Europe’s Maneuvering and Australia’s Future

Europe has long been regarded as a major collective of world powers. Yet since the Second World War, its strength has been significantly diminished. In seeking self-preservation, Europe chose unity through the creation of the European Union. However, today the drawbacks are becoming apparent before the benefits—and Australian media largely remains indifferent.

This raises a fundamental question: under conditions of internal fragmentation and external constraint, is the EU still a political entity capable of pooling sovereignty and amplifying influence, or has it already become synonymous with compromise, delay, and structural impotence? And what do Europe’s internal conflicts have to do with Australia?

Europe Is Not a Single Country

To understand Europe’s current condition, one basic fact must be acknowledged: Europe is a continent composed of many states, nations, and cultures, not a unified country. From the territorial expansion of the Roman Empire, to Napoleon’s conquests, to Hitler’s ambitions during the Second World War, Europe has repeatedly seen attempts at unification or domination by a single power. Yet such unity was built on force, political coercion, or temporary alliances, and failed to eliminate cultural differences, historical grievances, and conflicts of national interest. As a result, these attempts at European unification collapsed quickly.

Even in the modern era, the European Union cannot fundamentally alter this reality. Each member state retains its own historical trajectory, political system, and foreign policy priorities. Germany’s energy dependence, Hungary’s Russia policy, France’s pursuit of strategic autonomy, and the economic strategies of Nordic countries all reflect divergent core interests. Despite the presence of a supranational organization like the EU, Europe remains a diverse, complex, and often divided entity rather than a unified force driven by a single will.

For this reason, reducing Europe to a “unified front,” or allowing Britain and France alone to stand in for the entire continent, ignores historical lessons and underestimates the complexity of contemporary international politics. Australia’s continued reliance on this simplified perspective risks misjudging allies’ positions and creating blind spots in diplomatic, military, and economic strategy.

The EU’s Unstable Foundations

Understanding the European Union requires recognizing that it did not emerge overnight, but evolved over more than half a century on inherently unstable foundations.

After the Second World War, Western European states—devastated by conflict—sought cooperation to prevent another major war. This began with the European Coal and Steel Community, which gradually developed into broader economic integration. The 1957 Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community (EEC), strengthening trade, tariffs, and market integration, and laying the groundwork for political union. Following the end of the Cold War, the 1992 Maastricht Treaty formally created the European Union, expanding economic cooperation while proposing a common foreign and security policy and preparing for the introduction of a single currency, the euro.

This integration process was far from smooth. As membership expanded from the original six countries to more than twenty, vast differences in historical background, economic structure, and national interest became increasingly pronounced. While this diversity helped make the EU the world’s largest single market and a major political-economic bloc, it also embedded high decision-making costs and chronic difficulty in reaching consensus. The United Kingdom’s 2016 referendum to leave the EU—formally completed in 2020—marked the first time a member state truly exited the bloc. Brexit not only reshaped Europe’s political and economic architecture, but also symbolized persistent tensions between globalization and national sovereignty.

These unresolved historical divisions continue to undermine the EU’s decision-making efficiency and cohesion, explaining why the bloc can appear powerful on the global stage yet often find itself constrained by internal fractures.

The Symbolism of the Greenland Crisis

The EU and the United States have long been viewed as close allies, bound by Cold War cooperation and NATO. Yet recent events surrounding Greenland demonstrate that even the strongest transatlantic relationships can fracture over strategic interests, resource control, and divergent diplomatic approaches.

The Greenland controversy has become one of the clearest examples of rising strategic tension between Europe and the United States. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark located in the Arctic, holds significant military and resource value. After returning to political prominence, US President Donald Trump publicly expressed a desire to “own” the island, suggesting economic or other pressure on allies and even threatening to impose a 10% import tariff on eight European countries opposing US control of Greenland. This provoked strong backlash across Europe and sparked protests in Denmark and Greenland, including mass demonstrations in Copenhagen under slogans such as “Greenland is not for sale.”

The EU and multiple European leaders responded swiftly, affirming Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and calling for respect for international law and basic trust among NATO allies. Senior EU officials and national leaders emphasized dialogue while also signaling the potential use of the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument” to counter possible US trade threats.

This crisis was not merely a territorial dispute; it symbolized deeper cracks in the transatlantic alliance. Where NATO and shared security frameworks once ensured cohesion, unilateral US actions have now generated open resistance among European allies, forcing the EU to reconsider its own strategic autonomy. Some European politicians have openly argued that Europe must reduce its dependence on the United States in foreign and security policy.

The Greenland episode underscores a broader reality: the “Western bloc” is not monolithic. Even military allies and trade partners can see cooperation unravel when interests diverge. If Australian society and media focus solely on the Indo-Pacific or US–China rivalry while ignoring transatlantic frictions, they risk missing critical insights into allied dynamics and future shifts in global security policy.

Divisions Within the EU on Russia Policy

Europe is often portrayed as a unified supporter of Ukraine, yet in reality EU member states differ significantly in their approaches to Russia, military assistance, and sanctions, revealing internal political, economic, and strategic tensions that hinder coordination.

