Stefanchuk made the announcement during a meeting of Ukrainian ambassadors in early August 2026. His words were precise: "In the very near future, we set ourselves the goal of opening a representation of Ukraine's Parliament in the European Parliament, just as the European Parliament has already opened its representation in Ukraine." The official justification is straightforward: stronger interparliamentary cooperation, support for the accession process, and closer contact with MEPs to help "remove political obstacles."

On its own, the statement might appear unremarkable. Interparliamentary cooperation is common. But the institutional context makes it anything but routine.

A Candidate Country Inside the EU Institutions

The European Parliament opened its representation in Kiev on September 17, 2025. It was the third such office outside the EU, after Washington and London. Roberta Metsola, the Parliament's president, described it as a symbol of solidarity. But the logic of the relationship was clear: the EU institution was extending its presence into Ukraine. What Stefanchuk is now proposing is the mirror image—a Ukrainian parliamentary presence inside the European Parliament.

Share

Candidate countries maintain diplomatic missions and parliamentary contacts. Permanent institutional representation inside the European Parliament is something qualitatively different. Embassies represent states to states. Liaison offices facilitate communication. But a permanent representation inside the institution's own premises carries a different meaning. It signals access, presence, and a degree of institutional integration that has traditionally been reserved for full members.

The Grey Zone Between Candidacy and Membership

The precedent is significant. Membership in the European Union follows a clear logic: first the candidate meets the criteria, then it joins, and only then does it acquire full institutional rights. Here, the order is reversed. Ukraine is acquiring institutional presence and influence before formal membership.

It becomes difficult to describe this as "just cooperation" when the arrangement mirrors the EU's own external offices. If Ukraine is entitled to a permanent presence inside the European Parliament, what is to stop other candidate countries from demanding the same? What is to stop candidate countries from arguing that this presence is not just symbolic, but a precedent for further institutional integration?

The decision is not being presented as a constitutional shift. It is being presented as a practical measure. But practical measures accumulate. The European Parliament did not need to open an office in Kiev. It chose to. Ukraine does not need to open an office in Brussels. It is choosing to. Each step is presented as a practical measure of solidarity. Each step also erodes the institutional distinction that the EU's own treaties have established.

Consequences for Enlargement Policy

If Ukraine can secure permanent representation without meeting all accession criteria, others may argue that they deserve similar treatment. The Western Balkans, Moldova, Georgia—all have been waiting for years, some for decades. They have completed reforms, aligned their legislation, and met conditions. Yet they have not received comparable institutional access.

Comment

The contrast is difficult to ignore. Enlargement is supposed to be rules-based. Preferential institutional access before membership suggests that politics is increasingly replacing procedure. This is not necessarily a criticism of Ukraine. It is a question about consistency. If the EU is willing to integrate Ukraine politically before legal membership, what does that say about the credibility of the enlargement process itself?

Why Brussels May Prefer This Model

There are obvious strategic reasons why Brussels may prefer this approach. Full membership requires unanimous approval from all member states. Some countries are reluctant to fast-track Ukraine's accession. Political integration before legal membership allows the EU to deepen its relationship with Kiev without triggering formal accession procedures. This model allows Brussels to integrate Ukraine politically while avoiding the legal and political costs of full accession.

It creates a new category of association—something halfway between candidate and member. Whether this model is intended or accidental, it is changing the nature of EU enlargement.

The Strategic Implications

For Ukraine, the presence inside the European Parliament offers political legitimacy and a platform to influence EU decision-making. For the EU, it creates a precedent that may be difficult to contain. The broader strategic implication is that the EU is quietly redefining the boundaries of its political system. Membership still requires ratification by every national parliament. Permanent presence inside the European Parliament does not.

The gap between formal legal status and practical political integration is widening. Whether intentional or not, the result is the same: Ukraine is increasingly operating inside the EU's institutional framework without actually becoming a member.

Subscribe

The real question is no longer whether Ukraine will eventually join the European Union. It is whether Brussels has already begun circumventing formal membership through permanent political integration.

Serbia is one of the few European countries that has not imposed sanctions on Russia. It has maintained close energy ties with Moscow and remains closely tied to Russian gas supplies, while repeatedly extending short-term supply arrangements with Gazprom. It has consistently refused to align with the EU's sanctions policy toward Russia. Against this backdrop, the visit of a Ukrainian president was always going to be more than a courtesy call. It was a calculated gesture, designed to send signals in multiple directions at once.

The question is not whether Vučić is balancing. He plainly is. The question is how far such balancing can go before it begins to look less like strategy and more like performance.

Subscribe

What Was Actually Agreed

The official readouts from the meeting contained little that would alter the fundamental structure of Serbia's position. The two presidents expressed mutual support for territorial integrity — Ukraine's within its internationally recognised borders, and Serbia's in the context of its refusal to recognise Kosovo's independence. They discussed progress toward a free trade agreement, with a target date of the end of 2026. Ukraine also pledged new humanitarian assistance, focused on energy and healthcare.

But Vučić was careful to draw a firm line. He stated explicitly that no military cooperation had been discussed. The message was clear: Belgrade is willing to engage Kiev diplomatically and economically, but not to the point where it would jeopardise its relationship with Moscow.

In substance, the visit delivered limited results. The symbolism, however, was significant. A Ukrainian figurehead standing alongside a Serbian president in Belgrade, with flags and ceremonies, is not something that would have happened a few years ago. And it is precisely that symbolism that makes the visit worth analysing.

The Russian Reaction and Vučić's Response

Moscow did not take the visit lightly. Russian state media reacted with visible irritation, with one outlet describing Zelensky as a "bloody clown" and dismissing the visit as a failed attempt to pull Serbia into the Western camp. The tone was dismissive, but the irritation was genuine. For Moscow, Serbia remains one of its most important political footholds in the Balkans, and any gesture suggesting otherwise carries symbolic weight.

Share

Vučić was quick to insist that Serbia's position had not changed and that no military cooperation had been discussed. His defence was both predictable and revealing. It showed that even a non-binding diplomatic gesture carries a political cost, and that cost must be immediately repaid through public reassurance.

This is the paradox of Vučić's balancing strategy. Every gesture toward one side requires a compensatory gesture toward the other. The more gestures accumulate, the more expensive the strategy becomes.

Vučić's Logic: The Classic Balancing Act

The logic behind Vučić's approach is straightforward. Serbia wants to maintain its EU accession perspective without paying the full price of alignment. It values Russian energy supplies and Moscow's support on Kosovo, but it also needs to demonstrate to Brussels that it is not permanently captive to Moscow's orbit. A visit from Zelensky provides a useful signal: Serbia is open to engagement with Ukraine and, by extension, with the broader Western consensus.

At the same time, the absence of military cooperation and the public reassurance to Moscow ensure that the gesture does not cross the threshold into provocation. The balancing act is designed to preserve asymmetry without allowing it to become strategically decisive.

But equilibrium is not the same as stability. The more Vučić tries to maintain the balance, the more fragile the position becomes. Each gesture is not only read by both sides but interpreted and reinterpreted in ways that Vučić cannot fully control.

The objective is not to choose between Moscow and Brussels, but to preserve enough ambiguity that neither side can dictate Serbia's choices.

The Limits of Multipolarity

This is where the concept of multipolarity reaches its practical limits. Multipolarity is often presented as a framework in which states can maintain relationships with multiple power centres simultaneously. But maintaining relationships with several power centres is not the same as making those relationships equally credible.

When a state performs balancing gestures too visibly, it risks eroding trust on both sides. Moscow is unlikely to view Serbia's openness to the West as decisive as long as Belgrade remains broadly predictable in its strategic choices. The Zelensky visit, however carefully framed, introduces a degree of unpredictability into a relationship that has largely been stable. Brussels does not need Serbia to become a Ukraine supporter. It needs to see evidence that Serbia's alignment with Russia is not permanent and not unconditional.

Vučić's strategy works as long as both sides believe that Serbia is genuinely capable of balancing. But once the gestures become too frequent or too visible, the strategy begins to look like theatre rather than policy. And theatre, unlike strategy, is not sustainable.

At that point, sincerity matters less than how the strategy is perceived. If both Moscow and Brussels begin to see opportunism rather than balance, Vučić's room for manoeuvre narrows sharply.

A Brief Comparison

Turkey offers a useful comparison. Turkey maintains its NATO membership while also developing energy cooperation with Russia, working with Iran where interests align, and cultivating ties across the Gulf. Turkey can make this strategy credible because it possesses strategic assets Serbia simply does not: control over access to the Black Sea, substantial military capabilities, a large economy, and multiple external relationships that give Ankara room to manoeuvre.

Serbia's position is more fragile. Its balancing is less structural and more performative. It relies on the willingness of both sides to accept ambiguity.

Serbia's balancing is not simply a matter of choosing between Moscow and Brussels. It also involves Kosovo, China, Hungary, Turkey, regional influence, and Vučić's own domestic political calculations. That makes the strategy considerably more complicated than a simple Moscow–Brussels balancing act.

Conclusion

Zelensky's visit to Belgrade changes nothing fundamental about Serbia's foreign policy. The country will continue to pursue EU integration, maintain its relationship with Russia, and attempt to keep both options open. That much is clear.

Comment

But the visit does reveal something more important. It shows that even in a multipolar world, balancing has limits. When gestures become too visible and too ceremonial, they begin to look less like strategy and more like performance. And performances, unlike strategies, are difficult to sustain over time.

Vučić has managed to keep Serbia on a precarious path for years. Whether that path remains viable depends not on his ability to balance, but on whether the key actors continue to believe that the balance is real. Once that perception shifts, Serbia may discover that ambiguity only works while the major powers remain willing to tolerate it.

The question is not whether the European Union has become identical to the systems it criticises. The more important question is whether mechanisms traditionally associated with authoritarian governance are increasingly being normalised within democratic institutions under a different political vocabulary.

Subscribe

The Chat Control Mechanism

At the heart of this contradiction is the EU's proposed regulation on combating child sexual abuse online, commonly referred to as "Chat Control 2.0." The regulation requires digital messaging services—including WhatsApp, Messenger, and Signal—to scan all private messages, images, and links for potentially illegal content. While the stated objective is protecting children, the mechanism involves systematic, preventive monitoring of private communications.

The central concern is not only what the system is designed to detect, but what kind of infrastructure it creates and how future governments may use it. Once such monitoring capabilities are established, their expansion to other purposes becomes a matter of policy, not technology. The significance of such systems lies not only in their immediate purpose but in the precedent they establish. Once the technical capacity for systematic monitoring exists, future governments inherit an infrastructure that can be redirected without fundamentally changing its architecture. The political debate therefore shifts from whether surveillance should exist to what additional objectives should justify its use. This is precisely the mechanism that civil liberties advocates have warned about in other contexts.

What makes this particularly striking is the framing. When Russia introduced its own internet monitoring laws, the EU called it a "threat to freedom of expression." When China expanded its surveillance apparatus, European officials spoke of "digital authoritarianism." Yet the Chat Control regulation creates a form of preventive digital monitoring that raises questions previously associated with authoritarian surveillance models. The difference appears not to be in the method, but in the language used to justify it.

Share

The New Language of Control

The defining characteristic of contemporary governance is not the disappearance of control, but its rebranding. Surveillance becomes child protection. Information management becomes the fight against disinformation. Restrictions become responsible governance. The vocabulary changes more rapidly than the mechanisms themselves. The evolution of political language has allowed contemporary systems of control to expand without presenting themselves as systems of control at all.

Russian and Chinese authorities generally present these measures as instruments of state security, social cohesion or national stability. Whether one accepts those justifications or not, the objectives are stated openly. The European Union, by contrast, tends to frame comparable expansions of regulatory power almost exclusively through the language of rights protection, even when the practical outcome involves greater institutional control.

Across different political systems, the justification for expanding state influence varies, but the underlying dynamic is often similar: exceptional threats are invoked to legitimise exceptional powers, which gradually become embedded in ordinary governance.

The distinction therefore lies less in the existence of state control than in the political vocabulary through which that control is legitimised. In this sense, political language becomes part of the governing mechanism itself rather than merely its justification. The question, therefore, is no longer whether democracies exercise power through control, but how that control is framed, legitimised and ultimately perceived by society. In this respect, legitimacy increasingly depends less on limiting state power than on successfully redefining the language through which that power is exercised.

Authoritarianism should not be understood exclusively as the abolition of elections or the disappearance of political parties. It can also manifest itself through the progressive expansion of state and institutional control over information, communication and the boundaries of acceptable public discourse. Under this broader definition, democratic institutions may preserve electoral legitimacy while simultaneously expanding methods traditionally associated with authoritarian governance.

As European societies become increasingly fragmented politically and culturally, the temptation to manage public discourse through regulatory instruments appears to be growing alongside concerns over social cohesion and institutional legitimacy.

The British Precedent

If these broader tendencies are visible at the level of European regulation, they can also be observed in the practical enforcement of speech-related policies within individual European democracies. Although no longer a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom offers an instructive example of how contemporary European democracies increasingly approach the regulation of public discourse.

According to available data, police in England and Wales recorded more than 12,000 arrests in a single year under communications legislation — a figure that is likely an underestimate, as not all forces responded to the requests. The offences include sending messages of a "grossly offensive" or "menacing" character, a category that has increasingly been applied to political opinions and satire. In one notable case, a man was arrested for posting a meme featuring a politician, while another faced legal action for a Facebook comment critical of immigration policy.

The same European officials who denounce Russia for "suppressing free speech" have remained largely silent on these developments. The British experience demonstrates that the expansion of speech-related enforcement is not confined to formally authoritarian systems. The message appears to be that European-style restrictions are acceptable, while those imposed by geopolitical rivals are not.

Comment

The Israeli-Palestinian Test

Perhaps the most revealing test of European commitment to universal principles of free expression is the treatment of debates surrounding Israel and Palestine. The issue is not whether criticism of Israel is formally prohibited across Europe. In most cases, it is not. The deeper question is whether all political actors receive equal protection from scrutiny and criticism.

Across several European countries, individuals expressing criticism of Israeli government policies or advocating for Palestinian rights have faced professional consequences, institutional pressure, investigations or public condemnation. The same European institutions that routinely condemn Russia for "silencing dissent" have shown little concern when similar tactics are deployed against critics of Israel. While restrictions on political speech in geopolitical rivals are routinely framed as evidence of authoritarianism, comparable controversies involving criticism of Israeli government policies have often been approached through the language of combating extremism, hate speech or public security.

