The axiom of stability, which Europeans relied on, has gradually crumbled

Links to the pdf version and to Le Monde

Traumatized by two conflicts defined by extreme violence and horror, Europe was built on the premise of "never again," a principle meant to be upheld by respect for international law as embodied in the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by every state on the planet. The path taken since the Schuman Declaration of 1950 can be summed up in one word: "stability," guaranteed by the United States' protection within a Western bloc united under the banner of the "free world."

Hopes, born at the end of the Cold War, of seeing this stability strengthen, seemingly marking the triumph of the democratic ethic, have faded. They have been repeatedly shaken by reminders of history's tragic dimension, whether through the September 11 attacks, the second Iraq War (2003), or Russia's actions in its "near abroad" (Georgia, Ukraine). Nevertheless, the desire for a return to stability has always prevailed among European leaders, who are "used to the comfort of the status quo [...] and caught off guard by the acceleration of history," as historian Thomas Gomart points out in L'Accélération de l'histoire ("The Acceleration of History").

If any doubts remained after Russia's aggression against Ukraine, Donald Trump's relentless initiatives since his election should put them to rest once and for all. The prospect of returning to any form of status quo is nothing more than an illusion. The concept of liquidity, coined by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (1925–2017) to define postmodern societies, is now perfectly suited to describe relations between states, characterized by both anomie and speed, reflecting acceleration of history.

Disinformation operations

The return to a pre-1939 situation in Europe – predicted by political scientist John Mearsheimer for the post-Cold War era – did not lead to a resurgence of war, except in the former Yugoslavia. This was thanks to the ability of nations freed from Soviet rule to integrate into existing institutions: NATO and the European Union (EU).

However, the axiom of stability, which Europeans relied on, has gradually crumbled as the collective security system was weakened through repeated and unapologetic violations of its rules – such as the prohibition on the use of force "against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state"– by the most powerful actors on the international stage, namely the US and Russia.

While the US has regularly accused Russia and China of "revisionist" ambitions toward the international order they helped establish, President Donald Trump has now adopted the same stance, making claims that challenge the territorial integrity and political independence of member states of the United Nations.

Similarly, after condemning disinformation campaigns, manipulation, hostile influence and interference by these same powers, the US has systematized the dismantling of truth, cloaked under the nebulous label of "alternative facts." The American president demonstrates this almost daily, with his administration following suit, turning state-sponsored lies into a systematic practice and adding an increasingly obvious Orwellian touch to policymaking. At the same time, his entourage advocates for unrestricted freedom of speech, unhampered by any form of regulation, with the stated aim of blurring any distinction between truth and falsehood. This is a distant echo of the phrase "nothing is true, all is permitted," written by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

This combination of relativism, acceleration, uncertainty, and the weakening of the legal and institutional frameworks that were once considered reliable is the very negation of the paradigm of predictability and stability that had long been the foundation of the European project and is now being ruthlessly shaken.

National-populist movement

The outline of a "European security architecture," already presented by Russia in December 2021, was nothing more than the endorsement of a Russian sphere of influence over its "near abroad." Even if it were accepted, it would provide no real stability for Europe, as the Kremlin could challenge this framework at any moment, just as it did in 2014 with the 1997 Russia-Ukraine treaty, which contained clauses on non-aggression and respect for territorial integrity.

This "liquid" environment also defines Europe itself, in the midst of the rise of the national-populist movement, openly encouraged by the tornado of Trumpism, with interventionist stances notably illustrated by Vice President JD Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February. The EU's institutions are managing, albeit with difficulty, to contain the erosion of the foundations of democracy and the rule of law, but political solidarity is fraying in the face of Moscow's threat and Washington's offensive. This forces the states most concerned by this encirclement to seek external coalitions outside an increasingly divided EU to confront it – particularly with the United Kingdom. We're a long way from the EU's "Machiavellian moment," which some intellectuals have called for as it navigates the dangerous waters of this new world order.

In L'Ensauvagement. Le retour de la barbarie au XXIe siècle (Savage Century: Back to Barbarism), the philosopher Thérèse Delpech (1948-2012) presciently observed that "real history, is unforeseeable, and that explains the attraction of diplomatic services to stability – a key word in international relations, particularly at times when events foster fear of the unexpected. [...] Spectacular upheavals and sudden reversals are the defining characteristics of our time."

It is in light of this observation, that of a "liquid" and unforeseeable world, with no promise of stability, that European leaders who reject this turn of events would be wise to rethink their strategies.