Europe Needs to Come Together. This Man Has Some Ideas.
The New York Times
Overall Assessment
The article offers a philosophically rich but narrowly sourced analysis of European strategic thought, centered on Luuk van Middelaar’s ideas. It critiques realist rearmament advocacy while failing to include broader perspectives or public accountability. Framed as an opinion essay disguised as reportage, it prioritizes intellectual narrative over journalistic balance.
"Europe Needs to Come Together. This Man Has Some Ideas."
Sensationalism
Headline & Lead 40/100
Headline and lead emphasize personal narrative and literary tone over clarity or neutrality, framing a complex policy discussion around a single figure and a gravesite metaphor.
✕ Sensationalism: The headline uses a vague, personality-driven framing ('This Man Has Some Ideas') that oversimplifies a complex geopolitical topic and centers the narrative on an individual rather than policy or systemic issues. This risks sensationalizing an analytical opinion piece.
"Europe Needs to Come Together. This Man Has Some Ideas."
✕ Sensationalism: The lead paragraph introduces the article's focus through a gravesite anecdote, which, while stylistically engaging, delays clarity about the article’s actual subject—European strategic thinking—and prioritizes literary flair over directness.
"About a mile from the NATO headquarters in Brussels lies the cemetery of Evere. There, next to a British monument commemorating the Battle of Waterloo, visitors may stumble upon the grave of Aleksandr Kozhevnikov, known more widely by his Francophone alias Alexandre Kojève."
Language & Tone 50/100
Tone is intellectually engaging but subtly critical, using loaded language and irony to convey skepticism toward elite strategic thinking.
✕ Loaded Language: The article uses charged metaphors like 'mole-whacking crises' and 'continental integration' that carry evaluative weight, undermining neutrality.
"A reactive approach of mole-whacking crises, manifest most clearly in Europe’s breakneck remilitarization, does not make for a coherent geopolitical strategy."
✕ Loaded Adjectives: Phrases like 'rudderless elites' and 'elite-driven rather than a popular project' carry a clear critical tone, signaling the author’s skepticism toward technocratic governance.
"instilling a realist sensibility in the continent’s rudderless elites."
✕ Editorializing: The author uses irony ('Kojève would have smiled') to editorialize, inserting personal judgment into the narrative.
"Kojève would have smiled."
Balance 40/100
Over-reliant on one intellectual figure and the author’s own perspective; lacks diverse expert or public viewpoints.
✕ Single-Source Reporting: The article centers on a single figure (van Middelaar) and his intellectual lineage, with no inclusion of opposing scholars, defense experts, pacifist voices, or civil society perspectives on European rearmament.
"Today, Mr. van Middelaar heads the Brussels Institute for Geopolitics, known by the apt acronym BIG. There, he hopes to help Europeans gain a renewed taste for power, instilling a realist sensibility in the continent’s rudderless elites."
✕ Single-Source Reporting: The author, Anton Jäger, is both the narrator and a participant (a Brusselian seeking Kojève’s grave), blurring the line between reporting and personal essay, with no effort to balance with external expert voices.
"As a native-born Brusselian, I’ve long been aware that Alexandre Kojève’s grave is located in my home city. Yet it took me half a day to properly locate it..."
✓ Viewpoint Diversity: The author critiques van Middelaar’s silence on Middle East conflicts and climate change, but offers no sourced counter-arguments or alternative strategic visions from other thinkers or institutions.
Story Angle 55/100
Framed as a philosophical critique of elite realism, the story centers on intellectual contradictions rather than policy debate or public stakes.
✕ Narrative Framing: The article frames European defense policy through a philosophical lens (Kojève vs. Machiavelli), which, while intellectually compelling, narrows the story to an elite ideological debate rather than a democratic or institutional one.
"Mr. van Middelaar claimed, also contained no clues for actual, day-to-day political action."
