Global geopolitics

How elite agendas, historical legacies, and institutional dysfunction constrain strategic autonomy

Europe’s core geopolitical problems are structural, historical, and have decisive implications for its cohesion, strategic posture, and individual freedoms. The European Union, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany each embody distinct dysfunctions that resonate across the continent. These dysfunctions derive from unresolved historical hangovers, strategic misalignment with Russia, and accelerating digital and economic vulnerabilities. Resolving these combined failures is essential to prevent further erosion of European statecraft and civic liberties.

The European Union today is built on a premise of collective governance that lacks coherent legitimacy and material capacity. The EU’s digital ambitions, including a common digital identity framework and a centralised digital infrastructure, are advanced without robust safeguards for privacy, autonomy, or political accountability. Proposals for an EU-wide digital identity, intended to facilitate access to both public and private services, create gateways through which citizen data can be aggregated and mediated by supranational actors, with unclear protections against surveillance, mission creep, or automated enforcement regimes. Some members of the European Parliament explicitly warn that such frameworks could evolve into a QR-coded society that mimics social credit systems, undermining democratic choice and personal autonomy. The digital identity initiative reflects a wider digital sovereignty problem: the EU regulates technologies it does not produce, leaving it dependent on foreign platforms and standards, even as it asserts normative control over digital life. This creates a hollow assertion of control that masks real dependency, technological fragmentation, and citizen vulnerability.

The endemic weaknesses in digital skills, infrastructure, and industrial base further expose the EU’s strategic insecurity. Large segments of the European workforce lack basic digital competencies, and the shortfall of specialists in key fields such as cybersecurity and data analysis undermines economic competitiveness. The EU’s regulatory approach, however well-intentioned, cannot substitute for material autonomy in semiconductors, cloud services, or cyber defences, ensuring continued exposure to external pressures from dominant actors in the United States and East Asia. The absence of a common digital market that integrates the technological and economic strengths of member states weakens internal cohesion and fails to create a credible defence against geopolitical rivals.

The identity crises afflicting Europe’s major powers also shape wider geopolitical instability. The United Kingdom’s post-imperial hangover has become increasingly visible following Brexit, which was intended to reclaim sovereignty but exposed the state’s strategic fragility. The departure from the European Union removed a structural anchor, yet Britain has struggled to articulate a coherent global strategy. Institutions increasingly emphasise symbolic governance, cultural signalling, and regulatory management rather than economic renewal, defence reform, or industrial revitalisation. Policing priorities illustrate this shift: resources are devoted to monitoring speech, enforcing ideological compliance, and conducting ceremonial functions, while persistent public-service gaps and crime resolution challenges remain unresolved. Sir John Jenkins, former British diplomat, has observed that “the United Kingdom retains the veneer of authority while losing operational competence in areas critical to national security.” Economically, Britain faces persistent productivity stagnation, compounded by regulatory uncertainty and post-Brexit trade disruptions. The National Audit Office reports that bureaucratic expansion has increased administrative costs without improving public outcomes, further limiting the state’s capacity to respond to global challenges. The United Kingdom’s struggle illustrates how post-imperial expectation collides with the realities of diminished institutional capability.

France exhibits a different but equally pronounced post-imperial hangover. Historical ambition, codified in republican universalism and Napoleonic legacy, contrasts sharply with contemporary social and economic realities. French labour protections and social welfare systems safeguard workers from exploitation but simultaneously create friction with industrial competitiveness. Farmers, small business owners, and essential workers increasingly confront regulatory pressures, rising taxes, and the consequences of UN Agenda 2030 climate policies, prompting widespread strikes and public protests. Professor François Ecalle of Sciences Po highlights that “the unrest observed in France is a direct consequence of elite-driven policy imbalances that shift the burden onto ordinary citizens while maintaining privileges for a bureaucratic class.” Governance is further complicated by the state’s inability to enforce law uniformly in suburban and rural peripheries, where parallel social structures have emerged. French elites maintain global moral authority and rhetorical leadership while failing to reconcile internal contradictions, undermining Paris’s capacity to project coherent strategy within both the EU and NATO. Industrial output has stagnated in regions historically central to the nation’s economic strength, reducing France’s ability to sustain technological and defence initiatives. These factors collectively illustrate a nation trapped between the aspiration for past grandeur and the structural realities imposed by elite-driven policymaking.

Germany’s post-World War Two identity embodies extreme moral caution, manifesting as a structural aversion to assertive sovereignty. Regulatory dominance in environmental, social, and industrial policy has replaced strategic decision-making, while critical sectors such as energy and defence have been partially outsourced to allied frameworks. The early closure of nuclear power plants illustrates the tension between environmental ambition and energy security, resulting in greater reliance on imported fossil fuels from geopolitically sensitive regions. Professor Heribert Schwan of the Berlin Institute for Strategic Studies notes, “Germany’s approach privileges procedural correctness and symbolic virtue over material outcomes, constraining both national autonomy and EU-wide strategic coordination.” Bureaucratic culture often elevates technical compliance over actionable decisions, leaving Germany dependent on NATO guarantees and transatlantic frameworks for security. Industrial and technological capacity remains strong, yet strategic application of that capacity is hampered by political caution and procedural rigidity. This caution extends to foreign policy, where engagement with Russia and Eastern Europe has historically prioritized moral framing over understanding regional security dynamics, further limiting Germany’s capacity to exercise independent strategic initiative.

