Introduction
The statement Europe is facing a crisis has become a common saying. Nevertheless, more challenging than coping with one crisis, this project is facing as so called polycrisis. Internal likewise external centrifgual powers are exerting their dynamics searching to tear the Union apart. The following article intends to provide an overview of the internal and external challenges for the European project. Currently, the European Union is under attack from the inside through the upswing of populist forces undermining the internal cohesion as well as from the outside through geopolitical actors searching to weaken the union. Building on that quandary the article will address several challenges such as the dissolution of old reliability, the urgency for more European autonomy as well the global issue of energy supply and climate change.
Attacking the European Union from inside and outside
The internal cohesion of the EU is undermined by populist forces that push for a nationalist agenda and wish to either weaken the EU or to employ it as a tool to achieve their own national goals. Elections in all member states indicate a rising influence populist dynamics. The presence of these polarising political forces within the EU institutions represent a concrete obstacle to effective decision-making, hampering the European Union to act switfly and speak with one voice facing a variety of challenges from within as from outside.
The political climate in the EU has turned towards a euro-sceptical and nationalistic tendency. The notorious statement of British politician Nigel Farage, calling for the return of the nation state, has been echoed not only by other politicians but also by the results of many local elections. Naturally, anti-EU forces are not omnipresent as the elections in Romania and Poland have shown, but they certainly represent a growing political trend that is likely to influence Europe’s foreign policy as well as to disrupt the EU’s internal structure in the future. The rise of anti-EU populist parties can be seen as the failure by EU institutions to successfully communicate with citizens as well as the result of a period of economic and political uncertainty. The 2012 financial crisis, the North-South divide emerged during the Covid19 pandemic and disagreement on issues such as migration and national sovereignty have all contributed to create fertile soil for euro-sceptical parties, leaving fissures that are hard to close.
Facing this sobering reality it seems that EU integration has often failed to achieve its initial goals. Post-communist countries that have joined the Union but still maintain despotic attitudes and reject EU values of democracy and human rights. Hungary’s Viktor Orban has initiated a political model that allows a country to enjoy benefits of EU membership while safeguarding its national interests and thriving in what has been labelled as a despotic descent. The risk of “orbanisation” of new members (as well as old ones) is a concern that arises when discussing EU-enlargement, particularly as far as countries whose democracies include despotic and illiberal voices. It is the case of Georgia, a country with an unstable democracy and that is dangerously close to Russia, but also taking place in countries bordering the Russian Federation.
The Disenchantment of Wandel durch Handel
Externally, the EU’s position is threatened by geopolitical actors that have repeatedly sought to weaken the alliance. Donald Trump’s return to the White House and Russia’s war in Ukraine are major threats to an independent EU. The new U.S. administration has launched a trade war and even threatened NATO ally Denmark with territorial annexation of Greenland—signaling that Europe is seen more as subordinate than as a partner. Meanwhile, the risk of a Russian victory in Ukraine could undermine the EU’s credibility both at home and abroad. In a different scenario, a prolonged war is likely to politically erode the EU.
If one views the last decades, it is obvious how the EU global role of democracy promoter through trade, coined “Wandel durch Handel strategy”, has not achieved the wished results. Countries that have been trading with the EU for decades have not embraced democracy and human rights as many European policymakers hoped for, as prominent in the cases of China and Russia. The failure of the Handel durch Wandel strategy has deprived the EU from its main geostrategic tool and also underlined how realpolitik and national political cultures are elements that cannot simply be changed by trade and economic integration. The EU would need to adapt its strategy to the current multipolar world and to employ it in key areas that might secure its internal cohesion and stable external relationships.
The main urgency would consist in reducing external dependencies in sectors such as energy, fossil fuels, batteries and various raw materials. A notable example is the one set by the Swedish Northvolt battery manufacturer, whose products are designed not to rely on raw materials imported from China. Economic independence and investment in strategic sectors has the potential to enable Europe to set its own policy agenda without fear of retaliation by external partners. Moreover, the EU could strengthen their alliances with like minded partners, promoting the same values and facing the same challenges. This could be achieved through fostering trade agreements and partnerships with countries and regional organisations with similar value sets and with the same urgency to become independent by larger partners.
If values are not exportable, common goals and especially common threats have the potential of creating trade partnerships that enable agile political manoeuvres in the global arena. For the moment being, such an adaptation of the EU’s strategic tool could certainly be theoretically desirable but hard to put into practice. The EU’s internal division, the ongoing global trade uncertainty triggered by the Trump administration and the authoritarian shift in other potential partners for the EU will pose a considerable obstacle to any potential revival of the Wandel durch Handel strategy, which might ultimately remain a European utopia.
War in Ukraine and its effect on Europeans
Since February 2022, the war in Ukraine has shaken the European continent and reshaped global geopolitics. This conflict is not just a tragic war for Ukraine but also a critical turning point for the European Union (EU). The war exposed Europe’s vulnerability to aggression on its doorstep. More strikingly such aggression destroyed the narrative Europe was built on, ensuring the longest peace period for a continent, that has been ravaged by wars for centuries. Many EU countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, felt directly threatened. This led to a renewed focus on collective defense and security cooperation with NATO.
