EUROPEAN TURBULENCE

Since November 8, Budapest has served as the focal point for European diplomatic activity. The Hungarian government will continue to serve as the European Union's president for an additional two months, and as officials in Budapest have indicated, the period may yield unexpected developments. Meanwhile, the city on the Danube initially hosted an informal summit of the European Union, subsequently becoming the venue for a meeting of the European political community with the participation of 45 leaders from countries that can be conventionally grouped as Greater Europe. The agenda was made public one day prior to the event. As anticipated, the participants engaged in discussions on European security issues, including the situation in Ukraine, the ongoing escalation in the Middle East, and illegal migration. Furthermore, they discussed the issues of economic security, as well as the cooperation in the areas of energy, transportation, information technology, and global trade. However, other significant issues were broached that were not included on the agenda.

European Dreams and European Ambitions

The concept of the European Political Community is designed to delineate the scope of the European Union's sphere of interests. Twenty years ago, discussions about the potential for a closely integrated European Union to serve as an alternative centre of power in the world were a common occurrence. This notion emerged concurrently with the transition of the concept of a united Europe from an idealistic vision to a tangible reality. The European Union was perceived as a potential alternative to both the United States and the Soviet Union, with proponents citing the economic, demographic, and political capital of the unifying countries as a basis for this assertion. The vision of a unified Europe, devoid of internal divisions, was gradually becoming a tangible reality. In such a context, it was inevitable that formats delineating Brussels' sphere of influence would emerge. The initial such platform was the Eastern Partnership.

The European Political Community represents a significantly more expansive and ambitious initiative. The establishment of the European Political Community is largely attributed to France, which is clearly asserting its role as a leading force within the EU. Previously, Paris had to share influence with London. However, following Britain's withdrawal from the union, France became the sole EU member with nuclear power. France's actions suggest an intention to transform the EU into a sphere of interest. Moreover, given that the current French administration is seeking to re-establish France's former prominence, a number of ambitious projects are being pursued under the pretext of European initiatives, including the European Political Community.

However, this situation presents challenges for those responsible for the project's design. The EU continues to be a highly attractive partner in a number of areas, including trade, security dialogue, science, tourism, and others. Conversely, numerous countries are inclined to collaborate with one another rather than submit to the caprices and edicts of European officials, particularly those who are beholden to the French government in Paris. The summits of the European Political Community serve as a broad platform, yet this is inadequate for achieving success. This was evidenced at the summit in Budapest, which was largely ignored by the media. In spite of the ambitious claims made, there were no significant events or declarations. A number of factors contributed to this outcome, including mounting disappointment with the realities of the European vector and a significant crisis within the European Union itself. This is a subject that many politicians at the European level tend to eschew in open discourse.

European Problems

In the period preceding the summit in Budapest, a number of EU member states were confronted with considerable domestic difficulties. The most pressing issue was the government crisis in the Federal Republic of Germany. The coalition government was, somewhat ironically, dubbed the "traffic light," comprising the Social Democrats (red), the Free Democrats (yellow), and the Green Party. The Free Democrats have formally withdrawn from the coalition government in Berlin. The current status quo allows the incumbent government to retain its position, although the timeline for the formation of a new coalition and the composition of its members remain uncertain.

Similarly, France has been experiencing a rise in domestic political challenges. The government crisis climaxed during the summer, when supporters of Emmanuel Macron suffered defeats in both the European Parliament elections and the early parliamentary elections initiated by Macron himself. Consequently, the position of Macron remains tenuous.

Additionally, the Netherlands experienced unrest prior to the summit, with altercations occurring between supporters of the Israeli club Maccabi and Palestinian supporters. This resurgence of anti-Semitism came as a shock to both domestic and international observers. In their analysis, experts drew parallels between these events in Amsterdam and Kristallnacht. This incident underscores the European Union's inability to implement a robust and effective integration system for migrants, including those from the Middle East.

Although one might be inclined to dismiss these incidents as mere coincidence and caution against hasty generalizations, it is imperative to acknowledge the underlying systemic issues within the European Union that are reflected in these troubling events.

The Limits of Expansion

In the 1990s and even at the beginning of the 2000s, the term "European" was perceived as a gateway to paradise. The extent to which this notion corresponded to reality is open to debate. In the context of territorial disputes within the former Soviet Union, local political leaders were advised to "take an example from Europe, where there are no internal borders anymore." Some sought to advance these ideas prior to the 44-day war regarding the EAEU, attempting to persuade Azerbaijan to align with this vision. While there is no control at the borders of the European Union, the borders themselves are clearly delineated and marked with precision. Border posts are situated precisely where they should be located. It would be unthinkable to suggest that these borders should be moved or erased. The Schengen agreements are not a fixed entity; they can be established today and then cancelled tomorrow. Therefore, it remains necessary to know where Belgium ends and where the Netherlands begins.

Presently, there is a growing sentiment of scepticism towards both the EU and the concept of European integration. First and foremost, there is a significant degree of uncertainty surrounding the question of whether an individual will be accepted into the EU or not. Furthermore, there is a growing number of queries pertaining to the suitability of specific conditions for all parties involved. For an extended period, spanning decades, the EU has asserted that it has reached its enlargement limit. This perception affects how the EU is perceived by external actors. Additionally, numerous experts advocate for a concentration on internal EU processes.

By the mid-2000s, it became evident that the concept of a "united Europe" was no longer aligned with the vision of the European public. The refusal of numerous countries to adopt a single EU constitution served as an early indication of potential challenges to the integration process. The EU had reached its "limit of integration," a point at which it was compelled to either evolve into a single state, where the sovereignty of individual countries could be discussed with a certain degree of tolerance, or else undergo a pendulum swing away from integration and toward isolationism. While the process of disintegration did not occur within the European Union, numerous integration projects were placed on hold.

Concurrently, by the conclusion of the 2000s, another significant challenge emerged: a "silent war" between Northern and Southern Europe began to intensify within the European Union. This conflict is evident in a number of areas, including the issue of illegal migration, where Southern European countries bear the brunt of the burden while migrants themselves tend to move northward across the continent. Additionally, a financial crisis occurred within the eurozone at that time, which was primarily attributed to Southern Greece, while Northern countries bore much of the responsibility. Many European politicians are reluctant to acknowledge the existence of this issue. Nevertheless, it is evident that it has a significant impact on both the popularity and appeal of the European Union. The EU has already constituted a group of countries that are in opposition to its principles, with Hungary being an ironic inclusion as the host of this summit.

Against this backdrop, European leaders are confronted with a significant challenge—the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election, which EU leaders had previously regarded as a potential nightmare. Although the United States is not a member of the European Union, Trump could compel European NATO member countries to fulfil their obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty and increase their defence spending. Additionally, experts have not excluded the possibility of periodic "trade wars" with the EU. In the days preceding the summit, the President of France made a plea for the establishment of a unified policy, yet these entreaties were largely ignored. It is evident that not all members of the European Union are inclined to follow France's lead. In light of these circumstances, it appeared that the summit in Budapest would ultimately prove unsuccessful.