Paralysis of Western liberal elites Ideology over policy

Recently, the European Commission president faced a second impeachment vote. Sharp challenges are also visible in key EU countries — France, for example, is experiencing a government crisis. In the United States, the opposition Democratic Party is blocking political initiatives at the local level and disrupting government funding. All of this is a predictable outcome of liberal elite governance in the West. The domestic turmoil in these countries distracts Western leaders from foreign policy, leaving the world’s major players preoccupied with their own issues. Observing these problems among its rivals, China is taking a tougher stance in its negotiations with the U.S.

The collapse of Liberal regimes

On Thursday, the European Parliament considered a vote of confidence in European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for the second time in three months. While the required majority was not reached, insiders are saying that von der Leyen will need to get used to this procedure — her position has been weakened by corruption allegations and ill-considered foreign policy moves, including a secretive, conciliatory agreement with the U.S. and a puzzling deal with South American countries that hits the EU’s agricultural sector.

Von der Leyen, of course, has blamed her problems on Moscow’s interference. But her team’s position is weak, and rumours are circulating that she may soon step down for a sinecure — possibly the German presidency. However, the issue is not limited to her alone. The position of the EU’s liberal elites has been undermined, particularly the European People’s Party (EPP), of which von der Leyen is a nominee. For example, the German section of the EPP, the ruling Christian Democratic Union in Berlin, is suffering defeat after defeat at the hands of the Alternative for Germany party, which has already become the country’s most popular political force.

It seems that the only way to stop the Alternative for Germany party and prevent the collapse of the country’s political system would be through extraordinary measures — for example, a crackdown under martial law. The current militaristic rhetoric of Chancellor Merz is not coincidental: it is accompanied by accusations that the Alternative has ties to Russia. The party, in turn, has responded by distancing itself from Moscow — on Thursday, it even disavowed the actions of one of its regional deputies who had met with Dugin.

The precarious position of liberal parties within their own countries — clinging to power despite enjoying the support of only a minority of the population — is the result of their neoliberal economic policies, uncontrolled migration that has undermined the labour market, and the imposition of a liberal ideological agenda.

Over the course of just a few decades, the liberal political model has essentially devoured itself, even in the absence of serious competitors.

The fragile position of the EU’s liberal elites is also the outcome of pursuing a dogmatic liberal political project at the European level.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently gave an intriguing interview that left prominent Polish politicians almost fuming. She described how the Baltic states and Poland had obstructed her efforts to engage with Russia and prevent the war. But the more pertinent question is why such disagreements arose within the EU in the first place. Could it be that Europe’s liberal elites, in recent decades, stopped building the EU as an equal partnership and instead pursued geopolitical expansion?

Appetite grew as they went along, and “Old Europe” hastily brought Eastern European countries into the bloc, giving little thought to negotiations that might have harmonized policies, and instead expecting to impose its own terms on them.

In Western Europe, integration was closely tied to resolving the historic rivalry between France and Germany. In the East, however, no similar efforts were made to reconcile differences or coordinate policies — it was reduced to imposing liberal dogma and an ideologically driven reinterpretation of history.

As a result, by the late 2010s, the bloc included several clear rivals, including Poland and Germany. Negotiations with Putin were torpedoed by the Polish side in an effort to undermine Germany’s strategy in the region. This rivalry continues today. A recent example is the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, crucial for Germany’s economy — something Eastern European countries would not have been able to stop otherwise.

Now, Poland is not just refusing to extradite Ukrainian operatives involved in the sabotage to Germany; Polish leaders are openly stating that the Nord Stream pipelines should never have existed in the first place. There is no ideological motive here — this is simply the continuation of German-Polish competition for dominance in Eastern Europe.

 EU: Adventures instead of realistic plans

To escape the destructive geopolitical configuration that Merkel hinted at as the root of the current continental confrontation, the EU would need either to dissolve entirely or, conversely, be brought more firmly under unified control. The current European Commission has chosen the latter path, with so far questionable results.

First, an unhealthy atmosphere has developed within the EU, with politicians now wary of interference from Brussels and Western European countries in the event of election outcomes unfavourable to the liberal agenda. It is worth recalling that in Romania, the results of elections disastrous for Euro-liberals were annulled.

In Moldova, the EU leadership facilitated a peculiar electoral setup, in which the Moldovan diaspora in the West played a disproportionately large role. Meanwhile, French intelligence services, as Telegram founder and CEO Durov revealed, demanded that he — and clearly not only him — block Moldovan opposition channels.

Having observed these demonstrative operations by Brussels, the Czech non-system opposition, which recently won the elections, moved quickly to assure the EU of its loyalty, hoping to avoid being “steamrolled.” Its leader, Andrej Babiš, who faces accusations of being close to Russia, pledged: “Czechia will remain loyal to Europe and NATO.”

