The attack on democracy has left Europe shaken – and isolated
Nathalie Tocci
Guardian Europe columnist
For years, many believed that with the decline of the US-led liberal international order, the division between democracies and autocracies would shape the global landscape.
Liberal democracies in America, Europe, and Asia would band together while autocratic nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea would form their alliances. Pessimists feared that the waning of multilateralism would lead to a “multi-order world,” where like-minded autocracies might cluster, complicating the pursuit of global peace and prosperity.
The situation is far more dire. Donald Trump’s administration is undermining the very essence of liberal democracy, impacting not just the US, but Europe as well.
At the Munich security conference, US Vice President JD Vance accused Europe of abandoning democratic values by building walls against the far right and restricting free speech; he portrayed Europe as fearing its own populace. This was directed at a European audience that anticipated discussions on pressing security issues such as Ukraine, Russia, and China. His verbal assault on European democracy left many in the room stunned and angered, particularly his unsettling claim that countering disinformation equates to a war on democracy.
Vance’s extraordinary attack and his interference in the upcoming German elections—where he met with the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party—are more about promoting the so-called Mega (Make Europe Great Again) agenda than supporting democracy. The clear strategic aim is to create a divided Europe, making it easier for imperial powers, including the US, Russia, and China, to exert influence.
If Trump’s aim is effectively to neo-Nazify Germany, it aligns with the Russification of Ukraine, both justified under various pretexts such as “free speech”. Trump and Putin share a vision of global influence that includes an imperial “peace” for Ukraine—decided by powerful nations without Ukrainian input, reminiscent of the post-World War II Yalta Conference. This implies a dangerous concession to Russia’s imperial desires, further evidenced by Trump’s approach to other nations including Canada, Mexico, and Europe.
We are realizing that instead of a reformed multilateral order or a chaotic multi-order landscape, we are venturing into a realm of complete disorder. International courts face sanctions, institutions are disregarded, and international law is regularly broken. China may attempt to fill this gap by advocating for multilateralism and cooperation, as observed during a recent address by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Munich. However, China’s true motivation appears to be capitalizing on a diminished Europe betrayed by the US.
During a panel discussion at Munich, I mentioned the risks of a world lacking established norms. The Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar dismissed this concern, noting that India embraces the transactional nature of survival in a competitive landscape, especially following Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Washington, during which they struck deals on gas and weapons.
There’s a noticeable, albeit understandable, glee among many in the Global South, who perceive Vance’s election meddling in Germany as Europe finally receiving a taste of the pressure it has long exerted on many Southern nations regarding democracy and rights. Nevertheless, no nation—large or small, whether in the global North or South—will thrive in a lawless world devoid of international institutions and agreed-upon norms. A fractured Europe will only lead to greater poverty, insecurity, and reduced freedom.
In response to Trump’s reckless actions on behalf of Putin, Emmanuel Macron convened an emergency summit of Europe’s defense leaders. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized that the pivotal choice for European leaders lies between alignment with Brussels or Moscow, urging the need for a European army.
This development is promising; however, every forthcoming decision should acknowledge the critical stakes involved—not merely to avoid a repeat of Munich 1938, where Ukraine is sacrificed to Russia as France and Britain did with Czechoslovakia to appease Nazi Germany. The specter looming over us post-Vance is eerily reminiscent of Poland in 1939, caught between the eager expansions of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany. Currently, Europe—starting with Ukraine—is under military assault by Putin’s Russia and facing political aggression from Trump’s America, with China lurking opportunistically.
The urgency and responsive actions must transcend mere pleas for a negotiating position in the Ukraine war. Only Ukraine and Russia should be stakeholders at this table. Furthermore, European governments should not feel compelled to reassure Washington of their commitment to uphold whatever agreements the US and Russia broker, nor should their focus revolve around maintaining US interest by increasing expenditure on American arms or gas.
European nations (including Ukraine) need to swiftly reach a consensus on their objectives, establish red lines, and agree on collective actions for Ukraine independent of US and Russian discussions. Options include sanctions, greater military aid for Ukraine, utilizing Russian frozen assets, expedited EU membership processes, and potentially forming a European deterrence force should a truce be struck. On a broader level, Europe must enhance its capacity and reduce reliance on US defense commitments. This could encompass temporarily exempting defense investments from EU fiscal rules, forming new EU borrowing mechanisms for defense, increasing European Investment Bank lending for defense, or establishing a defense bank among willing European governments.
