The Hubris of Brussels
A Modern Greek Tragedy
Europe is acting as the protagonist in its own Greek tragedy. In a fixation that borders on the monomaniacal, its leaders have trained their sights on inflicting a military defeat on Russia, losing sight of the bigger picture. They have forgotten that military strength is only one dimension of national power, the other being economic vitality. The relentless pursuit of the former is now actively destroying the latter, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where the very methods used to avert a perceived threat are creating a far more tangible one.
The entire strategy hinges on a narrative that is rapidly losing its power. As the former head of Russian analysis at the CIA highlights in Compact Magazine, the initial Western consensus about the war is fracturing as the public grapples with the conflict's true costs, and "reality is winning the narrative war." The official justification for staggering increases in military spending, which hinges on the idea that Russia will inevitably attack other European states, crumbles under scrutiny.
Given the substantial resources Russia has already committed to Ukraine, the notion that it could mount a conventional invasion of Europe is highly improbable from a practical standpoint. Furthermore, the motive for such a conquest is illogical. With a very low population relative to its vast landmass and immense domestic resources that have yet to be exploited, trading its scarce population for more territory makes no strategic sense.
For these reasons, the conflict is more accurately viewed as a security dilemma born of NATO expansion, not a prelude to conquest. This view is not conjecture; it has been explicitly confirmed by NATO's own Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. Speaking of Putin's pre-war demands, Stoltenberg stated:
He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997... We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
In Stoltenberg's own words, the war is a reaction to NATO's advance, not a precursor to an unprovoked invasion of its members.
Prioritizing military strength is logical only in the face of an existential threat. In its absence, economic stability becomes by far the more important concern. In preparing for a phantom war, Europe has ignited a real crisis within its own borders, one that officials themselves are now acknowledging. As Denmark’s central bank governor warned in an interview with Euractiv, the continent-wide “military spending splurge” has become a significant “risk factor for the EU economy.”
The crusade against Russia has come at an enormous cost, tipping the continent into a protracted downturn. According to analysis from Allianz Trade, Europe has already entered a recession marked by stubbornly high inflation and depressed industrial activity. The economic pain has been particularly acute in Germany, the continent's industrial engine. As Sky News reports, Europe’s largest economy is now facing a potential third consecutive year of stagnation or recession, crippled by high energy costs and the loss of key export markets. The economic woes Germany is experiencing are a direct consequence of severing ties with affordable Russian energy without viable alternatives.
A steep decline in living standards that stems from renewed austerity is not happening in a political vacuum. As detailed in Jacobin, EU leaders are reimposing strict fiscal rules that demand cuts to social programs, healthcare, and public investment, while carving out exceptions for massive increases in defense budgets. The surge in military spending is inherently at odds with public well-being, even if it registers as economic growth. It diverts finite labor and capital from productive purposes; people who could be building housing, improving infrastructure, or farming are instead producing tanks, artillery shells, and missiles. The "growth" in the defense sector, therefore, comes at the direct expense of the tangible quality of life for ordinary citizens.
Funding military largesse by imposing public austerity fuels the surge in nationalist parties that have adopted an anti-war stance. As mainstream parties championed the war, nationalists gained a monopoly on acknowledging its ruinous economic impact, granting them immense credibility.
Faced with this populist backlash, the political center’s response is revealing the narrow scope of European democracy. The system is reminiscent of the 19th-century Italian political model known as trasformismo, which is defined by a flexible, centrist coalition that maintains power by absorbing any moderate opposition while actively isolating political extremes. In practice, the system creates the illusion of multi-party democracy, but the mainstream parties — be they Liberals, Greens, Social Democrats, or Christian Democrats — all share a compatible consensus on fundamental economic and foreign policy issues. They are, in effect, different factions of a single ruling bloc.
Parties with genuinely different views that fall outside this consensus are not debated; they are marginalized and, when necessary, suppressed. In Germany, high-level officials are orchestrating a push to ban the AfD, the country's leading opposition party. In France, President Macron plunged the country into chaos by refusing to appoint a prime minister from the victorious left-wing coalition. The situation in Romania is perhaps the most revealing, where the constitutional court annulled an election result after a pro-sovereignty candidate unexpectedly won the first round.
These are the modern tactics of trasformismo: when a political force cannot be absorbed into the centrist coalition, it is targeted for eradication. For citizens, such tactics demonstrate that while a democratic process exists on paper, its tangible outcome is not much different from a single-party system, where the fundamental direction of the state is never truly up for debate.
And so, misguided priorities coupled with an inflexible political system bring the tragedy to its climax. The fear of Russian domination becomes the mechanism of its own fulfillment. The economic destruction of Europe is happening now, opening the door for Russia to exert profound political influence without firing a single shot. As the EU’s core frays, Russia will be able to negotiate with individual, economically desperate European states from a position of absolute strength.
The fracturing of the EU is no longer a future risk; it is a present reality. Hungary, for example, continues to openly reaffirm its critical energy ties with Moscow, with its foreign minister stating that energy security is a matter of "physical reality" that transcends political disputes. In a similar vein, Slovakia’s Prime Minister has attacked the EU’s unified policy on Russia, signaling a clear and public break from the Brussels consensus. These actions demonstrate how member states are increasingly prioritizing their national interests, creating the very divisions Russia can exploit.
To compound this tragedy, the United States appears to be awakening to the new multipolar reality, leaving a Europe that clings to delusions of unipolar supremacy increasingly isolated. Europe’s obsession has left it stranded, lacking the military might to impose its will or the economic autonomy to chart its own course. Its survival now hinges on abandoning moral crusades for strategic realism. Unless Europe’s leaders escape their self-made tragedy, they risk being swept away by the very tides of history they sought to command.