Anyone who has had the chance to read Douglas Adams’ satirical novel The Restaurant at the End of the Universe knows about the so-called Vortex machine. It is used as a torture (and essentially execution) device on the planet Frogstar B. The potential victim of the Vortex is placed in a small chamber in which a model of the entire universe is displayed – along with a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot labeled “You are here.” The sense of insignificance is what actually destroys the victim’s mind, and it’s stated that the Vortex is the only known way to break a person’s soul.
Well, that’s more or less where we are today. Von der Leyen and her team entered the Vortex last month, and we’re currently witnessing the “hangover.”
Throughout history, Europe has produced some of the most significant leaders: Metternich, Bismarck, Churchill, Schuman. The list could be much longer, showing how European influence extended far beyond mere internal politics. The leaders of the Old Continent had a strong grasp of the concept of raison d’État – national interest – which dominated the political narrative. Can you imagine any of them kneeling before an American president, begging for mercy?
Today, everything is the opposite. The recent meeting between European leaders and Donald Trump at the White House seemed to confirm Politico’s warning that Europe’s “century-long period of humiliation” may be just beginning. (1) For those who don’t know, this newspaper is essentially the main outlet of the clique around Von der Leyen.
Some say it’s a natural decline; others blame decades of passivity, ideological blindness, and a failure to adapt to change. While the U.S. prepares the ground for peace in Ukraine, Chancellor Scholz and President Macron keep repeating “as long as it takes” while pleading for American support. Their military capabilities have been reduced to a minimum, and internal divisions are deepening.
They are not enjoying much more respect in the East either. At the 25th EU-China Summit, no high-ranking Chinese official welcomed European Council President Costa or Commission President Von der Leyen – instead, a bus was sent to picke them up. The message is clear: the days are over when a Brussels bureaucrat could just walk in and demand concessions on human rights or gender equality as a precondition for potential dialogue.
To solve this problem, certain structures in the Brussels bubble insist on “more Europe”: more integration, joint borrowing, and a firmer stance on international issues. Accordingly, the second biggest EU propaganda outlet, Euractiv, suggest deepening the single market in areas such as defense, energy, telecommunications, and financial services, and ratifying new trade agreements like the one the Commission reached with Mercosur. Furthermore, they argue that only significant investments in common defense, infrastructure, and technology—investments that must necessarily be financed through joint borrowing (i.e., more debt bondage)—can make a true political and economic difference. (2) Such ideas also echoed in Mario Draghi’s recent report. However, if the media continue to praise reforms like Draghi’s as the only way to save the EU, many rightfully ask – will “more of the same” truly strengthen Europe, or just further weaken it?
One of the guests at our September conference, where we’ll explore this topic, will be Belgian historian David Engels, who observes that the EU is suffering from a deep identity crisis resulting in political, institutional, and economic failures. Identity means cultural and historical connections. When traditional values are discarded as outdated and replaced with universalist abstractions, the community loses direction and becomes fragile. Thus, Engels (like all of us) is wondering: if the foundations are shaky, can foreign policy or “soft power” really be effective?
Hesperialism as an Alternative to the Mainstream?
Engels argues that the European ideal he promotes is not the European Union with its pale, universal view of the world, but a new political concept he calls “hesperialism.” This approach is based on our love for a cultural identity rooted in a thousand-year-old history and our intent to protect true and shared European interests, such as the defense of external borders, cooperation in fighting crime, joint scientific projects, and the development of key infrastructure on the continent, access to strategic resources, and alignment of foreign policy – not its uniform imposition. The European Union, in fact, does the opposite: it dismantles our shared cultural identity while ignoring the legitimate interests each European nation holds.
Implementing such a reform plan seems far from simple in the current situation, but political and social stability in Europe can easily be threatened if we do nothing. That’s why Engels says it’s important to create the conditions for such reforms. Another aspect of this new concept relevant to our discussion is the de Gaulle-style view of foreign policy. Namely, it proposes a purely sovereign positioning of Europe, without a submissive relationship with the U.S., China, or even Russia. Though I personally disagree with excluding Russia from a future sovereign Europe, at least it’s encouraging to see that academic circles here are thinking beyond the colonial relationship with America.
This new political order would be characterized by a thorough reform of the parliamentary system, where the European Parliament would act as the lower house, while the European Council would serve as the upper house. Together, they would have full legislative and budgetary control over their respective areas of competence. Respecting national quotas, such an assembly would appoint a number of state secretaries to replace the European Commission, which would be dissolved. They would handle tasks essential to maintaining the continent’s internal and external security, namely:
- managing common defense forces,
- organizing a supranational police service to guard external borders,
- developing key infrastructure projects,
- aligning legal systems,
- ensuring access to strategic resources,
- implementing joint research projects and managing finances.
Alternative Policy Behind the Scenes
What’s not encouraging is the behavior of some anti-mainstream leaders like Giorgia Meloni, who came to power criticizing Brussels’ behavior, yet are now front and center when it comes to militaristic and hysterical posturing towards Russia. However, when I recently had the opportunity to record a podcast episode with the head of Lega’s youth wing and advisor in the European Parliament, Davide Quadri, he confirmed my suspicions about Meloni’s lack of sincerity. Unsurprisingly, I was also struck by the extent of many European parties’ ties to people from Putin’s party (which, of course, is praiseworthy but always seems to fly under the radar). From the Dutch Forum for Democracy (FVD) to the aforementioned Lega that hosted Dugin before the war, you can see some signs of a potential future foreign policy structure.
As it is well-known, Italy has a certain respect for Russia and Vladimir Putin. The one who stands out here is Lega leader Matteo Salvini, who has spoken positively about the Russian president but has in recent months shifted his praise from Moscow to Washington. His support for Trumpism is now practically a daily topic, especially in domestic politics. Still, he continues to advocate for lifting sanctions on Russia.
In the book, there was only one character who survived the aforementioned torture device. His name was Zaphod Beeblebrox, who considered himself the most important being in the universe and emerged smiling.
Will that be the case with the current EU political elite? I doubt it. I’d say an old-fashioned leader will have to emerge to bring our continent back in order—because, as the saying goes: after the rain comes the sun.
[1] Ovde: Europe’s ‘century of humiliation’ could be just beginning
[2] Ovde: Europe’s missing moment and the back-to-school blues