✕ Narrative Framing: The piece emphasizes a 'return of history' and 'Machiavellian moment' as central motifs, imposing a predetermined philosophical arc rather than exploring alternative framings like economic, environmental, or democratic ones.
"One day they would experience their 'Machiavellian moment.'"
✕ Moral Framing: The article critiques van Middelaar’s lack of a clear vision for Europe’s future, implying a moral and strategic deficit, thus framing the story as a cautionary tale about elite-driven policy without democratic foundation.
"For all his urging of continental integration, he tells us little about how he envisages Europe’s future."
Completeness 75/100
Rich in intellectual and historical context, but lacks grounding in public sentiment and broader global challenges like climate change.
✓ Contextualisation: The article provides substantial historical and philosophical context, linking Kojève, Machiavelli, and Hegel to contemporary European strategic thought. This deep intellectual background enriches the analysis.
"In the 1930s, his lectures on Hegel influenced an entire generation of Parisian intellectuals; in the 1990s, decades after his death, his ideas provided the guiding motif for Francis Fukuyama’s notion of the end of history."
✓ Contextualisation: The piece acknowledges gaps in van Middelaar’s thinking—particularly his silence on decarbonization and Middle East conflicts—thereby contextualizing the limits of the advocated realist approach.
"While he has been vociferous on Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, he has said very little of similar crimes in the Middle East; on the world-historic challenge of decarbonization, the silence is near absolute."
✕ Omission: The article omits concrete public opinion data or electoral mandates supporting rearmament, weakening the contextual grounding of the political feasibility of the proposed policies.
Europe is framed as being in a state of perpetual crisis and unpreparedness, requiring urgent strategic awakening
The article repeatedly emphasizes Europe’s shock, somnolence, and lack of preparedness for contemporary crises, framing the continent as destabilized and reactive rather than stable or proactive.
"It is only in Europe,” Mr. van Middelaar wrote last year, “that recent turbulence and disruptive events came as a true shock.”"
The EU is portrayed as failing in strategic foresight and leadership, governed by rudderless elites unable to craft coherent long-term strategy
Loaded adjectives like 'rudderless elites' and critiques of reactive 'mole-whacking' policy imply institutional incompetence and strategic failure.
"instilling a realist sensibility in the continent’s rudderless elites."
European integration is framed as an elite-driven project excluding popular participation or democratic mandate
The article highlights the disconnect between elite-driven integration and public will, citing Kojève’s belief that integration should remain 'elite-driven rather than a popular project'.
"Kojève had the merit of honesty: He believed European integration was to remain an elite-driven rather than a popular project."
Europe’s remilitarization is framed as a reactive, potentially harmful arms race without clear purpose or democratic foundation
The article critiques the 'breakneck remilitarization' as a crisis-driven reaction lacking coherent vision, suggesting it may be harmful rather than beneficial.
"A reactive approach of mole-whacking crises, manifest most clearly in Europe’s breakneck remilitarization, does not make for a coherent geopolitical strategy."
Current European strategic discourse is portrayed as intellectually shallow and lacking legitimacy due to its reactive and untheorized nature
The article critiques the absence of a guiding theory of history or purpose in European strategy, implying the discourse lacks intellectual and democratic legitimacy.
"A continent which wants to make itself crisis-proof, but has no theory of change to properly understand all the crises it faces."
The article offers a philosophically rich but narrowly sourced analysis of European strategic thought, centered on Luuk van Middelaar’s ideas. It critiques realist rearmament advocacy while failing to include broader perspectives or public accountability. Framed as an opinion essay disguised as reportage, it prioritizes intellectual narrative over journalistic balance.
A discussion of Luuk van Middelaar’s advocacy for a realist European defense strategy, inspired by Machiavellian thought and contrasted with Kojève’s Hegelian legacy, highlighting ongoing debates about military autonomy, political purpose, and the role of ideology in shaping Europe’s geopolitical future.
The New York Times — Politics - Foreign Policy
Based on the last 60 days of articles
The New York Times
No related content