Across these three nations, elite-driven agendas and post-imperial legacies interact with citizen responses to shape contemporary governance. In the United Kingdom, symbolic bureaucracy supplants operational competence; in France, citizens resist elite-driven policies while elites attempt to maintain narrative control; in Germany, moral caution constrains decision-making despite economic capacity. Across the EU, these national trajectories weaken collective strategic autonomy and amplify vulnerability to external shocks, from energy crises to geopolitical tensions. Former GDR State Secretary Petra Erler underscores this point, arguing that “Western European elites constructed policy frameworks without integrating Eastern experience or Russian security perspectives, institutionalizing strategic misunderstanding.” Across all three states, the tension between elite agendas and citizen demands creates repeated cycles of policy failure, public protest, and institutional paralysis.

Durable strategic and economic renewal in Europe requires recognition of post-imperial hangovers, structural recalibration, and accountability. The United Kingdom must rebuild operational competence in governance, policing, and trade; France must reconcile social protections with industrial productivity and citizen welfare; Germany must align regulatory ambition with energy security and independent strategic capacity. Expert testimony and empirical evidence indicate that failure to address these imbalances perpetuates vulnerability, erodes public trust, and reduces Europe’s capacity to respond to global challenges. Historical amnesia, elite insulation, and procedural overreach will continue to produce predictable crises unless structural reform and citizen-focused policy replace symbolic governance and ideological signalling.

At the centre of Europe’s geopolitical stress is the contested relationship with Russia. Misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Russia’s historical experiences and security concerns have shaped policies that are simultaneously confrontational and incoherent. Critics such as former East German official Dr Petra Erler argue that elite Western attitudes towards Russia are rooted in structural arrogance and strategic triumphalism, treating Russian concerns as subsidiary to ideological certainties. From the period of German reunification to the present, this mindset has shaped policy decisions that marginalised Russian perspectives, ignored the depth of post-Soviet trauma, and dismissed legitimate security anxieties as mere relics of authoritarianism.

The debate over NATO enlargement exemplifies these failures of understanding. Western policymakers and much of the scholarly community recognise that no formal written obligation was offered to Russia to limit NATO’s expansion beyond assurances regarding the stationing of troops in East Germany during reunification negotiations. Historical research finds that the notion of a legally binding promise not to expand NATO beyond that context is a mischaracterisation and that such assurances were never codified in binding treaties. Nonetheless, the perception of betrayal has been cultivated and weaponised in Russian narratives, contributing to a profound distrust that fuels contemporary hostility. NATO’s open-door policy was driven not by a desire to provoke conflict but by the security considerations of Eastern European states seeking protection after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and by Western assumptions about shared democratic trajectories. Those assumptions did not account for Russia’s distinct civilisational self-understandings or its psychological responses to historical encirclement and existential threat.

Analysts also point to the failure to integrate Russia into a cooperative European security architecture post-Cold War as a missed opportunity. Attempts such as the NATO-Russia Council and the 1997 Founding Act acknowledged the need for dialogue but lacked mechanisms to resolve disputes on issues affecting Russia’s perceived core interests. The consequence has been a security order that places Russia outside collective frameworks while progressively fortifying military alliances on its borders, entrenching mutual hostility.

The policy responses of successive European governments have often doubled down on confrontation rather than diplomatic engagement. By framing Russia solely as an existential threat and reducing its strategic culture to a caricature, policymakers have foreclosed nuanced debate and fuelled what some commentators describe as institutionalised anti-Russian sentiment. This runs the risk of escalation from miscommunication and strategic miscalculation, especially in an era of nuclear-armed competition.

Europe’s geopolitical problems thus intersect at the nexus of internal legitimacy deficits, technological dependency, economic fragmentation, and fractured strategic culture both within and between states. The expansion of digital governance frameworks such as digital IDs and central bank digital currencies without robust democratic oversight exacerbates these fractures. These systems centralise data, create new vectors for control, and embed technological intermediaries into public life with minimal public scrutiny. The risk is not only economic inefficiency but also the gradual encroachment on personal freedoms and democratic accountability.

The European project will remain brittle so long as its leaders prioritise regulatory symbolism over industrial and strategic substance, ignore the historical sources of geopolitical distrust, and overlook the internal fractures that erode citizen confidence in collective governance. An honest appraisal of European identity, security, and technological autonomy is necessary to avoid further dysfunction and unintended conflict.

Authored By: Global Geopolitics

Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue.

If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics