The EU has vowed to be more receptive of its partners’ needs and concerns. To ensure the “listening to others” mantra does not become a performative quick fix, the union must clarify how this commitment fits with its desire to exert geopolitical power.
.jpg)
In response to great-power rivalry and the weaponization of interdependence, the EU has adopted a geopolitical approach to economic statecraft. To build resilience and maintain its international credibility, the union will have to balance its pursuit of economic security with broader foreign policy goals.
Key leaders cannot prepare fast enough on issues such as NATO, Ukraine, and trade.
A strong European commitment to embrace the policy agenda set out by Letta and Draghi will not eliminate all or even most of the tensions between the incoming Trump administration and the European Union. But the Letta-Draghi agenda will address issues related to trade and security that Donald Trump and his administration find important.
Despite lofty declarations of support, Ukraine’s main backers are increasingly focused on laying the groundwork for Kyiv’s negotiations with Moscow. Instead of ensuring sustainable security in Europe, the compromises under discussion would embolden Russia and China.
Europe is so caught between technocracy and politics that it may be unable to address the monumental list of challenges it faces.
Last week, the leaders of France, Germany, the UK, and the United States met to discuss support for Ukraine and other security issues. But is this format still relevant and representative of the key actors in today’s geostrategic context?
