China, the world’s largest authoritarian state, held its largest-ever Victory Day parade on September 3, 2025. The event showcased cutting-edge missiles, advanced fighter jets, AI-driven drones, and reconnaissance robots never seen before. Its theme, “Justice Prevails, Peace Prevails, The People Prevail,” drew on history to legitimize military modernisation and resonated with the Global South’s narratives of sovereignty and resistance to Western dominance.
The attendance of Russian President Vladimir Putin further reinforced the parade’s geopolitical significance, highlighting the increasing coordination among authoritarian states. This development poses a critical challenge for Europe: can the EU continue to depend chiefly on norms, diplomacy, and values, or must it enhance its military capabilities to safeguard its security? From a Realist standpoint, material power, not merely norms, remains the decisive factor in shaping influence within the international system. And lastly should the EU have to rationally cooperate with authoritarians rather than remain strictly guided by norms.
China’s Hard Power vs. Europe’s Soft Power Identity
China’s parade was a clear show of hard power: advanced missiles, undersea and aerial drones, modern fighter jets, and nuclear-capable forces. The message was deterrence, to show that China can defend its interests and shape outcomes by force, with real consequences for weaker rivals if needed. In Realist terms, states build credibility by convincing others they can and will act.
Europe’s influence looks very different. The EU excels at rules, regulation, and diplomacy: its markets and standards shape business worldwide, and it provides large amounts of development aid while promoting human rights and multilateral law. Soft power matters, but it is persuasive rather than coercive. When rivals ignore rules, or when partners, even friends, choose force, soft power loses bite. Recent diplomatic efforts, including by the United States, have not yet ended the war in Ukraine. That failure reinforces the need for a long-term show of hard power: credible military capability that underwrites Europe’s values.
According to Realism, norms are fragile without material backing, one cannot effectively compete with authoritarian powers through soft power alone. As the proverb goes, “he who holds the stick makes the rules”; if Europe wants its values to count when stakes are high, they must be backed by capabilities that deter, or, if necessary, defend. Otherwise the EU won’t be autonomous in its policies.
Weaker NATO, Divided Europe Vs. United Authoritarian Bloc
China’s military parade showcased a highly concentrated and modern display of hard power: hypersonic weapons, undersea and aerial drones, and a declared land-sea-air nuclear triad. This display was designed not just for regional audiences but for global rivals, projecting credible deterrence and multi-domain operational capability at scale. China’s parade fused weapons with a coherent leadership message.
The presence of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un alongside Xi Jinping highlighted the unity of authoritarian powers, signaling credible deterrence and multi-domain military capability. If we look at NATO and EU members their disunity is increasingly visible on concrete issues. Some countries, such as the UK and France, have indicated support for recognizing Palestine, while the United States resists such moves, revealing cracks in NATO’s members’ consensus.
Realist theory suggests that fragmented actors are inherently weaker. Without unity in defence and foreign policy, European states cannot effectively negotiate or uphold strategic autonomy, they have to remain dependent on the United States.
From Normative Power to Credible Security Actor
China blended historical legitimacy and high ideals with demonstrable force. The parade’s slogan “Justice Prevails, Peace Prevails, The People Prevail” appealed internationally, particularly to the Global South.
Europe brands itself as a “normative power,” championing human rights, development aid, and multilateralism. Initiatives like PESCO and the European Defence Fund are slowly building common capabilities. Yet without deployable armed forces, Europe risks being ignored when hard power is decisive. As a Philippine officer noted of Xi, Putin, and Kim: standing together “who don’t follow international law” itself constitutes intimidation. Words only count if backed by credible capacity to enforce them.
Policy Options for EU:
The first policy option is that the EU should first strengthen its military spending and operational capabilities, ensuring credible defense and deterrence, rather than relying primarily on NATO and promoting norms and values globally. While its role as a normative power remains important, Europe’s influence in a multipolar world ultimately depends on the ability to back its principles with tangible hard power.
The second policy option for the EU, according to the realist principle of self-help, is to establish a multinational military that only involves EU members, under EU command that can operate independently of NATO. This force would include air, naval, and ground components, along with intelligence and logistics support, capable of responding to regional crises, humanitarian interventions, or threats from authoritarian powers.
The EU can use the same force that they contribute to NATO but can increase their arm tech development capabilities without the influence of the U.S. By creating a dedicated EU force, Europe reduces over-reliance on the U.S.-guided NATO structures, demonstrates credible deterrence, and ensures that EU strategic objectives can be pursued autonomously without calling U.S Presidents “Daddy”. This would turn words about norms and values into actionable defense capability, reinforcing both credibility and security without the hypocrisy that they currently have to follow for being allies with the U.S. in NATO.
The third policy option that is better than the second is to increase economic cooperation, collaboration with Russia. NATO should not move an inch further near the Russian sphere of influence, this can be done by EU members that create and strongly implement the policy that those EU members which are part of NATO should not allow expansion of NATO without the approval of EU member states. In this way their leaders’ policies and trust can be aligned, and thus EU can balance between Russia, U.S and China.
Conclusions:
If the EU wants to shape the 21st century rather than be shaped by it, it not only ends up confusing the world about showing norms at one place and remaining silent at another. And must bridge the gap between its ideals and its military and economic power. Strategic autonomy is not a slogan; it requires the means to defend Europe’s interests and uphold its values. In a multipolar world defined by both militaries might and strategic alliances, even the best intentions can be disregarded without credible strength.
When European leaders make lofty statements about human rights or norms but fail to act consistently, it undermines the EU’s credibility. Hypocrisy becomes evident when public protests, for example, in solidarity with Palestine, are met with force, highlighting a disconnect between official rhetoric and practice. In such cases, Europe does not stand firmly because of its leadership, but because its citizens, through civil society, activism, and public opinion, still uphold the ideals that leaders fail to defend. If the EU cannot align words with deeds, its influence diminishes, and its strategic weakness grows in the eyes of its public and thus impacts both allies and rivals.