Europe should neither confront the US nor seek to appease them. However, European leaders must act with the understanding that they are alone in a world increasingly influenced by malign imperial forces. A Europe under far-right rule, facilitated by Trump and Putin, threatens the very essence of European integration. After years of efforts to fortify the transatlantic partnership against threats from Russia, we find ourselves abandoned by the US in our self-defense while simultaneously facing direct attacks from it.
Economist, politician and author
JD Vance, the US Vice President, has stated that European values no longer reflect America’s values. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth added that Europeans “can’t assume that America’s presence will last forever.” Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, confirmed that Europe would not have a voice in the negotiations to conclude the Ukraine war.
Shock-stricken, European leaders currently dwell in denial, stuck at the initial stage of grief. They will remain lost unless they recognize that Donald Trump has a coherent economic and geostrategic plan, albeit one detrimental to European interests.
On the economic front, Europeans must realize that Trump does not simply expect his tariffs to magically resolve the US trade deficit; he understands it will lead to a temporary dollar surge. His tariffs are a strategic negotiating tactic, pushing foreign nations to revalue their currencies and draw European conglomerates (like BASF and Volkswagen) away from a stagnating Europe to a thriving United States.
Regarding Ukraine, Trump’s team has clarified two points. They regard Russia as a waning power incapable of threatening NATO nations, temporarily revitalized by a wartime economy spurred by NATO’s expansion into Russian-speaking territories like Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, they resent Europe’s role in driving Russia closer to China.
Through this lens, it becomes evident why the Trump administration is sidelining Europe, altering the narrative to accuse Europe of betraying its own principles, including rights like free speech and the cancellation of Romania’s elections for dubious reasons.
What are Europe’s options now? One approach would involve continuing independently, arming and financing Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Putin. However, this could bankrupt an already strained Europe, do little to aid Ukraine, and ultimately force Europe back under the shadow of US influence.
An alternative strategy might involve Europe outmaneuvering Trump: rejecting any agreements that sacrifice Ukraine’s resources to the US while signaling to Moscow its willingness for a new security model that allows Ukraine, like Austria during the Cold War, to retain sovereignty. This could transform a dire crisis into an opportunity for Europe to revitalize itself, although I doubt our current leaders will grasp it.
Progressives must challenge this distortion of reality
Shada Islam
Brussels-based commentator on EU affairs
JD Vance’s endorsement of Europe’s far-right should finally dispel the EU policymakers’ repetitive discussions of shared transatlantic values, illuminating the subtle and overt ways the EU has moved increasingly to the right on immigration, free speech, and political exclusion.
While Vance accurately points out that European democracies confront internal threats, his perspective is fundamentally flawed. The true dangers originate not from progressives but from his xenophobic far-right allies and their harmful rhetoric of hatred and division. Consequently, European progressives must amplify their voices, advocating for inclusive societies and standing against divisiveness. Perhaps Vance’s insults will incite such a response.
Europe’s reality starkly contrasts Vance’s depiction. Rather than being marginalized, the far right is increasingly shaping the agenda of mainstream parties. Whether they hold power in countries like Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands, or support ruling centrists in nations like Sweden, hard-right factions are setting the EU’s political direction. In numerous instances, European governments are moving away from their commitments to human rights, despite still proclaiming “European values” to nations in the global south, leading to accusations of hypocrisy and diminishing EU credibility.
Vance criticized Europe’s migration policies as ineffective, which is laughable. In reality, the EU has tightened its migration controls, illustrated by the European Pact on Migration and Asylum established in 2024, which fortifies border security and accelerates deportations. Once-taboo practices, such as creating “return hubs” for refugees and asylum seekers and wrongful pushbacks, have become mainstream EU policies. The ambition to establish an impenetrable “Fortress Europe” has not deterred the rise of far-right parties, which continue to propagate anti-Muslim sentiments.
Indeed, although there are valiant yet ultimately ineffective EU efforts to reduce hate speech on social media and in the press, free speech is often defended in name only. Concurrently, governments crack down on pro-Palestine protests, journalists face dismissal for critiquing Israel’s actions, and Germany has even shut down cultural events and deported activists expressing pro-Palestinian opinions.
