Timofey Bordachev: The EU has lost its vitality and has no future vision; its fate is in the hands of the United States. April 24, 2025 16:29 The EU flag beside the EU headquarters building in Brussels. Image. Timofey Bordachev, project director of the Valdai International Discussion Club and academic supervisor of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, wrote in the journal "Perspective" that what now unites Europe is its own lack of a vision for the future. The U.S., Russia, relevant countries, India, almost all of Asia, Africa, and even Latin America have such visions for the future. However, the Europeans and their politicians' vision of an ideal future is limited to hoping that yesterday or even the day before yesterday's life will continue. This is what distinguishes Europeans from others – everyone else looks forward, toward the future, striving to realize their vision of an ideal future, while only Europeans hope that "everything will be just like it was in grandma's time." This characteristic also makes Europe a "greenhouse for peers," where all the "residents" within collectively look down on those around them but incessantly fight among themselves. The collective interests expected by the theory of European integration have indeed emerged. However, its scope of influence is very limited – these interests boil down to selfishly exploiting the weaknesses of neighboring countries. When it comes to showcasing itself on the world stage, each European country fights alone. Germany tries to maintain its status as the economic center of Europe, constantly hinting to the Americans that only it can become a relatively reliable business partner. France emphasizes its military advantage: viewed independently, France's military strength is insignificant, but compared with Germany, Spain, Italy, and others, it appears quite impressive. Britain suddenly sees itself again as part of Europe, attempting to push Germany into the wheel of change and confrontation with Russia. Poland tries to distance itself from the strategic calculations of Britain and France and emphasizes, for some reason, its special relationship with Washington. Italy has completely gotten used to establishing external contacts without considering its European allies – the pragmatic right-wing government in power is willing to engage in dialogue with both the U.S. and Russia. Even the smaller "carnivores" and "herbivores" of Europe are making efforts, but they understand that the chances of escaping unscathed from predicaments are becoming increasingly slim. This colorful chaos is "Europe in international politics." The grandiose but meaningless declarations of the leaders of the Brussels bureaucracy add to this absurdity – these people have no substantial power and are hired merely to allow EU member states to shift their own mistakes. European politics has not only become a farce in form but also in content – there is no genuine emotion or passion, only well-rehearsed roles played by actors with varying levels of talent. Fairly speaking, one must admit that in the past, European politics was also a farce, but before the mid-20th century, the actual power held by the major European powers made even false emotions threatening. Nowadays, not only are the words and emotions of European nations false, but their power is also false. This decline actually began a long time ago, but the intense changes of the past 15 years dealt a heavy blow to Europe, making it difficult for it to recover. After the end of the Cold War, Europeans even had a brief revival. People seriously discussed a unified foreign and defense policy and made decisive progress toward a single currency, which was supposed to be stronger than the dollar and bring a bright future to Europe. In other words, the "paradise" was flourishing, promising mutually beneficial and trouble-free neighborly relations to surrounding countries. However, the debate about脱离 NATO independence was quickly suppressed by the U.S. and its British allies. The British have always regarded their participation in the EU as a means to disrupt the alignment of continental European countries. The turning point came when France re-entered NATO's military structure in 2007. The resistance of Paris and Berlin to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a key turning point. At that time, it became clear that the attempt to establish a unipolar world had failed, and efforts had to turn to forceful actions, leaving no room for Europe's autonomy. The development of the single currency soon led most small and medium-sized European countries to become economic appendages of Germany. These countries hated Germany as deeply as weaker countries hate stronger ones due to their own systems. Germans quickly got used to treating smaller partners rudely: all financial decisions during the debt crisis of 2009-2011 and the pandemic were examples of a dictatorship by one country, with the entire political power of the European community being used to serve German interests. Therefore, in 2022, when the crisis between Moscow and the West entered the military-technical phase, all Europeans welcomed the rupture of Russian-German relations: they understood that the economy of the Federal Republic of Germany would suffer a nearly fatal blow, meaning that the German advantage would decrease. In fact, France, which gives the least aid to Kyiv, has seen its status rise much higher than Germany, which has invested billions of dollars. Polish Foreign Minister's joy over the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline in September 2022 was less about rejoicing over Russia's loss than celebrating the economic devastation of a powerful Western neighbor. Gradually, Europeans also became confused about something that once symbolized their geopolitical revival after the collapse of the Soviet Union – the eastward expansion of the EU. The ability to incorporate and control regions once under the control of its arch-enemy, Russia, has