Friday, 23 January 2026

Europe and its autonomy

Europe Must Depart the Labyrinth and Establish its Autonomy

by Victor Ângelo


Europe can no longer afford the luxury of hesitation upon the international stage—most especially now, as the global landscape increasingly resembles a field of forces set upon a collision course. For too long, we have permitted our strategic vision to be held captive by two obsessions: a credulous subordination to the patronage of the United States, and a lingering dread of a destructive avalanche from the Russian quarter. In both instances, Europe has suffered a diminishment of its sovereignty and its standing. Our paramount duty is to reclaim them.

We exist today amidst hostilites emanating from various quarters. It is imperative that we confront them. The external strength and the reputation of the European Union are but a direct reflection of our internal cohesion. In these times, it is essential to accord respect to others, to advocate for equilibrium, and yet, at once, to project power. Internal cohesion is, therefore, in my judgment, the foremost concern.

To achieve this, we must bolster European complementarity through decisive measures: firstly, by the harmonisation of our principal policy dimensions, thereby ensuring that internal fragmentation is not exploited by external competition; secondly, by fortifying our democratic resilience against disinformation, establishing an effective protocol to counter hybrid threats and the falsehoods intended to fracture our societies; and thirdly, by massive investment in integrated infrastructures—both in energy and the digital realm—to ensure that no Member State remains a vulnerable target for the blackmail of third parties.

A Europe that is not solid at its core can never truly be sovereign at its frontiers, nor can it exert significant geopolitical influence. This necessitates the strengthening of our common identity—whilst respecting our cultural and national diversities—and the active engagement of our citizens and their representative institutions.

By "sovereign independence," we do not imply a defensive isolationism, but rather the capacity to assert and defend our strategic interests. We speak of a multidimensional sovereignty: energetic, technological, cultural, political, and military. To be sovereign is to ensure that the decrees of Brussels and elsewhere reflect our common priorities, and that our partners are chosen upon the basis of reciprocity, never of submission.

We must not overlook China, which occupies the very heart of the super-powers. Our relationship with China demands a realism unburdened by naivety. Our course must be charted in Brussels. The objective is the reduction of risk, though without a rupture, protecting strategic sectors and ensuring that relations are governed by mutually accepted rules.

Simultaneously, sovereignty is won by engaging with all. It is imperative that Europe, as a singular whole, speaks with Moscow as much as it does with others. To maintain open channels with the Kremlin is not a demonstration of weakness, but a realist acknowledgement of our geographic circumstance. A productive dialogue with the Kremlin is, at present, well-nigh impossible. To Don Quixote, it would be akin to inviting a serpent to one’s table and naming it diplomacy. Nevertheless, I believe that democratic Europe, in its entirety, must attempt a dialogue. Russia, under its current leadership, has been transformed into an ill neighbour; it inspires no confidence—rather the reverse—yet it dwells at our very doorstep. The first step must be to demonstrate to Moscow that the prolongation of its aggression against Ukraine leads to the ruin of all, Russia most of all. Sun Tzu, in his celebrated work The Art of War, observed that "there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." When victory is not swift and decisive, the wisest course for the aggressor is withdrawal.

Within this new architecture, NATO must transcend its one-way dependency. Aligning with the vision that Mark Rutte has brought to the Alliance at the commencement of his tenure, Europe must strive to construct a European pillar of defence that is operationally autonomous. As the Secretary-General has reiterated: "European security cannot continue to be an imported commodity." To reform NATO is to ensure that Europe assumes primary responsibility for the stability of our own continent.

In the wake of Davos 2026 and the forthcoming Munich Conference, and within the process of the United Nations' reorganisation (UN80), Europe must assert itself as the architect of a reinvigorated and effective multilateralism. The message must be plain and direct: we must restore trust between States. In the reform of the UN—which is now more urgent than ever—Europe must lead the transition toward a system that reflects contemporary reality, advocating for an expanded Security Council wherein the voice of the Global South and regional powers is institutionalised, and the power of veto ceases to be an instrument of paralysis.

This effort toward multilateral reform is currently imperilled by transactional and exclusionary proposals, such as the extraordinary "Board of Peace" suggested by the United States administration. This proposal, which seeks to replace collective diplomacy with a directory at the service of the personal interests of Donald J. Trump, constitutes an unacceptable ambition. By attempting to circumvent international institutions, the "Board of Peace" seeks to impose a mercantilist order, founded upon a vast ego and a nineteenth-century concept of empire that disregards the rights and sovereignty of States. In a word, it is an aberration.

