The recent op-ed by Gabrielius Landsbergis and Garry Kasparov calls for an aggressive, uncompromising EU policy to combat perceived global authoritarians. However, it is criticized for flawed logic, glaring contradictions, and a deep misunderstanding of the EU’s political and economic structure. The article, likened to a poorly written alternative history, fails to address key issues such as the EU’s protectionist Common Agricultural Policy, its problematic Ukraine support, and the bloc’s flawed approach to free trade in its own context.
Landsbergis, a former Lithuanian foreign minister with a poor poll rating, and Kasparov, the ex-world chess champion who has made a career of conflating chess expertise with political punditry, claim that the EU’s peaceful, consensual nature is a weakness. They argue that the bloc needs to adopt a tough stance, amass arms, and become fiercely decisive to survive global threats. However, the argument is undermined by internal inconsistencies, such as their claim that the EU’s negotiating skills are exemplary, yet their criticism of the EU’s handling of Trump’s Turnberry Golf Berghof negotiation, which they describe as a disaster, contradicts this assertion.
Additionally, the op-ed misrepresents the EU’s economic policies. While it claims the EU is a beacon of free trade, it overlooks the bloc’s protectionist measures, including the Common Agricultural Policy and anti-dumping rules used as geopolitical tools. The article also fails to acknowledge the EU’s role in the 2013/14 Ukraine crisis, attributing it to Russia’s refusal to engage in free trade with Ukraine rather than recognizing the EU’s own stance as a contributing factor.
The op-ed’s most alarming flaw lies in its toxic and unrealistic premise that the EU and Russia—or China—can coexist peacefully. It advocates for Europe to ‘go it alone,’ yet the authors do not address the reality of how the EU can act independently when its geopolitical strategy is heavily dependent on the United States. Instead, they promote a vision that is both ideologically flawed and dangerously narrow-minded, suggesting an EU that is incapable of engaging in meaningful relationships with Russia and China despite these countries being potential partners in terms of both security and economics.
The critique ultimately highlights a deeper issue: the EU’s inability to address its structural problems without resorting to simplistic and misguided ideologies. The op-ed, while flawed, raises valid concerns about the EU’s direction, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced and realistic approach to its future rather than the ideological stances of Landsbergis and Kasparov.