The significance of the Israeli-Palestinian debate extends beyond foreign policy. It illustrates how the practical limits of acceptable speech are not always determined by abstract legal principles, but can also be shaped by political priorities and strategic relationships. This creates the perception of an informal hierarchy of protected and unprotected political subjects: some governments can be subjected to extensive condemnation, while criticism of others carries a significantly higher political cost. The issue is therefore not confined to the Middle East. Rather, it illustrates how contemporary liberal democracies increasingly define acceptable political discourse through informal institutional pressures alongside formal legal frameworks.

This raises a broader question: if similar informal pressures already exist in Europe, what guarantees are there that a system like Chat Control, designed to detect 'illegal' content, will not be used to identify and penalise precisely those categories of speech that are already subject to informal restriction? The answer is not clear – and the experience of the United Kingdom suggests that the boundary between legal and illegal expression can expand over time.

The European Model of Control

Beyond digital surveillance, the EU has developed other mechanisms of influence that bear comparison to those it criticises elsewhere. The bloc has imposed substantial fines on companies that fail to comply with its regulations, effectively using economic pressure to enforce policy compliance. It has established institutions designed to combat "disinformation" that could, in practice, be used to delegitimise inconvenient information. It has pressured social media platforms to remove content deemed "harmful" or unlawful without clear criteria or independent judicial oversight.

In each case, the EU uses the language of democratic accountability and human rights protection. But the instruments themselves—surveillance, censorship, economic pressure—are the same tools that European leaders have condemned when used by others. The difference is that the EU trusts itself to wield these tools responsibly.

Unlike traditional authoritarian systems, the European model of influence often operates through regulation rather than coercion. However, the practical effect can still be significant: institutions and companies adapt their behaviour to avoid penalties, exclusion or reputational damage. The EU's regulatory power creates a form of dependency where compliance is not voluntary but enforced through access to markets, contracts and institutional legitimacy. Compliance therefore becomes less a matter of legal obligation alone than of maintaining economic access, institutional credibility and political legitimacy. The result is a model in which behavioural conformity is increasingly achieved through regulatory incentives rather than through overt coercion.

Over time, the anticipation of regulatory, professional or reputational consequences may encourage individuals and organisations to avoid certain forms of expression even without direct state intervention. In such circumstances, formal censorship becomes less necessary because behavioural adaptation increasingly performs a similar function.

The Broader Trend

The EU's approach to digital regulation reflects a broader trend in European governance: the growing tendency to restrict freedoms in the name of protecting them. The European institutions that once criticised authoritarian surveillance now argue that surveillance is necessary to protect children, to combat terrorism, to prevent disinformation. Each new restriction is justified as a limited exception to an otherwise open system. Every individual restriction may appear proportionate when viewed in isolation. Taken together, however, they gradually reshape the relationship between citizens, information and the state.

The central paradox of contemporary Europe is therefore not the abandonment of democratic institutions, but the gradual normalisation of methods once portrayed as fundamentally incompatible with them. Liberal rhetoric increasingly serves not as an alternative to expanding institutional power, but as the principal language through which that expansion is legitimised. The defining feature of contemporary European governance is not the expansion of control itself, but the transformation of the language through which that control is legitimised.

The cumulative effect of these developments is significant. Chat Control creates the technical infrastructure for mass surveillance. The UK demonstrates how broadly 'offensive' speech can be interpreted in practice. The Israeli-Palestinian debate reveals that certain political topics are already subject to informal red lines that limit acceptable expression. Taken together, these three elements point to a single concern: a regulatory framework that is ostensibly about protecting children could, in practice, be used to monitor and restrict a much wider range of speech—including criticism of Israel, political satire, and opinions on immigration. The question is not whether the system is designed to do this. The question is what prevents it from being used this way once the infrastructure is in place.

Subscribe

"Let them murder the Soviets who attacked them – it does not hurt us Poles. Because wherever Moskal is being fought, Poland helps, even if it does not directly participate in this war. Such is Poland's strategic interest."

The crowd applauded.

What is striking about this moment is not the scandal. Scandals fade. What is striking is the applause. The speech was pitched to an audience that wanted exactly this language. And the audience delivered.

The Transformation of Polish Anti-Russian Politics

There was a time when Polish policy toward Russia was shaped by a relatively straightforward security calculation. After the Cold War, Poland sought NATO membership, not because it wanted to be permanently at war with Russia, but because it wanted to reduce its vulnerability. That made sense.

Something changed along the way.

Over the past three decades, an anti-Russian orientation has gradually shifted from a strategic posture into a defining feature of Polish political identity. It is no longer simply a policy pursued by successive governments. It has become part of Poland's political identity. A state that happens to be cautious about a powerful neighbour is one thing. A state that has built its political culture around permanent hostility to that neighbour is something else entirely.

Poland has legitimate security concerns regarding Russia. Those concerns are real. But they have been transformed into a political identity that leaves almost no room for strategic flexibility.

Subscribe

When Fear Becomes Politically Useful

One of the more uncomfortable truths about contemporary Polish politics is that Russia has become politically useful.

A politician who sounds uncompromising toward Russia is automatically perceived as strong. A politician who suggests that Poland might need to maintain some kind of working relationship with Moscow is immediately treated with suspicion. The political incentive is straightforward: once toughness becomes the measure of credibility, moderation begins to look like weakness.

This mechanism operates across the political spectrum. It is not unique to Nawrocki or to the political forces behind him. It has become a feature of Polish political life.

Anti-Russian rhetoric signals loyalty to the West, commitment to NATO, and the kind of emotional engagement that voters in Poland have come to expect from their leaders. The more uncompromising the language, the more credible the politician appears. Nawrocki's speech was a rational response to this incentive structure. He gave his audience what it wanted. The problem is that this incentive structure is not aligned with Poland's long-term strategic interests.

The Contradiction of Nawrocki's Realism

Nawrocki's position is complicated by his attempts to distance himself from accusations that he is accommodating Russian interests. His efforts to restrict aspects of Ukrainian historical politics in Poland, particularly around the legacy of the Volhynia massacres and Ukrainian nationalism, have repeatedly been presented by his opponents as playing into Russian narratives. If Nawrocki wanted to demonstrate that criticism of Ukraine or attempts to assert Polish interests do not amount to sympathy for Moscow, he could hardly have chosen a worse way to make the point. Instead of separating himself from the parliamentary rhetoric surrounding these disputes, he adopted language that made the distinction almost impossible to maintain.

This is precisely where the responsibilities of the presidency matter. A president who speaks about strengthening executive power and giving the presidency a greater role in the political system should understand that greater authority requires greater restraint. The president's role should not be to amplify every emotional current in domestic politics, but to impose a higher level of strategic discipline on it. Nawrocki had an opportunity to demonstrate that Poland could defend its historical interests, support Ukraine where its security required it, and still speak without resorting to provocation. Instead, he did the opposite.

There is an obvious contradiction here. Nawrocki increasingly presents himself as a politician interested in realism and national interest, yet his most striking statement of the year was also one of his most emotional. A genuinely realist foreign policy does not require Poland to sound permanently conciliatory toward Russia. It requires its leaders to understand when rhetoric serves a strategic purpose and when it merely satisfies an audience.

The Language of Strategic Dependency

Predictability is not always a weakness. In alliances, predictability can be a strength. But there is a difference between being predictable in your commitments and being predictable in your hostility.

A state that can only move in one direction has reduced its own room for manoeuvre. Poland's position on Russia is so rigid that it is no longer a position. It is a reflex. Moscow, Washington and Berlin can reasonably expect Warsaw to respond to major developments within a relatively narrow strategic framework. Poland has painted itself into a corner.

The consequences accumulate over time. Its regional influence has not expanded in proportion to its rhetorical commitment. Its strategic posture has become increasingly dependent on the assumptions of its closest allies.

NATO Does Not Require Permanent Hostility

There is a tendency in Polish political discourse to conflate NATO membership with permanent hostility toward Russia. These are not the same thing.

NATO is an alliance built around collective defence. It requires its members to contribute to the security of the alliance. It does not require them to treat every potential engagement with Russia as a betrayal. Some NATO members maintain working relationships with Moscow on energy, trade, and regional security while remaining committed to collective defence.

The principle is simple: strategic alignment does not require strategic paralysis. A state can be a reliable ally and still preserve the ability to make its own calculations about its own interests.

The problem with Poland is not that it is loyal to NATO. The problem is that it has conflated loyalty with the obligation to maximise hostility toward Russia. That conflation serves neither Poland nor the alliance.

Poland's Interest Is Not Automatically America's Interest

One of the more difficult questions for Polish foreign policy is whether Poland's interests are always identical to those of its American ally.

The United States has its own strategic priorities. Sometimes they overlap with Poland's. Sometimes they do not. An ally should be able to distinguish between genuine alignment of interests and the simple habit of alignment.

This is not about leaving NATO or rejecting the American alliance. It is about recognising that a state which defines its own interests solely through the expectations of its alliance partner has effectively limited its own strategic options.

Poland has not reached that point, but it has moved closer to it. Its political discourse increasingly treats any deviation from American preferences as disloyalty. At that point, loyalty begins to substitute for strategic calculation.

The Geopolitical World Poland Is Preparing For

The international system is no longer what it was. The United States remains powerful, but it is no longer the unquestioned hegemon. China, India, Turkey, the Gulf states, and others now matter in ways they did not a generation ago.

In such a world, flexibility matters. States that can adapt to changing circumstances, maintain relationships across multiple power centres, and adjust their positions when necessary will outperform states that remain trapped in outdated frameworks.

Poland's political culture, however, has struggled to adapt to this environment. Its political debate remains so deeply shaped by anti-Russian sentiment that it struggles to imagine any alternative. The idea that Poland might need to talk to Russia at some point, even while opposing its aggression, seems almost unthinkable. That unthinkability is itself a strategic problem.

Subscribe

Preserving Strategic Optionality

Polish political debate often presents two options.

Option one is to ignore Russia. That is unrealistic.

Option two is to confront Russia at every opportunity. That is unsustainable and, as Nawrocki's speech demonstrates, increasingly theatrical.

What Poland lacks is a third option: the ability to preserve strategic flexibility even while maintaining a defensive posture.

Preserving optionality does not mean trusting Russia. It does not mean abandoning NATO. It means recognising that the world changes, circumstances shift, and a state which has locked itself into one position will eventually find that position outdated.

Share

The Applause Is the Problem

Nawrocki is not the exception. He is the product of a system that rewards rhetorical escalation and treats any deviation as betrayal. The applause that greeted his words was not a sign of strength. It was a sign of how deeply this logic has embedded itself in Polish political culture.

Poland has contributed more to European security than many of its critics acknowledge. It has spent heavily on defence, hosted allied forces, and taken significant risks. It has earned its place as a serious player on the continent.

What it has yet to develop is the ability to distinguish between defending its interests and performing its hostility. Until it learns that distinction, it will remain a state that spends enormous energy on confrontation while achieving remarkably little influence.

Nawrocki's speech was a mirror. What it reflected was not his character, but the state of Polish strategic culture. The applause was the problem all along.

The latest escalation, which began on July 6 and intensified throughout the week, followed a familiar pattern. After Iranian forces were accused of attacking commercial vessels near the Strait, Washington launched a swift military response. President Donald Trump declared the June ceasefire “OVER” on July 10, yet simultaneously confirmed that US negotiators would continue talking to Tehran. Trump’s contradictory statements merely exposed a deeper structural problem: Washington increasingly relies on military signalling while simultaneously avoiding the political consequences of escalation.


Why Tactical Success Does Not Equal Strategic Victory

The gap between American capability and American outcomes has rarely been more visible. The United States can strike Iran almost at will, destroy infrastructure, and dominate the air. Yet none of these advantages answer the central strategic question raised by Hormuz: why does tactical success so consistently fail to produce strategic resolution?

Subscribe

Tehran understands that its objective is not to defeat the US Navy, but to transform American military superiority into an increasingly expensive political commitment. Iran does not need to win decisive battles. It only needs to sustain its ability to threaten the Strait. This requires far fewer resources than the American campaign to prevent it. A handful of fast boats, drones, and shore-based missiles can disrupt global shipping in ways that cost Washington billions in naval deployments, diplomatic pressure, and lost credibility.

The more successful the airstrikes become, the more they demonstrate that airpower alone cannot solve the problem. Each new strike resets the conflict to the same position. Iran remains capable of closing the Strait. The United States remains committed to keeping it open. And the cycle continues.


The Illusion of Deterrence

The theory of deterrence assumes that inflicting sufficient costs will modify an adversary’s behavior. Washington has been testing this assumption against Iran for decades. The results are not encouraging.

Deterrence is a transactional concept. It works when the opponent values what you threaten. Iran values its ability to threaten the Strait more than it fears the cost of losing another radar station. It has internalized sanctions, absorbed strikes, and weaponized its isolation. Its currency is not battlefield victory, but the ability to impose costs on a superior adversary over time.

Comment

This is not a failure of military capability. It is a failure of strategic design. The United States has entered another strategic confrontation it cannot decisively resolve. Not because Iran is stronger, but because the tools Washington relies on are ill-suited to the nature of the challenge. You cannot bomb a chokepoint into submission. You cannot drone strike your way to stability.


The New Logic of Conflict

Hormuz demonstrates something uncomfortable for every major military power. The cost of defending a chokepoint is often far greater than the cost of threatening it. Iran has structured its strategy around this asymmetry. It does not need to defeat the US Navy. It only needs to make American dominance progressively more expensive.

The attacker measures success by freedom of navigation. Iran measures success by forcing the attacker to keep paying for it. Each new round of strikes increases costs and risks for Washington while offering no path to a lasting solution. Iran absorbs the strikes, restores enough of its capabilities, and returns to the same strategic position. The Strait remains contested, the threat persists, and the United States is left with the same dilemma it faced before the first bomb was dropped.


The Broader Regional Impact

Gulf states are increasingly hedging their security relationships rather than relying exclusively on Washington. The message sent by repeated strikes, followed by repeated failures to secure the Strait, is clear: American power is formidable, but it is not decisive. The old assumption that the US could unilaterally guarantee Gulf energy routes has increasingly been replaced by a more cautious calculus.

Share

For Russia and China, the situation offers a strategic dividend. Every additional American deployment in the Gulf is one less strategic resource available elsewhere. Moscow has attempted to present itself as a diplomatic alternative, even as its own regional interests remain closely tied to the outcome. Beijing watches as the United States becomes increasingly preoccupied with the Gulf, diverting attention from the Indo-Pacific.


