Editorial

European Security in A Changing World Order

Dear Readers, as these lines are being written, this year’s NATO Summit in Ankara has just concluded. These days, it almost seems an achievement if such a summit ends without a major rupture. At the same time, issues with the potential to divide the Alliance can resurface at any moment—as illustrated by the renewed U.S. claim to Greenland, which earlier this year triggered a serious crisis within NATO.

Even setting aside Donald Trump’s distinctive political style, a number of fundamental questions remain. What forces are driving the current U.S. administration and the cooling of the transatlantic partnership? What threat does Russia pose after more than four years of waging its war against Ukraine at enormous cost? And how can Europe remain capable of acting and provide for its own security in a world undergoing profound change?

Against this backdrop, Gerlinde Groitl opens this issue by examining Europe’s difficult strategic position in light of the current shifts in the global balance of power, the outcome of which remains uncertain. She concludes that Europe faces a difficult future unless it can develop a shared vision of a new international order together with the United States. While thus continuing to link Europe's future closely to a renewed transatlantic order, Daniel Marwecki takes a different view. He challenges what he sees as the prevailing focus on rearmament and argues that Europe should also develop broader ideas for adapting with dignity to its declining global influence.

The following article, by the Ukrainian author Elena Davlikanova, examines the threat posed by Russia and strongly cautions European governments against assessing it through the wrong analytical lens. Against the backdrop of the European Union’s structural constraints, Matthias Dembinski explores how deeper security and defense cooperation within the Union might enable Europe to provide, at least in part, capabilities and functions that have so far been supplied by the indispensable superpower, the United States.

Another widely debated question concerns the prospect of some form of “European”nuclear deterrence. What role does the concept of “forward deterrence,” presented by the French President in early March, play in this context? Emmanuelle Maitre addresses this question from the perspective of global nuclear rearmament and the objective of nuclear non-proliferation, while Jean-Louis Lozier focuses on the increasingly close cooperation between Europe’s two nuclear powers and on the often-overlooked European dimension of French nuclear deterrence. Shounak Set and Ben Kienzle examine the emerging quality of security cooperation between India and Europe. They argue that it represents an original model of flexible, modular partnership – one shaped by today's geopolitical environment, yet offering considerable long-term potential.

In the concluding interview, I speak with Commander Helge Adrians about a subject that has once again attracted considerable public attention following a series of high-profile ship inspections in recent weeks. Among other things, he explains why, when dealing with Russia's so-called “shadow fleet,” we should remain in control of our own reactions.

Ethics and Armed Forces does not claim to provide a comprehensive treatment of European security. The next issue will therefore continue this discussion by addressing related topics such as resilience and societal stability. Finally, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to making this issue possible: our authors, the translation teams, the Editorial Board, and the editorial staff of the new Institute for Peace and Military Ethics, into which zebis, the Center for Ethical Education in the Armed Forces,has now been integrated. Change is thus shaping not only the international order but also our own institution. Nevertheless, we will continue to offer our readers stimulating perspectives on debates in peace ethics, security policy, and military ethics.