International conflicts: what role can Europe play?
With wars raging in the Middle East and Ukraine and new power constellations emerging, all eyes are on the US as a military superpower. Commentators examine how Europe should position itself on the world stage.
Out of step with the times
Expresso comments:
“One can understand why Europe is not getting involved. It doesn't have the power to exert pressure on either side. It has no aircraft carriers that could be sent to the region, no bombers to threaten Iran's nuclear programme, and no major business deals with the Gulf monarchies. And even if it did, it would not be prepared to use them or even threaten to use them as leverage. ... We live in an age when the strength of diplomacy fundamentally depends on the willingness to use other means of power or to do business between states, rather than between mere economies. Europe has not arrived in this age.”
EU should focus on Ukraine
The European Union has more important things to do than get involved in the Middle East, Die Zeit argues:
“First and foremost, it must ensure its own survival as a union. This is not at issue in the Middle East, but it certainly is in Ukraine, where Vladimir Putin is continuing his imperialist campaign with utter ruthlessness. The heads of the three German intelligence services have just issued very clear public warnings: 'We must not sit back and think that a Russian attack will come in 2029 at the earliest. We are already under fire.' ... Putin's goal is to dismantle the EU. And the EU must do everything in its power to prevent this from happening - otherwise an era of European petty statism will dawn. No European can want that.”
Not just about Kyiv
The world order is being reshaped, Új Szó observes:
“As 2025 draws to an end, the war has become a test of patience, resources and legitimacy. Moscow is stronger militarily, Kyiv is increasingly weary, the West is divided and powerless and hardly knows what 'victory' actually means for it. The Tomahawk debate, the attacks on the energy system and the matter of Russian assets [whether Europe should access seized Russian assets to finance Ukraine's defence] all point in the same direction: the conflict is no longer about Ukraine but about a restructuring of the world order - and no one is in control of what happens anymore.”
Strategic reorientation needed
Europe needs leverage to keep aggressors in check, writes political analyst Miguel Baumgartner in O Jornal Económico:
“There are those who say you don't negotiate with people who use bombs. That's understandable. But you always negotiate with enemies, not friends - with friends you hold summits. The question is who sets the conditions. If it's Washington-Moscow (or Ankara-Moscow), Europe will pay twice: with its budget and with its security, with fragile borders and a devastating precedent. A grown-up Europe needs a European pivot for peace - not to reward aggression but to set in motion a process where the cost of continuing is higher than the cost of stopping.”
Only strong defence forces can secure peace
Countries with weak militaries are an easy target for aggressors, stresses the Kleine Zeitung:
“If you look at European countries you see a hodgepodge of solutions when it comes to military service and defence: compulsory military service, abolished compulsory military service, abolished with obligations in an emergency, voluntary service for men and women, just for men, between four and twelve months. The example of Germany shows how hard it is to change the status quo. ... After decades of dreaming, we now have to admit that only a strong defence force can secure peace - those who are weak and easy to conquer don't stand a chance against an aggressor. And almost more importantly, it's not just about the number of soldiers, it's about their attitude, too.”