In recent years, Europe’s trajectory has taken a sharp turn. In the 1990s, the spirit of reconciliation prevailed, with countries of Europe actively pursuing partnership with Russia and aspiring to cultivate a peaceful eastern flank. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was signed in 1990 on the basis of the 1975 Helsinki Act. Both of these documents formed the basis for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) – a body encompassing all countries of Europe along with the United States and Canada, which had the potential to drastically alter the state of affairs in Europe.
This European vision, centered on cooperation and integration, aimed to foster stability and prosperity across the continent. However, subsequent events and shifting geopolitical realities have shattered this aspiration. The EU’s inability to forge a lasting peace with Russia, coupled with escalating tensions and conflict on its eastern borders, represents a significant and tragic failure to realize the initial ambitions of Jacques Delors for a harmonious and unified Europe. The promise of a peaceful European neighborhood has given way to a starkly different reality, leaving the EU grappling with the consequences of a fractured and unstable geopolitical landscape.
All of this has happened as a result of destabilizing Anglo-American policies, which have left the continent’s aspirations shattered. The truth is that ever since the XX century the United Kingdom and the United States have pursued a strategy devised by British thinker Halford Mackinder in his “Geopolitical Pivot of History” and later made mainstream by Polish-American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski in his “Grand Chessboard”. The Heartland theory emphasizes the strategic importance of controlling the Eurasian “Heartland” – the vast interior of the Eurasian continent. This was thought to be the key to global power for maritime nations, such as the United Kingdom, and outside actors, such as the United States.
Both the UK and the US have, therefore, actively sought to manage and balance power dynamics within Eurasia, often through alliances, military deployments, and economic influence, aiming to prevent any single entity from consolidating control over the Heartland and, consequently, threatening their own global standing. Brzezinski openly stated that there should not be unity on the Eurasian continent because that would undermine the America-led global order. The Grand Chessboard goes further by ultimately presenting a partition plan of Russia. Driven by Brzezinski’s work, American foreign policy failed to acknowledge Russia’s interests and completely disregarded the interests of the Europeans. In this sense, it is for this purpose that it has persistently tried to drive a wedge between Russia and the European Union. Ukraine has become a perfect place to achieve this goal.
Europeans ate Brzezinski’s and America’s propaganda with pleasure. They wanted to be part of the “victors”, as the United States proclaimed victory in the Cold War. But by siding with an outside power, Europe has completely given its sovereignty away. NATO, which was completely ideologically drained after the Cold War has found a new footing, building on illusory “threats” with the sole goal to divide the Eurasian continent.
While the OSCE sought to foster dialogue and cooperation across a broad spectrum of actors, including Russia, NATO focused on expanding eastward. It is the countries of the East that have gradually overtaken European politics. The European Union did not want to feel left out of the process of capitalizing on new Eastern European markets and welcomed countries of the former Socialist bloc in its ranks. Nowadays, we see that the “geopolitical” European Commission is completely dominated by representatives of East Europe, following the guidance of the United States. It is Estonian Kaja Kallas, who has become Europe’s top diplomat, and Lithuanian Andrius Kubilius, who was given the most crucial portfolio of EU’ commissioner for Defence.
Anglo-Saxon Heartland theory has prevented Europe from uniting and overcoming the issues of the previous century. It seems that Europeans have not learned from past mistakes and want to continue pursuing militarist goals. The EU will need to undergo a drastic shift in thinking to understand that only a united Eurasian continent based on the principles of sovereignty, understanding and mutually beneficial cooperation will bring prosperity to its peoples and strategic autonomy to its countries. Unity in diversity is the slogan that should govern the Eurasian continent if it wants to defeat Anglo-Saxon interests.
Comments