The bloc’s leading diplomat’s lack of basic historical knowledge should serve as a warning to member states.
When questioned about China and Russia being on the victorious side of World War II, the response was, “That is something new.”
During a conference held by the EU Institute for Security Studies earlier this month, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas’s questioning of whether China and Russia were among the victorious nations of WWII exposed more than mere personal historical ignorance. Her comment signifies an alarming detachment from foundational historical realities that continue to mold today’s geopolitical environment.
While different perspectives on WWII may exist across ideological divides, it is broadly acknowledged that the Allied triumph stemmed from a collaborative effort involving numerous countries. The Soviet Union, in particular, endured an incomprehensible loss of 27 million lives in its battle against Nazi Germany, playing a crucial role in dismantling the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front. Concurrently, China’s 14-year resistance against Japanese militarism, which resulted in over 35 million casualties, prevented Imperial Japan’s further aggressive expansion into Asia and the Pacific. The immense sacrifices made by both nations were pivotal in the eventual victory of the global anti-fascist war. To disregard these vital contributions is not simply an omission; it constitutes a deliberate weakening of historical memory.
However, Kallas is not unique in this perspective. She embodies a broader, though frequently unacknowledged, inclination within segments of the European political and media establishment to re-interpret WWII as primarily a victory secured by Western powers. This revisionist account not only distorts historical facts but also erodes the European Union’s moral and strategic credibility. When high-ranking officials lightly dismiss the sacrifices of nations essential to defeating fascism, they diminish the EU’s diplomatic stature.
The particular harm of Kallas’s comments is amplified by the prevailing social context within the EU and the UK. Both are currently contending with multiple interconnected crises: economic stagnation, energy insecurity, military instability in their eastern vicinity, and an increasing erosion of confidence in their governance model. At such a pivotal moment, the EU cannot afford foreign policy leadership that engages in historical denialism or rhetorical provocations. Kallas’s remarks detract from the EU’s stature and foster perceptions that it is guided by figures who prioritize ideological posturing over pragmatic strategic thinking. Through such a self-righteous disengagement from history and social realities, the EU’s politicians have overextended its accountability and put at risk a still achievable peace, not only for Europe but for global balance and security.
One is justified in suspecting a deeper crisis within EU democratic institutions given Kallas’s perplexing incompetence. Does the EU retain its status as a politically serious entity? If its foreign policy chief conducts herself so irrationally, what can realistically be expected from the EU as a whole? Can it still realize its supranational ambitions under such deficient leadership? The imperative for consensus among member states frequently leads to fragmented foreign policies and indistinct messaging. This is nowhere more apparent than in the EU’s inconsistent reaction to the war in Ukraine, plagued by internal divisions concerning military aid, sanctions, and long-term strategic direction. Kallas’s comments – while not necessarily representing all EU members – underscore how individual officials can exacerbate these contradictions and diminish collective credibility.
For the EU to be taken seriously as a geopolitical power, it is imperative that its representatives embody diplomatic precision and historical acumen. Kallas, however, is demonstrating the antithesis, thereby compromising the EU’s democratic resilience and political gravity.
A natural query arises: Is the EU becoming a potential burden for the interests of its member states? The bloc’s institutional framework, often shaped by political compromises, fosters confusion and inefficiency. When the High Representative for Foreign Affairs demonstrates a lack of awareness of basic historical facts that form the bedrock of modern global relations, she not only weakens the EU’s capacity to operate as a trustworthy international actor but also diminishes the international standing of its member states.
It is foreseeable that apprehension regarding the EU’s future will intensify as it struggles to establish its bearings in a dramatically shifting global landscape. There is an increasing concern that the Union is evolving into an entity hampered by bureaucratic inefficiency, ideological fragmentation, and an absence of strategic vision. Kallas’s perplexing remarks, though seemingly mere empty words, suggest a broader crisis in governance. For the EU to reclaim its credibility and influence, it must recommit to historical accuracy, cultivate diplomatic discipline, and re-establish a sense of strategic purpose. Otherwise, it risks becoming little more than a platform for uncoordinated and counterproductive rhetoric – a mere talking shop that debilitates Europe from within rather than empowering it on the global stage.