While most EU members formally condemn Russian aggression and express support for Ukraine, substantial differences remain in policy execution. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has consistently opposed or questioned large-scale aid to Ukraine, criticized military assistance, rejected the use of frozen Russian assets, and even pursued legal challenges against EU decisions, citing violations of veto rights.

Germany, by contrast, increased military assistance during 2025–26, approving new aid packages and funding through the European Peace Facility, yet remains cautious due to its political and energy constraints. Other countries span a broad spectrum: polls show strong support in the UK, Germany, and Spain for using frozen Russian assets, while Italy displays deeper political and social divisions. These disparities highlight the absence of a unified EU consensus.

Such divisions directly undermine decision-making efficiency. At a late-2025 EU summit, leaders eventually agreed on roughly €90 billion in support for Ukraine, but Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic initially opposed elements of the package, demanding safeguards against financial repercussions. This illustrated how unanimity requirements allow one or a few states to delay or reshape collective action. Efforts by the European Commission to bypass vetoes by indefinitely freezing Russian assets advanced aid delivery but sparked legal disputes and trust issues among members.

These policy splits extend decision timelines, weaken cohesion, and project an image of internal division. Observers who assume Europe is a single, unified bloc often fail to recognize these structural tensions, leading to growing doubts about the EU’s reliability on Russia and Ukraine. Core members increasingly favor “small-group” or “two-speed” cooperation rather than waiting for unanimity among all 27 states.

Germany and the “Two-Speed Europe”

Recent EU divisions are particularly evident in Germany’s military policy debates.

One of Germany’s key initiatives has been promoting a “two-speed Europe” mechanism—often referred to as the E6—centered on Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands. This approach seeks to bypass unanimity constraints by advancing defense cooperation and strategic decisions among core economies. It focuses on coordinated military spending, integrated defense investment, supply chain security, and critical stockpiles, while prioritizing defense in the next multiannual budget framework.

The E6 concept emphasizes “coalitions of the willing,” allowing a core group to move ahead while others join later as capacity and interest permit. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil stated bluntly that “now is the time for a two-speed Europe,” arguing that Europe must become stronger and that continuing as before is no longer viable. This reflects widespread frustration with slow decision-making amid escalating external threats.

However, the proposal carries risks. While it signals realism among core members, it also risks institutionalizing divisions, marginalizing non-core states, and undermining confidence in the EU framework. These tensions reflect the EU’s struggle to escape institutional paralysis while confronting the pressures of the Ukraine war, energy insecurity, and uncertainty over NATO commitments.

Selective Blindness in Australian Media

Given these ongoing developments, it is implausible that Australian media—from the ABC to 9News—are unaware of Europe’s internal fractures. Why, then, does Europe remain largely ignored?

Australian governments, think tanks, and defense circles understand EU divisions, Germany’s military hesitations, Hungary’s obstructionism, and Europe’s dependence on the US. Yet mainstream media prefer simplified narratives that audiences favor. Compared with anxieties over Trump’s actions or China’s growing power, Europe is seen as distant from Australia’s immediate security concerns, outside the Indo-Pacific, and unlikely to provide direct military support. Regions not perceived as decisive for war or peace gradually disappear from coverage.

This “informed silence” carries serious consequences.

First, the Australian public is misled. Sparse reporting on European fractures creates the illusion of a unified Western front. In reality, divisions over Russia policy, energy dependence, and defense spending are profound. Hungary’s veto power during sanctions renewals, for instance, has repeatedly shaped EU outcomes. Ignoring these realities prevents Australians from accurately understanding democratic alliances and global dynamics.

Second, neglecting Europe distorts Australia’s assessment of US foreign policy. Whether the EU can serve as a reliable backstop if the US retreats from security commitments is a crucial but underexplored question. If the US pursues more transactional or isolationist diplomacy, Australia may mistakenly assume Europe can uphold the international order. Misreading European constraints risks leaving Australia strategically unprepared during crises.

Third, the gap is even clearer when considering European migrant communities in Australia. Many European Australians retain deeper awareness of EU politics, Russian policy divisions, and energy security concerns. In contrast, much of the Australian public reduces Europe to Britain and France. When media frame global politics as a simple “democracy versus authoritarianism” binary, these communities often highlight the grey areas, creating tensions in public discourse and exposing the oversimplification of mainstream narratives.

Why Understanding Europe’s Fractures Matters

The EU is far more complex than the image of a unified front suggests. Internal divisions, two-speed cooperation, and divergent national priorities constrain its ability to act cohesively. In an increasingly unstable global environment, the EU is neither fully strong nor entirely weak; it holds both cooperative potential and structural limitations.

If Australia continues to ignore Europe’s internal realities, policymakers and the public risk overestimating allied reliability and underestimating the difficulty of collective action. The key question remains: in the face of a fragmented, ambiguous European Union, can Australia still rely on traditional allies to craft realistic foreign and security policies—or will misperception leave it reactive and vulnerable? This is a warning that Australian media and decision-makers can no longer afford to overlook.