Nathalie Tocci, Jan Techau
{
"authors": [
"Jan Techau"
],
"type": "commentary",
"blog": "Strategic Europe",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Western Europe",
"Europe"
],
"topics": [
"EU",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Why the EU Can’t Play Hardball in Foreign Policy
The EU is structurally incapable of using forceful, uncompromising methods to get what it wants. Yet sometimes the ability to play political hardball is just what the EU needs.
In a memorable scene from Brian De Palma’s 1987 gangster movie The Untouchables, Chicago police officer Jim Malone, played by Sean Connery, makes fun of an Italian mafia goon who tries to threaten him with a stiletto knife. Malone points his shotgun at the mafioso and remarks drily: “Isn’t that just like a wop? Brings a knife to a gun fight.”
Take out the racial slur of “wop,” a derogatory term for an Italian immigrant in the United States, and you have a pretty good description of the EU’s policy in its Eastern neighborhood. Involuntarily, the EU has entered into a geopolitical contest with Russia for which it is ill-equipped. It was a courageous decision to accept the fight instead of dodging it, but now doubts prevail over whether the EU can continue to compete in this contest over the long term.
Where do these doubts come from? Why can’t the EU play foreign policy hardball, just like any other big power?
First of all, the EU was not originally built to deal with political crises outside its borders, but to mediate in conflicts and avoid hegemony inside its borders. That is why, to this day, foreign policy often feels like an alien element in the EU setup, uncomfortably tacked on to the rest of the machine. That is also why the EU’s foreign policy rarely amounts to more than what it does at home: small-scale process instead of global strategy.
The very essence of the EU is to avoid the kinds of standoffs that often mark international crisis management. Its political culture is the opposite of controlled escalation: it is about controlled deescalation. The EU is structurally incapable of playing hardball, which makes its unusually brave stand against Russian intrusion in Ukraine so much more admirable—but perhaps also doomed to fail.
Second, blackmail is not really in the EU’s arsenal. True, the EU can be quite tough about the conditions that need to be met by countries seeking political agreements with the EU or admission into the single market. And soft coercion is not beyond the EU whenever it has the leverage to apply it. But essentially, the EU’s foreign dealings are based on voluntary agreements and good faith. The EU can make offers, and if countries reject them, then that’s regrettable, but so be it. What the EU can’t do is make an offer and then threaten to punish those that are unwilling to accept it.
In the end, of course, that’s a very sympathetic character trait of the EU. But it also means that the EU has one less tool in its arsenal than some other players who prefer to play the game based not on goodwill but on sheer force.
What is more, Europeans simply do not have the military power to back up their diplomatic efforts. In a situation of political hardball, that’s precisely what could come in handy. It is often forgotten that military power today is not primarily about the capacity to invade and conquer. Its primary purpose is the ability to issue security guarantees to partners and allies, so they can make policy choices free from the risk of being politically blackmailed by other, less well-intentioned players. That is what the United States still provides for Europe, but it is something that Europe, in turn, is unable to provide for others.
Another reason for the EU’s lack of hardball capability is that it is either unable or unwilling to invest large amounts of money in the regions where it has interests. That doesn’t mean just a few hundred million euros of aid spread over a decade, but real money, spent to create results.
The EU did not make such an investment after the Arab Spring, when merely opening up access to EU markets for locally produced goods could have stabilized the region’s moribund economies. Nor did the EU invest in its Eastern neighborhood, where large sums of money could perhaps have swayed political leaders more toward the West.
Of course, it would not be entirely ladylike to conduct business this way, but it is a harsh world out there. Other players find such behavior less objectionable.
That leads to the final factor in the EU’s hardball haplessness: the EU can’t easily discard its values and simply embrace cold-blooded realpolitik. More so than most nation-states, which have a wider array of sources for identity building, the EU really needs its values to maintain a basic level of unity.
Every liberal, open society needs the poetry of values to retain a healthy narrative of self. The EU, built on shakier, more artificial foundations, needs it twice as much. If the EU gives up too much of its values-based self, it may easily suffer irreparable damage. No wonder that it is often easier for the EU to stay on the sidelines than to get knee-deep in the geopolitical struggles in its wider neighborhood.
In sum, there are structural constraints that make the EU such an inept geopolitical player. And yet it would be deeply desirable if Europe could overcome some of these factors. Member states are too small to make a difference alone. Occasionally, when it really counts, Europe will need to stick together and play foreign policy hardball. Because in the long run, that’s not only better for the EU’s interests. It is better for its values, too.
About the Author
Director, Europe Team, Eurasia Group
Techau is director with Eurasia Group's Europe team, covering Germany and European security from Berlin. Previously, he was director of Carnegie Europe.
- Can Europe Trust the United States Again?Commentary
- Pre-Reformation Europe and the Coming SchismCommentary
Jan Techau
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Strategic Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?Commentary
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Europe’s Self-Confidence ProblemCommentary
The EU’s responses to two recent incidents expose the gulf between European perceptions and capabilities. Unless the union can bridge that gap, it will never become a real geostrategic power.
Rym Momtaz
- Why MAGA’s Far-Right European Ties Will EndureCommentary
In supporting Europe’s far-right, MAGA and Russia both want the same thing: a weaker EU. Europe must defend itself without abandoning the openness these forces exploit.
Armida van Rij
- Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step BackCommentary
As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.
Rym Momtaz
- Taking the Pulse: Are the EU’s Watered-Down Russia Sanctions Better than None?Commentary
The EU had to compromise to adopt a twenty-first sanctions package against Russia, exposing growing cracks in the union’s resolve. Is this latest, weaker round worth it to keep pressure on Moscow?
Rym Momtaz, ed.