Conclusion

The lesson of Hormuz is not that Iran has become stronger than the United States. It is that military superiority no longer guarantees political control. Washington can dominate the battlefield without controlling the conflict itself. In Hormuz, that distinction matters more than any number of successful airstrikes.

The real question for Washington is no longer if it can keep the Strait open, but at what strategic price. The United States can bomb its way to another temporary ceasefire, but it cannot bomb its way to a stable regional order. Iran has adapted to this reality. The United States has yet to fully resolve it. Hormuz is not a battlefield; it is a trap. And the more the United States tries to dominate it, the deeper it becomes entangled in its own military success.

Yet beneath the surface, Ankara revealed something far less comforting. The summit reinforced the impression that the Alliance increasingly sees the war as something to be sustained rather than politically resolved, while Europe scrambles to rearm. It confirmed that the United States is transforming NATO from a community of shared values into a transactional contract, where loyalty is measured by financial contributions rather than strategic alignment.

For Poland and other frontline states, the summit exposed a growing strategic dilemma rather than a clear victory.

Subscribe

The Ankara Illusion

The Ankara Summit revealed three uncomfortable truths that European governments would prefer not to acknowledge.

First, Russia has not been strategically defeated. Whatever long-term costs Moscow continues to bear, Ankara demonstrated that NATO's assumption of imminent Russian exhaustion has not materialized. Russia has adapted to sanctions, expanded its defence production, and reoriented its economy toward Asia. Its military has accumulated years of large-scale combat experience, which is now being incorporated into training and doctrine. The war has shifted from a conflict Russia was supposed to lose quickly into a prolonged contest of attrition.

Second, Europe has not emerged stronger from the war. The continent has spent billions on rearmament, yet its industrial base remains fragmented, its defence production insufficient, and its political cohesion uncertain. The rearmament programmes announced by European governments will take years to implement and, even then, will depend on American technology, American supply chains, and American political will. Europe is not rebuilding its military capacity. It is rebuilding its dependence.

Third, the United States is redefining the rules of the Atlantic alliance. President Trump did not question NATO's existence, but he fundamentally changed its terms. Alliances are no longer presented as permanent political communities bound by shared values. They are increasingly presented as contractual relationships based on measurable contributions, reciprocal obligations, and strategic utility. The public confrontation with Spain over defence spending was a reminder that security has become transactional. Loyalty is no longer assumed. It is purchased.

The Paradox of European Victory

These three realities lead to a question that most European governments would prefer to avoid: can Europe emerge from this war stronger, regardless of the outcome?

If Ukraine achieves a favourable military outcome, Europe will still depend on American guarantees, American logistics, American intelligence, and American industrial capacity. The war may end, but the strategic dependence will remain. Even such an outcome would not translate into European strategic autonomy. It would merely confirm that Europe cannot manage its own security without American leadership.

Share

If Ukraine is forced into a less favourable settlement, the consequences are even starker. Europe will have spent hundreds of billions on a war it did not win. Its eastern border will remain unstable. Its industrial base will have been drained. Its political cohesion will have been tested. And it will still depend on the United States for its security.

In either scenario, Europe emerges weaker relative to the United States. The war has accelerated the continent's strategic dependence, not reversed it. Europe has spent four years trying to weaken Russia while failing to strengthen itself. That is the strategic failure Ankara made visible.

Turkey: The Real Winner of Ankara Summit

If Ankara produced one clear geopolitical winner, it was Turkey. President Erdoğan emerged with enhanced strategic leverage after securing Trump's signal that Washington would consider restoring Turkey's access to the F-35 programme and lifting CAATSA sanctions.

Turkey's strength lies precisely in the fact that it is indispensable without being fully aligned with any single geopolitical camp. It controls the Black Sea straits, maintains working relations with both Moscow and Kyiv, and projects influence across the Eastern Mediterranean, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Few NATO members possess comparable geopolitical flexibility.

For Europe, this creates an uncomfortable reality. Many European governments continue to disagree with Ankara over democracy, migration and regional disputes, yet they also recognise that no coherent strategy for the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean or the Middle East can succeed without Turkish cooperation. Ankara therefore left the summit stronger, while Europe left it more dependent.

Europe's Strategic Irrelevance

The most alarming aspect of Ankara was not what was decided, but who was absent. Not physically, but strategically. European governments attended the summit, but they did not shape its outcomes.

The decision to sustain the war through 2027 was made in Washington. The offer to restore Turkey's F-35 access was made by Trump. The new Defence, Security and Resilience Bank was launched by a coalition of states on the margins of the summit, not by the EU or NATO as a whole. Europe participated, but it did not lead.

Comment

This is not a new phenomenon, but Ankara made it unmistakable. Europe has increasingly become a consumer of security rather than a shaper of it, reliant on American guarantees while failing to develop its own strategic autonomy. The rearmament programmes announced by European governments will take years to implement, and even then, they will depend on American technology, American supply chains, and American political will.

For Poland, this is a particularly bitter lesson. Warsaw has positioned itself as Ukraine's most loyal ally, spending billions on military and humanitarian aid while hosting millions of refugees. Yet its influence over the strategic direction of the conflict remains minimal. Poland is a frontline state, but it is not a decision-maker. It bears the costs without sharing the power.

The Legacy of Ankara

Ankara may ultimately be remembered not as the summit that strengthened NATO, but as the summit that revealed how little strategic initiative Europe still possesses within the Alliance it helped build. Europe often speaks about strategic autonomy. Ankara demonstrated something very different. Europe today finances its own security but still does not define it. Until that changes, every new NATO summit will strengthen the Alliance while weakening Europe's ability to shape its own future.

The real legacy of Ankara is not that NATO became stronger. It is that Europe became relatively weaker while every other major actor increased its strategic flexibility. Turkey gained leverage. The United States rewrote the rules of the Alliance. Europe alone paid more while deciding less.

The real question after Ankara is no longer about the course of the war, but whether Europe can emerge from it stronger. Four years into the conflict, the answer remains deeply uncertain. NATO left Ankara with new funding, new industrial initiatives, and new military commitments. What it did not leave with was evidence that Europe itself has become a more independent strategic actor. That may ultimately prove to be the summit's most important legacy.

What is unfolding is not a series of isolated failures. It is the systemic end of a political model that consolidated after 1991, stabilized after 2014, and became fully rigid after 2022. The Atlantic-oriented European establishment is no longer adapting to events — it is being shaped and constrained by them.

Subscribe now

Starmer’s Fall as a Structural Signal

Keir Starmer did not collapse due to an individual miscalculation. He represents a consolidated type of European leadership: procedurally competent, ideologically standardized, and fully integrated into the Atlantic policy consensus, yet increasingly disconnected from the material conditions of the societies it governs.

His governance followed a predictable logic: alignment with transatlantic strategic priorities, continuity of high-cost energy frameworks, and political insulation of decisions justified through abstract normative language rather than domestic economic impact.

This is not a deviation. It is the model.

And precisely because it is the model, its failure is reproducible.

The Crisis Is Not Political, It Is Structural

Across Europe, governing legitimacy is eroding in a consistent and measurable way. This is not a cyclical fluctuation of approval ratings. It is a systemic loss of confidence in the capacity of political elites to represent national interests under conditions of economic pressure and geopolitical instability.

Share

In major European states, governing parties increasingly operate with approval levels clustered around the lower quarter of public support. Germany’s CDU/CSU lingers around 22–24%, Macron’s centrist bloc in France has long failed to break meaningfully above 20–25%, while in Britain, Keir Starmer, who entered office in 2024 with a large parliamentary majority and considerable initial momentum, saw his support collapse within less than two years, ultimately leading to his resignation.

The drivers are cumulative: long-term deindustrialization across parts of Europe, persistent energy cost asymmetries, and migration pressures increasingly perceived as unmanaged rather than strategically governed.

This dynamic is reinforced by elite selection mechanisms in which institutional continuity and ideological compatibility increasingly outweigh demonstrated strategic competence.

The outcome is a structural perception gap: European leadership presents itself as strategic and value-driven, while societies increasingly experience it as reactive, externally aligned, and internally unanchored.

This pattern is visible across multiple core states of the system — including France, where recurring political crises and weakening institutional trust reflect erosion of stable governance; Germany, where energy transition and industrial pressure have become central political fault lines; and Italy, where cyclical shifts between establishment and alternative political forces highlight persistent systemic volatility.

The Production of a Narrow Elite

The persistence of this model is not accidental. It is generated by the institutional architecture of elite formation.

European political leadership increasingly emerges from a relatively narrow transnational ecosystem shaped by elite universities, EU administrative careers, and policy networks closely connected to Atlantic-oriented think tanks and NGOs. This system produces a high degree of procedural competence and consensus discipline, but it systematically filters out strategic heterogeneity.

The result is a high degree of strategic convergence. Whether in London, Paris, Berlin or Brussels, governing elites increasingly rely on similar policy assumptions, intellectual references and external strategic frameworks.

National variation remains at the surface level. The underlying model is uniform.

The Rise of Realist Counter Forces

In parallel, political forces challenging this consensus are expanding their influence across multiple European systems. In Germany, the AfD has established itself as a durable political actor by directly contesting energy policy orthodoxy and advocating a recalibration of relations with Russia. In France, similar pressures emerge through fragmented but persistent anti-establishment movements challenging centrist governance. In Italy, political cycles continue to oscillate between institutional alignment and corrective electoral shifts.

Leave a comment

These movements are routinely described as “populist” or “extremist” within mainstream discourse. However, analytically, they reflect a different phenomenon: the re-emergence of explicit interest-based politics in systems that have increasingly abstracted decision-making into ideological frameworks.

Regardless of normative evaluation, their rise signals a persistent demand for strategic realism in economic and geopolitical policy.

Why the Establishment Cannot Adapt

The resistance of the established elite is not merely ideological. It is institutional and existential.

A shift toward realism would require reassessing a series of strategic decisions taken over the past decade — particularly in energy architecture, industrial policy, and security alignment. This would not only challenge policy direction, but also expose structural errors in elite judgment.

For this reason, adaptation is constrained. The system is not designed to self-correct at the level of its foundational assumptions. Instead, it tends to defend them under conditions of increasing external pressure.

The result is a growing tendency toward rhetorical containment and institutional marginalisation of alternative strategic approaches, rather than genuine policy recalibration.

The End of the Post-Cold War Political Cycle

Europe is entering a terminal phase of the post-Cold War political settlement. The combination of external dependency, internal fragmentation, and declining institutional trust is steadily eroding the authority of traditional centrist governance structures.

This process is not abrupt. It is cumulative and directional.

The post-1991 European political model—characterised by Atlantic alignment, regulatory governance and ideological convergence—is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain under conditions of systemic global competition.

What replaces it is not predetermined. But the direction of pressure is clear.

Either European systems move toward a more explicit interest-based realism in foreign and economic policy, or they continue to fragment politically under the weight of declining internal confidence.

Conclusion: A System That No Longer Produces Authority

The significance of figures such as Keir Starmer is not individual. It is structural. Their trajectories illustrate a broader reality: the current European political model is no longer reliably generating durable authority.

This is the central shift. Not policy disagreement, but institutional exhaustion.

The question facing Europe is therefore not whether realism is desirable. It is whether the existing governing class retains the capacity to recognize systemic change while still able to respond to it — or whether it will continue to operate within assumptions that are already losing coherence in practice.

In that sense, the end of the Atlantic mediocracy is not an event. It is a phase transition already underway.

For more than four years, Poland stood as Ukraine’s most loyal and generous supporter in Europe. Successive governments in Warsaw supplied weapons, opened borders to millions of refugees, and treated unconditional backing for Kyiv as both a strategic necessity and a moral duty.

That consensus is now visibly cracking.

The reason is brutally simple. The Ukrainian state, under Volodymyr Zelensky, has decided to openly glorify the ideological heirs of those who massacred Polish civilians in the most savage and sadistic manner imaginable during World War II. This is not a misunderstanding. It is not a cultural difference. It is a calculated insult, repeated and escalated, with no sign of remorse.

The Latest Provocation

Zelensky signed a decree awarding an elite special operations unit the official title “Heroes of the UPA”. For any Pole with even basic historical knowledge, this is not a minor symbolic gesture. It is a direct slap in the face.

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army – the UPA – and its parent organisation, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists – the OUN – were responsible for the Volhynia massacres. In terms of sheer brutality – the methods used, the cruelty inflicted, the sadistic nature of the killings – this was the most barbaric episode of ethnic cleansing ever committed against Poles.

The Volhynia Massacres: Pure Barbarism

Let us be precise about what happened, because the Ukrainian side has spent decades trying to blur, relativise, and reframe these events.

Between 1943 and 1945, Ukrainian nationalists systematically murdered tens of thousands of Polish civilians. The victims were overwhelmingly women, children, and the elderly. Men of fighting age were often absent – at war, in forced labour, or already murdered. The UPA targeted the defenceless.

The methods were not merely murderous. They were deliberately sadistic.

People were burned alive in barns. Families were locked inside their homes and set on fire. Children were sawed in half with carpenter’s saws. Pregnant women had their bellies cut open; the foetus was sometimes impaled on a pitchfork or bayonet. Infants were smashed against walls or thrown into wells. Victims were nailed to trees, disembowelled, decapitated. Eyes were gouged out. Tongues were cut. Bodies were mutilated post-mortem in ways designed to terrorise survivors.

Entire villages were wiped from the map. Not destroyed – erased. The UPA’s goal was not to defeat a military enemy. It was to remove the Polish population from what they considered Ukrainian territory. This was ethnic cleansing in its purest, most brutal form, carried out under the slogan “Ukraine for Ukrainians”.

No one has ever murdered Poles with greater cruelty than the Ukrainian nationalists of the OUN-UPA. That is not an opinion. That is a historical fact.

The Current Rehabilitation

And today, the Ukrainian state is proudly rehabilitating the very people and symbols behind those crimes.

Zelensky's decree is not an isolated incident. It is part of a sustained, state-driven campaign to rebrand OUN-UPA as freedom fighters, national heroes, and founding fathers of modern Ukraine. Streets are named after Bandera. Statues of Shukhevych, the UPA commander, stand in public squares. School textbooks sanitise the massacres or omit them entirely.

Even more grotesque is the growing official cult around Stepan Bandera himself. Zelensky's government has announced plans to bring Bandera's remains back to Ukraine for a full state funeral. The man whose followers slaughtered Polish children with saws and pitchforks is to receive a "dignified" reburial. What makes this even more brazen is the sheer hypocrisy: for years, Ukraine has blocked and delayed the exhumation of thousands of Polish victims of the Volhynia massacres, refusing to allow basic Christian burials for the murdered. They deny the dead a dignified resting place while simultaneously preparing a state funeral for the man who ideologically fathered their killers. This is not just provocation. This is cynicism raised to the level of state policy.

