Europe at the Edge: Why we cannot trust the old security order anymore

Author: Fabian Rehmann

The end of the post war order?

The European security order is being dismantled before our eyes and the pressure no longer comes only from the East. NATO was built on mutual restraint and the sacred respect for the sovereignty of allies.

Until recently, many Europeans assumed that this restraint was guaranteed by the United States. Today, Washington openly demands negotiations over the acquisition of Greenland, has floated the use of NATO infrastructure to underpin its Arctic posture, and has repeatedly signalled tariffs and other economic penalties against allies that oppose such a move. Even when President Trump now stresses that he will not use military force to seize Greenland, he pairs that message with boasts about America’s overwhelming strength and warnings that European resistance “will be remembered”. The underlying signal is that even allied territory can become the object of unilateral “real estate” projects, backed by economic coercion and implicit power asymmetries rather than genuine partnership.

This is not yet the legal end of NATO, but it is a de‑facto erosion of NATO as we know it: a defensive pact grounded in consent, mutual restraint, and the principle that members do not threaten one another’s borders – whether by tanks, tariffs, or transactional deals. [reuters, cnn, fox, abcnews, foxnews]​

We Are Entering new world dominated by three spheres of influence

The American Sphere: "National Security First"

The Arctic has long been regarded as the new frontier for innovative trade routes. This is why the United States has now shifted towards a unilateral "National security first" policy, treating this area as a private backyard, and its allies as mere subsidiaries. President Trump has explicitly stated that utilizing U.S. military force remains "always an option" to acquire Greenland, which he frames as essential for national security. 

That logic is also reflected at the institutional level. The 2024 Department of Defense Arctic Strategy describes the Arctic as a “critical arena for power projection,” emphasizing American sovereignty and freedom of action over multilateral cooperation. Yet even as defense is the dominant public rationale, the strategy acknowledges constraints on U.S. readiness: much of the relevant equipment is outdated, and personnel require further training for Arctic operations.

This represents a fundamental break from NATO's founding principle that allies refrain from threatening each other's territorial integrity. A move that essentially transforms the alliance from a rules-based partnership into a conditional instrument of power asymmetry: useful when it serves Washington’s interests, vulnerable to pressure when it does not. [foxnews, linkedin, arctic institute]​

The Russian Sphere: Force as Policy

Russia continues to use military force to redraw European borders, waiting for transatlantic fracture to leave Eastern Europe exposed. Moscow has illegally annexed Crimea and Donbas region, with military maps showing Russian ambitions extending through Mykolaiv and Odessa to cut Ukraine entirely from the Black Sea. Kremlin officials discuss redrawing all of Ukraine's borders, including those with Western neighbors. 

This aggression reflects Moscow’s broader rejection of the NATO–Russia Founding Act. This agreement was meant to anchor post–Cold War stability. It committed both parties to respecting borders and refraining from the use or threat of force. By invading Ukraine and attempting to change borders through war, Russia signals that it treats these commitments as optional,and that military coercion can override diplomacy and international law.

Russia’s war thus has implications far beyond Ukraine. It increases insecurity across Europe by normalizing territorial revisionism, raising the risk of spillover and escalation, and forcing neighboring states to plan for worst‑case scenarios (including pressure on NATO’s eastern borders). The threat is not only delivered through nuclear rhetoric. Russia’s strategy seems to include expanding drone warfare, cyberattacks, sabotage of critical infrastructure, and coordinated disinformation campaigns designed to divide European societies and weaken transatlantic unity. [newsukraine.rbc, ceris, BBC​, Jamestown Foundation]​

The Chinese Sphere: Strategic New Frontiers

China is expanding its new strategic frontiers into the Arctic and space, while also using overseas infrastructure financing to build long-term political and economic leverage—especially across Africa and parts of Asia—where Belt and Road projects can translate into influence over ports, rail links, energy systems, and elite networks.  Claiming “near-Arctic state” status, Beijing seeks access to the Northern Sea Route and Arctic resources through its “Polar Silk Road” framing.

Despite resistance from Western nations, China has invested heavily in Russian Arctic infrastructure, including the Yamal LNG project and port facilities in Arkhangelsk. The People's Liberation Army's involvement in scientific research has raised security concerns, while China's icebreaker fleet already surpasses America's in number. 

These investments in Africa and Asia matter strategically because they can create dependencies and access—commercial footholds that may later support diplomatic alignment, dual-use infrastructure, and supply-chain influence, not just trade. Beijing's is in a geopolitical competition with the West, rapidly extending into new domains to reshape regional governance in a shifting multipolar order. [inss.org, css.org, merics.org]​

Europe’s new reality

Taken together, these pressures point to one conclusion: Europe cannot assume that someone else will always guarantee its security on Europe’s terms.  Fragmentation does not protect independence; it makes each country easier to pressure, bypass, or pick off one by one.

The only viable alternative proposed by Volt is that Europe must unite as a real political and military actor. Current loose collection of states should evolve into a European Federal Power capable of:

• Defending its own borders (including Greenland and Svalbard)

• Shaping an independent foreign policy

• Protecting democratic values without asking permission from Washington or Beijing

The NATO alliance was not designed to resolve intra-alliance aggression. The fundamental principle of collective defense is incoherent with the current events. Europe cannot afford to remain dependent on an alliance whose most powerful member treats allied sovereignty as negotiable. [linkedin]​

What European federalism means in practice

A federal Europe means sharing sovereignty in the areas that no European state can credibly handle alone:

• One democratically accountable European level (stronger Parliament + an executive that can act) for foreign policy, defense, and strategic security.

• A common ability to deter aggression and protect borders (instead of  27 separate plans that do not add up in a crisis).

• Shared decision-making that makes Europe harder to blackmail economically or militarily.

Only this way truly united Europe will have the capacity to protect democracy, sovereignty, and autonomy without asking permission from Washington, Beijing, or Moscow.  

Norway must not be a spectator

Norway may be outside the EU, but we are inside the target zone. Our geography, our Arctic presence, and our strategic resources tie us to Europe’s fate. Standing on the sidelines while a new European security is forged leaves Norway living with the consequences, without a proper say in the process.

Either Europe builds the unity and capacity to defend its own way of life, or it accepts remaining an object of other powers’ spheres of influence. Since World War II, European security and political direction have never existed in a vacuum. They have been shaped by larger external power structures, often by necessity. Today, however, the core issue is not influence in itself. The issue is that the American sphere is increasingly diverging from the once  shared ideals that underpinned the transatlantic project, making passive dependence a strategic risk rather than a stabilizing choice.

A united Europe, one able to deter coercion, protect critical infrastructure, and act strategically without waiting for permission, would preserve European autonomy and ideals, including for countries like Norway whose security is inseparable from the continent’s wider stability. The alternative is a gradual surrender of agency: Europe continues to be “managed” by external priorities, and Norway’s future is shaped less by democratic choice and more by the leverage, demands, and strategic bargains of stronger states.

Volt chooses unity. Volt chooses responsibility. Volt chooses a Europe that stands on its own feet and decides for itself.