The Rise of Realism in Europe's International Relations

Without sufficient hard power, Europe's influence in shaping global security decisions is limited. There are plans to change that.

The key takeaway from last weekend’s Munich Security Conference—and, crucially, from U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s remarks in Brussels—is that the American-led transatlantic alliance is undergoing a fundamental transformation. While last week’s events were more about talking than making actual decisions, what was said signals that a historical shift is on the agenda. The United States can no longer afford to be everywhere, for everybody, all at once and the European Union can no longer afford to be too dependent on its transatlantic NATO ally, who may not always fully act in support of European interests. The U.S. wants European allies to spend more on defense and wishes to make it easier to sell U.S. military hardware to foreign allies to increase American influence and power projection. However, for Europe increased investment in its own defense and industrial base is needed if the continent is to have any hope of rebalancing the power dynamics within the alliance which would also better serve European interests.

Here is some of what U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a meeting of NATO defense ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels:

“The U.S. is committed to building a stronger more lethal NATO however we must ensure that European and Canadian commitment to Article 3 of this treaty is just as strong…leaders of our European allies should take primary responsibility for the defense of the continent…and that begins with increased defense spending…

…We can talk all we want about values. Values are important, but you can't shoot values, you can't shoot flags, and you can't shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power...This administration believes in alliances, deeply believes in alliances, but make no mistake, President Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker…

…we are very much committed to the NATO alliance and to our allies but without burden sharing, without creating the right set of incentives for European countries to invest, then we would be forced to attempt to be everywhere, for everybody, all the time, which in a world of fiscal restraints is…just not reality…the peace dividend has to end”.

Europe remains a formidable global player through economic strength, diplomacy, and soft power, with a leading role in institutions such as the G7, U.N., and W.T.O. There is a long list of candidate countries who want to join the E.U. However, its influence in shaping global security decisions is limited without sufficient hard power. Economic sanctions are not enough to deter aggression, military strength is also needed. It is quite clear that Europe will no longer have a place at the high table of international politics unless it also creates a place for itself at that table with a sufficient amount of hard power. As the U.S. Defence Secretary indicated, shared values are not enough.

As we found out this week, without hard power, Europe will be bypassed by those that do, reducing its ability to set the agenda, influence, and achieve its own geopolitical goals. This week, Saudi Arabia is hosting talks on ending the war in Ukraine—yet neither Ukraine nor its European NATO allies have been invited, even by Washington. Seeking to end the killing in Ukraine is the right thing to do, but the outcome of this war on Europe’s doorstep is being negotiated without European voices at the table. Moreover, Russia does not see the need to talk to Europe, as pointed out this week by its foreign minister. If Europe had more hard power, it would not be waiting for its invitation and would be better placed to set the agenda.

In recent years Europe has found itself at an inflection point where the post-Cold War peace dividend has already ended and the future for peace on the continent has become less predictable or certain. Over the last seven decades, the European Union has become a beacon of peace and reconciliation. It is one of the world's most successful peace projects. it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 "for over six decades [having] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe". It has cultivated a lot of soft power in the world but not enough hard power to complement it. Europe can speak softly, but it also needs to carry a stick. In the world we are now living in, hard power appears to matter more. The global landscape has changed, where it was once possible to ensure peace through economic cooperation, it now also requires military strength.

Most individual European states and the European Union as a collective bloc do not currently command enough hard power to ensure the international security outcomes that best serve their interests. Without NATO membership, many could be in big trouble. Ukraine is a candidate state of the European Union but if it is successful in joining, its fellow Europeans may not be able or willing to ensure its survival as a sovereign state without continued transatlantic help. In security terms, the United Kingdom and France are Europe’s only nuclear-armed European states with permanent seats in the UN Security Council. However, even they were not invited to the initial US-Russia peace talks this week by their fellow permanent Security Council colleagues.

The traditional liberal institutionalist approach of the European Union with its focus on shared values, international institutional cooperation, economic interdependence, mutual gains, and a rules-based system has delivered peace on the European continent. However, that era appears to be over. Internally, this cooperative political approach works but, externally, Europe faces a changed multipolar world of great power politics. International cooperation only works when other nations agree to cooperate and follow the agreed rules and norms.

In other words, Europeans can still be liberal at home, but more realism is needed in their relations abroad. This is recognized in Brussels. Last week, I wrote about the E.U.'s more pragmatic worldview. This week, the European Commission indicated it is willing to change E.U. fiscal rules to adapt to allow more defense spending across the 27 member states.

Here is what the President of the European Commission President said at the Munich Security Conference:

“ Competing visions of the world order are leading to a more transactional approach to global affairs. And Europe has to change to thrive in this new reality. We have to be smart and clear-eyed about what is ahead of us…

...I believe that when it comes to European security, Europe has to do more. Europe must bring more to the table. And to achieve this, we need a surge in European defense spending. Currently, the EU27 are spending around 2% of GDP on defence. And yes, our defense spending went up from just over EUR 200 billion before the war to over EUR 320 billion last year. But we will need to increase that number considerably once again. Because from just below 2% to above 3% will mean hundreds of billions of more investment every year. So, we need a bold approach…. I can announce that I will propose to activate the escape clause for defense investments. This will allow Member States to substantially increase their defense expenditure.”