Europe is currently facing a critical juncture in its history. The European Union, with which we joined in pursuit of shared values, is currently grappling with a significant challenge. The initiative has unfortunately fallen into the trap of an „impossible trinity,” which is characterized by three ambitious and costly strategic goals. It aims to preserve a model centered on a robust welfare state, expedite defense investments, and concurrently implement increasingly assertive climate policy. These goals are currently incompatible with one another. It is not feasible to develop an industrial base, an armaments industry, and other sectors while concurrently losing the capacity to compete in the global market through a zero-emissions economy, particularly when other countries are effectively safeguarding their own interests. The world is currently experiencing a period of significant change. Global equilibrium is faltering, and the rules on which global trade, technological flows, and investment have been based are undergoing profound revision — perhaps even a complete reconstruction. China and Russia are each challenging the existing order in their own way. Beijing is expanding its network of influence, extending its economic, infrastructural, and technological presence from Africa to the Far and Middle East. In contrast, Moscow’s actions have been characterized by a pattern of destruction rather than construction. Its strategy aligns with the principles of warfare, including the use of missiles, migration pressure, disinformation, energy blackmail, and the territorial rebuilding of an empire. It is crucial to bear in mind that these dynamics persist even after the signing of a peace agreement in Ukraine.
Europe is currently experiencing a significant challenge to its social cohesion, competitiveness, and security due to its acceptance of a substantial influx of newcomers with different cultural backgrounds. This has led to a loss of key technologies and a reliance on external sources for security, which has been further compounded by an overreliance on the concept of permanent peace without the necessary deterrence mechanisms to ensure it. In the meantime, the world has undergone significant changes. New challenges are emerging, including illegal migration, digital destabilization, and hybrid attacks. Europe has reached a point of stagnation in its development.This state of affairs is confirmed by the number of the most significant companies in the global economy, as illustrated by the chart on the following page, showing American and European firms valued at at least ten billion dollars.
In this situation, the European Union, instead of focusing on key economic challenges, has begun to pursue an expansion of the competences of EU institutions and actions taken ultra vires. In this study, I propose a novel approach that is firmly grounded in contemporary geopolitical realities, traditional economic and trade calculations, historical lessons, the divergent interests of countries as varied as Portugal and Finland, and the principles of common sense. I hereby present the concept of a Europe of Strategic Partnerships. If certain states wish to adopt the euro as their official currency or to pursue climate neutrality objectives, even if it means compromising their own industry, that decision should be respected. However, it is essential to ensure that there is no coercion or infringement on the sovereignty of other member states in this regard. Therefore, the assumption that all countries should adopt identical speeds in various policy areas (climate, migration, monetary, economic, industrial, so-called fundamental rights, etc.) is not only impractical but increasingly harmful. Our history and circumstances necessitate a reformation of the European Union into a Union of many paths. Each country should have the right to choose its own development trajectory and to enter into alliances (usually regional) with other „likeminded” states. True cohesion can be achieved by building the competitiveness and importance of the continent through the strength of individual states, rather than through the centralization of power in Brussels or through a quasi-federal monstrosity that looks primarily through the prism of the interests of only the so-called old Union states, and above all its largest and wealthiest members.
Above all, however, the primary goal and condition for Europe’s development is peace. As threats to security increase, the EU must be prepared to respond promptly. Despite declarations of its own defense concepts, maintaining strong transatlantic relations within NATO is crucial for ensuring security in the coming era of turbulence. It is imperative to enhance the coherence of defense relations with the United States to the greatest extent possible. This enhancement must be grounded in shared interests and a recalibration of economic relations to achieve a more equitable balance. The U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS), published at the end of November, demonstrates a new American perspective on security policy priorities. First, the objective is to establish dominance in the Western Hemisphere, which would entail a strengthened Monroe Doctrine. The sequence of regions includes Asia, followed by Europe, then the Middle East, and finally Africa. The NSS does not advocate for withdrawal from Europe; however, Europe will undoubtedly have to assume greater responsibility for its own security. It is important to note that the threats to Poland and our region are distinct from those facing other regions, such as the Iberian Peninsula, the Apennines, or Great Britain. The NSS indicates a shift in the U.S.’s strategic approach toward Europe, characterized by a series of reservations and conflicts of interest. These concerns were also evident during the initial year of Donald Trump’s presidency, as evidenced by trade disputes, and subsequently reflected in the trade agreement that was concluded during a golfing event. However, despite these growing tensions—or perhaps precisely because of them—I propose a „leap forward” and new trade and economic solutions between Europe and the United States. The response to these challenges, as outlined in this report, is the idea of establishing an Economic NATO. The road ahead is not only marked by economic challenges, but also by the question of the Union’s identity and future. European bureaucrats have not taken on the difficult debates that are necessary for implementing real and necessary transformations. As a result, they have created numerous bureaucratic burdens that are often unnecessary and excessive. These burdens are weakening both Poland and Europe as a whole. It is therefore essential that we make bold decisions and implement genuine reforms. It is imperative that Europe recognizes the urgency of the situation and takes immediate action to address the issues at hand.
