Between Virtue and Reality: Europe’s Moral Crusade and NATO’s Shadow

Sid Lukkassen – The Great Geopolitical Treatise

In recent decades, policies in Europe have been dominated by the ‘Hegemony of Virtue Signaling’. This means that the ‘social construction’ of desirable narratives overshadows and suppresses the need to account for objective geopolitical realities. This process involves the ongoing ideological framing of events which oversimplifies complex international dynamics, often casting Russia as a monolithic antagonist and NATO as a benign force for democracy. This framing, deeply rooted in postmodern political theory, has led to a series of self-imposed rhetorical traps which obscure the strategic challenges facing Europe and its allies.

The Metrosexual Superpower

In an article called ‘The Power of War: Why Europe Needs it’, written in 2008 for Clingendael, a Dutch geopolitical research center, Peter van Ham argued that Europe has become a “metrosexual superpower”. He writes about the “sissification” of European military doctrine. The article concluded that Europe considers itself a “postmodern, Kantian space”, where ideals such as tolerance, human rights and fighting poverty prevail over Realpolitik – humanitarian intentions trump geopolitical consequences. We wonder whether Van Ham would publish the same claims today, given that the established elites in Europe moved even further towards the radical left. Whoever wants to work as a military analyst at a think tank is required to embrace the rainbow-ideology of the establishment. 

Furthermore, whatever is left of Western European military power will soon collapse, given that the actual backbone of an effective military – made up of masculine men with conservative patriotic persuasions on a high-testosterone diet – collides with the woke-ideology of WEF-proscribed climate friendly bug powder and LGBTQ inclusivity. Hence, there are videos in circulation that contrast the Dutch and Russian militaries. While Dutch male soldiers are practicing with menstruation cramp simulators to gain an understanding of female soldiers, Russian recruitment videos depict soldiers getting shelled in trenches while drawing courage from Christian prayer cards.

As becomes clear from the pressure put upon member states such as Hungary, the EU tends to simplify issues into binary moral imperatives. By framing European integration as an expression of shared liberal democratic values, the EU has created a situation where opposing viewpoints are de-legitimised as “populism” or “nationalism.” This moral framing deters member states from questioning EU expansion or NATO’s military interventions, even when these actions might not align with their national interests.

Historically, the EU has adopted emotionally charged language to present itself as the primary custodian of liberal democracy. Terms such as an “ever-closer Union” and a “European way of life” dominate the discourse: this directly or indirectly marks dissenting positions as backward and hostile to Europe’s unity. By using these concepts to uphold the EU’s legitimacy, European leaders have maneuvered around domestic and international complexities, ensuring conformity through moral coercion. Those questioning the scope of NATO’s ambitions, for instance, are often shamed into silence, labeled as appeasers or framed as enablers of authoritarian regimes. 

NATO expands while Europe retreats from Strategic Rationality

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Western leaders – including former U.S. President Bill Clinton – foresaw the risks of NATO expansion in re-dividing Europe. Clinton, along with intellectuals like George Kennan, cautioned that the inclusion of Eastern European states in NATO might revive Cold War tensions, positioning Russia as a perennial outsider in European affairs. Nevertheless, NATO’s expansion proceeded while Russia was too weakened by internal reorganizations to pose a significant threat.

NATO’s expansion resulted in a re-balkanised Europe, particularly Ukraine, as a contested region that is now a combat zone. Ukraine’s movement toward NATO – despite limited public support for full membership as also the Dutch Ukraine Referendum signified – sparked the current conflict, highlighting the disconnect between moral rhetoric and on-the-ground realities. Yet Western narratives portray this expansion as a purely positive-sum integration effort, denying its security impact on Russia and misconstruing Russia’s reaction as an outdated realpolitik mentality. The war in Ukraine is basically an eschatological confrontation between Western cosmopolitan hypermorality and Eurasian autocratic cynicism which offers no chance for a diplomatic resolution unless, maybe, Trump gets elected as the new US President but we will have to find out.

The war in Ukraine reveals the deeper ideological fixation within European political elites. Rational discourse – which would address the realistic outcomes of provoking a nuclear power like Russia – has given way to performative displays of moral superiority. Kicking empty beehives by making grandiose virtue signaling statements on LGBTQ+ acceptance and morality, until one day a beehive was kicked that turned out to contain actual bees and even Russian soldiers. European leaders are acting within an ideological echo chamber, reinforced by the media which they control through speech regulation codes. This makes it impossible to discuss pragmatic considerations instead of abstract utopian ideals. 

Sadly, the war only reinforces the echo chambering and speech censorship further, as EU citizens are now banned from accessing Russian media and hearing their take on the war. The progressive elites truly feel embattled by populists and that this entitles them to far-reaching speech restrictions. Those often do not even need to pass democratic scrutiny, as they come into being through backdoor deals with Big Tech CEOs. A democracy presupposes that a voter can hear media from different sides and is then able to make a balanced, reasonable judgment about which party and candidate best represent him or her in office. But at the same time, these ‘democrats’ seem to assume that citizens who access Russian media, are immediately turned into Kremlin-controlled trolls.

