The International Relations perspective holds that the European Union has evolved over the past few decades as a unique normative actor, a civil power prioritizing multilateral diplomacy, open trade, and interstate solidarity. However, since the mid-2020s, this ideal construction has faced an existential test.
Three waves of strategic pressures have emerged simultaneously: the rise of far-right parties espousing nationalist narratives within member states, a structural energy crisis triggered by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and conventional and hybrid security threats from Russia that may openly challenge the post-Cold War European order.
These three variables cannot operate in isolation; they interplay within a complex system, creating a multiplier effect that has shaken the foundations of European integration in recent years. The resulting policy shifts are not short-term tactical responses, but rather profound transformations in how Brussels and member capitals interpret sovereignty, dependence, and defence.
Internal Political Dynamics: Right-Wing Rise and Liberal Decline
The domestic politics of a country or bloc cannot be separated from its external behaviour, as seen through the lens of international relations. The rise of the far-right in Europe is a systemic phenomenon that has shifted the foreign policy preferences of several key actors.
In Italy, the Giorgia Meloni government introduced the first Italian rhetoric that implicitly challenged Brussels' supranational authority. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats, rooted in far-right movements, are now a legitimate coalition partner.
In Germany, although the Alternative für Deutschland/AfD is not yet in power, its strong presence in the federal and state parliaments has forced mainstream parties like the CDU and SPD to adopt tougher positions on immigration and foreign aid.
The structural roots of this shift can be explained through the theory of the legitimacy crisis. Economic globalization, which has been the driving force of European growth for the past three decades, has produced winners and losers.
Deindustrialized regions in East Germany, Northern France, and Southern Italy have experienced the loss of manufacturing jobs without adequate compensation from the digital services sector. Massive immigration from the Middle East and Africa after 2015 created a perceived threat to social cohesion and cultural identity.
Mainstream parties were seen as failing to address these concerns, creating political space for the far-right, offering a simple narrative: reinstating border controls, rejecting the Green Deal, which was seen as burdening domestic industry, and halting the distribution of military aid to conflicts outside Europe.
The implications for EU foreign policy were significant. European solidarity, once a key diplomatic asset, began to be eroded by the logic of national interests.
Hungary, under Viktor Orban's leadership, consistently vetoed or slowed down aid packages for Kyiv and blocked Ukraine's EU accession negotiations under the pretext of protecting ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia. Slovakia, under Robert Fico's government, instead halted military aid to Kyiv and continued to restore energy dialogue with Moscow.
This political polarization has clearly made decision-making in the European Council slower and more unpredictable, potentially weakening the EU's capacity as a coherent geopolitical actor in the eyes of its partners in Asia and the Americas.
The Middle East Energy Crisis and Policy Responses
The Middle East, in the study of international relations, has always been a volatile region connecting three continents and holding the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves.
Prolonged conflicts in the region, culminating in the Gaza war after October 7, 2023, tensions in the Red Sea due to Houthi attacks on commercial vessels, instability in Iraq and Syria, the Iran-United States-Israel conflict (February 28, 2026, Operation Lion's Roar by Israel, and Operation Epic Fury), have created shocks to the global energy supply.
For Europe, which, following Russia's specific military attack on Ukraine (February 24, 2022), has sought to diversify its energy sources, the Middle East has become a new source of geopolitical uncertainty.
The transmission mechanism of this crisis operates through three channels. First, the prices of Brent crude oil and liquefied natural gas have experienced extreme volatility due to logistical disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world's oil passes, became a critical point when Iran and its proxies threatened to block the route.
Second, insurance and shipping costs skyrocketed as ships bypassed the Red Sea and detoured through the Cape of Good Hope, adding 10-14 days to travel time and raising cargo costs by up to 300%.
Third, investment in the green energy transition was hampered as European governments diverted funds to subsidize domestic energy prices to protect consumers and energy-intensive industries from inflation.
The EU's policy response to the crisis reflected the classic dilemma between energy security and climate commitments. In the short term, Brussels reinstated the joint gas purchasing mechanism, filled underground storage to 90% capacity, and granted extraordinary permission for member states to provide direct subsidies to companies threatened by energy price collapse.
Germany, for example, spent over 200 billion euros to protect its households and industries—a move criticized by southern European countries as a distortion of the single market.
In the medium term, from five to ten years, the EU is likely to accelerate offshore renewable energy projects in the North and Baltic Seas, and forge green energy partnerships with Gulf states such as the United Arab Emirates and Qatar for hydrogen production.
However, political pressure from the far right has forced the Commission to acknowledge the role of natural gas as a transitional energy source later than planned, a compromise that has drawn protests from global climate activists.
