Europe’s Strategic Eclipse: Why It Can’t Compete with China or the U.S.
Explore the hidden forces behind Europe's geopolitical decline (its industrial fall and strategic paralysis) in a world dominated by the U.S., China, and emerging powers.
The structural determinants of state behavior manifest most clearly in the widening gap between Europe’s material capacities and its diplomatic posture, which increasingly lacks the coherence, initiative, and strategic intent required to shape international outcomes. This disjunction has grown more accute as the global order has become more competitive, transactional, and intolerant of indecision.
The steady erosion of European influence, frequently framed in terms of lost moral authority or diplomatic decline, is in fact rooted in concrete constraints: the erosion of coercive instruments, the fragmentation of political authority among member states, prolonged economic stagnation, and a foreign policy infrastructure that is both over-institutionalized and underpowered. These are entrenched systemic deficiencies that prevent Europe from sustaining the conditions necessary for geopolitical relevance.
Central to this process is the fundamental contradiction between the European Union’s rhetorical unity and its operational disunity. The EU’s decision-making model, built on consensus among 27 sovereign member states, is structurally incapable of producing rapid, coherent responses to international crises. Where centralized powers such as the United States and the People’s Republic of China can swiftly allocate resources, prioritize objectives, and execute plans, Europe must reconcile divergent national interests, many of which are shaped by distinct historical experiences, domestic political cycles, and economic vulnerabilities.
This multiplicity precludes strategic agility. What appears externally as a unified European stance is often an ex-post rationalization of disparate policies, masking an underlying incapacity to assume geopolitical risk or apply power consistantly across theaters. This problem is exacerbated by the absence of a centralized fiscal authority, which renders the application of economic statecraft fragmented, inconsistent, and largely reactive.
Diplomacy within this context has been reduced to a formal exercise devoid of leverage. The classical European tradition of diplomacy depended on the ability to manipulate asymmetries in power, exploit rivalries among great powers, and leverage ambiguity as a tool of influence. That tradition operated within a geopolitical landscape marked by fluid alliances and unclaimed spheres of influence. Today, no such strategic vacuums exist. Every regional space is now contested, and each major actor possesses the tools to project power across multiple domains.
Europe’s contemporary diplomatic toolkit, dominated by normative declarations and multilateral procedure, lacks the capacity to shift the calculations of adversaries or partners. It is unable to credibly threaten costs or deliver benefits at a scale sufficient to change the behavior of strategically coherent rivals. This impotence is especially pronounced in the economic domain.
A case in point is the European response to U.S. pressure on ASML, the Dutch firm that holds a global monopoly on extreme ultraviolet lithography machines (indispensable for the manufacture of cutting-edge semiconductors). Despite controlling this critical chokepoint in the global tech supply chain, the Netherlands failed to assert independent control over this strategic asset. ASML ultimately yielded to Washington’s demand to block exports to China, as Brussels lacked both the will and the capacity to support Amsterdam - thereby squandering a rare opportunity to assert leverage in an era of techno-geopolitical rivalry.
In contrast, China’s strategic use of its dominance in rare earth minerals demonstrates a cohesive integration of industrial planning and resource control. The divergence lies not in ideology but in structural orientation. China operates through centralized state planning and long-term strategic coordination, whereas Europe, guided by market liberalism and institutional inertia, relinquishes strategic tools even when it possesses them. In this context, ASML’s operational independence is not a strength but a vulnerability, symptomatic of a system that lacks alignment between state and enterprise in the pursuit of geopolitical advantage.
Europe’s trade posture further illustrates its defensiveness and lack of strategic initiative. Faced with repeated threats of tariffs from the United States, Europe has resorted to procedural responses: deliberative consultations, restrained legalistic retaliations, and carefully worded communiqués. These actions, designed to preserve multilateral norms and de-escalate tensions, are fundamentally passive. They expose the deeper reality of dependency.
Europe has tethered its economic fortunes to a transatlantic relationship that it cannot control, while failing to build redundancy into its trade architecture. Whereas China has pursued policies aimed at insulating itself from external shocks, Europe has deepened its integration into a rules-based international order even as the enforcement mechanisms of that order erode. (Instruments such as the World Trade Organization, once powerful tools of European influence, now function less as enforcers of rules than as symbolic repositories of diminshed authority.)
The war in Ukraine has crystallized Europe’s strategic limitations. By abandoning the posture of calculated ambiguity that once enabled flexible diplomacy, the EU has committed to an explicitly binary stance: total solidarity with Ukraine, extensive sanctions on Russia, and unequivocal alignment with NATO. While morally resonant, this clarity has narrowed Europe’s room for maneuver. It cannot now credibly mediate, de-escalate, or propose off-ramps. Its diplomatic leverage has been sacrificed in favor of rhetorical unity.
Moreover, Europe’s military contribution, while symbolically significant, is materially dependent on U.S. logistics, intelligence, and command structures. This subordination underscores the broader absence of independent military power projection capabilities. The EU cannot unilaterally alter the trajectory of the conflict or shape the diplomatic parameters of its resolution. What appears to be principled resolve is, in fact,
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Post-Liberal Dispatch to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.