Europe stands at a strategic crossroads, facing economic pressures, energy insecurity, and ongoing conflicts on its borders. Its leaders champion unity and citizen welfare, yet their policies often perpetuate division and dependency. This raises a critical question: Are today's European leaders useful idiots, unknowingly serving external agendas that undermine continental interests, or cynical crooks, deliberately prioritizing elite alliances over the public good?
To explore this, consider the enduring geopolitical frameworks: Halford Mackinder's Heartland theory, which emphasizes unifying the Eurasian landmass for global dominance, versus Alfred Thayer Mahan's sea power doctrine, focused on controlling maritime routes—a view historically advanced by Britain and the United States.
Continental Europe traditionally (both pre- and post-Cold War) gravitated toward Mackinder's vision of integrated land power. However, modern policies appear to align more closely with Mahan's approach, fostering division to the detriment of European citizens.
But if the Iron Curtain is no longer, why this shift, and what role have leaders played?
The Pre-2008 Vision: Pursuing Eurasian Integration
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, key European figures advocated for a strategic outlook that included Russia as a partner in a broader European framework. Leaders such as Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and Silvio Berlusconi viewed Russia's resources and military capabilities as assets for a stronger, unified Europe. This aligned with Mackinder's emphasis on controlling the Eurasian "Heartland" to secure the continent's future.
Sarkozy pushed for enhanced NATO-Russia ties, including joint initiatives.
Merkel advanced energy interdependence through projects like Nord Stream, aiming to tie Russia economically to Europe.
Berlusconi similarly pursued bilateral agreements, seeing NATO-Russia cooperation as mutually beneficial.
By 2010, Russian gas met about 40% of EU needs, supporting growth and stability for citizens. This era reflected a pragmatic approach: integrate eastward to leverage geography, resources, and shared interests, positioning Europe as a balanced power rather than a subordinate in maritime-dominated alliances.
The Bucharest Turning Point: Embracing Division in 2008
The pivotal shift occurred at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in April 2008, where allies declared that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members, albeit without an immediate Membership Action Plan (MAP).
This decision consciously excluded Russia, marking Europe's abandonment of its independent strategic interests in favor of Anglo-American priorities.
Pushed by the U.S., the summit promised eventual membership to these countries, provided they met requirements, while denying them MAP status due to opposition from figures like Merkel and Sarkozy.
The compromise—a vague pledge without a timeline—sowed division, as it isolated Russia and extended NATO eastward without integrating it. This move aligned Europe with Mahan's sea power doctrine, effectively ending its strategic autonomy.
Post-Bucharest, tensions escalated: Russia's 2008 conflict with Georgia and later events in Ukraine stemmed from this perceived encirclement. European leaders, by endorsing the declaration, shifted from Heartland unity to a fragmented rimland strategy.
The 2014 Ukraine crisis amplified this trajectory, with sanctions and energy decoupling further entrenching the divide. By 2022, initiatives like REPowerEU reduced Russian imports dramatically, leading to higher energy costs and industrial challenges for citizens.
Why the Alignment with Mahan's Doctrine?
Several factors explain Europe's adherence to this path, despite the costs to its people:
Transatlantic Pressures and NATO Reliance: Europe's security framework remains tied to the U.S., which funds much of NATO. The Bucharest decision reflected U.S. advocacy for expansion, overriding European hesitations. Leaders like Scholz, Merz and Macron continue this, framing Russia as a threat while committing billions in aid to Ukraine, at the expense of domestic economies. Now, with Trump’s threats to reduce U.S. involvement in NATO, Europeans are left strategically high and dry—entrenched in a policy of division but without guaranteed American support.
UK Influence and Post-Brexit Dynamics: Britain, as an "offshore balancer," historically benefits from a divided continent. Its strategic view—rooted in Mahan—encourages keeping Europe fragmented, with London maintaining sway through alliances like Five Eyes.
Internal Incentives and Elite Priorities: Leaders may prioritize short-term political gains or lobby influences over long-term citizen welfare. Defense spending increases favor U.S. suppliers, while green transitions shift dependencies westward.
This has resulted in vulnerabilities: reliance on imported LNG, economic stagnation, and a security posture that invites conflict rather than resolution.
Assessing Leadership: Idiots, Crooks, or Systemic Captives?
Europe's leaders are (perhaps) neither purely idiots nor crooks but are often captives of a system favoring external alignments. The 2008 Bucharest decision forsook a Mackinder-inspired unity for Mahan's division, subordinating European strategy to Anglo-American designs.
Pre-2010 visions of inclusion faded, replaced by policies harming citizens—rising costs, unemployment, and instability. Dissenters like Orbán offer alternatives, but systemic inertia prevails. A potential U.S. policy shift could prompt a reevaluation.
Ultimately, reclaiming strategic autonomy requires prioritizing Heartland integration over maritime dependency.
The Bucharest strategic betrayal lingers on.