At the same time, the regime continues to honour figures like Andriy Melnyk, whose faction of the OUN collaborated closely with Nazi Germany. Melnyk's followers participated in the Holocaust, assisted in the liquidation of Jewish ghettos, and helped train auxiliary police units that carried out anti-Polish terror. This is the pantheon of heroes that contemporary Ukraine is building. And it expects Poland to applaud.

The Reaction in Poland: From the Top Down

The backlash in Poland has crossed traditional political lines. That is what makes this moment significant.

President Karol Nawrocki has announced plans to revoke the Order of the White Eagle – Poland’s highest state distinction – previously awarded to Zelensky. The decoration was granted in 2023 by former President Andrzej Duda, a decision that was scandalous even then. What had Zelensky done to deserve Poland’s highest honour for merit? Nothing that justified such an extraordinary gesture. But now, in light of the systematic glorification of anti-Polish murderers, revocation is not merely justified – it is obligatory.

Even Lech Wałęsa – the icon of Solidarity, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and for decades a symbol of Poland’s pro-European, anti-communist tradition – has reached his limit. He announced publicly that he was removing the large Ukrainian flag pin he had worn on his shirt for many years. The pin had become so much a part of his public image that he was often more associated with the Ukrainian flag than with the Polish one. Now, he declared that Zelensky, by honouring the bandits of the UPA, had insulted him and all murdered Poles. He announced the removal of the flag from his chest and stated that he would no longer support Zelensky.

If Wałęsa has broken, something fundamental has shifted in Poland.

The Reaction in Poland: Society Cracking Faster Than the Elites

Official Warsaw long restrained itself from strong criticism of Ukrainian historical politics for strategic reasons. Ordinary Poles, however, are increasingly unwilling to accept the open celebration of those who butchered their grandparents.

This shift is not abstract. Several incidents involving the display of Bandera and UPA symbols have already occurred on Polish soil. Monuments to Volhynia victims have been defaced with red-and-black UPA flags and Cyrillic inscriptions glorifying the UPA. At public events, OUN-UPA flags have appeared. These are not theoretical provocations. They are real, visible, and deeply offensive.

When Poles observe these incidents, and then see the same symbols being glorified by the Ukrainian state itself, it becomes almost impossible not to generalise. That is not irrational prejudice. That is a natural psychological response to a consistent pattern of provocation. The mainstream media may try to blame “Russian propaganda” for rising anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Poland. But the truth is simpler and more damning: it is the followers and glorifiers of bestial murderers of Poles who are creating this shift – by their own words, their own symbols, and their own choices.

The Ukrainian Ambassador’s Gaslighting

The Ukrainian ambassador to Poland, Vasyl Bodnar, recently attempted to rationalise the cult of Stepan Bandera. He pointed out that Bandera was imprisoned in the German concentration camp during the worst of the Volhynia massacres – the implication being that his physical absence somehow distances him from the crimes committed in his name. This is gaslighting. It is a direct insult delivered straight to the face of every Pole who lost family in the slaughter.

Bandera was the ideological father of the OUN‑UPA. His writings, his commands, his entire political project called for the ethnic cleansing of Poles from Ukrainian territory. That he happened to be incarcerated by the Germans for part of the war does not absolve him. It is like arguing that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust because he was in a bunker. The argument is grotesque. That a senior Ukrainian diplomat would make it in public tells you everything you need to know about the regime he represents.

The True Ideological Character of the Regime in Kyiv

What we are witnessing is not a fringe phenomenon. It is state policy. Zelensky personally signed the decree awarding “Heroes of the UPA” to an elite military unit. His government is planning Bandera’s state funeral. Ukrainian state institutions continue to promote historical narratives that portray OUN‑UPA as freedom fighters, with the massacres of Poles either minimised, relativised, or erased.

This is not an accident. This is the regime’s true face.

And here we must state something uncomfortable but necessary. When Russia launched its actions in Ukraine, one of its stated objectives was “denazification”. For years, Western commentators dismissed this as pure propaganda, as a cynical pretext for imperial aggression. But every passing month demonstrates that this objective was not invented from nowhere. It was based on real, observable, and deeply embedded realities within Ukrainian political culture. The rehabilitation of Bandera, the glorification of the UPA, the state‑sponsored rewriting of history to sanitise Nazi collaborators – these are not Russian inventions. They are Ukrainian choices.

The Silence of the European Mainstream

It is worth noting how the Western European mainstream has responded to all of this. The answer: with near‑total silence.

The same media outlets that tirelessly document every real or imagined instance of historical revisionism in other countries have almost nothing to say about Ukraine’s state‑sponsored rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators. The same political elites who lecture Poland and Hungary about the rule of law have no words for Kyiv honouring the murderers of Polish civilians.

The reason is not mysterious. Ukraine is useful. Poland is expendable. The narrative requires a clear good guy and a clear bad guy. Any complication – like Ukraine celebrating anti‑Polish ethnic cleansers – is simply ignored or explained away as “complex history”.

But history is not complex when infants are impaled on bayonets. That is not complexity. That is barbarism.

A Double Standard That Cannot Stand

Imagine, for a moment, that Germany decided to rename streets after Hitler. Imagine that the German government announced plans for a state funeral for Heinrich Himmler. Imagine that German school textbooks began portraying the SS as freedom fighters. The international outcry would be deafening. Sanctions would follow. Diplomatic relations would freeze.

Yet Ukraine does exactly the same thing with Bandera and the UPA, and the West looks away. Poland is expected to smile, to continue sending weapons, to continue hosting millions of refugees, and to pretend that the glorification of our grandparents’ murderers is a matter of “complex history”.

This is not partnership. This is contempt.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Poland has every right – and a moral duty – to draw a hard red line. Supporting Ukraine does not require endorsing the glorification of those who butchered Polish civilians in the most barbaric manner. These two positions are not contradictory. Anyone who insists otherwise is either a fool or a liar.

That Ukraine chooses to praise Bandera, to bury him with honours, to teach its children that the UPA were heroes – that is their morality and their choice. A deeply dubious choice, but theirs nonetheless. What they do not have, however, is the right to demand that Poles accept it, applaud it, pretend nothing is happening, or remain silent. And they certainly have no right to complain when anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Poland rises dramatically. That sentiment does not come from nowhere. It is not manufactured by “Russian propaganda”, as mainstream media outlets desperately suggest. It is created by the worshippers of bestial murderers of Poles themselves – by their actions, their symbols, their state‑sanctioned historical lies.

When Poles observe several incidents involving Bandera symbols already occurring on Polish soil – defaced monuments, flags at public events, aggressive nationalist displays – and then see the very same figures being glorified by the Ukrainian state, it is hardly surprising that they begin to view the entire nation with growing distance, distrust, and hostility. Whether fair or not, this reaction is becoming an increasingly predictable social response to what many Poles perceive as a consistent pattern of historical provocation.

The romantic vision of unconditional Polish-Ukrainian ‘brotherhood’ is beginning to fracture under the pressure of unresolved historical memory and repeated political provocations from Kyiv.

For a growing number of Poles, the idealised image of Ukraine promoted by Western media is collapsing under the weight of a darker and unresolved nationalist tradition that parts of the Ukrainian state continue to openly rehabilitate.

Poland must choose accordingly. The era of unconditional Polish solidarity with Ukraine should never have lasted this long. It is time to end it.

The contrast is instructive.

In Warsaw, Magyar repeated positions that would have drawn fierce condemnation had they come from Orbán. He stated bluntly that once the war in Ukraine ends, the entire European Union will inevitably return to buying Russian oil and gas because it is cheaper. “This is dictated by competitiveness and geography. It’s that simple,” he said. Hungary, he argued, must prepare for that reality rather than pretend it does not exist. He also announced plans to halt the issuance of new work permits for non-EU citizens from 1 June — a move that will affect Ukrainian workers among others.

Subscribe

This is not a radical departure from the previous Hungarian line. It is the same pragmatic realism, only delivered by a different face.

The EU’s Selective Tolerance

What makes the warm reception particularly striking is the contrast with the treatment Orbán received for saying almost exactly the same things. Magyar is being hailed in some Western circles as a “pro-European” fresh start, while Orbán was systematically marginalised for defending identical core interests: energy security, control over migration and refusal to accept that geography can be ignored.

Share

The difference is not in the substance. The difference is in the packaging and the political label. Magyar is perceived as “one of us”. Orbán was not. This is the clearest demonstration yet that for much of the EU establishment, the real dividing line is not policy, but political loyalty.

This dynamic increasingly exposes a deeper problem within the European political mainstream. What Brussels often describes as a struggle over “European values” is, in practice, frequently a struggle over political alignment and stylistic conformity. A government may pursue largely identical policies on migration, energy or relations with Russia, yet receive radically different treatment depending on whether it is perceived as cooperative, disruptive or ideologically inconvenient. In that sense, Magyar’s reception says less about Hungary changing course than about the EU’s growing preference for optics over substance.

Magyar appears to be playing the same strategic game with considerable skill. He speaks the language Brussels wants to hear when addressing Western audiences. He has also spoken openly about the possibility of eventually adopting the euro – the one notable point of divergence from Orbán’s line. This position provides him with useful political cover in the West, allowing him to maintain a firmly realist stance on energy and migration.

However, adopting the euro would mean surrendering a significant degree of fiscal sovereignty, a step whose long-term consequences for Hungary’s economic autonomy remain highly uncertain. For many Central European states, the deeper dilemma is no longer simply economic integration, but how much strategic flexibility they are ultimately willing to trade for political acceptance within the European core.

The Limits of the Narrative

This episode reveals more about the European Union than about Hungary itself. The Union is willing to accept pragmatic positions from a leader it considers politically “acceptable”, while the same positions were treated as heretical when expressed by someone outside the accepted circle. Geography has not changed. Energy realities have not changed. The only thing that has changed is the name on the door in Budapest.

Comment

For Poland, the enthusiastic reception of Magyar is telling. It reveals how much Warsaw still hopes that a change of leadership in Budapest will automatically align Hungary with the current Polish line on Russia and Ukraine. The reality, however, is more complex.

Magyar’s visit to Warsaw was not the beginning of a dramatic ideological shift in Hungary. It was a reminder that Hungarian realism is alive and well – just wearing a different suit.

The real question is not whether Magyar is fundamentally different from Orbán. The real question is how long the EU establishment will continue pretending that realism is only acceptable when it wears the right label.

Europe was not in the room. Europe was not invited.

This is not a diplomatic curiosity. This is a structural fact about where global power now resides and how it is being exercised.

Beijing as the Capital of Multipolar Diplomacy

Xi Jinping did not choose between Washington and Moscow. He engaged both. That is the point. China’s influence today comes not just from its economic size, but from strategic centrality — from becoming the power that other major actors increasingly have to deal with.

Subscribe

Trump came to Beijing looking for relief on rare earths and trade stability. Putin came to reinforce the Sino-Russian partnership and show that Russia is still a serious player despite years of Western sanctions. Both got what they needed, on Chinese terms.

This is what the multipolar world actually looks like. Not a clean handover from American to Chinese dominance, but a messy, competitive system where several power centres interact, compete, and negotiate at the same time.

China recognised this shift early and positioned itself accordingly. Russia, despite heavy Western pressure, adapted with surprising resilience. The United States is reluctantly learning to live with it.

Europe has not.

The Isolation Strategy That Backfired

For four years, one of the European Union’s main strategic goals was the isolation of Russia. Multiple rounds of sanctions were supposed to cut Moscow off from Western finance, technology, energy markets, and diplomatic influence. The assumption was simple: enough pressure and Russia would eventually break.

The reality now visible in Beijing tells a very different story.

Russia did not disappear. It simply turned east. Sino-Russian trade reached record levels. Energy exports were redirected to Asian markets. New corridors and partnerships developed across Eurasia, completely bypassing the old Western-dominated system.

Comment

Many countries in the Global South refused to join the Western isolation campaign. They continued dealing with Russia according to their own interests, not European ideology.

The sanctions did hurt Russia. But they also hurt Europe — in higher energy prices, damaged industry, lost competitiveness, and massive fiscal costs.

Europe didn’t fully isolate Russia.

In many ways, it accelerated the creation of an alternative Eurasian system from which it is increasingly excluded.

The Ideology Trap

Europe’s problems are not mainly about money or geography. They come from a strategic culture that refuses to separate interests from ideology.

For decades, European elites believed that liberal values, institutions,

and economic integration were not just preferences — but the inevitable direction of history. That worked for a while. It doesn’t work anymore.

China plays long-term strategic pragmatism. India cooperates with everyone at once. Turkey balances NATO with Russian energy deals. Even the United States has returned to raw national interest.

These are not temporary deviations. This is how serious powers behave in a multipolar world.

Europe chose the luxury of ideological purity instead. And the cost is exactly what we see now: strategic irrelevance at the moment when the global order is being reshaped.

Share

Brussels still talks about “strategic autonomy” while remaining heavily dependent on American security guarantees, foreign energy, and slow, bureaucratic decision-making. It treats Russia as a permanent ideological enemy rather than a geographically unavoidable neighbour. It frames China almost exclusively as a threat, despite China’s central role in global supply chains and industry.

At the exact moment when the world is becoming more geopolitical, Europe is still stuck in a post-geopolitical mindset.

Geography and the Eurasian Question

There is a bitter irony in Europe’s position.

Geographically, Europe sits at the western edge of the Eurasian landmass — perfectly placed to serve as a bridge between the Atlantic and the vast industrial and resource networks stretching to the Pacific. The potential is obvious. The infrastructure exists. The location is ideal.

Central Europe in particular, with Poland at its heart, has a strategic position that in a multipolar world should be a major asset — not a frontline buffer, but a real connector.

Yet this advantage is being actively wasted.

Europe has reduced access to nearby energy resources, weakened parts of its industrial base, and increased dependence on distant actors — all while loudly declaring its commitment to autonomy and resilience.

The argument that any serious cooperation with Russia automatically creates “dangerous dependence” looks increasingly hollow when you look at how other powers actually behave. All major players use economic leverage when it suits them — including the United States toward its own allies.

Energy relationships work best when they are predictable and based on mutual interest.

The real problem was never Russian power. It was Europe’s refusal to accept that power politics still rules the world.