been the main obsession of European diplomacy over the past two decades. To achieve this goal, major European countries have undermined their relations with Moscow but have gained no results in their dialogue with the U.S. New EU members have not become powerless executors of Berlin or Paris's will but have started to align with the U.S., understanding where true power lies. After suffering failures in all major endeavors, the EU has become increasingly determined that the most important thing for it is that nothing should change, and it will do everything possible to maintain its habitual lifestyle and self-perception. Thus, Europe has lost its dream of the future. And without this, life and diplomatic activities lose their meaning. Moreover, the gradual decline of the EU's internal vitality has created an extremely unpleasant atmosphere. In January 2020, the UK left the EU, but the intensification of geopolitical tensions has made it an active participant in regional politics again. The UK's domestic economic problems and the elite's inability to solve these issues (London has already had four prime ministers in three years) have forced the British to bet on conflict with Russia to avoid complete disappearance. To sustain this conflict, new "human resources" are constantly needed, and since the British do not want to take risks themselves, London has been instilling fictitious "Russian threat" concepts into neighboring European countries in various ways. It is entirely consistent with its traditional foreign policy that the UK stirs up Germany, and it does not care about Germany at all. Deep down, Germans actually hope to reach an agreement with Russia so they can live as they did before. But they cannot – the strong American presence in Germany and the demands of its domestic military lobby restrict them. However, Germany still intends to stay out of it, keeping most of its defense funds at home. Especially because the gradual decline of southern European countries makes them increasingly unable to be reliable sources of prosperity for Germany. Now, Berlin welcomes any impromptu moves by Britain and France that could deepen the crisis in their relations with Russia. However, the French don't need much help here either: President Macron is so confident in his abilities that he willingly gets involved in any diplomatic crisis. The only thing that can save him from trouble is that his words often do not match his actions. Moreover, regarding the situation within Europe, it is certain that France's main goal is to make Britain thoroughly fail and crawl under France's nuclear umbrella a few years later, while Germany, which has suffered the greatest economic losses over the past 30 years and even habitually criticized Paris, has to endure the biggest economic setbacks. The visits of European countries to Washington in the first few months of 2025 reflect the internal situation within Europe. Except for the Germans (who can temporarily avoid the spotlight due to the issue of forming a government after the February election), all major European powers have "paid homage" to the U.S. capital. No one hides the fact that the primary purpose of the British Prime Minister and the French President's visit to Trump (not to mention the Poles) was to secure preferential treatment for their countries. Needless to say, under the U.S. strategy of "divide and rule," these preferential treatments can only be obtained at the expense of other European countries. Hungary and Slovakia, which stand out against the general European backdrop, absolutely detest all Western great-power neighbors – Berlin and Paris's authoritarian rule over minority rights and other liberal issues over the years has had an impact. Spain and Italy openly state that Russia poses no threat to them, and if the British and French want to get involved in adventures, they wish them luck in every way. But they will provide no material support. Giorgia Meloni, the head of the Italian government, does not hide her stance – her dialogue with Americans is entirely bilateral and does not consider the interests of other European countries. Major EU countries have entrusted their attention to the overall interests of the EU to the bureaucracy in Brussels. It is not hard to notice that this bureaucracy is meaningless, irresponsible, and extremely crazy in its "creative performances." Despite generally following certain behavioral guidelines in its relations with EU member states. For example, the newly appointed EU foreign affairs chief, Estonian Kaja Kalas, faced widespread disdain just a few weeks ago. Due to some narrow-mindedness, she seems to take her official position seriously, publicly demanding billions of euros from EU countries to aid the Kiev regime. In doing so, she brutally interfered in the financial decision-making and responsibility areas, in which EU countries are not willing to share power or execute super-national institution orders. Higher-ranking figures like the EU Commission President and the European Council President would not make such reckless moves: Ursula von der Leyen clearly understands that no matter how corrupt you are, trouble only arises when you start reaching into the pockets of the capitals of European countries. Today's Europe is a geopolitical entity living entirely in its own internal world. The main task of European politicians is to exclude competitors and strive to approach dialogue with Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. How long Europe can maintain itself in this state is regrettable, as it depends almost entirely on the U.S.: only the U.S. can restore order to its satellite states and give their existence reasonable meaning. Russia has good reason to expect that relative stability in Europe means the U.S. has full power over the strategic destinies of countries that once decided the fate of all humanity. Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7497491695106310710/ Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.