Operation \u201cabsolute resolve\u201d, however, is a red line crossed.<\/p>\n
Even when the US invaded Panama<\/a> in 1989, there was some attempt to preserve a world order that no longer seems to matter. This invasion (more humbly named \u201cjust cause\u201d) was anticipated by a declaration of war that came from Panama. The US Congress was, at least, informed and some countries even tried a mediation.<\/p>\n More importantly, the reaction when the US went ahead was much stronger. Even before the capture of Panamanian president Manuel Noriega, the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Organization of the American States (which includes the US) condemned the invasion as illegal. The European Parliament<\/a> did the same immediately after.<\/p>\n In the case of Venezuela, the silence is deafening. And seeing that no one has challenged it, the US government has immediately started talking about taking Greenland, hinting that it wouldn\u2019t even need to use force. The world order is dead because nobody is willing to defend it.<\/p>\n However, it is equally evident that the alternative to the defunct world order cannot be no order at all. It\u2019s not feasible that the world should operate according to the law of the jungle. It is too complex and big to be governed by just one empire.<\/p>\n This much was acknowledged even in the controversial US security strategy published at the end of 2025, which says that US elites \u201cbadly miscalculated America\u2019s willingness to shoulder forever global burdens\u201d and that \u201cthey overestimated America\u2019s ability to fund \u2026 a massive military, diplomatic, intelligence, and foreign aid complex\u201d. <\/p>\n \u201cWe live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else,\u201d Stephen Miller<\/a>, deputy chief of staff to Donald Trump, now says of the US\u2019s changed vision. \u201cBut we live in a world, in the real world\u2026that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.\u201d<\/p>\n Stephen Miller has said no one would try to stop the US if it infiltrated Greenland. But a world governed on these terms is obviously a world heading towards mutual destruction. In such a system, all countries would, legitimately, scramble to defend themselves militarily. For those countries not already equipped, the pursuit of nuclear weapons would be the only obvious route to invulnerability. <\/p>\n Turning crisis into opportunity<\/p>\n So, what should Europe do in the face of this problem? And in the current world order, it\u2019s possible that I do really mean Europe rather than the EU. <\/p>\n This situation requires cooperation with the UK, Norway, and probably Canada and Switzerland. If necessary, it may require moving ahead without Hungary or whichever other EU countries are still doubtful about the need for an urgent, defence-based European integration.<\/p>\n French president Emmanuel Macron greets Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen in Paris. In theory, a world without a world order is a much greater problem for Europe than for any other economy of the world. According to the World Bank<\/a>, trade with other countries represents more than 60% of the five biggest GDPs in Europe but less than 40% of the GDPs of China, the US and Russia.<\/p>\n However, Europe is also probably the part of the world that is best equipped to try to be the broker a new framework. It has fewer enemies than other contenders and more friends (16 of the 20 countries whose passports enable entry to other states without a visa are European<\/a>).<\/p>\n![\"Stephen](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/file-20260107-56-o9bzsx.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n EPA\/Aaron Schwartz<\/p>\n![\"Mette](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/file-20260107-56-k5wrt3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n Alamy\/Abaca press<\/p>\n