For decades, Europe was synonymous with prosperity and stability. In recent years, the continent has lost its economic momentum, caught in a web of stagnation, declining competitiveness, and policy paralysis. Europe is clearly facing a crisis of leadership in the face of the most pressing international challenges. Exhausted by too many crises, divided by diverging domestic interests, and lacking impressive pro-European national leaders, the EU machine will struggle to perform at the scale and pace required.

Growth is sluggish, productivity is low, and debt is rising. And when it comes to the new engines of growth (big tech, AI, electric cars), then Europe is slipping behind both the U.S. and China. And despite headwinds from inflation, geopolitical risks, and global economic uncertainties, Europe will likely experience a modest acceleration in growth in 2025. More than half of European countries presently lack functioning governments, hindering collective EU action in response to the challenges posed by Russia, China, and Trump's administration. The biggest obstacle to effective EU foreign and security action is disagreement among member states on the EU's objectives, coupled with the union's decision-making process. The EU has become paralysed by its own bad decisions.

Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State, in an interview with the American newspaper Bloomberg, said that the current political leaders of Europe are incompetent, that European elites are degrading, and that the real power belongs to people who are not elected. They have neither guidelines nor understanding of the tasks ahead, and that is unlike their predecessors. They have no idea what exactly their mission is. Kissinger also doubted the ability of the United States to lead an independent policy, expressing his regret that America and the whole world lack 'exceptional leaders'. It is a serious degradation of the Western elites. From the USA to Germany and France and through Europe, we see predominantly grey, uneducated people full of primitive ideological attitudes; inconspicuous, incompetent people in power; and very complacent, narcissistic leaders who determine the fate of their countries. And what these people do and say often doesn't fit in the framework of common sense.

Today, the most important cause of the degradation of Western elites is that they come from transnational corporations. In the last decades under the influence of globalisation, the state has given way to the economy, i.e., transnational corporations – large capital. And it is corporations that appoint staff to key positions in the state...that they formed. Then comes privatisation of state institutions, i.e., handing over to private individuals the management of everything that was previously the responsibility of the state. The scientific community notes that one of the reasons for the crisis of the liberal version of democracy is the 'gap' between the leaders and society. Western democracy of the liberal type has entered a process of hopeless crisis.

The system developed in the USA and the EU is not able to satisfy the demands of citizens; even if the real leader wins the election, the elites try to overturn the election results (the recent elections in Romania, Georgia, Moldavia, and other countries, and the assassination attempt on the Czech president Fico) when the victory of unfit people happens. Elites are not defined by their intellectual quality but only by access to power. Arrogance is the problem of the Anglo-Europeans, along with their allies. Sheer arrogance will be their downfall. European people will not go fighting against Russia or any other country for their elites; they don’t have a problem with Russia or others, but with the wrong decisions of their leaders.

Failures in European policy include slow, complex law-making; a democratic deficit, where unelected officials hold significant power; economic stagnation marked by high energy costs and a lack of innovation; the inability to effectively manage migration flows; an overly restrictive regulatory environment that hinders economic growth and tech development; and failure to adequately address challenges like climate change and internal democratic backs, leading to a perceived lack of prosperity and unity. According to AI, the causes of the crisis of the Western leadership are:

  • Loss of legitimacy and trust: citizens trust institutions less (parliament, government, media, financial institutions).

  • Growing economic inequality, globalisation, and neoliberal policies benefit a small number of people at the top; the middle class feels threatened, and young people do not have the same economic chances as previous generations.

  • Geopolitical changes and loss of dominance, the rise of China, Russia, and other countries that challenge Western hegemony.

  • A problem of the management of international institutions (UN, WTO, EU, etc.).

  • Migrations.

  • International divisions, the growth of populism, nationalism, and political polarisation (Trump in the USA, Brexit, racial issues, LGBTQ+ rights, and political correctness) are topics that divide society. And elites are unable to understand and resolve conflicts.

  • The development of the Internet and social networks, and the monopolisation of digital space (Big Tech) and information censorship, cause mistrust.

  • Addressing climate change.

Many elites are in so-called bubbles, surrounded by like-minded people, without understanding the broad layers of the population. Institutions of higher education, media, and cultural institutions often produce leaders with a similar value system but insufficiently sensitive to the problems of real life. While Western societies continue to develop technologically and economically, trust in those who lead them is declining. The lack of stable governance in Germany and France, multiple elections, complicated coalitions, and the concern of the rising influence of radical-right parties and the volatile political climate hamper the effectiveness and increase social polarisation and the strengthening of the political fringes of governance in many parts of the EU.

Then, financing the energy crisis and the expansion of EU funding for technological innovation, for climate transition, and for defence is gradually drifting toward an 'ever-looser union'. A few member states are being led by populist or far-right parties: Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, and perhaps soon Austria. This situation created a leadership vacuum in key countries, complicating collective decision-making at the EU level. The EU leaders are not united regarding the joint defence loan or an agreement to use 230 billion euros of frozen Russian assets to buy European weapons for Ukraine. The spread of national-populist movements in recent years is supported by slogans such as 'America first', 'Britain first', 'Oui, la France', 'Prima gli Italiani', and 'Make America great again'. Such slogans are easy to understand and highly effective, but they have racist undertones and are also conceptually wrong.