The conflict sparked debates on how to strengthen the EU’s own defense capabilities, encouraging initiatives to reduce reliance on external powers, such as the United States. The war tested the political unity of the EU. Initially, member states showed remarkable solidarity, imposing coordinated sanctions on Russia and providing unified diplomatic support to Ukraine. This unity strengthened the EU’s international role. However, the conflict also exposed differences in dependency on Russian energy and varying political approaches among members. Over time, discussions about burden-sharing, defense spending, and migration intensified.
Trump and American isolationism
The combination of Trump’s isolationism, Brexit, and the war in Ukraine led to a more assertive EU foreign policy. “Strategic autonomy” became a central goal, particularly in defense, energy, technology and critical infrastructure. While divisions remain within the EU about how far this autonomy should go, Trump’s unpredictable approach made the need for internal capability more urgent and broadly accepted. While not all changes have materialized yet, his presidency accelerated long-term strategic thinking in Brussels and European capitals. Whether in defense, trade, or diplomacy, the EU has learned that it must be ready to lead, act, and protect its interests—on its own if necessary.
The role of energy
Energy security remains a cornerstone of European Union (EU) policy, especially amid geopolitical instability, global supply chain shocks, and the ongoing transition toward sustainable energy. While the EU has made significant strides toward reducing reliance on fossil fuels and diversifying its energy sources, it remains heavily dependent on external suppliers. For decades, Russia was the dominant supplier of natural gas, crude oil, and coal to Europe. In 2021, Russian natural gas accounted for around 40% of EU imports. However, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine marked a dramatic turning point. In response, the EU launched the REPowerEU plan, aiming to reduce Russian gas dependency by two-thirds by the end of 2022 and eliminate it entirely “well before 2030.”
Since then, gas imports from Russia have sharply declined, replaced in part by liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States, Norway, and Qatar. Nevertheless, some EU countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, remain structurally tied to Russian energy, either through long-term contracts or lack of infrastructure for alternatives. LNG imports from Russia still persist, though they are politically controversial. This dependence hasn’t just affected energy policy but has also shaped domestic politics, particularly in countries where nationalist or Eurosceptic parties wield influence. In nations like Hungary, Italy, Austria and Slovakia, to name a few, energy ties with Russia have served as both a source of economic leverage and a tool for political narrative-building, often aimed at questioning the EU’s decisions or asserting national sovereignty.
Though not a major energy producer, Turkey plays an increasingly strategic role as a transit country. Its geographical location makes it a bridge between the resource-rich Caspian and Middle Eastern regions and Europe. While Turkey boosts EU diversification efforts, its own political volatility and strained relations with some EU states complicate long-term energy cooperation. The EU’s dependency on external energy sources remains a vulnerability, especially in times of crisis. However, the current energy shift—spurred by geopolitical necessity and green transition goals—has triggered a profound restructuring of energy sourcing, infrastructure investment, and international diplomacy. Reducing reliance on dominant actors like Russia has highlighted the need for both diversification and deeper energy integration within the EU. Strategic partnerships with Turkey, Azerbaijan, Algeria, and others offer alternatives, but they come with their own political, logistical, and environmental challenges.
Accelerating the transition to renewables, completing critical infrastructure such as interconnectors and LNG terminals, and deepening energy cooperation among member states. Reducing vulnerabilities in this domain will bolster both climate goals and geopolitical leverage. Strategic investments, public-private partnerships, and reshoring of vital industries will help the Union remain globally competitive and less susceptible to external pressure.The EU must be capable of acting autonomously when necessary. Common procurement, joint R&D, and a shared strategic culture will enhance both readiness and unity.
Conclusion: A new impetus for the European Idea
Concluding this overview of the challenging times for the European Union, it is worth to give an outlook by looking back in time. The European Idea was born as a hard lesson learned from a war-torn continent, bringing people together, that previously considered each other foes. History teaches us also, that despite all the infighting among the European states, in time of crisis facing an external threat Europeans managed to join their forces, pulling together to overcome this challenge. As it has been addressed currently there are many challenges weakening the European Union from within and from without. Nevertheless, maybe this polycrisis might serve as an impetus for Europeans to become conscious about their potentials, promoting their values, strengthening their collaborations and speaking with one voice. In other words, a stronger Europe depends on addressing these vulnerabilities through solidarity, rule of law, and inclusive policymaking.
To stimulate further research:
- Could the “Wandel Durch Handel” (Change through Trade) be reshaped to adapt it to the current geopolitical circumstances?
- What do you consider the most urgent challenges?
- How could the EU find a common voice beyond realising common challenges and threats?
- Could some key economic sectors be the key?
- How should the European Union reorientate its global partnerships?
Recommended readings:
Danish Institute for International Studies. (2025, 10 febrero): Why would Greenlanders take a deal from Trump that gives them less than they already have? retrieved from: https://www.diis.dk/en/research/why-would-greenlanders-take-a-deal-from-trump-that-gives-them-less-than-they-already
European Commission (2017): White Paper on the future of Europe; retrieved from: https://commission.europa.eu/publications/white-paper-future-europe_en
Groupe d’études géopolitiques. (s. f.). Groupe D’études Géopolitiques. :The Ukraine war and the energy transition retrieved from: https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/the-ukraine-war-and-the-energy-transition/
Krastev, I. (2016). The Unraveling of the Post-1989 Order. Journal Of Democracy, 27(4), 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0065
Rifkin, J. (2004). The European dream: How Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. Tarcher/Penguin.
.jpg){kind=link}