What Beijing Actually Revealed

The meetings in Beijing were not an accident. They were the visible result of a shift that has been building for years.

What they showed, clearly and uncomfortably, is that the emerging international order is being shaped by powers willing to deal with reality as it is — not as they wish it to be.

In this order, Beijing has become a central diplomatic and economic hub. Washington is adapting, pragmatically and sometimes reluctantly. Moscow has survived the isolation campaign and deepened its most important strategic partnership.

Europe, meanwhile, risks becoming increasingly peripheral to the decisions that will shape the future.

This was not imposed on Europe from outside. It emerged from a worldview that underestimated the persistence of geography, industrial power, energy interdependence, and raw geopolitical competition.

The Beijing summits made one thing unmistakable:

The multipolar order is no longer a theory. It is already here.

The only real question left is whether Europe can still adapt to it — or whether it will continue trying to navigate a changed world with assumptions that no longer match reality.

This was not a routine political crisis. It was a telling sign of the deepening cracks in the carefully constructed post-1989 system of external control over Central and Eastern Europe.

A Government Installed to Serve External Interests

Bolojan’s cabinet, formed less than a year earlier, was widely seen as the latest Western-backed experiment in Romania. Installed under heavy pressure from Brussels and Washington, it pushed through harsh austerity measures, fiscal tightening, and alignment with EU and NATO priorities — often at the direct expense of Romanian citizens.

Energy prices soared, living standards stagnated, and the country’s sovereignty was once again subordinated to the demands of distant bureaucracies in Brussels and financial centres in the West.

The fall of this government is not merely a domestic political event. It represents the Romanian people’s growing refusal to accept governments that function more as local administrators of external agendas than as genuine representatives of national interests.

The Ghost of 2024: When Democracy Was Cancelled

To fully understand the significance of what happened this week, one must go back to the presidential elections of late 2024. Călin Georgescu, an independent candidate with a clear sovereignist message and a more sceptical stance toward external influence from NATO and the EU, emerged as the overwhelming frontrunner. His support came from ordinary Romanians tired of endless external dictates, corruption, and the erosion of national decision-making.

What followed was a textbook case of external interference. The elections were abruptly annulled under the pretext of alleged “Russian meddling” — a convenient narrative used whenever the Western-backed establishment faces an unacceptable result. Georgescu was subjected to legal harassment, banned from future runs, and smeared in the international media as a “far-right extremist” and “pro-Russian threat.”

The message was clear: the “rules-based order” only applies when the right people win.

Now, two years later, the same forces that engineered that electoral cancellation are watching their carefully installed parliamentary government collapse in real time.

The People Strike Back

The coalition that brought down Bolojan — PSD and AUR — reflects a broader awakening across Romanian society. While the mainstream Western media will no doubt label this development “dangerous” and “populist,” the reality on the ground is simpler: Romanians are tired of being treated as a peripheral province of the EU and NATO, expected to pay the bills and follow orders while receiving little in return.

George Simion and the forces behind AUR have long channelled this frustration. Their alliance with parts of the traditional left (PSD) to oust the pro-Western liberal government shows that the old ideological divides are giving way to a deeper divide: between those who defend national sovereignty and those who continue to serve external masters.

A Regional Pattern Becomes Impossible to Ignore

Romania is not an isolated case. Across Central and Eastern Europe, the same dynamic is unfolding: Poland debates constitutional reform to restore executive strength, Hungary and Slovakia have already moved toward greater policy independence, and now Romania joins the list of countries where the post-1989 model of managed democracy is visibly failing. Similar tensions have also played out in Bulgaria, where mass protests against corruption and elite capture forced the resignation of Prime Minister Rosen Zhelazkov’s government in December 2025.

The Western establishment, which spent decades building institutions, funding NGOs, shaping media narratives, and “guiding” elections to ensure compliance, is now watching its carefully engineered architecture crumble under the weight of popular discontent.

The Reckoning Has Begun

The fall of Ilie Bolojan’s government is a powerful signal. It shows that even in a country long considered one of the most reliably Atlanticist in the region, the limits of external control have been reached. When governments are perceived as serving Brussels and Washington more than their own citizens, the people eventually find a way to push back — through parliament, through the streets, or through the ballot box.

The question now is whether the Western centres of power will learn from this latest humiliation or double down on interference. Either way, the era of unchallenged external domination over Romania — and much of Central and Eastern Europe — is coming to an end.

Bucharest has spoken. The era of the installed regime is over.

It touches the core question quietly confronting much of Central and Eastern Europe: whether governance architectures built after 1989 are still capable of producing coherent state action under the pressures of the current era.

A System Designed for Different Conditions

The 1997 constitutional framework was constructed for a strategic environment that no longer exists. It dispersed executive authority between president and government, prioritising procedural balance over decisiveness. The underlying assumption was that stability would be sustained through Western integration and gradual convergence within a predictable transatlantic order.

That assumption held for a time. But the model also embedded a structural feature that has become increasingly visible: authority was divided, while responsibility remained diffuse.

Subscribe now

What emerged was a system optimised for equilibrium rather than execution. In periods of alignment this could be managed. In periods of fragmentation it produces friction, veto points, and diffused accountability — and, more importantly, a growing delay between decision and consequence.

Poland has experienced this tension in full. Legislative deadlocks, prolonged disputes over judicial reform, delays in accessing European funds, and inconsistent foreign policy signalling are not anomalies. They are predictable outputs of a model that separates power without fully integrating responsibility.

Elites vs Society: The Growing Divergence

This institutional architecture has produced a widening gap between governing elites and society.

Political elites operate within the logic of systemic integration — where success is measured by alignment, coordination, and credibility within established Western frameworks, often at the direct expense of national decision-making autonomy. Society, however, increasingly absorbs the material costs of that alignment: energy volatility, inflationary pressure, fiscal tightening, and a shrinking sense of policy autonomy while witnessing the gradual erosion of real sovereignty in practice.

This divergence is not primarily ideological. It is structural. Elites manage the system. Society absorbs its externalities.

Share

It is within this gap that recurring calls for stronger executive authority — including ideas of enhancing the presidential model — re-emerge. These are not abstract constitutional preferences. They are responses to the perception that fragmented authority no longer translates into effective state capacity.

The Regional Pattern

Poland is not alone. Across Central and Eastern Europe, similar pressures have produced comparable responses. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán responded to chronic instability by consolidating executive authority and reducing internal veto points. In Slovakia, Robert Fico has moved toward tighter political control within governing structures. In Bulgaria, Rumen Radev has expanded presidential influence amid repeated parliamentary collapse. In Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić has built a model centred on strong executive coordination in a complex geopolitical neighbourhood.

These cases differ in ideology and method. What they share is a functional logic: when fragmented systems face sustained external pressure, political actors tend to move toward clearer lines of authority — not necessarily out of ideological conviction, but as a practical adaptation to accumulating inefficiency.

The Presidential Temptation and Its Risks

A stronger presidential model could, in theory, reduce internal veto points and increase decisiveness. Yet such a shift carries its own demanding condition: the leader exercising that authority must demonstrate significantly higher geopolitical maturity and restraint.

Leave a comment

In Poland’s geopolitical location, between major power centres, emotional or symbolic foreign policy becomes particularly costly. A system with fewer internal checks demands much greater strategic discipline and genuine independence from external pressure — qualities the current political class has not always demonstrated when navigating relationships with Brussels and Washington.

This is the unspoken trade-off. Institutional reform alone does not solve the problem of strategic judgment. It merely raises the stakes of poor judgment.

The Post-1989 Inheritance and Its Boundaries

The post-1989 transformation was never purely domestic. It was embedded in a dense network of external institutional, financial, and normative frameworks imposed from outside, that shaped elite formation, policy boundaries, and strategic imagination itself — often subordinating Polish interests to broader external agendas.

This framework delivered measurable gains. But it also generated structural dependencies that progressively limited Poland’s genuine sovereignty. Strategic flexibility became conditional on alignment with external centres of power — centres that frequently operate beyond any meaningful democratic accountability of Polish society. What was presented as integration gradually evolved into a system of managed participation, in which key parameters of policy are shaped by multilayered external commitments serving interests external to the Polish state itself.

In stable conditions, this trade-off appeared sustainable. In a more fragmented international system, it increasingly resembles a constraint that limits genuine sovereign choice.

Poland as a Signal

Seen from this perspective, Poland’s constitutional debate takes on a broader significance.

Karol Nawrocki’s initiative reflects a growing recognition that institutional coherence is weakening under current constraints. The resistance from Donald Tusk’s government reflects a different concern: that attempts to restore decisiveness through centralisation may destabilise the balance that still holds the system together.

Both positions are rational within the system they inherited. But both also operate within a structure that assumes equilibrium as a permanent condition — an assumption that external reality is increasingly unwilling to confirm.

Conclusion: A System at Its Limits

What is unfolding in Poland is not an institutional anomaly. It is an early manifestation of a broader European condition: the gradual stress-testing of governance models designed for a post-1989 equilibrium that is no longer structurally guaranteed.

The framework did not fail dramatically. It simply reached the boundaries of its design.

The question is no longer whether it delivered stability. It did.

The question is whether it can still translate that stability into effective state capacity in an environment where stability itself is no longer the default condition.

Poland’s constitutional debate does not resolve this tension. But it makes it harder to ignore.

And in systems under structural pressure, visibility is rarely neutral.

If you enjoyed my analyses and articles, you can explore more on Brussels Signal or support my work with a coffee.

Brussels Signal

Buy Me a Coffee

I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

The European Union’s adoption of its 20th sanctions package against Russia on 23 April 2026 has triggered one of the sharpest responses from Beijing in recent years. China’s Ministry of Commerce expressed “firm opposition” to the inclusion of 27 Chinese entities on the sanctions list, demanded their immediate removal, and warned that the EU would bear the consequences if the decision stands.

Such language is not routine diplomacy. It is a calibrated warning that Europe may be approaching the limits of how far it can extend its economic pressure without triggering systemic pushback.

This is not simply about compliance or enforcement.
It is about the boundaries of influence in an increasingly resistant global system.

Sanctions Without Boundaries

By targeting Chinese firms accused of facilitating sanction circumvention or supplying dual-use components, the EU has effectively extended its sanctions regime beyond its original framework. From Brussels’ perspective, this is framed as a logical evolution of enforcement. From Beijing’s perspective, it is an extraterritorial application of policy that directly interferes with legitimate Chinese economic interests.

China’s response has been equally structural. The prospect of retaliatory export controls on selected European entities indicates that sanctions are no longer a one-directional tool. They are becoming part of a feedback loop in which each move generates a counter-move.

In such an environment, escalation becomes less a matter of choice and more a built-in feature of the system itself.

Energy Pressure at the Worst Possible Moment

The timing could hardly be worse for Europe.

Global energy markets remain tight, with oil prices hovering near the $100 per barrel mark, driven by instability in the Middle East and ongoing tensions around key maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, Europe’s internal energy transition remains incomplete. Dependence on Russian hydrocarbons has been reduced, but not structurally replaced. Alternative supply chains are more expensive, less efficient, and often politically contingent.

Even where diversification has been achieved, it has come at a cost. Pipeline adjustments linked to the Druzhba system only reinforce a broader reality: Europe has diversified its inputs, but not stabilized its position.

In such conditions, additional disruptions do not remain abstract. They translate directly into higher prices, industrial pressure, and long-term competitiveness constraints that accumulate over time rather than dissipate.

Moscow, Tehran, and the Quiet Consolidation of Leverage

At the same time, developments beyond Europe are reinforcing a different kind of stability.

The late-April meeting in Moscow between President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi highlighted the deepening coordination between two major energy producers operating under sustained Western pressure. Both countries are currently benefiting from elevated oil prices and sustained global demand, while adapting their export systems to bypass restrictions.

Their alignment is not ideological. It is functional. Energy flows continue. Revenues remain strong. Alternative logistical and financial channels are steadily expanding.

China’s position intersects with this dynamic from a different angle. As a major industrial and trading power, it is capable of absorbing pressure and redirecting flows in ways that smaller economies cannot.

Share

Taken together, these developments point to a gradual but meaningful shift: leverage in global energy and trade is becoming more distributed, less predictable, and increasingly resistant to unilateral pressure.

The Cost of Strategic Rigidity

For Europe, the consequences are no longer theoretical.

The strategy of layered sanctions and progressive economic decoupling is encountering resistance not only from its primary target, but from the wider system on which European economies depend. Each additional measure introduces friction with actors whose cooperation remains essential for stability.

Increasingly, these pressures are not simply external shocks, but the cumulative result of policy choices made within Europe itself — and sustained despite their visible costs.

At the same time, the external framework that has traditionally underpinned European strategy is becoming less predictable, reflecting shifting priorities and a more openly transactional approach to alliances, where strategic alignment no longer guarantees predictability. This does not negate existing partnerships. It does, however, complicate the assumption that alignment alone guarantees stability.

What emerges is a structural tension between policy ambition and economic reality—one that becomes harder to sustain with each additional escalation.

A Narrowing Margin for Adaptation

What emerges is not a sudden rupture, but a tightening margin for manoeuvre.

Europe retains significant economic and institutional capacity. But its room to adjust is narrowing. Each escalation reduces flexibility. Each external reaction increases exposure.

Leave a comment

At the same time, early signs of recalibration are beginning to appear within Europe itself—from Spain’s deepening engagement with China to Bulgaria’s recent electoral signal under Rumen Radev. These developments remain cautious, but they reflect a deeper recognition that the current trajectory carries costs which may, over time, outweigh its intended strategic benefits.

The shift is not yet decisive.
But it is no longer hypothetical.

Conclusion: A Signal Europe Cannot Ignore

China’s response to the EU’s latest sanctions should not be dismissed as routine diplomatic friction.

It is a signal.

A signal that the global system is no longer configured to absorb pressure in a single direction. A signal that major economic and energy actors are increasingly willing to respond in kind. And a signal that strategic choices made in Brussels now generate consequences far beyond the continent.

Europe still retains options, but they are narrowing under the weight of its own strategic choices.

The question is no longer whether adjustment will be necessary. It is whether it will come in time—before structural disadvantages harden into permanent features of the European economic landscape.

If you enjoyed my analyses and articles, you can explore more on Brussels Signal or support my work with a coffee.

Brussels Signal

Buy Me a Coffee

I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

On 14 April 2026, Giorgia Meloni delivered a decision that instantly disrupted the post-Cold War assumption of automatic alignment within the Western security architecture. The Italian prime minister announced the suspension of the automatic renewal mechanism of the Italy–Israel defense memorandum — signed in 2003 and ratified by Israel in 2005–2006 — a framework covering military technology exchange, equipment cooperation, and defense industry procurement.