Second, Brussels’ attempts to force EU countries into strict disciplinary frameworks — threatening, for example, to strip them of voting rights — have prompted some member states to work even more closely with U.S. President Trump, creating new fault lines within the bloc. Hungary, Slovakia, and Italy provide clear examples, and the list is growing, sometimes including Poland. This does little to inspire confidence in the EU’s future: on Monday, Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán openly stated that his country would not adopt the euro, arguing that the EU is “falling apart” anyway.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the increasingly unstable EU bloc is pursuing ever riskier military initiatives. For example, the EU has effectively influenced a shift in U.S. policy toward the war with Russia, as evidenced by Trump’s decision to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

Yet, as the Copenhagen summit last week once again showed, the EU lacks clarity on whether its members are actually prepared to fight. Instead of a coherent stance, it produces provocative and unrealistic military plans, such as the so-called “drone wall.” These plans border on adventurism, especially given the failure to establish basic military infrastructure in the Baltic states — for example, the stalled Rail Baltica project — while Brussels talks openly about building a “drone wall” along the borders with Russia and Belarus.

The project’s name is misleading, suggesting an intention merely to deploy drones along the borders of these countries to strike ground targets “if a threat arises.” In reality, this coincides with the growing presence of offensive weaponry — for example, the redeployment of a German tank brigade to the borders of Belarus and Russia’s Kaliningrad region is now being completed — giving the initiative a more dramatic appearance.

But it is also adventurous, because, to repeat, the Baltic republics lack the simpler things necessary for a sustainable defence, and now the governments of these countries have recognized this by developing plans for a general evacuation in the event of war. Meanwhile, the Euro-liberal establishment of the EU continues to take impressive but ineffective steps that do not prepare the EU-NATO for war, but provoke it.

U.S.: The Democratic Party sabotages Trump’s policies

For global politics, a key fact is that, alongside deep problems in the EU, a serious crisis is unfolding in the United States. The simultaneous crises on both sides of the Atlantic are no coincidence: they are the result of decades of rule by right- and left-liberal elites. In the EU, these elites still hold power, but increasingly struggle to control events, relying on a shrinking segment of the population. In the U.S., they have lost power in Washington and are now trying, at least, to sabotage the policies of the new Trump administration.

On October 6, the Democratic Party blocked yet another attempt to pass even a temporary federal budget to resume government spending. With no budget in place since October 1, the U.S. government has largely shut down, maintaining only essential operations. According to White House estimates, each week of this shutdown costs the economy roughly $15 billion. Two million federal employees have been affected: some have been furloughed, others are working without pay, forcing even some military families to rely on charitable food assistance. Yet the Democratic Party continues to block the new budget, and judging by the current mood on both sides, this shutdown could become the longest in U.S. history, with a resolution unlikely before November.

The liberal opposition is sabotaging Trump’s policies not only at the federal level but also in individual states and municipalities. As a result, the White House has been deploying troops to restore order in ever-expanding areas — after Los Angeles last weekend, Trump sent soldiers to Oregon and Illinois, drawing opposition from the liberal governors of those states. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker denounced what he called “Trump’s invasion.” In response, Trump threatened to arrest the leadership of both Illinois and the city of Chicago.

Officially, National Guard troops were sent to Chicago, the third-largest city in the U.S., to “combat crime and illegal immigration.” In reality, however, this is an attempt by Trump to break through the wall of opposition holding power in the city. This is creating a dangerous confrontation, not merely along the Chicago–Washington line, since units from Texas — a Republican stronghold — have been deployed to a city where the Democratic Party still enjoys significant support.

Of course, one could dismiss these developments by recalling that the U.S. government has previously deployed troops domestically — and in far harsher ways. In the 1960s and 1970s, troops even fired on unarmed students, sometimes hitting them. The situation today may seem less dangerous in that sense, but this is misleading. Back then, troops were used against protesters, but no major political force stood behind them; these were actions by scattered leftist groups.

Today, however, the protests are backed by the vast structures and resources of the Democratic Party, the administrative apparatus of Democratic-led state governments, and the global liberal establishment with its resources outside the U.S., including international media.

Even when only a few hundred people protested the troop deployment in a city of millions like Chicago, transnational liberal structures managed to generate the appearance of massive demonstrations. In reality, the protests in Chicago failed. And this comes as no surprise. Due to its policies, the Democratic Party is on the verge of political bankruptcy. Its liberal dogmatism has been compounded by the growing incompetence of its politicians. We need not dwell on the theatrics of Biden and Harris; consider instead the Baltimore bridge, destroyed two years ago after a collision with a cargo ship. Nearly three years have passed, and local authorities, led by Democratic officials, still have not undertaken repairs on this critical piece of infrastructure.

Amid internal discord, the West has little capacity for foreign policy. Its efforts have been narrowed to a few key areas and have lost much of their effectiveness. This is evident in situations involving Iran, China, and Russia — threats and sanctions carry less weight when they come from politicians overwhelmed by problems at home. Moreover, Western threats of force have been devalued due to their frequent, arbitrary use. The world is slipping out of Western control.