Europe in the New World Order

Europe and the emerging New Global Order

On March 31, 2025, Heinrich Kreft, Jochen Richter, and I presented our new book „Europe and the Emerging New Global Order“ [1] during an online event hosted by the Diplomatic Council. This event was part of a broader series of presentations held in various cities and countries.

What is the book about?

Security – narrowly defined, broadly conceptualised

From a book titled “Europe and the Emerging New Global Order”, readers should expect comprehensive insights into how this new global order might take shape. Furthermore, it should provide perspectives on the key players and the forces involved. Our book aims to do precisely that.

After an introductory preamble and foreword, 19 contributors cover a wide range of issues across 524 pages in twelve detailed chapters:

1. Prologue
2. What is Security?
3. The evolving global order
4. Reform needs for the rules-based international order
5. Europe’s role in a multipolar world
6. Deterrence and its meaning in the 21st century
7. Tackling Disinformation in the Context of Hybrid Threats
8. Strengthening cyber resilience is more urgent than ever
9. European societies in defence – Resilience concepts
10. Securing Supply Chains – Reflections from Industry
11. Addressing climate change – two perspectives
12. Call to Action

Here are the authors, listed alphabetically:

1. Dr. Alina Bârgăoanu, Professor, Member EDMO Advisory Board
2. Răzvan Ceuca, International Relations Expert at New Strategy Center, Romania
3. Simona Cojocaru, State Secretary Defence for Romania
4. Stacy A. Cummings, NSPA General Manager
5. Dr. Judith Curry, President Climate Forecast Applications Network
6. Andreas Dripke, Executive Chair Diplomatic Council
7. Dorin Gal, Policy adviser Romania’s Defence Ministry, diplomacy expert
8. Stephan J. Kramer, President of the Thuringian State Intelligence Office
9. Prof. Dr. Heinrich Kreft, President Diplomatic Council, Ambassador (ret.). Editor
10. Dr. Ciro Maddaloni, political Opinionist “Giornale Diplomatico”
11. Michael Mattis, Founder and CEO Silicon Valley Europe
12. Jamal Qaiser, Peace Activist. Diplomatic Council Commissioner for UN Affairs
13. Jochen M. Richter, Chair Diplomatic Council Global Security Forum. Editor
14. Marc Ruberg, Officer in charge Baden-Württemberg University Network
15. Prof. Dr. Peter Schallenberg, Prof. Moral Theology and Theological Ethics
16. Dr. Harald Schönfeld, Founder & CEO hutterflymanager and United Interim
17. Andre Schulte-Südhoff, Managing Director and shareholder of Schüko
18. George Scutaru, Founder and CEO New Strategy Center, Romania
19. Dr. Horst Walther, Diplomatic Council Commissioner for UN Affairs, Editor

It is inevitable that although the authors address a shared topic, their views do not uniformly align. This diversity reflects the broader contemporary discourse and is beneficial rather than detrimental. Only the relativising chapter on climate change lacks a strong opposing viewpoint. We therefore offer such a necessary perspective: Europeans for the Planet’s “Leave no Trace – on Climate Change and Beyond” [2].

Security, however, forms a consistent thematic thread throughout these contributions—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. The scope of the discussion ranges from philosophical reflections to practical, operational demands related to the ongoing conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine, some of which may already have been overtaken by recent events.

Having initially tackled the more philosophical question of “What is security?“—considered either objectively (absence of threats) or subjectively (feeling secure)—we proceed to the vital question of how we can achieve this security. This question feels more urgent now than we anticipated even recently. At the time of writing, it was merely a troubling premonition.

Is it enough for Germany simply to make its armed forces “fit for war” [3]? Is it sufficient to open new giant budgets for weapons, an “epochal change” (Zeitenwende) [4], infrastructure, and costly election giveaways? This approach seems more like handing out “free beer for all“.

Or do we require something more substantial—more cohesion, capability, reliability—an independent, autonomous, and self-confident Europe, whose member states cannot be individually blackmailed by either friend or foe?

