the central region of Eurasia (the "Heartland") holds the key to global dominance due to its strategic and resource-rich position. This work has profoundly influenced geopolitical thought and policy-making throughout the 20^thcentury.​

[11] Hopper, T. (2025, March 17). Trump and the return to economic colonialism: Coercive diplomacy as a new tool. Eurasia Review.(https://www.eurasiareview.com/17032025-trump-and-the-return-to-economic-colonialism-coercive-diplomacy-as-a-new-tool-oped/)

• Timothy Hopper discusses President Trump's tactics of coercive diplomacy and their resemblance to historical economic colonialism, focusing on recent dealings with European nations.

The choices we have to make after the elections

Friedrich Merz has won. He has achieved his personal goal. In all likelihood, he will become Germany's tenth Chancellor with the second-worst election result in the history of the CDU/CSU. Angela Merkel already acknowledged his qualifications for this path during the launch of her memoir, "Freedom," in December 2024 (zas-freiburg.de), when she attributed to him an "unconditional will to power"—adding, "and that's why I wish him well."

This statement, upon reflection, is rather compromising, although it appears to have been genuinely intended as a compliment—a recognition of Merz’s determination. Should an individual who prioritises himself and his ambitions above everything and everyone else be considered the best choice for Germany's welfare? Reducing Germany's future to a personal career ambition can hardly be what we need.

In Friedrich Merz, this path becomes particularly evident—but he is hardly an exception; rather, this seems to be the rule (the political career).

The future Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany will scarcely be envied. As long as the firewall ("Brandmauer") against the right wing AFD prevents a truly "grand coalition," the only feasible option is a medium-sized coalition with a thoroughly exhausted SPD. Following its worst electoral result in 137 years, this would deny the SPD an opportunity for renewal in opposition, sealing its permanent decline and marking the end of German Social Democracy.

Yet, this would not even be the only dramatic change looming ahead.

The whole of Europe is undoubtedly at a historic crossroads. One path leads to strategic autonomy, political unity and a strengthening of its own capabilities, explicitly including military capabilities, in order to achieve genuine independence.

The alternative path entails becoming heavily dependent on the United States, relying increasingly on the US for economic and security matters—effectively formalising Europe's status as a vassal state. 

This decision will define Europe's role and position in the future global landscape.

The situation is grave. On 26 February 2025, Ian Bremmer rhetorically asked: "Can Friedrich Merz be the leader Germany—and Europe—need?" The short answer is no. Lukas Hermsmeier of the NYT agrees. Bremmer, being a journalist, provides a longer yet useful answer.

Nevertheless, Friedrich Merz struck the right chord, correctly addressing the urgency when he declared his "absolute priority" as Chancellor would be "strengthening Europe" to achieve "independence" from the United States. The Trump administration appears largely indifferent to Europe's fate—a fact even Friedrich Merz has now recognised.

Before Washington began adopting a significantly harsher tone, Merz was known as a committed transatlanticist. However, he now also senses that not only German interests are at stake, but Europe's future—and perhaps even more.

Yet, he clearly lacks a coherent vision for strengthening Europe, or at least has not articulated one. Indeed, Europe as a respected international actor with real influence on the world stage does not yet exist; it still needs to be created.

An independent and confident Europe, impervious to division by either "friend" or "foe" (should such distinctions exist among states), would require a fundamentally different structure than today's EU: a federal state rather than a loose confederation. Such an entity, unlike the current and often somewhat mocked EU, could genuinely influence world affairs.

For China, for example, Europe’s strategic decision would have significant consequences. On the one hand, a more independent Europe could counterbalance the global strategy of the US, creating a more favourable international environment for China and, by extension, for Europe itself.

Conversely, complete dependence on the US would strengthen American global dominance and increase strategic pressure on China. If Europe continues down this path of reliance, it risks becoming an economic "crowbar," harming its own interests in the process.

To be taken seriously, a state must be large, strong, and reliable. This encompasses economic power, military strength, and political actions—a fact as obvious as it is logical.

Yet, for enough European states to move decisively in this direction, they must unfortunately first feel significant pressure to act. There is a faint hope that the current unclear security situation is already providing such an impetus.

