The history of international relations shows that major geopolitical shifts are rarely announced with fanfare. They usually unfold quietly, during high-level meetings where the powerful set the rules and everyone else is informed of the outcome. The forthcoming meeting between the leaders of Washington and Beijing is, most likely, one such occasion.
The two superpowers have not suddenly become friends. They simply recognise that an open confrontation would cost both sides more than either could afford. That is why they prefer to test their strength in areas where the damage can be contained or reversed, such as tariffs, critical minerals, semiconductors and control over maritime trade routes. Their rivalry has not disappeared. It has simply shifted to a different arena.
After all, nothing is predetermined. A conflict between a rising power and an established one is not a law of nature. It is a possibility, one that can either materialise or be averted through the prudence of those in power. The real question is whether prudence will give way to cold-blooded deal-making, in which smaller players, such as Taiwan, become bargaining chips.
Agreements of this kind have an inherent flaw. Because they are tied to specific leaders, they risk collapsing as soon as new occupants move into presidential palaces. The stability they promise is often borrowed.
For Greece, a de-escalation of tensions brings tangible benefits. A nation whose prosperity depends on the sea and international trade stands to gain when the world’s major buyers and sellers stop erecting barriers. Greece can remain a steadfast ally of the United States while also serving as a reliable economic partner to Asia. Maintaining this balance requires diplomatic finesse, not a forced choice between competing sides.
The major question, however, concerns Europe. The continent that gave birth to modern diplomacy is watching developments from the sidelines, as a mere commentator. When the United States, China and Russia discuss the future of the world, Europeans often learn of the decisions through news agencies. Our economic strength does not translate into political influence because it is not backed by a common will.
During my time at the European Commission, I learned that the Union moves forward when necessity becomes pressing. This is how we built our cooperation in tackling organised crime and terrorism, establishing institutions that are now taken for granted. The same determination is needed today in defence, energy, technological autonomy and foreign policy, where unanimity has become a de facto veto in the hands of every member state.
The world taking shape will not wait for Europe to resolve its internal doubts. Great powers respect only those capable of influencing outcomes. If Europeans persist in their hesitation, others will make decisions about their borders, security and prosperity on their behalf. By then, their protests will come far too late.
The choice is simple, though by no means easy. Either we become co-architects of the new era or we simply have to live with the consequences of decisions made by others. There is no third way. History rarely offers a second chance to those who hesitate at the very moment when courage is required.