Friends? – A short digression on “MAGA” and “America First”

Are we witnessing the desperate battle cry of an empire in decline, as former Bridgewater investor Ray Dalio [5], among others, suggests? Dalio identifies eight measurable indicators of decline:

1. Education
2. Competitiveness
3. Innovation & Technology
4. Economic Output
5. Share of World Trade
6. Military Strength
7. Financial Market Strength
8. Reserve Currency Status

Some analysts already perceive signs of decline in the last indicator. This minimal yet significant erosion of the dollar’s dominance is driven by both internal and external forces, notably its weaponisation, which has accelerated the creation of parallel monetary systems.

Or is America renewing itself, continuing a 19^th-century doctrine known as “Manifest Destiny“—the “sacred right” to forceful expansion, a term coined by journalist John O’Sullivan? If so, where is Europe’s place in this scenario? It seems our role is either to serve this agenda or face serious consequences.

Europe, however, is not central to America’s considerations. The US priority is global dominance, and currently, the epic struggle is between the US and China. Europe is invited to join on the American side.

Initially, the West believed that China’s integration into global trade would inevitably transform it into a Western-style democracy or lead to failure. But China has “failed to fail” [6].

Ironically, today Washington’s economic policy resembles China’s past ten-year strategy—a “Chinese policy with American characteristics” [7]..

For Europe, these developments are troubling. The relatively small European states risk being crushed by the dominant geopolitical forces.

Friedrich Merz’s proclamation “Germany is back” rather offers little reassurance [8].

Europe faces a decisive choice

Returning to the book: Europe must reinvent itself to avoid becoming collateral damage in this epic clash between superpowers. Our publication explores this expanded concept of security, posing some fundamental questions:

What kind of Europe do we desire?

Which model could succeed?

For what vision should we fight?

Is it the geographically defined Europe?

Traditionally, Europe is seen geographically as a subcontinent of Eurasia, stretching from Norway’s Kinnarodden to Spain’s Punta de Tarifa, from Portugal’s Cabo da Roca to Russia’s Ural Mountains.

Notably, Russia’s Tsar Peter the Great politically defined the eastern boundary, firmly placing Russia within Europe—a stance maintained to this day.

Clearly, geography alone proves to be insufficient.

Is it today’s European Union?

After all, this entity already exists – as a loose confederation of states. Today’s EU is undoubtedly a remarkable achievement, as Dr. Christoph Heusgen impressively explains in his wonderful introduction to our book.

However, an increasing number of voices call for reforms or further integration. Scepticism is increasing. Particularly within core EU countries major parts of the population have already completely turned their backs on the idea of a united Europe. Some speak openly of a misconstruction. In any case, development has clearly come to a standstill, a dead end.

Also, there is no good reason to limit the desired entity of Europe to the members of the current EU.

On the other hand, not all member states will be prepared to take another bold joint step. Some states would prefer to take the unpromising path of being sovereign individual states.

I share the view of Ian Bremmer (whom I will quote below) that the EU as a whole is incapable of acting effectively and collectively under pressure.

Obviously, it will not be the European “Union” either.

Is it a community defined by European values?

There is indeed something that makes Europe unique, a feature that fundamentally distinguishes us from the rest of the world, something that we can be proud of and that we should defend if necessary.

We are talking about the achievements of the European Enlightenment over the last 300 years. Immanuel Kant once characterized this philosophical movement as „man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage.” [9], [10] These ideas are the root of modern Europe. The force that unites us and of which we can rightly be proud originates from the very ideas of the Enlightenment that were developed over three centuries ago. These ideas form the foundation of our identity, guide the principles of our actions and define the boundaries of the unity that we can also call the Europe of values.

What else distinguishes Europe – positively – from the rest of humanity?

Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality of opportunity, the rule of law and respect for human rights are also the values on which the European Union is founded. However, they are not always respected.

And that would be the Europe of our desires.

Where, then, are Europe’s borders?

But where then are the limits for admitting new members and perhaps excluding existing ones? Where are the limits for integrating migrants from other cultures?

The statement is: Europe’s geographical borders are ultimately determined by the limits of social consensus. These borders are best summarized by the theorem known as the “Böckenförde Paradox.” [11] It is named after the German constitutional lawyer Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde. It points to a fundamental tension in liberal democracies that simply cannot be ignored. It reads: “The liberal, secularized state thrives on preconditions it cannot guarantee itself.”

