The concept of “European values”—often invoked by European Union (EU) leaders and institutions and centered on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law—is a relatively recent construct. While these values are highly aspirational, they face significant challenges when confronted with the realities of European history and politics. For much of its past, Europe was defined not by unity or shared ideals but by conflict, shifting alliances, and rivalries. The world is still reaping the chaos sown by colonial legacies like those of Britain and France—a ruinous inheritance that continues to haunt generations today. The unity that now characterizes the EU is largely a response to the devastation wrought by the two World Wars, underscoring the urgent need for a stable, cooperative Europe to prevent future catastrophic conflicts.
Today, the European Union is a political and economic union of 27 European countries, with a combined population of approximately 447 million people. It maintains a single market, enabling the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital across member states, with 20 countries sharing a common currency, the euro.
Philosophical Foundations of the EU
The formation of the EU can be linked to John Locke’s social contract theory, which frames governance as a voluntary institution created through collective consent. The EU structure represents an extended application of Locke’s ideas, with nations entering a “social contract” to protect citizens’ rights and uphold democratic values.
The idea of a united Europe gained traction only after significant effort. In 1923, following World War I, Austrian politician Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi launched the Pan-European Movement, advocating for a “United States of Europe” to secure peace. This vision was further supported in 1929 by French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, who proposed a federation centered on economic and political collaboration.
After World War II, European cooperation became essential, bolstered by the United States through the 1948 Marshall Plan, which required European nations to coordinate economic recovery efforts. This collaboration laid the foundation for further integration, beginning with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951. The ECSC’s success led to the 1957 Treaties of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and EURATOM, marking a new era of cooperation. In the following decades, integration deepened, culminating in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which formally established the European Union.
EU’s Mission and Values
Internally, the EU’s mission is to ensure citizens’ well-being by promoting freedom, security, justice, and economic cooperation. Key objectives include building a competitive, sustainable economy, protecting the environment, fostering scientific progress, and promoting social justice and equality among member states. Externally, the EU aims to support global peace, sustainable development, and poverty eradication, advocating for human rights and international law.
However, recent global conflicts, including those between Israel and Palestine and between Russia and Ukraine, have highlighted tensions between idealism and realism, raising criticism about the EU’s consistency in upholding these values.
The Anglo-Saxon Influence and European Geopolitics
A prevailing view among some historians and political theorists, particularly in the Global South, suggests that Anglo-Saxon nations—specifically the United Kingdom and the United States—played pivotal roles in shaping the events of both World Wars and continue to influence European geopolitics today. Britain’s departure from the EU in January 2020, known as Brexit, is one of the more recent expressions of divergence within Europe. Critics argue that Brexit reflects Britain’s historical tendency to prioritize its own interests, often distinct from those of the European continent. Others contend that Brexit highlights a broader tension between Anglo-Saxon global strategies and European integration, each rooted in conflicting visions of sovereignty and alliance.
Anglo-Saxon influence is also evident in NATO’s history and recent expansion, with the United Kingdom and the United States—both non-EU members— acting as primary forces behind the alliance and its policies, which some argue have fueled the Russia-Ukraine war. This is seen by some as Europe once again being drawn into an Anglo-Saxon strategic trap.
The Russia-Ukraine War at the EU’s Border
Founded in 1949, NATO’s primary mission is to ensure collective defense, with Article 5 requiring members to come to each other’s aid if attacked. Originally aimed at countering Soviet influence, NATO has expanded eastward since the Cold War, now encompassing 31 countries. This expansion has deeply affected EU-Russian relations, with the Russia-Ukraine war intensifying these long-standing tensions.
This war has polarized opinions globally. Many in the West view Russia, under President Putin, as aiming to reclaim Soviet-era influence, with its actions in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea, and the invasion of Ukraine seen as part of an expansionist agenda. Conversely, influential thinkers like Prof. John Mearsheimer, Stephen F. Cohen, Noam Chomsky, and Prof. Jeffrey Sachs argue that NATO’s expansion and Western intervention in Ukraine have been major contributors to the conflict. For instance, Prof. Mearsheimer warned as early as 2014 that NATO’s efforts to incorporate Ukraine would likely provoke Russia, advocating instead for a neutral Ukraine as a path to de-escalation.
Shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a peace agreement was reportedly brokered by Turkey in Istanbul. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, with U.S. support, intervened, effectively sabotaging the process and blocking a potential resolution. In a discussion with Tucker Carlson, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the agreement was fully drafted, including a clause guaranteeing Ukraine’s neutrality. However, this proposal was ultimately abandoned. Now, nearly two and a half years into the war, Western media outlets—particularly Anglo-Saxon channels such as the BBC, CNN, Sky News, and Fox News—continue to portray Ukraine as “winning,” despite the views of several prominent U.S. military analysts who suggest that Russia has effectively secured a strategic victory.
The West’s reluctance to negotiate with Russia, combined with its criticism of EU politicians who seek dialogue, has deepened the tragedy in Ukraine. Nonetheless, some Western leaders persistently argue—falsely—that Ukraine can defeat Russia, which holds the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with 5,889 warheads. Russia’s nuclear doctrine mandates that launches be authorized by the president through the Kazbek system and the “nuclear briefcase,” known as the Cheget. In extreme scenarios, however, the Perimetr, or “Dead Hand” system, functions as a failsafe, enabling automatic retaliation if nuclear activity is detected and communication is lost. Europe appears to be sleepwalking toward another catastrophe reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis during the Cold War.
EU’s Struggle to Balance its Ideals
The ongoing escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has highlighted Europe’s selective commitment to its values of human rights and international law. Despite concerns raised by the International Court of Justice and human rights organizations regarding “plausible genocide” with over 43,000 Palestinian casualties in Gaza, Europe’s continued support for Israel, including military assistance, appears to overlook principles of international law, such as the Two-State Solution, grounded in UN resolutions and the rights of Palestinians to self-determination. In contrast, Europe swiftly condemned Russia in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, holding it accountable for the Bucha massacre and addressing the issue in the International Court of Justice.
Non-mainstream voices like Scott Ritter (ex-UN weapons inspector), Douglas Macgregor (retired U.S. Army colonel), John Mearsheimer (political scientist), Jeffrey Sachs (economist), Lawrence Wilkerson (retired Army colonel), and Patrick Lancaster (independent journalist) critique NATO’s role in provoking Russia in Ukraine and highlight Western double standards in supporting Israel despite Palestinian rights concerns.
These contrasting approaches underscore the EU’s struggle to balance its ideals with practical considerations, as critics from the Global South increasingly point to perceived double standards.
Economic Realities: Europe and Russia
Europe’s economy faces significant challenges, with growth lagging behind other regions, particularly the U.S. In 2023, the Eurozone’s GDP grew only 0.1% in the third quarter, impacted by high energy costs, inflation, and restrictive monetary policies. Although inflation has eased, the economic recovery remains fragile.
Russia’s economy, meanwhile, has shown resilience amid sanctions, largely due to stable oil exports, increased domestic consumption, and heavy government investment in defense. Russia’s GDP growth is projected at 3.2% for 2024, significantly higher than Europe’s forecast of 0.8%.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for Europe
In conclusion, the European Union stands at a pivotal juncture, navigating economic pressures at home and complex geopolitical tensions abroad. Russia’s advocacy for a multipolar world, strengthened by alliances with the Global South, poses a challenge to the Western economic order and its influence. The EU’s future depends on its leaders’ ability to adapt while remaining committed to core principles, a balancing act essential to maintaining cohesion and influence on the global stage. An intriguing aspect of Europe’s position is the role of Anglo-American influence, whose strategic interests affect both the Russia-Ukraine and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. As European leaders address these intertwined challenges, the path they choose will shape not only Europe’s future but also its role in an increasingly multipolar world.
faznotes.com 
Leave a comment