Europe's Strategic Paralysis: A Symptom of Western Hegemony in Decline
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: A Continent Divided Against Itself
Europe stands at a precipice of its own making, grappling with what analysts term “renewed strategic doubt” as multiple crises converge. The NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels on December 3, 2025, revealed deepening fractures within the Western alliance. Despite reaffirming commitments to boost defense production and aid to Kyiv, European leaders demonstrate what can only be described as catastrophic indecision. The much-touted commitment to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035—a dramatic leap from the previous 2% target—remains largely theoretical, with implementation varying wildly across member states.
Ukraine’s battlefield situation continues to deteriorate, with intense fighting near the Pokrovsk–Myrnohrad axis and Russian forces applying relentless pressure. Ukrainian commanders urgently require more air-defense systems before winter further restricts mobility, yet Europe’s response remains painfully inadequate. Germany’s promise of additional Patriot systems in 2025, while welcome, underscores the continent’s limited capacity to address immediate needs. The ammunition and spare parts production continues to lag disastrously behind Ukrainian requirements, despite various initiatives to expand manufacturing.
The Czech-led initiative to source ammunition from outside Europe—which delivered approximately 1.8 million rounds in 2025 alone—now faces uncertainty following the formation of a new populist-led government under Andrej Babiš in mid-December. The new administration has pledged to cut direct Czech funding for Ukraine aid, criticized the program’s transparency, and signaled a potential withdrawal from Prague’s coordinating role. This development threatens to disrupt a critical supply line that accounts for a substantial portion of Ukraine’s artillery ammunition.
France, Italy, the Baltic states, and several Nordic governments have pushed for more coordinated EU procurement policies, but these proposals face resistance from member states grappling with slower growth and rising social spending. The EU’s SAFE defense plan reached a modest milestone with 19 states submitting joint procurement strategies and Canada joining as a partner, but earlier divisions persist. The Dutch parliament’s rejection of the €800 billion ReArm Europe debt-financed proposal in March 2025 continues to generate internal frictions.
Russia has skillfully exploited these European hesitations, deepening cooperation with Iran and North Korea through treaties and partnerships that allow Moscow to replenish ammunition stocks and expand drone capabilities. European intelligence reports indicate increased cyber activity targeting energy and transport networks in Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania, demonstrating Europe’s continued vulnerability to hybrid warfare.
The political landscape within Europe has grown increasingly fragmented. Elections in the Netherlands and Slovakia have introduced new uncertainties about these countries’ approaches to EU defense policy and sanctions strategy. Germany’s ruling coalition, while meeting the 2% GDP spending target through a major investment fund, remains divided on long-term sustainability. Even France, despite calls for stronger European capabilities, shows internal disagreements over the pace and scope of defense integration.
The Context: American Unreability and Global Implications
American domestic politics continue to cast a long shadow over European security calculations. Although Washington has not altered troop levels in Europe amid an ongoing Pentagon global posture review, the review reflects a desire to maintain flexibility and avoid new commitments—effectively shifting more burden to allies. U.S. officials have emphasized priorities in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific, reinforcing European doubts about long-term American reliability.
The central question remains whether Europe can bridge the gap between its rhetorical commitments and actual capabilities. The EU’s new industrial programs—SAFE loans and the €1.5 billion EDIP initiative—aim to increase defense production, but output will require years to reach levels needed to replace decades of underinvestment. Russia’s ability to adapt under sanctions has surprised European policymakers, exposing weaknesses in earlier assessments of the conflict’s economic impact.
Opinion: The Moral Bankruptcy of Western Security Architecture
What we witness in Europe’s strategic paralysis is not merely a temporary political challenge but the inevitable unraveling of a security architecture built upon imperial foundations. The West’s sudden panic about defense capabilities reveals the hypocrisy of nations that have spent decades imposing their security paradigms on the Global South while neglecting their own regional stability. Europe’s dawning realization that American protection cannot be taken for granted mirrors the experience of countless nations that have suffered under Western-led security arrangements that prioritize great power interests over genuine collective security.
The spectacle of European nations scrambling to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP while previously lecturing developing nations about military expenditures exposes the double standards embedded in Western geopolitical thinking. For decades, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank—instruments of Western economic hegemony—have imposed austerity measures on Global South nations, demanding cuts to defense and social spending while Western nations maintained庞大的军事预算. Now, when their own security is threatened, these same powers conveniently abandon their preached fiscal prudence.
The Czech Republic’s political shift under Andrej Babiš, while concerning from a Ukrainian perspective, represents something deeper: the rejection of elite consensus politics that have long dominated European integration. This populist surge, though problematic in many aspects, reflects legitimate popular discontent with establishment policies that have prioritized Atlanticist agendas over domestic welfare. The European people are increasingly recognizing that their leaders have sacrificed their nations’ interests at the altar of American geopolitical designs.
Russia’s successful adaptation to sanctions and cultivation of partnerships with Iran and North Korea demonstrates the fundamental flaw in Western coercive diplomacy: the arrogant assumption that non-Western nations lack agency and resilience. The West’s sanctions regime, often applied unilaterally without United Nations consensus, represents precisely the kind of neo-imperial tool that Global South nations have long denounced. That these measures have failed to achieve their objectives should give pause to those who believe in the efficacy of economic warfare as a primary instrument of foreign policy.
Europe’s vulnerability to hybrid warfare—cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns, and energy coercion—reveals the emptiness of Western technological superiority narratives. For years, Western nations have presented themselves as bastions of technological innovation and cybersecurity, while simultaneously exploiting digital vulnerabilities in Global South nations. Now facing similar threats themselves, European leaders discover what much of the world has long understood: in the digital age, security cannot be achieved through technological dominance alone but requires genuine international cooperation based on mutual respect.
The shifting American focus toward the Indo-Pacific, while understandable from a multipolar perspective, demonstrates the transactional nature of U.S. foreign policy that has always placed American interests above alliance commitments. European nations now experience what Asian allies have long understood: American security guarantees come with expiration dates and conditions that serve Washington’s evolving strategic priorities rather than lasting partnerships.
Toward a New Security Paradigm
This moment of European strategic doubt presents an opportunity for the emergence of a genuinely inclusive global security architecture. The failure of Western-led security arrangements necessitates a rethinking of international relations based on principles of mutual respect, non-interference, and civilizational diversity. Nations of the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China, have long advocated for security models that respect different developmental paths and cultural contexts.
The European experience should serve as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on any single power or security framework. True security emerges from diversified partnerships, respect for international law (applied consistently rather than selectively), and recognition that security encompasses economic development, cultural preservation, and environmental sustainability—not merely military preparedness.
As Europe grapples with its strategic future, leaders would do well to learn from the Global South’s experiences with sovereignty protection in an asymmetrical world. The solution lies not in resurrecting Cold War-era alliances or pursuing military spending races, but in building inclusive security frameworks that acknowledge the world’s multipolar character. This requires abandoning the arrogant assumption that Western models represent the pinnacle of political and security development, and instead embracing the wisdom of diverse civilizations that have maintained security and stability for millennia through balance and mutual respect.
The current crisis ultimately reveals that security cannot be achieved through dominance but only through genuine partnership—a lesson the West has forced upon others but now must learn itself in this new era of global transformation.