The stability and geopolitical influence of Europe shall not spring from arms alone, nor from the modernity of our economies. They shall result, also, from our capacity to stand shoulder to shoulder at every level with those who wish to subjugate us, from the moral force we bring to the defence of universal values, and from the bridges we choose to build with democratic regimes across every region of the globe.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for sharing this insightful paper alluding not only to the importance of Europe waking up to its sovereignty in terms of its collective strength and values and not a subordinate partner to strong power but also that the global world order is under serious danger. Multilateralism is threatened and the rule of law being undermined. The challenges of the 21 century demand that the global rules based law and order be strengthened for the benefit of the global humanity, the planet and indeed the world. The way things are beginning to unfold (very frightening) the law of the jungle seems to be in the coming! When weaker powers are reminded that « might is righ, are we now regressing into colonialism?

It seems it took Mark Carney’s gutsy speech at Davos to bring out some courage in a few other European leaders to use their voice of descent and dismay!

Why cannot the great powers live and allow other nations ( middle, small and those trying to uplift themselves) to live peacefully and harmoniously ? Why the grab by dominant powers for resources which rightfully belong to others?

Victor ANGELO said...

Thank you for your profoundly thoughtful reflection. You have captured the central anxiety of our present moment: the fear that the "Law of the Jungle" is not just returning, but being formalized by those who once claimed to be the guardians of the "Rule of Law."

Your questions touch upon the very soul of the 21st-century crisis. Here is a reply that attempts to address both the "descent into colonialism" and the fundamental "why" behind this era of coercion.

---

### 1. Are we regressing into colonialism?

The short answer is: **Yes, but with a 21st-century "Transactional" mask.**

When a great power views a sovereign territory like Greenland as a real estate asset, or when supply chains are used to "strangle" the development of a rival, we are witnessing a return to **Mercantilism**.

* **The "Might is Right" Doctrine:** In the 19th century, empires seized land for tea, rubber, and gold. In 2026, the "grab" is for **Lithium, Cobalt, and Semiconductor dominance**.
* **Subordination via Debt and Technology:** Modern colonialism doesn't always need a governor-general in a palace; it uses "Debt-Trap Diplomacy" and "Technological Monopolies" to ensure that smaller nations remain in a state of **subordination.** As you rightly noted, the "Law of the Jungle" treats smaller nations as **stakes** in a game, rather than **actors** with their own destiny.

### 2. Why the "Grab" for Resources?

The tragedy of the great powers is that they are trapped in a **"Zero-Sum" logic**. To them, if they do not control a resource (like Arctic oil or African minerals), they believe their rival will use it against them.

* **The Security Dilemma:** Realist theory suggests that great powers can never "allow other nations to live peacefully" if those nations sit on strategic assets. They fear that a "neutral" small nation today could become a "hostile base" tomorrow.
* **The Resource Anxiety of 2026:** We are in the middle of a **Global Energy Transition**. The shift from oil to green technology has created a desperate scramble for the minerals that will power the next century. For the dominant powers, this is an existential race; they would rather "grab" than "share," fearing that a fair market will leave them vulnerable.

### 3. The Power of "Dissent and Dismay"

You are absolutely correct that **Mark Carney’s speech** acted as a catalyst. For a long time, European and "Middle Power" leaders were paralyzed by a "hope for the best" strategy.

* **The End of Compliance:** Carney’s "gutsy" move was to tell the truth: that **compliance no longer buys safety**.
* **A New Moral Courage:** This has empowered leaders like Macron and Von der Leyen to speak of "European Independence" and "Strategic Sovereignty." They are beginning to realize that if they do not find their own voice, they will be silenced by the noise of the giants.

---

### A Final Thought: The "Fourth Path"

The way out of this "frightening" unfolding is not to join one of the two or three "jungles," but to build a **Fourth Path**.

* This is why **Portugal’s bid for the Security Council** and its focus on "Small Island States" and "Maritime Law" is so vital. It is an attempt to say that **Law is the only thing that protects the weak from the strong.**
* If the world order is to be strengthened, it must be done by those who refuse to be "on the menu."