The EU must respond strongly to Vance’s allegations by reaffirming its foundational commitments to equality, inclusion, human rights, and the rule of law. Too much ground has already been surrendered to Vance and Trump’s allies, and retreat is not an option.
Author of In Search of Berlin, Blair’s Wars and Why the Germans Do It Better
During his initial term, Donald Trump reserved a special disdain for Angela Merkel’s Germany, criticizing its reliance on Russian energy, dependence on Chinese trade, and military reliance on the US. Most notably, he resented Merkel’s methodical approach to politics and the popularity she garnered. Germans were unsettled by him but believed they could retreat into their familiar comfort once he departed.
The 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin was the first jolt to their complacency. The recent Munich security conference marks an even more significant moment, confronting Germans with the realization that the US may no longer be their protector; some are questioning whether the superpower they counted on might become an adversary instead.
The elections this coming Sunday will significantly shape whether the German populace has awakened to this reality. Will they finally recognize the necessity of employing hard power to safeguard the post-1945 framework that has provided Germany with a moral compass?
All mainstream candidates expressed outrage over the actions of Trump’s team at Munich, including the vice president’s hostile speeches and the endorsement of the far-right AfD, with Vance meeting its leader while avoiding Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Friedrich Merz, the leader of the Christian Democrats and prospective chancellor, accused Trump’s team of “open interference” in the election, asserting, “We will determine our own democratic future.” This was a sobering acknowledgment, suggesting Merz may grasp the error of his recent parliamentary strategy, where he earlier sought AfD support to force through a strict migration proposal.
The threats Germany faces, with Trump on one flank and Putin on the other, may sharpen focus. Merz’s new government will contend with three competing priorities: managing the asylum system, transforming the economy, and increasing defense expenditures. The enormity of these challenges may bolster his position in coalition negotiations with either the Social Democrats, the Greens, or potentially both. All parties will need to demonstrate renewed resolve and leadership quality, attributes sorely absent in the outgoing administration.
They recognize that they can no longer afford complacency. If they fail to achieve progress in the next four or five years, the AfD, with backing from Trump and Elon Musk, could dominate future elections.
The continent is caught between denial and frantic overreaction
Lorenzo Marsili
Philosopher, activist, author and director of the Berggruen Institute Europe
For years, European nations have acted like geopolitical ostriches, burying their heads in the sands of military and diplomatic ineffectiveness. Today, they tremble as if war has already reached Berlin and Paris. This has resulted in paralysis—a continent divided between denial and frantic overreaction.
What might a measured response to JD Vance and Donald Trump’s incendiary remarks about Europe look like? It could be one aligned with long-term goals and future aspirations. Europe’s primary objectives should encompass deterring foreign aggression—both on the continent and in allied territories such as Moldova or the western Balkans. However, these objectives should not pursue global military intervention or regime changes in other nations. Additionally, conflict with China should not be in their plans, despite any US directives; as the American security umbrella draws closer, US influence on European policy towards Beijing also tightens.
Europe’s enduring interest lies in avoiding reactive, unsatisfactory measures each time a security crisis erupts, whether it relates to meddling, piracy, cyber threats, or aggression against itself, or in its support for UN peacekeeping endeavors globally.
Combining immediate needs with future interests reveals a clear solution: Europe ought to establish a common military force that is effective yet appropriately sized. This force should be well-resourced and trained, benefit from joint procurement, and possess industrial production capabilities to match. A responsible force would be adequately equipped to deter threats without engaging in military adventures or sacrificing social welfare programs to militarization. Finally, a united force would operate seamlessly without requiring tedious negotiations among participating nations, acting cohesively rather than as a hodgepodge of national rivalries.
Who should create such a force? The practical answer is whoever is willing, circumventing the paralyzing unanimity required by EU agreements. It could involve partnerships with non-EU nations like the UK and Ukraine. Many of Europe’s most notable achievements began from foundational treaties among an initial group of nations.
It is becoming increasingly evident that if lasting peace is to materialize in Ukraine, European forces must contribute to the solution. Their deployment should not merely be to secure Europe a minor role in negotiations or from commands issued by Trump and Vance, but rather to establish a unified, effective force capable of realizing long-term objectives.
Ultimately, this endeavor is not solely about creating a European military force, but about designing a European security framework that is crafted and owned by Europeans, thereby reducing vulnerability to the unpredictable whims of US policy.