The energy crisis is thus not just a technical issue, but also a political battleground between traditional industrial interests, climate ambitions, and right-wing energy populism, which argues that climate wars are an unaffordable luxury in a time of ongoing energy struggles.
The Erosion of Europe's Security Order
Russia's full-scale special military operation against Ukraine in February 2022 was a dismantling event, according to some international relations scholars.
This marked the first time since World War II (1949-1945) that a major power had openly launched a military attack on the territory of a European neighbour with conventional forces, defying the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination, pillars of the UN Charter.
For EU leaders, this attack was not only a humanitarian and security crisis, but also an existential crisis that continues to test its credibility as a guarantor of stability in the European region.
The EU's initial response, demonstrating solidarity, surprised many observers. An unprecedented package of sanctions was imposed on Russia, including a ban on seaborne crude oil imports, the disconnection of Russian banks from the SWIFT system, a freeze on the assets of the Russian Central Bank, and an embargo on high-tech and military components.
Simultaneously, the EU launched the European Peace Facility to fund military arms shipments to Ukraine, breaking the EU's taboo of never supplying lethal weapons. Finland and Sweden, two countries with a long tradition of neutrality, instead decided to join NATO, permanently changing the security landscape of Northern Europe.
However, over time, the political fatigue of EU leaders began to show. Protracted wars depleted the ammunition and military equipment stocks of European NATO countries, while inflation fuelled by rising food and energy prices clearly eroded public support.
This is where the rise of the far right played a crucial role. Parties like the AfD in Germany and the Freedom Party of Europe (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs/FPÖ) in Austria campaigned on the narrative that the war in Ukraine was a US proxy conflict that would never serve Europe's global interests. This narrative led EU leaders to force Kyiv to negotiate with Moscow to end the economic suffering.
Although this narrative remained a minority in most parliaments, its power was considered sufficient to slow decision-making and create doubt among voters.
The long-term strategic shift that occurred was a reconceptualization of the resilience of European regional institutions. The EU recognized that its substantial security could no longer be separated from strategic independence in the areas of defence, technology, and energy.
The Commission launched REPowerEU to end dependence on Russian fossil fuels by 2027, as well as an ‘Economic Security Strategy’ to protect critical supply chains such as semiconductors, batteries, and scarce raw materials from potential geopolitical blackmail.
However, the implementation of this agenda still faces structural obstacles, including defence budgets of member states that remain far below the 2% of GDP recommended by NATO, with the exception of Poland and the Baltic states.
Differences in threat perceptions between eastern European countries leaders’ bordering Russia and southwestern countries that are more focused on mitigating migration issues and the climate crisis have instead created internal tensions that external actors exploit to divide Europe.
How Europe Can Move Forward
The substance of these three crises cannot be understood separately, as they reinforce each other in a negative feedback loop. The rise of the far-right weakens the EU's capacity to respond to the energy and security crises in a unified manner, as nationalist rhetoric hinders solidarity and burden-sharing, as evident in the refusal of some countries to share gas quotas or accept Ukrainian refugees.
The energy crisis, in turn, provides political ammunition for the far-right to continue criticizing climate policy decisions and the imposition of anti-Russian sanctions as the primary cause of people's economic hardship. The Russian threat, which should be a unifying factor, has instead deepened divisions among member states, as countries like Hungary and Slovakia openly maintain economic and energy ties with Moscow, creating fissures in Europe's united front.
Looking ahead, Europe will still face difficult choices that will define its role in a multipolar world order. The first choice is between solidarity and realism. If the EU wants to remain relevant as a geopolitical actor, it must find a way to manage divergent national interests without sacrificing the fundamental principle of integration.
This may mean embracing a ‘multi-speed Europe,’ in which a group of developed countries will be quicker in developing military defence systems and energy security, while others follow at a different pace. The second choice is between fostering openness and preparing for energy security.
Pressure from the far right to close borders and restrict trade will clash with the EU's economic interests, which remain heavily dependent on exports and global supply chains. The balance that should be struck is to continue pursuing selective resilience by optimizing the protection of strategic sectors without descending into increasingly destructive protectionism.
In conclusion, the EU that emerges from this crisis will likely be fundamentally different from its predecessors. It will be more pragmatic, less idealistic, and more aware of the limits of its power.
However, if it manages to maintain internal cohesion and build strategic partnerships with other democracies in Asia and the Americas, Europe can still be a constructive counterweight in an increasingly fragmented world.
The biggest challenge is not overcoming the energy crisis or the Russian threat, but rather preventing the rise of the far right from destroying the European project from within. In this dangerous geopolitical game, Europe's future will be determined by its ability to engage in diplomacy and negotiation, to uphold liberal democratic values while responding effectively to the demands of its citizens for security and well-being.