There was nothing to prevent prioritising the interests of particular groups over cooperation designed to protect the general good, a choice that was bound to lead ultimately to the use of force in order to impose these interests. The need to create a European foreign security and defence policy became even more acute with the election of President Donald Trump and the ensuing uncertainty over American enlargement in Europe. In foreign policy, the EU’s ultimate decision-making body is the European Council, which comprises European heads of state and governments. The EU’s foreign affairs and security enable it to speak and act as one in world affairs, allowing the member states to tackle challenges they can’t solve alone, and ensuring the security and prosperity of EU citizens.

Disadvantages of EU membership are cost, inefficient policies, problems of the Euro, pressure towards austerity, net migration, more bureaucracy, and less democracy. Never since the creation of the EU has a U.S. president wielded such direct influence over European affairs. Since Trump’s re-election, EU leaders have been exceptionally careful in how they speak about the U.S. president, and never have the leaders of the EU’s 27 countries appeared so willing – desperate even – to hold up a U.S. president as a figure of authority to be praised and courted but never openly contradicted.

EU officials frame their deterrence to Trump as a necessary play to keep him engaged in European security and Ukraine’s future. The scene of Trump’s meeting in Washington with a group of European leaders and Zelensky looked more like a board of directors meeting or a private consultation than a summit of equals. The hastily convened meeting left analysts in a state of perplexity. European leaders presented it as progress towards security guarantees for Ukraine (and for Europe). But behind the carefully directed play, the real story is Europe’s inability to act as an independent political entity. The real lesson from Washington is in the demonstration of Western Europe’s dependence on America, and the danger of the European bloc slipping into something that can only be described as a collective political neurosis.

The problem is not that Brussels simply follows Washington, but that the EU no longer knows what its own and real interests are, and because it has lost the ability to define them, it automatically follows Washington’s line. Flattery is a strategy for managing meetings, not for shaping policy. There’s simply no evidence that flattering Trump produces better policy outcomes. It signals weakness. And in Trump’s transactional world, weakness is to be exploited. Trump already denounced the EU’s Digital Service Act, designed to harm or discriminate against American technology, an issue supposedly settled with the framework deal, and the U.S. was also threatening new retaliatory tariffs.

The optimism over the trade deal between the European Union and the United States gave way to concerns over the economic fallout from still-lofty issues and regulations that create a heavy bureaucratic environment. When America extorts European obeisance, America is no longer Europe’s friend. Disputes between the US and the EU are not only about trade but also about the peace agreements. The West didn’t squander the opportunity for peace. In Ukraine. And Western double standards are undermining the global order. Europe’s problems are not the world’s problems. Countries in the Global South have long accused the West of only defending the rules-based international order when it is convenient and when it is shaped to mainly benefit the West itself.

The EU and the US have violated international law so many times. To point out the West’s double standards, the Global South uses the US bombing of Iraq and many other conflicts provoked and waged all over the world by the US and its allies, and the West’s attitude towards Russia (and 19 packages of sanctions against Russia and 0 against Israel). Criticisms are about the constant arming of Ukraine and its corrupt and no-longer president, Zelensky, prolonging the war. Just in recent days, with the story about drones over the European sky, it seems the EU and NATO are trying to provoke a military confrontation with Russia, and Zelensky is trying to drag the EU and the US into war with Russia. European leaders talk only about the war and armaments. Europe was a project of peace. Now it is a project of peace but with arms.

It seems Europe is preparing the public for war with Russia. Long-range missiles supplied by Europe and the US are fired by Europe’s personnel and guided by its satellite system. With war in Ukraine and Donald Trump’s destabilisation of the Atlantic alliance, the EU is re-evaluating its approach to military defence and spending. An EU false flag is coming to justify war against Russia, and spending on rearmament is to hide EU leaders’ incompetence and other problems. EU big money goes to the U.S. stocks and bonds (the U.S. benefits, and WW3 could start). The EU is boosting its defences; European Readiness 2030 (formerly the Rearm Europe plan) would ultimately increase defence spending by EUR 800 billion by 2030 and 5% of GDP for military defence spending in NATO membership. And the newest of the key priorities is the construction of the so-called Drone Wall of defences to protect the European continent by detecting and shooting down Russian drones.

European countries do not agree on many issues, but they have never been so united regarding Ukraine and Russophobia. And the real question is how Ukraine became the most important thing for Europe, more important than European countries' sovereignty and national economies. Europe’s commitment to assist the government in Kyiv appears to be losing steam. In the Middle East, with the conflict between Israel, which is extending from Gaza to Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and the risk of an out-of-control regional confrontation between Israel and Iran, the EU is powerless amid the current efforts to lower tensions and to stop the war. And despite all the obvious crimes committed by Israel’s IDF against the Palestinian people and 70 thousand deaths, Europe has not taken any significant measures against Israel and continues to supply Israel with weapons and ban pro-Palestinian protests. Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Spain are among the sharpest critics of Israel’s war against the Palestinians.

The EU needs an interagency process for foreign policy, involving its institutions and member states, to develop policy options on foreign issues of strategic importance. With geopolitical storms gathering speed, the EU seems to have lost its foreign policy. Without a stronger EU, European countries can’t compete at the scale of China and the United States. Countering the spreading defeatism and the stable governments is therefore the most urgent challenge for the new leadership. Rebuilding the faith in collective European action…must be the top priority.