While previously the US was unequivocally regarded as Europe's political and military shield, Europe now faces a delicate choice: becoming a vassal protected by the US or pursuing genuine independence amidst global uncertainty. 

It is plausible that Europe may be pressured into making this decision by its supposed protector. The retired libertarian conservative American politician Dr Ron Paul rhetorically asks: "US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabres at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defence? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defence of rich Europeans? "

The situation, of course, is far more complex than portrayed here. Historically, the US benefited considerably from this division of responsibilities—a separate topic in itself. However, what is abundantly clear is the radical shift in opinion—a seismic event for Europe.

This sounds like a wake-up call. Perhaps it will succeed. Yet, I am not entirely convinced that, once awakened, we have the right leadership teams in our European governments; rather, I doubt it. Are they not all too preoccupied with their personal careers?

One thing, however, should be clear: Germany will not be accepted as Europe's leading nation. Europe must reinvent itself entirely.

What we have built so far might seem impressive—but sadly, it will not suffice in the near future.

The people have voted. They now have to live with the result. But the more momentous choices still have to be made.

Nach der Wahl ist vor der Wahl

Friedrich Merz hat gewonnen. Er hat sein ganz persönliches Ziel erreicht. Aller Voraussicht nach wird er mit dem zweit-schlechtesten Wahlergebnis der CDU/CSU-Geschichte der 10. Deutsche Bundeskanzler werden. Dass er die Voraussetzungen für diesen Weg hatte, hat ihm bereits Angela Merkel anlässlich der Vorstellung ihrer Memoiren "Freiheit" im Dezember 2024 bescheinigt (zas-freiburg.de), indem sie ihm den „unbedingten Willen zur Macht“ attestierte - mit dem Zusatz 'und deshalb gönne ich es ihm'.  

Diese bei einigem Nachdenken kompromittierende Aussage war offenbar ernsthaft als Kompliment, als Anerkennung von Merz' Entschlossenheit gemeint. Ein Mensch, der sich und sein Ziel allem und allen anderen voranstellt, soll also die beste Wahl zum Wohl Deutschlands sein?  Die Zukunft Deutschlands als eine persönliche Karriere. Doch wohl nicht ernsthaft.

Bei Friedrich Merz wird dieser Weg besonders deutlich werden – eine Ausnahme aber ist er mitnichten, eher die Regel (Die politische Karriere).

Zu beneiden ist der zukünftige Kanzler de Bundesrepublik Deutschland allerdings keineswegs. Solange die „Brandmauer“ zur AFD gegen eine wirklich „große Koalition“ noch hält, ist nur eine mittelgroße Koalition mit einer völlig erschöpften SPD denkbar. Dieser würde damit, nach ihrem schlechtesten Wahlergebnis seit 137 Jahren, die Erneuerung in der Opposition verwehrt. Ihr endgültiger Untergang wäre damit besiegelt, die deutsche Sozialdemokratie damit Geschichte.

Das wäre aber nicht einmal der einzige dramatische Wandel, der uns bevorsteht.

Ganz Europa steht zweifelsohne an einem historischen Scheideweg. Der eine Weg führt zur strategischen Autonomie, zur politischen Einheit und der Stärkung der eigenen militärischen Fähigkeiten, um echte Unabhängigkeit zu erreichen. 

Der andere Weg bedeutet, sich in eine starke Abhängigkeit von den USA zu begeben und sich in wirtschaftlichen und sicherheitspolitischen Fragen noch stärker auf sie zu verlassen, also ganz offiziell ein Vasallenstaat zu werden. 

Diese Entscheidung wird Europas Rolle und Position in der zukünftigen globalen Landschaft bestimmen.

Die Lage ist ernst. Ian Bremmer fragte rhetorisch am 26. Februar 2025: „Kann Friedrich Merz der Führer sein, den Deutschland - und Europa -braucht?“ Nun, die kurze Antwort lautet nein. Das meint auch Lukas Hermsmeier von der NYT. Bremmer, als Journalist, gibt eine längere Antwort, die jedoch hilfreich ist.