The move was not symbolic.
It was structural.

It halted a system that had renewed itself every five years without friction for over two decades — a mechanism that embodied the very logic of unquestioned alignment. In Rome, the decision was framed as a matter of national interest and strategic reassessment. In Tel Aviv and Washington, it was read for what it was: a rupture in the chain of automatic Western cohesion.

This was not policy adjustment. It was an assertion of sovereignty against external strategic pressure.

Subscribe now

Lebanon, UNIFIL, and the Political Shockwave

The immediate backdrop was the intensification of Israeli military operations in Lebanon, marked by mass civilian casualties and strikes affecting areas near UNIFIL positions where Italian peacekeepers are deployed — incidents widely seen as crossing the line from counterinsurgency into destabilizing escalation.

For Rome, the situation ceased to be distant. It became immediate, tangible, and politically untenable.

Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated that attacks on Lebanese civilians were unacceptable, signaling a rare and explicit divergence from Israel’s operational narrative. The presence of Italian troops under a UN mandate only sharpened the stakes: what was unfolding was not abstract geopolitics, but a direct exposure of Italian personnel to a widening conflict.

The combination of indiscriminate battlefield escalation, diplomatic friction following incidents involving UNIFIL, and mounting domestic pressure accelerated Meloni’s decision — turning caution into action.

The 2003 Memorandum: From Automaticity to Sovereign Control

The Italy–Israel defense memorandum represented a deep layer of Western military integration: cooperation across defense industries, training of personnel, research and development, and advanced technology transfers.

Its defining feature was inertia — automatic renewal every five years unless explicitly challenged.

Meloni’s government challenged it.

By suspending the renewal mechanism, Rome reintroduced political control into what had long functioned as a self-perpetuating system. The agreement was not terminated, but its underlying logic — continuity without consent — was decisively broken.

In geopolitical terms, this injected uncertainty into a previously stable axis. In political terms, it marked a shift from alignment as default to alignment as choice.

Share

Trump vs Meloni: From Alignment to Open Confrontation

On 14 April, the rupture expanded into the transatlantic sphere.

In an interview with Corriere della Sera, Donald Trump launched a direct attack on Meloni, criticizing her refusal to allow Italian bases to be used for US military operations related to Iran. His words were unambiguous:
“I’m shocked at her. I thought she had courage, but I was wrong.”

What lay behind the criticism was not only disagreement, but expectation — the assumption that allied territory remains available for strategic use when called upon.

Meloni rejected that premise.

The trigger for Trump’s remarks was her defense of Pope Leo XIV after he criticized the Iran war. Meloni called Trump’s attack on the pontiff “unacceptable.” Trump escalated further:
“She’s unacceptable because she doesn’t care whether Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

What had once been framed as ideological proximity between Trump and Europe’s conservative leaders dissolved in real time. The episode revealed something deeper than a personal clash: a structural tension between national decision-making and external strategic demands.

Italy’s Strategic Reality

Italy’s position in this crisis is defined less by ideology than by geography and responsibility.

It maintains UNIFIL peacekeepers in Lebanon. It faces direct energy and security exposure to instability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Its constitutional framework carries a historical aversion to foreign military entanglements imposed from outside national consensus.

These are constraints no government can ignore.

Meloni’s decision, therefore, was not a sudden departure from alignment, but the inevitable result of competing imperatives — alliance expectations on one side, national risk and responsibility on the other.

Spain under Sánchez has moved along a parallel trajectory, refusing to provide bases for operations against Iran and articulating a legal framing of the conflict that diverges sharply from transatlantic orthodoxy. Despite profound domestic differences, Rome and Madrid converge on one principle:

sovereignty cannot be outsourced.

Leave a comment

The Fracturing Atlantic Order

The sequence of events — escalation in Lebanon, suspension of the defense memorandum, and the Trump–Meloni confrontation — reveals a widening fault line within the Western alliance system.

At its core lies a contradiction: global military commitments shaped in a unipolar era confronting governments that must answer to national electorates in an increasingly multipolar world.

For decades, alignment functioned as an operating system. Today, it is becoming a negotiation.

Italy’s refusal to make its territory available for operations it did not authorize crystallized this shift. It was not a tactical disagreement, but a rejection of predefined roles within an inherited geopolitical framework.

Conclusion: The Moment of Decision

What unfolded between 13 and 15 April is not an isolated dispute. It is a signal.

The era of automatic alignment is giving way to an era of conditional sovereignty. Governments are no longer willing to translate alliance membership into unconditional compliance — especially when the costs are immediate, and the risks are borne domestically.

Meloni’s decision, the backlash from Washington, and the rupture with Israel all point in the same direction: the gradual erosion of hierarchical order within the Atlantic system.

One line now defines the moment:

Italy has chosen to decide for itself.

And in doing so, it has exposed a reality others are only beginning to confront — that in a multipolar world, sovereignty is not declared.

It is exercised.

If you enjoyed my analyses and articles, you can explore more on Brussels Signal or support my work with a coffee.

Brussels Signal

Buy Me a Coffee

I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

When Karol Nawrocki declares that the United States remains Poland’s greatest ally and states “we are with our allies,” the familiar grammar of Polish foreign policy returns almost automatically. Even amid reports of American casualties following Iranian retaliatory strikes and as the region descends deeper into turmoil, the presidential line offers no space for hesitation. Alliance loyalty comes first; strategic reckoning arrives much later, if at all.

President Nawrocki, known for his openly close political relationship with Donald Trump, has consistently stressed unbreakable partnership. After the recent deaths of American soldiers, he expressed condolences and reaffirmed that Poland stands firmly with Washington. His closest foreign policy adviser recently criticized the US for failing to show even “a minimum of respect” by consulting allies before such a major operation, yet the dominant narrative from the presidential palace remains one of unwavering support.

Public Opinion: A Clear “No” from Society

This time, however, the old mechanism shows visible cracks. Polish society is sending a signal that is unusually clear: enough is enough.

Subscribe now

A recent CBOS survey reveals that 77% of Poles consider the US-Israeli decision to attack Iran wrong, including 51% who view it as definitely unjustified. Nearly half see the Middle East conflict as a direct threat to Poland’s own security. When asked about potential Polish military involvement, opposition is overwhelming — the vast majority firmly rejects sending troops to the region.

This growing gap between elite rhetoric and public sentiment highlights deepening fatigue with reflexive loyalty that delivers little tangible benefit while imposing real domestic burdens.

The Economic Bill - Fuel Prices and Emergency Measures

Ordinary Poles feel the consequences directly at the fuel pump and in their monthly budgets. Since the escalation began, gasoline and diesel prices have surged dramatically. The government under Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded with emergency interventions: slashing VAT on fuel from 23% to 8%, cutting excise duties to the EU minimum, and imposing daily caps on retail prices.

Leave a comment

The most politically revealing fact is that these tools existed long before the crisis; they simply become visible only when the real price of unconditional alignment becomes impossible to conceal. These measures are strictly temporary — the VAT reduction runs only from 31 March to 30 April 2026. Once the relief expires, prices risk shooting up again sharply unless Poland finally awakens from its vassal reflex and begins to distance itself from the petrodollar system that leaves it perpetually exposed to American adventures in the Gulf.

Even after the interventions, prices remain noticeably higher than before the conflict, feeding renewed inflation that hits transport companies, farmers, and ordinary households hardest. Loyalty has never been Poland’s problem — proving it has been routine — but the bill always lands squarely on Polish households and taxpayers.

Government Caution vs. Presidential Enthusiasm

While the presidential office maintains a strongly pro-American tone, with President Nawrocki repeatedly stressing unbreakable partnership with Washington, the government led by Donald Tusk has adopted a noticeably more cautious stance. Prime Minister Tusk has explicitly ruled out sending Polish troops to Iran, stating that the conflict does not directly affect Poland’s security.

Share

Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski has emphasized that Poland remains a loyal ally but “cannot be a sucker” in a one-sided relationship. Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz has firmly rejected ideas of redeploying Patriot systems to the region, stressing that they are essential for protecting Polish airspace and NATO’s eastern flank.

This creates a visible tension: the president’s unconditional rhetorical loyalty clashes with the government’s pragmatic refusal to pay a concrete price for decisions made in Washington without proper consultation. Even voices close to the presidency have expressed discomfort over the lack of advance consultation, revealing that automatic solidarity has its practical limits.

These nuances highlight internal tensions and a growing awareness that blind alignment carries risks — especially when major decisions are taken without proper consultation with allies.

Historical Irony - When Iran Helped Poland

The situation carries a bitter historical irony. In 1942, at one of Poland’s darkest moments under Nazi and Soviet occupation, it was Iran (then Persia) that opened its doors to more than 115,000 Polish refugees and soldiers from General Władysław Anders’ Army — including tens of thousands of women and children fleeing Soviet deportation. Iranians provided shelter, food, and passage. That memory remains unusually vivid in Poland’s historical memory, which makes today’s political tone even more striking.

Today, Warsaw appears ready to absorb fresh economic punishment for an assault on that very country, all in the name of an alliance that does not even bother with prior consultation on critical matters.

Time for Strategic Maturity - Toward Multipolar Flexibility

The Iran crisis acts as a mirror for Polish foreign policy. After years of bearing the economic weight of distant operations and the prolonged burdens linked to the conflict in Ukraine, Polish citizens increasingly perceive the trap of automatic loyalty to Washington. It delivers higher fuel bills, inflation, and strategic risks without genuine reciprocity or security guarantees.

The world has moved beyond unipolar dominance. China expands settlement systems outside traditional dollar channels, BRICS develops alternative financial mechanisms, and Eurasian land corridors gain practical strategic weight. Iran, despite the aggression it faces, remains an important node in this emerging multipolar architecture.

Instead of repeating the mantra of being “with our allies” at any cost, Warsaw could use the current crisis to introduce greater flexibility. Diversifying energy sources, exploring pragmatic economic ties across continents (including potential dialogue with Tehran and Beijing), and reducing dependence on volatile maritime routes disrupted by Gulf conflicts would better serve Polish national interests.

Proving loyalty has never been Poland’s problem — it has been demonstrated repeatedly, often at considerable domestic expense. The harder and more mature task is demonstrating that loyalty and sober national calculation can coexist. In a world where crises multiply and hegemons act unilaterally, strategic distance is not betrayal; it is the mark of a serious, sovereign state.

The question is whether Warsaw’s political class is still capable of reading a geopolitical signal when it comes not from Washington, but from its own society.

What is far less clear is the meaning now being attached to it.

Across Brussels and parts of the European political mainstream, the outcome is already being treated as a strategic correction — the removal of a long-standing obstacle to deeper alignment within the EU. The tone of early reactions suggested relief rather than reflection. That is understandable. It is also, on closer inspection, insufficient.

Reducing the Hungarian election to a story of “returning to the European fold” is not analysis. It is projection — and a convenient one.

Subscribe now

Hungary did not simply rotate governments. It disrupted a system that had been stabilised over more than a decade — built not only on electoral dominance, but on a specific understanding of how a medium-sized Central European state survives in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment. Orbán’s approach rested on a premise that many in Western Europe have long rejected: that alignment is not the same as dependence. Maintaining working relations with multiple power centres — including those viewed as politically inconvenient — was not an ideological experiment. It was a strategy rooted in geography and constraint.

That strategy has now been politically weakened. It has not disappeared.

There is no need to construct elaborate theories to explain the defeat itself. Sixteen years in power carry a cost. Economic pressures accumulated. Public services struggled to keep pace with expectations. A younger electorate, less interested in historical comparisons, voted on present-day performance. These factors were not secondary — they were decisive.

But pretending that Hungary’s political trajectory over the past decade unfolded in a neutral external environment is equally misleading. Prolonged disputes with EU institutions, frozen funds, and continuous political pressure were not just background noise — they were an active structural constraint on the system itself. They did not determine the outcome on their own, but they shaped the conditions under which dissatisfaction grew and consolidated.

The Hungarian election was not the result of a single cause. It was the convergence of internal fatigue and sustained external tension — and ignoring either side produces a convenient but ultimately incomplete reading of what actually happened.

Magyar’s victory was not only political. It was structural in the way it was achieved.

Unlike previous challengers, he did not attempt to dismantle the system from the outside. He used its internal logic against itself. His campaign combined insider knowledge with a message focused not on abstract ideological confrontation, but on tangible grievances — cost of living, governance, accountability. This is precisely why it worked. Long-governing systems tend to be resilient against external opposition and vulnerable to internal fracture. Hungary has now demonstrated how quickly that fracture can be exploited when it emerges from within.

Share

For the region, this is not just a Hungarian story. It is a method.

The idea that Hungary can now simply “reset” its strategic position is politically convenient and deeply unrealistic in equal measure.

Energy systems, industrial investments, and long-term agreements do not respond to electoral cycles. They impose continuity regardless of political change. A new government may adjust tone, reopen channels in Brussels, and signal alignment where confrontation once existed — and these are real shifts, worth acknowledging. But they operate within constraints that no electoral mandate can instantly remove.

Magyar himself has already made this clear — even if unintentionally. At his first press conference after the election, he stated bluntly that Hungary will continue to procure the cheapest available energy, including from Russia, adding that “no one can change geography.” This sits uneasily alongside earlier campaign promises to phase out Russian imports by 2035 — but it reflects something more important than consistency: it reflects reality.

Hungary remains heavily dependent on Russian energy, with limited short-term alternatives. Even partial diversification — for example via the Adriatic route — comes at a cost: higher input prices, tighter margins, and reduced competitiveness. You can diversify flows at the margin, but you cannot unwind a 90% dependency structure in two or three years without paying for it somewhere else in the system.

This is precisely the point. The constraints that shaped Orbán’s strategy have not vanished with Orbán.

The assumption that political change automatically produces strategic realignment remains one of the most persistent illusions in European foreign policy thinking.

The immediate consequence of Orbán’s defeat is clear: Hungary will become a more compliant partner within the EU. There will be fewer vetoes, fewer open confrontations, and fewer moments of institutional friction. For Brussels, this is a tangible gain — and a real one.

But compliance is not the same as transformation.

The structural realities that shaped Hungary’s policies over the past decade — geography, energy exposure, economic positioning — remain exactly where they were on election night. And they will continue to shape decision-making long after the political rhetoric has shifted.

