A European official, appearing‍ weary but speaking with ⁤energy, outlined key concerns regarding the current geopolitical landscape. During the conversation,‍ the official sometiems used diagrams to emphasize points.

The discussion took place during a particularly busy time in Europe. A prime minister was in Paris for a meeting of countries committed to supporting Ukraine. The European official was preparing to meet with NATO counterparts ⁣to discuss bolstering European ⁣defense and had recently spoken with a⁣ high-ranking EU representative. The catching up has been set in motion, the official stated, adding that there is a growing⁣ awareness in European capitals of the need to rapidly establish a robust european pillar within NATO. The official‍ noted that previous U.S. administrations had also called for greater European duty for its own security, but now the⁤ U.S. shows that they are serious.

You seem optimistic.

There are raw edges in the attitude of the U.S. government.‍ I see the behavior of an old-fashioned superpower,⁣ which does not tolerate free trade as a starting point, but focuses on power and spheres of influence. I see a government that literally thinks ⁤beyond borders.

There have⁢ been suggestions of annexing territories.

That is what‍ I meant, literally without borders. One must ⁣always distinguish between what is said ⁣and what is done.⁤ Sometimes, it is unwise to react promptly to provocative statements.

Should such ⁣statements be taken ⁣seriously?

I take it very seriously. I am observing the situation soberly. This is the first U.S. government that is unfriendly to the EU. At the same time, we are always assured that NATO remains a politically‍ and militarily robust alliance.

What if a NATO ally’s territory is threatened?

We⁣ will have to indicate our disagreement. As Europeans, we must ⁢relearn the language ⁢of power. In recent decades, we have focused on desires rather than realities.European diplomats frequently enough provide eloquent explanations in the⁢ UN context, but the world does not ⁣automatically embrace our vision. ⁤We have to move quickly.

Is ⁢the old world order, based on international law, coming ⁤to an end?

We are in a transition period. For 35 years after⁣ the fall of the ⁤Berlin Wall, we experienced globalization and economic integration. ⁣Conflicts⁤ were background noise. Now, many dark clouds are gathering. I also learn from my Asian counterparts. ⁣They tell us that what happened to Ukraine coudl happen to any European nation. That gives me confidence.

Is the U.S. engaging with Russia?

I have doubts about that. Perhaps the intention is to seperate Moscow⁤ from Beijing. however, in my discussions with American counterparts,⁢ I⁣ see⁢ that they believe in a⁢ multipolar world, with major players including China, Russia, and countries in ⁣the ⁣global south, such as Brazil and India.

‘Multipolar world’ is a term often⁢ used to describe a leading role for russia.

It is⁤ also a term used by ⁣experts in international⁢ relations to describe the current world. When I speak‍ to representatives from Indonesia or India, it ⁣does⁤ not have negative connotations. The U.S. never wanted ‍to embrace that term.

Is the U.S. government abandoning the world order based on American⁤ hegemony?

They seem to believe that the international arrangements of the past 35 years –⁢ the World Trade Institution, international organizations, the UN – have turned against American interests.They feel the need to shake⁣ things up to secure a place in the multipolar world, and they ⁢are doing so in a very ⁤blunt way.

What is the ‍plan if the U.S. withdraws from NATO?

It is not ‍in⁣ our interest to organize a transatlantic split. We cannot do without the Americans at the moment.

Should this be discussed?

It is not in our interest. people should⁣ not fear an imminent threat, but Europe must accelerate its⁣ deterrence efforts to prevent any temptation to test the alliance. We must begin discussing a gradual increase in defense spending.

What about specific spending targets?

The defense minister⁤ is currently calculating the ⁤capacity requirements of NATO for our nation ⁤and the associated costs.

Regarding European loans for⁤ defense spending…

We must prevent a new euro⁢ crisis, which would set us back further.

Was that a losing battle?

it is important that we emphasize debt sustainability when temporarily stretching European budget rules. These concepts are now reappearing in European texts.

While global crises escalate, there’s focus on European debts.

I see it differently. There is a widespread realization that something significant⁤ is happening. there is agreement that we should strengthen our European‍ resilience and ⁤boost our defense. But there is a larger task. Many people have ⁢shown the government that it is indeed not adequately serving the broader population. We must repair relationships. Defense is connected to economics, education, energy, and agriculture.

Is it appropriate to describe a certain world leader as authoritarian?

there is much discussion and concern about that leader,⁣ both before and after recent events.

What is your view?

There is a lot of discussion.

Is ⁢the goal to displace a population?

That is too simplistic. I believe there is still a desire for a ⁣resolution that ensures the safety of all parties.

Is criticism possible?

The government programme aims for a two-state solution.I have condemned⁣ the humanitarian blockade. As long as there is a chance of bringing parties back to the negotiating table, I will pursue that. I could have issued a statement, but instead, I contacted relevant colleagues and ⁢intermediaries.

What is most alarming about the ⁣current geopolitical climate?

The way the U.S. seeks to disrupt existing global arrangements. I am worried about that.And I advise: Be prepared for further shocks.