According to this, a democratic, liberal state presupposes certain moral and social values ​​of its citizens. These include civic engagement, mutual trust, and a shared sense of purpose. However, these values ​​cannot be imposed or enforced by the state. They must emerge from civil society itself, particularly from non-state institutions such as the family, religious organizations, and cultural traditions.

If these preconditions are not met from the outset, or if their social foundations were eroding, the state cannot force citizens to maintain liberal democracy. Herein lie the true limitations for an entity that wants to call itself Europe—for both the membership of states and the integration of migrants.

It will not be easy to rigorously apply this principle and it remains unclear by which mean to do so. Failing to live by it however will mean the end of all hope for civil liberties and all other achievements since the idea of enlightenment was incepted.

4. Europe must therefore reinvent itself

This is a “call to action” and by no means just my eccentric individual opinion.

It would be strategic suicide if we relied on the hostile US for our survival, Sigmar Gabriel recently stated in an interview with Gabor Steingart in the Pioneer Newsletter. [12].

The US-American Ian Bremmer of GZero Media says [13]:

„After years of complacency, European leaders seem to have finally gotten the message that the United States under Trump is not just an unreliable friend but an actively hostile power. They understand they need to drastically increase Europe’s sovereign military, technological, and economic capabilities – not just to survive without America but also to defend their borders, economies, and democracies against it. Whether they can muster the political mettle to act on this realization, however, is Europe’s greatest test since 1945.

…

The irony is that Europe has the resources and capacity to stand up for itself, its values, and its fellow Europeans. What’s missing is the collective courage to act like it’s 1938, not 1989. For Ukraine’s sake and its own, that needs to change.“

Constanze Stelzenmüller of the New York Times writes [14]:

„One of the great ironies of Trump is that he is proving to be the great unifier of Europe. You can’t overestimate how shocked the Europeans are by what’s happening here.”

These are great prospects for us Europeans, aren’t they? Our European leaders have certainly suffered the shock. The corresponding implied work, however, still needs to be done.

None of the three authors cited – nor anyone else utters any advice about how this should happen.

Therefore, we are making a move here.

What is required now is the transition from confederation to federation – monolithic externally and diverse and federal internally.

What a change – but does it really come a surprise?

Many people feel as if we are suddenly living in a completely different world. But perhaps we have simply been rudely awakened from an illusion we have been living in thanks to, admittedly, very skilful deceptive US foreign policy.

“There is great disorder under heavens,” one might be inclined to quote Mao Zedong. [15].

The disorder is definitely real. As a result, our politicians convey a rather helpless impression. They are simply unable to re-calibrate their views that quickly.

Even if they could, they wouldn’t know where the journey would take them. They are simply not prepared for this. The paternal advice from the White House, according to the motto “speaking softly while carrying a big stick [16]“ which has been blindly followed so far, is not forthcoming any longer.

From there rather shrill tones emerge. Meanwhile, the red guards of the great oligarchic cultural revolution are on the rampage in the administrations that have so far guaranteed continuity there.

Test question to you: from which source DOGE or Mao does the motto originate “Bombard the Headquarters” [17]?

Visionaries pursuing goals – not poll-driven career politicians

Slowly, very slowly, the realization is penetrating our collective consciousness that the necessary step—the transition from a confederation to a federal state—will not be possible while leaving it to the actors currently in power.

They are all career politicians. For them, politics is a profession—not a calling. Their motivation for action is the attainment of personal power.

In our scenario, however, they would have to cede influence to a somewhat greater vision. They won’t be ready for that.

They base their decisions on poll results. Here, however, they must pursue immutable goals. They also ask their people what should be done. But the people expect leadership.

Nor are they as independent in their decisions as they claim. In many cases they were being remotely controlled in their decisions by the White House.

What we Europeans need now more than ever, are visionaries with goals who will lead the broadest possible social movement, a grassroots movement.

Who can this movement be? – Quite simply, all of us!

And in fact, this movement already exists and is prepared for you to join: Europeans for the Planet.

---

References