It all coalesces into a reality where the West is ill-prepared for the emerging coalition of anti-Western powers. And how can we understand or come to a compromise with the powers that oppose us if our citizens are shielded from their perspectives? Russia’s alliance-building efforts with North Korea, China, and Iran are seen by some as symbolic rather than pragmatic; nevertheless, they also represent a modern-day revival of the coalition that once challenged the Western Roman Empire. It bears thinking about, what it means for the West to have driven Russia deeper into China’s arms. 

A case could be made that the narrative of North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia could be a propaganda tool rather than a documented fact, given that similar claims were made in 2022. While such alliances may not materialise in literal terms, the West’s response to them could generate self-fulfilling prophecies of increased militarization and polarised alliances. The paradox of reacting to hypothetical threats, as theorised by the philosopher Brian Massumi, brings an ontopower-effect into play: a situation where Western militaries prepare for imagined scenarios, inadvertently creating the very conditions they aim to prevent.

The reliance on moralistic language has led Western political elites to reject traditional diplomatic efforts in favour of ‘moral clarity’. Diplomacy – once central to mitigating conflict – has become a tool for ideological instruction, where NATO and the EU view other nations as students to be socially moulded rather than treated as equal negotiating partners. This code of conduct, which envisions NATO and the EU as forces for progress and inclusivity without equal counterpart, kills any hope of mutual understanding and crisis de-escalation.

This approach to diplomacy portrays neutrality as immoral, conflating non-alignment with tacit approval of authoritarianism. Thus, states that once provided neutral zones between NATO and Russia – crucial for stability – have been systematically diminished. Mark Rutte’s first act as NATO Chair, was saying that Ukraine should become a full-fledged member. Sweden and Finland’s recent membership bids underscore this movement, leaving fewer states positioned to mediate future European conflicts. The same could happen in Asia, with South Korea becoming more closely involved with NATO – these alliances eerily mimic the run-up to the First World War.

Toward a Rational Policy Redirection

The Western fixation on maintaining ideological purity has dire economic consequences. Europe’s commitment to sanctions on Russian energy, and moral obligations to uphold stringent climate goals, has led to industrial exodus and rising energy costs. The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines further exacerbates Europe’s reliance on energy imports from intermediaries, notably India, while eroding its industrial competitiveness. Also bear in mind that the oil is necessary to refine complex plastics, that the German industry needs, not only for consumer production but also for war production. Of course Russia was eager to accept the European money for its oil, yet even Putin commented that weakening German industrial production by cutting off Nord Stream is not in the long term interest of Ukraine.

The only logical explanation for the destruction of Nord Stream is that the US wants a bipolar world order where Europe cannot develop economically as a force independent of the US – this is also the doctrine laid out by the influential geostrategist George Friedman, when speaking for Stratfor. He declared that the American geopolitical interests are challenged once German capital and technology merge with Russian manpower and resources. Friedman even stated this would mean the US loses its global hegemony.

Despite these events, cosmopolitan and left-liberal narratives around moral integrity continue to prevent a realistic assessment of practical reality. Europe’s path forward requires that we abandon the ideological rhetoric that clouds strategic thinking. Acknowledging NATO’s role in triggering the Ukraine crisis would be an important step toward a balanced foreign policy, prioritizing the continent’s long-term viability over transient ideological wins. 

Restoring Europe’s economic competitiveness and securing its strategic interests will require critically rethinking EU-policies. Unless we want a bipolar world order split between China and the US, where European states will be sacrificed as pawns whilst the conflict escalates, it is ultimately in our interest to reintegrate Russia as a European partner. However, it is questionable whether this is even possible, considering that the Russian so-called ‘Special Military Operation’ has already caused so many deep-seated grievances. Restoring Nord Stream is also easier said than done, while the cultural and political autonomy of West-Europe is meanwhile being penetrated by Islamic nations – a situation accelerated by demographic developments and the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. All things considered: Winter is coming, for the Europeans. Or – even more prophetically: Flee while you can!

If the European political class remains entrenched in its current stance – which it probably will, given that this ideological in-group affiliation is the source of their access to status, wealth and potential partners who seek to rise socially and are susceptible to those advantages – the ‘end of history’ will be quite different than initially imagined. Europe must transcend its ideological echo chambers and reconsider Cold War-era frameworks if it hopes to maintain peace and prosperity in the nearby future. Whether European leaders have the political imagination and courage to pursue this path remains – putting it mildly – to be seen…

> Follow Sid on Telegram
> Follow Sid on LinkedIn
> Follow Sid’s Newsletter
> Support Sid through BackMe