For countries like Poland, this election is not a distant political event. It is a signal, and a layered one. It shows how quickly a dominant political system can unravel when internal fatigue converges with sustained external pressure. It also demonstrates that replacing leadership is far easier than replacing the underlying model of governance — and that the two should not be confused.

Leave a comment

This distinction matters because across Central Europe, the debate is often framed as a binary: alignment or resistance, integration or sovereignty. Hungary suggests something more complicated. Even when the political balance shifts decisively, structural constraints sharply limit how far that shift can actually go.

There is an understandable temptation to treat this election as a definitive turning point. It is not. It is a change in leadership within a system that has been politically disrupted, not dismantled. The real test will not be how Hungary speaks in the coming months, but how it acts when confronted with the same constraints that shaped the previous government’s decisions — on energy, on investment, and on the country’s room for manoeuvre between competing external pressures.

Brussels may have gained a more compliant partner. What it has not gained is a blank slate.

Orbán’s government is gone. The conditions that produced it remain.

Elections change governments. They do not change geography — or energy bills.

If you enjoyed my analyses and articles, you can explore more on Brussels Signal or support my work with a coffee.

Brussels Signal

Buy Me a Coffee

I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

The Stakes Beyond Budapest

The parliamentary elections scheduled for April 12, 2026, in Hungary are no longer just about who governs Budapest for the next four years. They represent one of the most important geopolitical tests for Central Europe since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. The outcome will decide whether the region retains at least one major state willing and able to defend a genuinely autonomous strategic course within the European Union – or whether the last visible brake on full policy alignment with Brussels and Kyiv disappears.

Subscribe

For sixteen years Viktor Orbán has personified a model that combines strong domestic control with external geopolitical elasticity. His significance today lies not only in domestic electoral arithmetic, but in the fact that Hungary remains the only Central European country openly attempting to preserve maneuvering room between competing centers of power: Brussels, Washington, Moscow and Beijing.

That is why the result of April 12 is being watched far beyond Hungary’s borders. A defeat for Orbán would not merely change the government. It would immediately alter the political geometry of the entire region.
 


Orbán and the Logic of Strategic Autonomy

Unlike most European leaders after February 2022, Orbán never accepted the premise that long-term continental stability can be built through permanent confrontation with Russia. His government has consistently treated energy security, industrial competitiveness and sovereign decision-making as inseparable elements of national survival.

This approach was particularly visible in Budapest’s determination to preserve flows through the Druzhba pipeline, even as pressure mounted inside the Union to accelerate complete detachment from Russian hydrocarbons. For Hungary this was never ideological affinity toward Moscow; it was a structural calculation. The country’s industrial base and household budgets remain tied to predictable and affordable energy imports. No realistic alternative has yet emerged that could replace Russian supply without imposing severe internal economic costs.

Share

Budapest therefore increasingly frames energy policy as a sovereignty issue rather than a purely commercial one. In a region where industrial competitiveness is highly sensitive to energy prices, any major shock rapidly becomes a political problem affecting inflation, electoral stability and long-term investment planning. Orbán grasped earlier than many European leaders that energy dependence cannot be eliminated through political declarations alone.


Why Brussels Views Budapest as a Structural Threat

The conflict between Hungary and the European Union has long outgrown ordinary institutional friction. The freezing of cohesion and recovery funds, repeated rule-of-law procedures and continuous political pressure have turned Hungary into the most visible internal challenger to the current model of integration.

Budapest argues – whether one agrees or not – that conditionality mechanisms are being used not merely to enforce legal standards but to reduce strategic deviation within the Union. The political outcome is unambiguous: Hungary has become the symbol of resistance to full policy uniformity.

Comment

That is precisely why the 2026 election matters so much to Brussels. A government led by Péter Magyar would almost certainly seek rapid normalization with EU institutions, restoration of political trust and a less confrontational negotiating style. That would not necessarily mean abandonment of Hungarian national interests, but it would almost certainly mean abandonment of Orbán’s method of turning veto power into real strategic leverage.

Péter Magyar – the Hungarian Tusk

Péter Magyar represents a fundamentally different diplomatic posture. His rhetoric and program point toward immediate reconciliation with Brussels, softening of confrontation with Kyiv, and repositioning Hungary closer to the dominant policy consensus inside the Union. In practice, Magyar embodies the same direction that Donald Tusk has pursued in Poland since 2023: full alignment with EU orthodoxy, uncritical support for Ukraine, and aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric.

Magyar’s campaign repeats almost verbatim the same narrative: Russia is the existential threat, Ukraine must be supported unconditionally, and any deviation from that line is tantamount to treason. Like Tusk, he presents himself as the pro-European, pro-Western modernizer who will finally “repair” relations with Brussels and “return Hungary to the European mainstream.”

The parallel is not accidental. Both leaders represent the same political archetype: a figure who emerges from within the national conservative camp, uses insider knowledge to attack it, and then pivots toward full alignment with the EU–NATO–Kyiv axis. For Central Europe this would mean the disappearance of the last significant internal counterweight to uniform policy. A Magyar-led Hungary would not merely change cabinets; it would remove the principal obstacle to the political consolidation that Brussels has sought since 2022.

The Energy Front: Druzhba and the Cost of Alignment

The most visible illustration of the current divide is the ongoing dispute over the Druzhba pipeline. Since late January 2026, when the Ukrainian section was damaged by a Russian drone strike, Kyiv has repeatedly delayed or restricted access for repair teams. Budapest accuses Ukraine of deliberately prolonging the disruption to exert political pressure on governments that refuse to support additional EU funding for Kyiv.

The economic consequences are immediate and severe.Hungary and Slovakia have been effectively cut off from their primary source of Russian oil, forcing them to source more expensive alternatives. Orbán has framed the situation as evidence that Ukraine is weaponizing energy infrastructure against its neighbors.

This narrative resonates strongly with voters concerned less with abstract ideological alignment and more with inflation, fuel prices and household stability. For Orbán it is a powerful electoral argument: only his government is willing to defend Hungarian economic interests against external coercion. A Magyar government would almost certainly adopt a much softer posture toward Kyiv, even at the cost of higher energy prices and reduced strategic autonomy.

Regional Consequences: The Visegrád Axis at Risk

The implications for Central Europe would be immediate and far-reaching. A stable Orbán government preserves the possibility of rebuilding a regional bloc around sovereignty-sensitive issues: migration policy, institutional balance inside the EU, energy realism and strategic differentiation.

Today this axis already includes Robert Fico in Slovakia and – in all likelihood – a returning Andrej Babiš in the Czech Republic. A post-Orbán Hungary would shatter this emerging front. Instead of coordinated resistance on key questions, the region would fragment into isolated voices unable to exert meaningful collective pressure.

For Poland under the current leadership this would be a particularly damaging outcome. A Magyar-led Hungary would become a natural ally for Warsaw in accelerating alignment with Brussels and Kyiv – precisely the opposite of what Polish national interest requires. Rebuilding functional relations within the Visegrád Group in the format proposed by Orbán and Fico would become significantly more difficult.

The Eurasian Horizon: Why Autonomy Still Matters

Orbán’s significance also extends beyond Europe. Hungary remains one of the few EU states actively maintaining working channels with both China and Russia while preserving practical relations with the United States. This balancing act is frequently criticized in Western commentary, yet from Budapest’s perspective it reflects simple adaptation to an increasingly multipolar reality.

Smaller states cannot afford exclusive dependence on any single power center. That principle is gradually defining broader debates across Eurasia. A Magyar government would almost certainly abandon this approach in favor of full alignment with the dominant Western line – reducing Hungary’s strategic flexibility and weakening the region’s overall bargaining position.


What April 12 Will Ultimately Decide

The central question in Hungary’s election is therefore larger than whether Fidesz secures another term. The deeper issue is whether Central Europe will retain a state openly defending strategic differentiation inside the European system.

If Orbán remains in power, the region will continue to contain a government capable of obstructing full political consolidation around Brussels’ preferred line. If he loses, the internal map of Europe changes immediately.

Hungary today functions not merely as a national actor but as one of the principal testing grounds for how much policy autonomy medium-sized European states can still preserve under mounting external pressure.In that sense, April 12 may decide not only Hungary’s direction but the future balance of political initiative across Central Europe itself.

In January 2026 Ursula von der Leyen sealed what she herself called the “mother of all deals” – the long-negotiated free trade agreement with India. Tariffs were slashed on the vast majority of goods, services markets opened, and investment channels unlocked across green technology, pharmaceuticals and digital sectors. Brussels framed the agreement as a strategic masterstroke: access to a 1.4-billion-strong market growing at around 7% annually, diversification away from China, and new opportunities for European firms in high-growth sectors.

On paper, the promise is substantial. EU exporters gain entry to one of the fastest-expanding consumer markets in the world. Indian textiles, agricultural products and IT services flow westward at lower cost. Trade volumes are projected to expand significantly over the coming decade. Yet scratch beneath the headline figures and the picture shifts. This is not a triumph of multipolar strategy. It is a defensive concession by a Union that has priced itself out of its own production base.

Ordinary citizens feel the asymmetry first. Cheaper imports ease household budgets – short-term relief. But sectors exposed to Indian competition – textiles, low-margin manufacturing, segments of pharmaceutical – face immediate pressure. Jobs migrate or disappear. Small and medium enterprises in peripheral regions – Poland, Romania, Greece – absorb the shock, while multinational players like Bayer or Siemens capture the upside through market access and supply-chain arbitrage. This is not broad-based prosperity. It is trickle-up economics dressed as global partnership.

Mercosur – Dumping Dressed as Diversification

The pattern repeated almost simultaneously with the finalization of the EU-Mercosur agreement in January 2026. Tariffs were eliminated on over 90% of EU exports, while South American beef, poultry, soy and ethanol gained near duty-free access to European markets. Brussels presented the pact as a win for consumers and businesses, emphasising diversification and resilience.

Farmers across the continent saw something else entirely. The protests that paralysed highways across Europe were not symbolic gestures. They were desperate reactions. Mercosur imports enter under conditions that bypass the very standards imposed on EU producers – animal welfare rules, hormone bans, carbon costs embedded in the Green Deal. This is not inferior food. It is food produced under regulatory regimes that make it structurally cheaper than anything viable inside the EU’s own policy framework. Local beef becomes uncompetitive almost overnight. Thousands of family farms face closure. Rural communities lose livelihoods while supermarket chains and processors celebrate lower input costs.

Leave a comment

For ordinary citizens the trade-off is stark. Food prices may soften marginally in the short term. In the longer run, the Union trades food sovereignty for dependence on distant suppliers exposed to climate volatility, currency swings and geopolitical leverage. Transport from the other side of the world erodes freshness and quality while increasing emissions. The Green Deal – sold as environmental salvation – becomes the mechanism that renders local production impossible and imports inevitable.

Why These Deals Expose the EU’s Structural Weakness

Neither agreement represents a genuine multipolar breakthrough. They are emergency patches applied to a system bleeding competitiveness. The Green Deal has raised energy prices and regulatory burdens to levels that make European agriculture and industry structurally unviable against BRICS producers. Instead of reforming the model, Brussels signs deals that accelerate deindustrialisation while marketing them as diversification.

India and Mercosur members like Brazil are logical partners. They are major players in a multipolar system. But the terms of engagement reveal the EU’s negotiating weakness. Concessions run deeper than those extracted. Market openings disproportionately benefit export-oriented corporations. Standards alignment remains largely cosmetic. The result is predictable: elites and multinationals gain, while farmers, small producers and peripheral regions bear the cost.

This is not multipolar mastery. It is multipolar capitulation – engagement driven by internal model failure rather than strategic confidence.

Multipolarity in Practice: BRICS Gains vs. EU Losses

Multipolarity manifests differently across systems. In BRICS economies, diversified partnerships have bolstered everyday stability for ordinary citizens amid Western pressures. China’s expansion of trade, infrastructure investment and regional integration has supported sustained income growth and poverty reduction. Russia, despite sanctions, has delivered greater household stability than Europe’s bureaucratic churn through significant Eurasian trade growth (notably EAEU), energy partnerships (record exports to China/India) and domestic substitution with living standards holding firmer than EU forecasts amid energy crises, migrant strains and eroding real incomes there.

Share

Across these cases, the common denominator is not ideology but structure. Multipolar engagement is used to secure energy affordability, industrial continuity and food stability. Citizens experience this in real terms: steadier prices, employment resilience and rising real incomes. These outcomes do not imply the absence of internal challenges, but they underscore a materially different distribution of gains compared to the EU model. Multipolarity here functions as a hedge against external pressure and systemic vulnerability.

In the European Union, the effect is inverted. Regulatory overreach, lobbying and elite capture turn multipolar engagement into a mechanism that socialises costs while privatising gains. The Green Deal inflates production costs and steadily hollows out local capacity. Between 2019 and 2023 alone, 853,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, with the heaviest losses concentrated in Poland. As domestic production becomes unviable, the system increasingly relies on cheap imports from BRICS partners.

The benefits flow upward. Corporations secure margins and market access through more than €400 billion in state aid directed toward renewables and clean technology, while farmers and industrial workers absorb displacement and decline. Consumers see only marginal price relief, paid for with weakened sovereignty and reduced long-term resilience.

The contrast is structural. BRICS states prioritise pragmatic self-interest and retain the policy space to distribute gains. The EU’s centralised, ideological framework ensures that multipolar benefits remain concentrated at the top.

CEE Caught in the Middle: Blocked Gains and Rising Pressure

Central and Eastern Europe should be among the primary beneficiaries of multipolar engagement. The region retains industrial capacity, strategic geography and skilled labour. Yet the EU system blocks the transmission of gains downward.

Deals with India and Mercosur could mean cheaper inputs and expanded markets. Instead, regulatory rigidity and energy costs funnel advantages toward Western capitals and corporate headquarters. From the Baltic to the Adriatic, regions face intensified competition without compensatory policy support. Farmers are undercut by Mercosur imports. Industry struggles under energy prices inflated by Green Deal constraints. The political consequences are visible: protests, euroscepticism, growing demands for autonomy.

This is the core trap. Multipolarity delivers benefits only where states can capture and allocate them. BRICS governments do exactly that. The EU does not. Central and Eastern Europe feels this most acutely – it has the assets to thrive, but not the sovereignty to secure the rewards. True reform would mean dismantling the regulatory straitjacket that renders local production and agriculture unviable. The potential is obvious: affordable Russian energy to stabilise households, Chinese industrial technology to preserve competitiveness. Ideology blocks these options, transforming multipolarity into an elite instrument rather than a public good.