Immerhin traf Friedrich Merz traf den rechten Ton, ordnete die Dringlichkeit angemessen ein, als er bekundete, dass seine „absolute Priorität“ als Kanzler darin bestehen wird, „Europa zu stärken“, um „Unabhängigkeit“ von den Vereinigten Staaten zu erlangen. Denn die Trump-Administration scheint dem Schicksal Europas „weitgehend gleichgültig“ gegenüberzustehen. Das hat inzwischen auch Friedrich Merz erkannt.

Bevor Washington begann, einen deutlich raueren Ton anzuschlagen, war Merz als überzeugter Transatlantiker bekannt. Jetzt aber scheint auch er zu ahnen, dass nicht nur deutsche Interessen auf dem Spiel stehen, sondern die Zukunft Europas und vielleicht sogar noch mehr.

Eine Idee, wie eine Stärkung Europas zu bewerkstelligen wäre, hat er allerdings offensichtlich nicht. Zumindest hat er sie nicht geäußert. Und überhaupt, Europa als international geachteter und auf der Weltbühne ernst genommener Akteur gibt es noch nicht, es muss erst noch geschaffen werden.

Ein unabhängiges und selbstbewusstes Europa, das weder von „Freund“ noch „Feind“ (sollte es unter Staate so etwas geben) in Einzelstaaten auseinander dividiert werden kann, wäre ein deutlich anders Kontrakt als die bisherige EU: Ein Bundesstaat anstelle eines Staatenbundes.  Eine solche Entität könnte, anders als die bisherige, eher belächelte EU, tatsächlich Einfluss auf die Geschicke der Welt nehmen. 

Für China beispielsweise hätte eine richtungsweisende Entscheidung Europas erhebliche strategische Auswirkungen. Zum einen wäre ein unabhängigeres Europa in der Lage, die globale Strategie der USA bis zu einem gewissen Grad auszugleichen und ein günstigeres internationales Umfeld für China und damit auch für Europa zu schaffen. 

Umgekehrt würde eine vollständige Abhängigkeit Europas von den USA die globale Dominanz der USA stärken und den strategischen Druck auf China erhöhen. Wenn Europa weiterhin vollständig von den USA sein wird, würde dies die globale Dominanz der USA stärken und den strategischen Druck auf China erhöhen. Europa würde zu eigenen Schaden als wirtschaftliche „Brechstange“ eingesetzt werden.

Um ernst genommen zu werden, muss ein Staat groß, stark und verlässlich sein. Das betrifft die wirtschaftliche Kraft, die militärische Stärke und die politischen Aktionen. Das ist so wohlbekannt, wie banal.

Damit sich ausreichend viele Europäische Staaten aber in diese Richtung bewegen, müssen sie schon einen erheblichen Handlungsdruck spüren.  Vielleicht gibt die aktuell unklare Sicherheitslage bereits einen Anstoß zum Handeln. 

Während nämlich bisher die USA eindeutig als eine politisch-militärische Stütze für Europa empfunden wurden, steht Europa heute vor einer heiklen Entscheidung: ein Vasall unter dem Schutz der USA zu werden oder inmitten der Ungewissheit einer weltpolitisch unübersichtlichen Situation echte Unabhängigkeit anzustreben? 

Es ist gut möglich, dass Europa von ebendieser vermeintlichen Schutzmacht zu einer Entscheidung gedrängt wird. So fragt denn der libertäre, konservative amerikanische Politiker im Ruhestand Dr. Ron Paul auch rhetorisch: „Die US-Steuerzahler sind gezwungen, mehr als die Hälfte des gesamten NATO-Haushalts zu finanzieren, während die europäischen Länder mit den Säbeln gegen Russland rasseln und mit Krieg drohen. Wenn sich Europa so sehr von Russland bedroht fühlt, warum trägt es dann nicht die Kosten für seine eigene Verteidigung? Warum müssen die armen Amerikaner für die Verteidigung der reichen Europäer aufkommen? Verpflichtungen gegenüber der NATO und anderen internationalen Organisationen zu beenden.“ 

Zwar ist die Situation keineswegs so simpel, wie hier dargestellt. Auch sind die USA in der Vergangenheit recht gut mit dieser Aufgabenverteilung gefahren. (Das aber ist ein gesondertes Thema.) Was hier allerdings sehr deutlich wird, ist der radikale Meinungsumschwung – Für Europa ein Erdbeben.

