“Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.” Why the idea of a Europe without the European Union is a mistake
There are voices in Washington that look sympathetically at a Europe without the European Union. But breaking up the bloc would have swift and costly consequences — including for the United States, writes Dalibor Rohac, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, in Politico.
A Europe without the European Union would not be a continent of sovereign nation states/PHOTO: Archi
“Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true,” says a fable attributed to Aesop.
This warning should be taken seriously by Americans who applaud, along with the administration of President Donald Trump, calls to weaken or even abolish the European Union, presented as a bureaucratic colossus guilty of “erasing civilizational identities”.
Beyond the obvious contradiction between the MAGA movement's professed respect for national sovereignty and Washington's lecturing of Europeans on how to organize their continent or who to vote for, hostility to the EU raises a deeper issue.
What would a Europe without the EU look like?
A Europe without the European Union would not, in reality, be a continent of sovereign and prosperous nation states. Rather, it would resemble the Western Balkans after the breakup of the former Yugoslavia—a region where old tensions and territorial claims have quickly resurfaced.
Such a scenario would be all the more likely if the disintegration of the EU were driven by political forces that present themselves as “patriotic” and, paradoxically, as NATO allies.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for example, has long promoted a political vision focused on the symbolic recovery of “Greater Hungary” as it existed before the Trianon Treaty of 1920 — an ambition that directly affects relations with neighbors such as Romania, Ukraine or Serbia.
At the same time, nationalist leaders in neighboring states may have their own demands. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić praises Slobodan Milošević, the dictator responsible for the bloody wars in the Balkans. Would he be willing to give up Subotica—or Szabadka in Hungarian—for Budapest? Or what would happen to the ideas of some politicians like Diana Șoșoacă, a Romanian MEP who advocates for the annexation of some “historically Romanian” territories, such as the north of Bucovina, now in Ukraine?
Why is the EU keeping these tensions under control?
The main reason why such forms of historical revisionism remain marginal is the success of the European project. Free movement without passports, high standards of minority protection and economic cooperation mechanisms have drastically reduced the risk of conflict.
In the absence of the EU, scenarios considered unthinkable today would become possible — from open armed conflicts to “frozen conflicts” such as those maintained by Russia or Serbia in regions such as Transnistria or Kosovo.
In such a context, the great powers would play a decisive role. Russia, already emboldened by the ambiguity of the US position on Ukraine, may be tempted to test the credibility of NATO's Article 5. At the same time, a Germany led by a far-right party such as ADF might be more willing to downplay its historical responsibilities — a step publicly encouraged by those close to Trump, including Elon Musk.
EU and European history
The idea that the European Union represents an “end of the road” for European civilization betrays a deep misunderstanding of the continent's history.
Since the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe has constantly oscillated between political and cultural unity and diversity. Its often unwieldy quasi-federal structures are not an anomaly but part of a long tradition that includes the Holy Roman Empire, the Hanseatic League or the Polish-Lithuanian Republic.
Why Europe Matters to America
It can be argued that Europe's problems should remain Europe's, not the United States'. But this would be, at most, a justification for American withdrawal from European security — not for the active involvement of Washington or some influential US actors in the continent's domestic politics.
Moreover, the idea of an American disengagement is poorly supported by history. In 1917 and 1941 the United States found that, although it had no interest in European wars, they directly affected its vital interests. German naval attacks and later US entry into World War II demonstrated the costs of isolation.
Postwar American support for European economic integration was not the result of naivety, but of a deliberate strategy to prevent another major conflict. This policy coincided with one of Europe's longest periods of peace and prosperity—and America's rise as a dominant global power, supported by the transatlantic relationship.
A risk with a boomerang effect
Culture wars can be exciting, and the Trump administration's current campaign against the European Union fits that logic. But beyond the rhetoric, the consequences could be serious.
If the European Union were to collapse under the combined pressure of Russia and a hostile America, it would not just be Europe that would pay the price. The United States would quickly find that breaking up the EU is a scenario it would come to regret, says Dalibor Rohac, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
