• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
Reaffirming the European Model

Source: Getty

Article

Reaffirming the European Model

The greatest contribution Europe can make to strategic global affairs would be to reaffirm its singular model of a peaceful political, economic, and cultural integration.

Link Copied
By George Perkovich
Published on Oct 6, 2011

I am not sure what “strategic Europe” means, but I think it has something to do with the projection of power. The question then becomes what sort of power can and should Europe project, and for what objectives?

Power is the capacity to achieve your preferences and not to have other people’s preferences dictated on you. More ambitiously, power is the capacity to induce or coerce others to do what you want, or at least to feel they must compromise to accommodate your preferences.

Military power enables you to destroy people and things if they are threatening you or, potentially, if they don’t do what you want. But the norms, laws, and interests of twenty-first-century Europe limit the utility of military power. Moreover, the major challenges on Europe’s borders and beyond are challenges of “construction,” not destruction. To facilitate political reform in the Arab world and greater employment opportunities for Arab youth. To stabilize and pacify Israel’s relations with Palestine and other neighboring states. To motivate Iran’s decision-makers to provide objective guarantees that their nuclear program is peaceful and that Iran will be a constructive neighbor. To encourage Turkey to deploy its growing influence in ways that harmonize with Europe and do not conflict with it. To pull current and future Russian leaders toward Western values of the rule of law.

These and other challenges cannot be met at the point of a gun. Europe can influence their outcomes by the force of the example it sets and the economic investment and opportunities it provides. To do this, Europe needs first to reverse the course of recent events that cast doubt on its effectiveness as a union.

The greatest contribution Europe can make to strategic affairs would be to reaffirm its singular model of peaceful political, economic, and cultural integration. This model has come under stress thanks to the sovereign debt crisis, the disjunction between monetary union and political disunion, tensions over immigration and the assimilation of minorities, and divisions over NATO’s missions and funding. If European states can reinvigorate their collective life, they will trigger the magnetic pull of envy and desire that makes others want to emulate Europe’s civilizing features. They will also produce sufficient wealth to underwrite military capabilities and projection.

Think for a minute what makes people regard China as the next great global power. It is not the Chinese Air Force or the Chinese nuclear arsenal. It’s the economy. Everything follows from that. What made the United States the most powerful state in the post‒World War II period was economic primacy. Wealth and technological prowess then provided the wherewithal for a massive and incomparable military. This military superiority was made possible by unrivalled research and development institutions, which themselves often benefited from liberal immigration policies and a society that provides more opportunities for upward mobility than any other. Similarly, Europe’s greatest “strategic” achievement in the past thirty years has been the mostly peaceful liberation and integration of its eastern half. Bombs were dropped in Bosnia and Serbia, but the real power was force of example and pull of wealth.

If putting Europe’s internal house in better order is a mission too “soft” and does not satisfy the desire for harder stuff, let me suggest a simple “hard” security agenda: The twenty-two NATO states (out of twenty-eight total) that do not dedicate at least 2 percent of their GDP to defense should change this. More importantly, European states could actually address the reality that they must rationally and purposefully specialize the functions and capabilities their militaries can provide for the common defense. Current redundancies are self-defeating. Such reforms are what heroic CEOs do when they take over a new business, even if they are not the dreams of political or strategic heroes. Yet, which domain is more important today?

George Perkovich is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

To reinvigorate debate over European foreign policy and Europe’s role in the world, Carnegie Europe is publishing a series of essays from leading policymakers, diplomats, experts, and journalists on Strategic Europe over the coming weeks. A new essay will appear every day.

About the Author

George Perkovich

Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow

George Perkovich is the Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program. He works primarily on nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and disarmament issues, and is leading a study on nuclear signaling in the 21st century.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    How to Assess Nuclear ‘Threats’ in the Twenty-First Century

      George Perkovich

  • Commentary
    “A House of Dynamite” Shows Why No Leader Should Have a Nuclear Trigger

      George Perkovich

George Perkovich
Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow
George Perkovich
Europe

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 Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lithuania’s Potash Dilemma Raises Questions About Sanctions’ Effectiveness

    What should happen when sanctions designed to weaken the Belarusian regime end up enriching and strengthening the Kremlin?  

      Denis Kishinevsky

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is There Really a Threat From China and Russia in Greenland?

    The supposed threats from China and Russia pose far less of a danger to both Greenland and the Arctic than the prospect of an unscrupulous takeover of the island.

      Andrei Dagaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ukrainian Villages Are a Bigger Prize for Putin Than a Deal With Trump

    Western negotiators often believe territory is just a bargaining chip when it comes to peace in Ukraine, but Putin is obsessed with empire-building. 

      Andrey Pertsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Has Trump the Destroyer Eclipsed Putin the Destroyer?

    Unexpectedly, Trump’s America appears to have replaced Putin’s Russia’s as the world’s biggest disruptor.

      Alexander Baunov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Belarus at the Border: The Limits of Reengagement

    The future of the Belarus track will depend less on Minsk’s intentions than on whether the EU can move beyond symbolic unity and adopt a strategic approach toward a neighbor central to Europe’s security architecture. Without a more active EU role, these processes will unfold under conditions set entirely by Minsk and Moscow.

      Balázs Jarábik

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.