Pierre Vimont / Nov 2025
Meeting of the European Council, October 2025. Photo: European Union 2025
The European Union is at the most crucial inflection point of its history. At least this conclusion seems to be the one all observers have reached recently. But what does it mean in concrete terms for the Union and its member states ? More precisely, what are the actions required to navigate through those predicted political storms ?
From that perspective, one of the other conclusions most commonly heard around the EU is the need for a stronger common strategic culture. This deficiency has well-known reasons linked to differences of historical background and geographical situation. But this absence of a common strategic mindset is undoubtedly depriving the EU of an indispensable tool for its efficiency and, more crucially, for a meaningful role on the international scene. Indeed, to be a relevant player amid current global powers requires an ability for Europe to define its long term interests, assess the precise challenges to be faced and set up the actions to confront these threats.
Criticism is harsh when claiming that Europe has failed in that field. The Strategic Compass adopted in 2022 managed to produce a common threat assessment and the concrete responses to these challenges. Similarly some of the previous Union’s chief diplomats - Javier Solana and Federica Mogherini - had also released their own EU strategy. Where these attempts seem to have failed is in the follow up to these comprehensive papers. The influence and impact of EU actions in the international field have registered very little uptick in recent years as if logistics had been unable to follow.
One reason for that shortcoming may well lie in the absence of a will, a place and a method to initiate among Europeans the much needed conversation over how power politics have become the new rule of the game in international affairs and how Europe must turn into a strategic thinker and player to confront this new world it was not made for. From there on the deficiency for Europe stands at two levels : the search for a new identity and the need for a robust strategic mindset over the Union’s external actions.
The identity issue is long term. It relates to the EU’s necessity of reinventing a model that was suited to other times; those of the Cold War period where relative stability allowed Europeans to shore up their integration drive with 50 years of peace and prosperity without major hiccups. Today, with the ongoing trend of permanent crises, the return of war in Europe and the changing rules of the global economic order, the Union has an urgent need to adapt. And that reality check must incorporate all dimensions of the Brussels system : its missions, institutions, decision making process and daily working methods.
How to start that conversation ? In the past, Europeans settled these issues through Treaty changes (the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and up to the Lisbon Treaty). They also focused their minds on reforms when new enlargements were being negotiated. Today the perspective of new accessions is not triggering the same urgency for governance rethinking and there are many solid political reasons for that lack of appetite. But such absence leaves a vacuum that must be filled with other means the lack of which risks stirring misunderstandings and a progressive fragmentation possibly eroding European integration.
The more short term issue is how to give the EU’s external actions a genuine strategic backbone. It implies a capacity for thorough analyses of a given geopolitical situation, assessing possible alliances or more one-off supports, defining a road map, setting concrete operational actions that can be diplomatic, military or both. Such required conversation must be of a practical nature. But it has to be demanding and to go to the roots of the challenges involved. To discuss the Ukrainian conflict in European Councils’ sessions without starting a thorough exchange about a realistic European peace plan puts the EU on the diplomatic sidelines and struggling to regain the initiative. De-risking EU relations with China demands a deep dive into the type of cooperation Europeans are ready to envisage in the industrial field, scientific research or geopolitical topics. These ideas may be perceived today as controversial but are potential breakthroughs if tested after a rational analysis and with a dose of innovation, nimbleness and audacity.
The reality behind the present lack of strategic discussions inside the EU decision making circles is not that European actors lack strategic culture or expertise either at national or EU level. The current failure stems from a reluctance to have these discussions for fear of unfolding divergences between the Union’s members and offering the vision of a divided Europe. The argument is not unfounded and deserves attention. But when Europe is split, it is of no use to try to hide it as our partners usually have detected those divisions, sometimes even more accurately and swiftly than we do. And the harm done to European interests when strategic discussions are being set aside must not be neglected.
Denial of reality cannot put Europe on the right track to geopolitical relevance. It is only by shaping a genuine strategic conversation that the EU will find the elements for a renewed role in the world. It is high time to start the talk.