Multipolarity as Inevitability

Von der Leyen’s agreements with India and Mercosur are not strategic triumphs. They are symptoms of necessity. The European Union is adjusting to a multipolar world because it no longer has the luxury of refusing it. The question is whether this adjustment will be deliberate or destructive.

For citizens, the stakes are clear. Cheaper imports offer temporary relief. Lost jobs, weakened sovereignty and structural dependence impose lasting costs. A genuinely multipolar European Union requires more than trade deals. It requires internal reform – rules that stop punishing domestic producers, policies that restore local viability, and partnerships chosen from strength rather than desperation.

Central and Eastern Europe holds the leverage. With historical memory of imposed alignments and material capacity still intact, the region can force a shift from blocked gains to real sovereignty. Multipolarity is no longer a forecast. It is the present. Those who hedge intelligently will shape it. Those who cling to failing certainties will be shaped by it.

The pivot is underway. The real test is whether the European Union will finally stop sabotaging its own citizens – or whether the gains will remain with the few while the costs fall, as ever, on the many.

If you enjoyed my analyses and articles, you can explore more on Brussels Signal or support my work with a coffee.

Brussels Signal

Buy Me a Coffee

I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

The remark was neither a policy proposal nor a strategic pivot. It was a single, carefully phrased intervention — limited in scope, restrained in tone, and notable precisely because it reintroduced concepts that had largely vanished from Berlin’s post-2022 discourse: geography, permanence, and continental logic.

For a brief moment, Germany spoke like a continental power.

Then came Davos.

Davos: The Correction

Six days later, that moment was closed.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Merz adopted a radically different tone. Russia was no longer a neighbor to be balanced, but a threat to be contained. “We will protect Denmark, Greenland, the North from the threat posed by Russia,” he declared. Russian behavior was described as “the most drastic expression so far” of great-power rivalry, including “hybrid attacks in the Baltic Sea” and a “Winter War against the people of Ukraine.” Germany, he insisted, “must continue supporting Ukraine in its fight for just peace.”

The shift was not subtle. It was immediate, comprehensive, and unmistakable.

Germany has no independent Arctic doctrine, no direct territorial stake in Greenland, and only a symbolic naval presence in the High North — far too limited to justify the kind of militarized framing Merz adopted in Davos. The escalation language did not arise from Berlin’s own strategic needs. It followed a transatlantic script — one in which such rhetoric functions as reassurance, alignment signaling, and discipline enforcement.

The timing mattered. The January remarks had been delivered to domestic audiences and interpreted as a flirtation with strategic sobriety. Davos was the moment of recalibration — before investors, alliance managers, and transatlantic gatekeepers. The message was not directed at Moscow. It was aimed at those who needed confirmation that Germany’s brief deviation would not harden into autonomy.

This was not inconsistency. It was corrective pressure.

Germany did not change its mind. It was reminded that dominance inside Europe is not the same as sovereignty in a system still policed from Washington.

Pressure from Below: The AfD Factor

While Germany’s governing elites oscillate within narrow rhetorical corridors, pressure for a more fundamental shift is emerging from below. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), once dismissed as a marginal protest movement, has become a structural force in German politics.

Share

Following the 2025 federal elections, in which the AfD secured roughly one-fifth of the vote, the party submitted Bundestag motions calling for the lifting of sanctions, serious peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, and the rapid restoration of full economic and energy ties with Russia. These demands mark a radical break from Berlin’s established Russia policy, driven by the blunt claim that Germany is paying dearly for a conflict beyond its control.

Though unlikely to pass in the current majority, the very existence of such proposals—and the substantial backing they command—signals an emerging fracture in the post-2022 consensus. In eastern Germany, hardest hit by deindustrialization, soaring energy costs, and stagnation, AfD polling remains significantly higher.

This does not make the AfD a governing alternative, nor a coherent foreign-policy actor. It remains a hybrid formation, combining economic calculation with populist, anti-establishment moralism and regional ressentiment. But it functions precisely as a powerful signal. Unlike the governing parties, which moralize, the AfD calculates — reframing the entire debate around cost, proximity, and national interest.

Merz’s rhetorical gestures toward strategic recalibration cannot be understood without this context. His language echoed themes already circulating among voters. The speed of the retreat demonstrated how tightly that language is policed once it approaches policy.

The Economic Constraint That Will Not Disappear

Germany’s Russia policy is often framed as a moral stance. In practice, it is increasingly shaped by material stress.

The German economic model was built on affordable energy, export-driven manufacturing, and stable access to global markets. All three pillars have weakened. Liquefied natural gas has replaced pipeline supply at significantly higher cost. Trade frictions with China threaten export volumes. Defense spending commitments strain public finances without generating productive investment.

Merz himself has acknowledged the dilemma. Germany, he has said, must ‘regain economic strength and competitiveness’ while making Europe ‘capable of defending ourselves on our own’ and a ‘key player again’ in defense’. These objectives sit uneasily together. Military alignment without economic autonomy produces dependency, not sovereignty.

The impulse to reopen channels with Russia is therefore structural, not ideological. It emerges from necessity, not nostalgia. But necessity alone does not override institutional discipline.

Germany remains embedded in a security architecture that treats deviation as disloyalty and autonomy as risk. The cost of dissent is immediate. The cost of conformity is deferred.

So far, Berlin has chosen deferral.

Ukraine as a Limit Case

The same tension resurfaced days later — this time over Ukraine’s place in Europe.

On January 27, Volodymyr Zelensky declared that Ukraine was ready for European Union membership by 2027, calling for accelerated, fast-track accession following a future peace settlement. The statement was framed as a matter of political will and moral obligation.

Germany’s response was notably restrained.

The following day, Merz rejected the timeline outright. “Ukraine’s accession to the EU on January 1, 2027, is out of the question. It’s not possible,” he stated. All members, he emphasized, must fulfill the Copenhagen criteria — a process that “usually takes several years.” There would be no shortcuts.

Leave a comment

The message was procedural, but the signal was strategic. Behind the language of law and criteria lay familiar concerns: absorption capacity, institutional stability, and the economic and political cost of expansion. Ukraine, with only a fraction of negotiation chapters opened and persistent issues related to governance and judicial reform, did not qualify for exceptional treatment.

This position quietly aligned Berlin with other European capitals voicing similar reservations. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was far more explicit, declaring Ukraine’s membership ‘out of the question’ and insisting Budapest would block any attempt to push it through in 2027 or via accelerated procedures that bypass EU rules and harm central European interests. He argued Ukraine would not strengthen Europe but ‘drag us into war.’ Days later he reinforced the point, stressing that the timeline was driven by the next EU budget cycle and that speculation on dates should wait until the outcome of peace talks becomes clear.

Taken together, these statements revealed another layer of Europe’s duality. Publicly, Ukraine remains a moral cause. Institutionally, it is treated as a problem to be managed, delayed, and procedurally contained.

The difference now is that this restraint is no longer voiced only by capitals labeled “obstructionist” or marginalized within the European consensus. It is articulated as well by Germany — a state whose position is decisive. For Kyiv, the signal is unmistakable: the barrier is no longer rhetorical hesitation, but institutional refusal.

Europe’s Colonial Reflex

Germany’s predicament is not unique. Across Europe, leaders exhibit the same pattern: fleeting gestures toward strategic autonomy followed by rapid re-alignment.

France courts Chinese investment while reaffirming Atlantic unity. European institutions pursue trade agreements with India even as they intensify rhetorical confrontation elsewhere. The language of multipolar adaptation circulates freely, but only within carefully policed boundaries.

What prevents a genuine shift is not lack of awareness, but lack of permission.

Europe’s military infrastructure, intelligence integration, and strategic culture remain deeply enmeshed with U.S. priorities. Bases, procurement systems, and alliance expectations create a constant gravitational pull. Deviations are corrected not through coercion, but through normalization: conferences, communiqués, and consensus rituals.

Davos was not an accident. It was the mechanism at work.

Merz’s January pivot demonstrated that even when economic pressure, electoral signals, and strategic logic align, the response is not recalibration but disciplinary realignment. Cracks appear — and are sealed overnight.

Implications Beyond Germany

For countries watching from Europe’s periphery, Germany’s experience carries a clear lesson. Moral language does not confer autonomy. Alignment does not guarantee protection. And interest-based thinking, when unanchored from sovereignty, remains performative.

The gap between interests and articulation is widening. States are forced to act pragmatically while pretending otherwise. The result is policy incoherence and credibility erosion.

In this environment, the question is not whether Europe will become multipolar. That process is already underway. The question is whether European states will adapt consciously, or drift into adaptation by exhaustion.

Germany is testing the limits of that choice. So far, it has retreated.

Signals Without Breakthrough

None of this suggests an imminent reversal of Germany’s Russia policy. There will be no new Ostpolitik, no grand bargain, no sudden thaw. But it does suggest something subtler and more consequential: the erosion of certainty.

Statements that would once have been taboo are now spoken, even if only briefly. Opposition once dismissed as illegitimate is now structurally embedded. Economic constraints continue to tighten. And the global system offers fewer incentives for ideological rigidity.

These are not breakthroughs. They are signals.

For now, the leash holds — tightened not by confusion, but by design. In such systems, realism does not disappear; it accumulates pressure beneath the surface, waiting for the next crack in the consensus. And pressure, unlike rhetoric, does not require permission forever.

If you enjoyed my analyses and articles, you can explore more on Brussels Signal or support my work with a coffee.

Brussels Signal

Buy Me a Coffee

I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

The issue of Russian gas in Europe keeps returning like a boomerang, and not by accident. Every attempt by Brussels to administratively “solve” the continent’s energy problem ends the same way: higher bills, political tension, and internal conflict within the European Union itself. The latest example is Hungary and Slovakia, which have decided to sue the EU over the REPowerEU regulation – an initiative designed to enforce a phased ban on gas imports from Russia by 2027.

REPowerEU and the Legal Clash

Against this backdrop, the measure adopted by Brussels only deepens the conflict. Adopted on January 26, 2026 by qualified majority voting, it introduces a phased ban on Russian gas imports. LNG ends by late 2026. Pipeline gas stops by end of September 2027, with extensions possible to November for countries like Slovakia and Hungary facing storage shortfalls. Penalties hit hard. Companies face fines up to 300 percent of transaction value or 3.5 percent of annual turnover. Individuals pay at least €2.5 million.

Budapest and Bratislava see this as Brussels overreach. One country announced its lawsuit on January 27, the other followed on February 2, 2026. Both governments argue the regulation violates proportionality. It also dodges unanimity by masking energy sanctions as trade policy.

Political Reactions and Real Costs

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico described the EU’s decision bluntly as “economic suicide,” arguing that artificially cutting off gas, nuclear energy, and oil has nothing to do with security and everything to do with ideological obsession. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó emphasized that the regulation relies on a legal trick designed to impose decisions that member states would never approve unanimously.

Share

The consequences are measurable. Slovakia estimates annual losses of around €500 million. Hungary warns of sharp increases in gas prices for households and industry alike. These are not abstract figures but tangible costs that will be borne by ordinary citizens. This is precisely where the narrative of “energy security” collapses. The ban does not enhance security; it undermines it by destabilizing energy systems and household budgets.

It is worth noting that the relatively low gas prices in Hungary and Slovakia are supported in part by state subsidies, yet it is the direct imports of Russian gas that allow prices to remain this low. By contrast, Poland, which sources gas from the other side of the world — the U.S. or Qatar — has implemented similar measures and even temporary price freezes, yet household energy costs remain roughly three times higher than those of its fellow Visegrád partners.

The Polish energy giant Orlen presents this as a major success, celebrating “full independence from Russian gas.” The question is whether this independence is worth such steep costs for ordinary citizens, especially when Hungary and Slovakia show that, with prudent policy, Russian gas can be used without geopolitical disruption — providing transparent, mutually beneficial cooperation for both sides.

Poland’s Different Path, A Matter of the Past

Poland’s situation differed significantly from that of Hungary and Slovakia, and this is now a closed chapter rather than an ongoing process. For more than a decade, Warsaw viewed Nord Stream 2 primarily as a geopolitical risk rather than a purely commercial infrastructure project, actively opposing it through lobbying in the EU, the United States, and public statements.

Leave a comment

Russia’s response followed a clear and foreseeable pattern. As early as 2016, Poland announced it would not renew the long-term Yamal supply contract after its expiry in 2022. Tensions steadily increased from that point. By 2021, Gazprom reacted in a manner consistent with its stated commercial and strategic priorities: it ceased booking long-term transit capacity on the Yamal-Europe pipeline, effectively signalling that, without the certification and operation of Nord Stream 2, maintaining full transit volumes through Poland no longer made economic sense. Supplies were finally halted in April 2022 after Warsaw refused to accept payments in roubles under the mechanism introduced by Moscow.

This sequence demonstrates that Russia’s actions were neither sudden nor arbitrary. Each step was signalled well in advance and driven by straightforward business and strategic considerations. Countries that pursued pragmatic, interest-based relations with Russia – notably these Central European states – avoided comparable supply interruptions, transit bypasses, or sharp price increases, continuing to receive relatively stable and competitively priced pipeline gas well into the 2020s.

Poland’s experience therefore does not indicate that Russian gas is inherently unsafe. It shows instead that when energy cooperation is treated as part of a broader geopolitical confrontation, the other party will rationally and predictably adjust its commercial decisions, often to the first party’s detriment.

A Broader European Failure

The Hungarian and Slovak cases reveal something deeper. The EU increasingly attempts to portray Russia as the sole source of Europe’s energy problems. Yet states that maintained normal, predictable relations with Moscow experienced neither blackmail nor destabilization. It is Brussels, not Moscow, that is reversing cause and effect in order to conceal its own ideological failures.

Poland stands as a bitter counterexample. Blind loyalty to the policy of “punishing Russia” has never delivered cheaper energy or greater security. That same logic is now being imposed on the entire Union, leading to the absurd situation of a community fighting its own members in court.

Conclusion

The lawsuits from Budapest and Bratislava expose a fundamental flaw in Europe’s energy policy. The problem is not Russian Federation as such, but the EU’s inability to engage in dialogue, realism, and rational calculation. Relations with a powerful neighbor require strategic thinking, not moral crusades. Turning a nuclear power into a permanent scapegoat leads only to internal chaos.

If the EU fails to draw conclusions, similar disputes will follow. And as always, the final bill will be paid by ordinary citizens, not the ideologues in Brussels.

If you enjoyed my analyses and articles, you can explore more on Brussels Signal or support my work with a coffee.

Brussels Signal

Buy Me a Coffee

I’d really appreciate it, thanks!