The phrase “the right side of history” is heard ever more often in public discourse.
Politicians, analysts and commentators use it to describe positions they regard as morally or strategically necessary.
Yet a fleeting stance on the “right side” is one thing, and historical vindication, which comes—if it comes at all—only over time, is quite another.
Between these two moments lies history itself. Events, upheavals and new balances of power often reveal that what seemed self-evident at the outset does not remain so as time goes on.
Momentary alignment with the prevailing trend may serve short-term political gains, but it lacks strategic depth.
And so, the invoked “right side of history” can end up closing the door to future developments instead of opening it.
To align oneself with the imperatives of the moment is not proof of historical foresight.
Historical insight is one thing, adaptation to the fashion of the day quite another. Insight requires an understanding of structural trends and long-term planning, whereas adaptation settles for a superficial response to the circumstances of the moment.
In this context, a critical reality also emerges: given how things have developed, what now determines the European Union’s foreign policy is not a coherent European strategy—which was never articulated as a single, unified framework—but the national interest of each member state.
When faced with critical dilemmas, governments turn not to European principles and shared priorities, but to a national cost-benefit calculation.
And that calculation is always tested and validated in historical time, not in the rhetoric of the moment.
That is why many decisions taken under the pressure of current events are later revealed to be problematic, or even dead ends.
In foreign policy, what ultimately judges a choice is not the moral satisfaction of the moment but the overall assessment of its outcomes.
And outcomes inevitably unfold over time. Only then is it revealed whether we truly stood on the right side of history, or merely followed the dictates of the moment.
The case of Ukraine is telling. Europe’s immediate, almost automatic alignment was taken for granted.
Today, however, the landscape is far more complex. The forceful re-emergence of Donald Trump, the diverging stances of European countries, the fatigue of societies and governments, the debates on reshaping the terms of peace—all these confirm that the initial certainties were anything but guaranteed.
Above all, they show that Europe still operates as the sum of national choices rather than as a strategic actor shaping developments.
The right side of history is neither a slogan nor a tool of political convenience. It is a stance that demands judgment, foresight and the ability to see beyond the horizon of the present age.
Only when years have passed is it proven who truly stood on the right side of history and who merely claimed the title without having earned the vindication of time.