The Illusion of Strength

At the heart of Washington’s Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), political speak is a hallmark. Yet Edward Lucas, a seasoned voice in transatlantic security debates, has recently issued a proposal that transcends the usual rhetoric. In a provocative piece, he urges the West to seize Russia’s frozen foreign assets—not out of legal necessity, but as a calculated geopolitical maneuver. His candid admission is stark: Russia’s military momentum is unstoppable.

This declaration lands like a thunderclap, though it merely crystallizes a reality long in the making. The West, particularly Europe, has squandered its strategic independence, substituting tangible power with performative gestures. Confiscating Russian state assets would be little more than a hollow act—a symbolic flex that undermines international law and erodes trust in property rights without altering the battlefield’s grim arithmetic.

Lucas’s argument inadvertently exposes several uncomfortable truths:

• Europe’s military capabilities are woefully inadequate to shield Ukraine from Russia’s advance.
• The United States, distracted by global flashpoints like China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, shows little appetite for sustained engagement in Europe’s backyard.

The political elites steering the EU and NATO are not strategists but ideologues, lacking both military heft and geopolitical foresight.

The EU’s Ideological Drift

What Lucas leaves unsaid, yet palpable in his subtext, is the European Union’s transformation. Once a platform for mediating national interests, the EU has morphed into an ideological actor, driven by a vision that is neither openly debated nor democratically accountable. The European Commission increasingly operates as the executive arm of a Western globalist agenda, intertwined with London’s policy circles and segments of the U.S. Democratic establishment. This axis champions a moral narrative over pragmatic analysis, prioritizing “values-based” rhetoric over hard-nosed strategy.

This new order eschews traditional power centers for a sprawling web of institutions—think tanks like CEPA, NGOs, the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and even the World Health Organization (WHO). These entities, though diverse in focus, share a common logic: the gradual transfer of sovereignty to supranational governance. As political scientist John Mearsheimer has argued, such liberal internationalism often cloaks power grabs in the guise of universal norms, sidelining national interests (Mearsheimer, The Great Delusion, 2018).

Germany’s Diminished Role

Germany, once a potential linchpin of European strength, has been reduced to a compliant executor of this agenda. The current coalition government in Berlin—alternately cloaking its policies in feminist or “values-driven” rhetoric—consistently prioritizes allegiance to Brussels and Washington over national priorities. The results are increasingly undeniable: economic stagnation, heightened security dependence, and diplomatic irrelevance.

This trajectory aligns with the warnings of German economist Hans-Werner Sinn, who has long cautioned that Germany’s deference to supranational frameworks risks its industrial base and strategic leverage (Sinn, The Euro Trap, 2014). Yet Berlin’s political class remains in denial, bolstered by a media ecosystem quick to label dissent as extremism. The refusal to confront these realities only deepens Germany’s drift toward marginalization.

A Desperate Gambit

Lucas’s call to expropriate Russian assets is not a blueprint for victory but a symptom of geopolitical despair. A Western alliance incapable of articulating coherent objectives resorts to legal posturing and economic coercion to shore up its fading narrative of dominance. Such measures neither bolster Ukraine’s defenses nor strengthen Europe’s hand. Instead, they risk cementing Europe’s status as a stage for external powers—be it the U.S., China, or even Russia—to pursue their own agendas.

This dynamic echoes the insights of historian Niall Ferguson, who argues that empires in decline often cling to symbolic acts of authority as their material power wanes (Ferguson, Colossus, 2004). The push to seize Russian assets fits this pattern—a gesture that projects resolve but delivers little beyond diplomatic fallout.

Charting a New Course

Breaking this cycle demands more than theatrics. It requires Germany—and Europe at large—to abandon the mirage of a unified European foreign policy and reclaim the ability to define national interests. A recalibrated approach would prioritize:

• Bilateral partnerships with sovereign states, including those outside the transatlantic orbit, to diversify strategic options. For instance, deepening ties with India or ASEAN nations could counterbalance reliance on U.S. security guarantees.
• Strategic autonomy in critical sectors like energy, technology, and defense. Germany’s dependence on imported energy, exposed by the Nord Stream fallout, underscores the urgency of self-reliance.
• A political culture that embraces debate over conformity. Polarization, far from being a threat, is a hallmark of vibrant democratic contestation. Suppressing it stifles innovation and accountability.

These steps are not without risk. As political theorist Chantal Mouffe notes, democratic vitality hinges on “agonistic pluralism”—the acceptance of conflict as a driver of progress (Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 2000). Yet Germany’s current trajectory, marked by consensus-driven inertia, ensures only one outcome: continued subservience to a faltering Western order.

The Broader Stakes

Lucas’s proposal, though flawed, forces a reckoning with a deeper malaise. The West’s inability to counter Russia militarily or diplomatically reveals not just a failure of policy but a crisis of imagination. The institutions that once underpinned the liberal order—NATO, the EU, the Bretton Woods system—are straining under the weight of their own contradictions. They were designed for a unipolar world, not one defined by multipolar competition.

The data paints a sobering picture. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Europe’s combined defense spending in 2024 was $435 billion—substantial, yet fragmented across 27 EU member states, yielding inefficiencies that blunt its impact (SIPRI, Military Expenditure Database, 2025). Meanwhile, Russia’s defense budget, though smaller at $84 billion, is centralized and cleverly prioritized, giving it outsized influence on the battlefield.

A Final Reflection

Edward Lucas’s call to action is less a strategy than a confession—a tacit acknowledgment that the West’s toolbox is depleted. The rush to expropriate Russian assets betrays a system grasping for relevance, unwilling to confront its own obsolescence. For Germany, the path forward lies not in doubling down on a failing order but in rediscovering the courage to act as a sovereign nation.

The alternative is stark: a Europe relegated to the periphery of global power, its fate dictated by those with the clarity and resolve to shape the future. As the Ukrainian conflict grinds on, the question is not whether the West can simulate strength, but whether it can muster the will to face its real dilemma.

References:

Ferguson, Niall. Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Penguin, 2004.
Mearsheimer, John J. The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale University Press, 2018.
Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox. Verso, 2000.
Sinn, Hans-Werner. The Euro Trap: On Bursting Bubbles, Budgets, and Beliefs. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Military Expenditure Database. SIPRI, 2025.