Das klingt nach einem Weckruf. Vielleicht gelingt es ja. Ich bin mir jedoch nicht so sicher, ob wir, einmal auferweckt, bereits die richtigen Führungsteams in unseren europäischen Regierungen haben, eher bezweifle ich es. Sind sie nicht alle zu sehr mit ihren eigenen Karrieren beschäftigt?

Aber eines sollte klar sein: Deutschland wird als führende Nation nicht akzeptiert werden. Europa muss sich insgesamt neu erfinden. 

Was wir bisher aufgebaut haben, mag schon beachtlich aussehen - aber leider wird es auch in naher Zukunft nicht mehr ausreichen.

Das Volk hat gewählt. Es muss jetzt mit dem Ergebnis leben. Die schwerwiegenderen Wahlentscheidungen aber stehen uns noch bevor.

Who to vote for? - Ask your children, grandchildren!

‘Everyone says they don't know what to vote for,’ I just read this morning with the German elections just one more day ahead.

I don't believe that.

The majority of German voters will once again vote for those they have always voted for out of tradition - without any hesitation or thought: the workers will vote for the SPD, the farmers for the CDU, the traders for the FDP, the ‘68ers for the Greens. Further east in the new federal states, no tradition has yet been able to develop. There, the AFD has gained strength for the disappointed angry citizens. The Left Party and the BSW would also not exist without the German East. The large group of non-voters who, disgusted by the dysfunctional ritualistic political circus, refuse to participate could also be decisive in the elections.

But reflection would not be a bad thing.

And indeed, there are those who do think. They are a minority, of course. They realise that they really have no choice in the elections. The representatives of the parties with the prospect of representation in the Bundestag, who have been elevated to leading figures, are all making promises for the future of our small Germany that they cannot keep anyway (more thoughts on this here).

Yet they all know that neither the current situation nor the prospects are rosy, that the course must be set for a future that many of the voters will not even live to see.

It is our children, our grandchildren, who will have to live with our decisions - decisions that will probably be wrong decisions without this long-term perspective.

So who should you vote for now?

Better ask those who are affected, your children, your grandchildren.

Wen wählen? – Fragt Eure Kinder, Enkel!

„Alle sagen, dass sie nicht wissen, was sie wählen sollen“, habe ich heute Morgen gerade gelesen. 

Das glaube ich so nicht. 

Die Mehrheit der Deutschen Wahlbürger wird wieder aus Tradition diejenigen wählen, die sie schon immer gewählt haben – ganz ohne jegliches Zögern oder Nachdenken: Die Arbeiter die SPD, die Bauern die CDU, die Händler die FDP, die 68er die Grünen. 

Weiter im Osten in den neuen Bundesländern hat sich noch keine Tradition herausbilden können. Dort ist die AFD für die enttäuschen Wutbürger erstarkt. Auch die Linke und das BSW gäbe es ohne den Deutschen Osten nicht. Wahlentscheidend könnte auch die große Gruppe der Nichtwähler werden, die sich, angewidert von dem dysfunktionalen, rituellen Politzirkus, der Mitwirkung verweigern.

Nachdenken wäre aber nicht schlecht. 

Und tatsächlich, es gibt sie, diejenigen, die sich Gedanken machen. Das ist natürlich eine Minderheit. Sie stellt fest, dass sie in Wahrheit keine Wahl hat bei den Wahlen. Die zu Leitfiguren überhöhten Repräsentanten der Parteien mit Aussicht auf Vertretung im Bundestag machen sämtlich Versprechungen für die Zukunft unseres kleinen Deutschlands, die sie ohnehin nicht halten können (weitere Gedanken dazu hier).

Dabei wissen sie alle, dass weder aktuelle Lage noch Aussichten rosig sind, dass Weichen für eine Zukunft gestellt werden müssen, die viele der Wähler gar nicht mehr erleben werden. 

Unsere Kinder, unsere Enkel sind es, die mit unseren Entscheidungen werden leben müssen – Entscheidungen, die ohne diese langfristige Perspektive vermutlich Fehlentscheidungen sein werden.

Wen also sollt ihr nun wählen?

Fragt besser, diejenigen, die es betrifft, Eure Kinder, Eure Enkel.