The Shattering of the Post-War European Ethos: A Normative Transformation

Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine launched more than a military conflict on European soil – it represented a fundamental rupture in the ethical and social framework that had guided European society since 1945. This seismic event has forced a dramatic reassessment of core assumptions about peace, security, and collective identity that had shaped European consciousness for over seven decades. This transformation raises profound questions about post-war European idealism, epitomized in popular culture by John Lennon’s vision of a world without nations or religions. While this utopian vision aligned with the European project’s aspirations, it led European nations to systematically dismantle their military capabilities and neglect strategic autonomy, particularly in energy infrastructure. The continent’s unprecedented peace, rather than validating this idealistic approach, would later prove to have depended primarily on the American military umbrella and NATO’s nuclear deterrence. This incongruence between idealistic assumptions and strategic realities would prove crucial for understanding both Europe’s past stability and its current vulnerabilities when faced with military aggression. The impact extends far beyond military and geopolitical realms, triggering what scholars identify as a profound normative transformation in European society, challenging long-held beliefs about the inevitability of peace and the obsolescence of military power.

1. The Post-War European Dream and Its Foundations

After World War II, Europe embarked on an unprecedented experiment in international relations, developing what scholars term “post-national universalism.”²⁰ This philosophical framework represented a deliberate attempt to transcend the nationalist ideologies that had twice plunged the continent into devastating conflicts. The European project was built on three interconnected pillars that shaped both policy and social consciousness.

The first pillar was a profound aversion to military force. This wasn’t simply a policy choice – it represented a deep psychological and cultural shift in how Europeans viewed the very concept of military power. European nations deliberately dismantled much of their military capabilities and reduced defense spending to historically low levels. This transformation was rooted in the collective trauma of two devastating world wars that left deep psychological scars on European consciousness. The belief took hold that economic interdependence would create such deep connections between nations that future conflicts would become inconceivable.

The second pillar centered on the primacy of soft power and diplomacy. European nations invested heavily in creating sophisticated institutional frameworks for conflict resolution. The European Union itself emerged as the exemplar of this approach, but it extended to other bodies like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and various international courts. These institutions were built on the premise that dialogue, economic incentives, and multilateral cooperation could resolve any conflict. This represented a fundamental departure from traditional power politics, reflecting a belief that human nature itself could be transformed through institutional design.

The third pillar was the systematic de-emphasis of collective identities. European societies began viewing religious, ethnic, and national identities not as natural expressions of human social organization, but as potential sources of conflict that needed to be transcended. This approach aimed to create a new type of society where individual rights and universal values would replace traditional group loyalties. The success of this project in reducing internal European conflicts seemed to validate this approach.

2. The Israeli Counterpoint: A Different Path

Israel’s development followed a markedly different trajectory, maintaining what we might call a “survival ethos” that stood in sharp contrast to the European model. Where European nations worked to dissolve collective identities, Israel strengthened them, viewing strong national cohesion as essential for survival. While Europe reduced military capabilities, Israel maintained high military readiness and significant defense spending. This created not just a policy divergence but a fundamental philosophical gap in how each society viewed the relationship between security, identity, and survival.

The Israeli security paradigm, shaped by existential threats and regional challenges, maintained elements that post-war Europe had deliberately rejected: high military readiness, significant defense spending as a proportion of GDP, a security doctrine based on deterrence and rapid military response, and the integration of military service into civilian life through universal conscription. These differences created what analysts call a “philosophical gap” between European and Israeli security perspectives, making it difficult for many Europeans to fully comprehend or sympathize with Israel’s security posture.

3. The Collapse of Post-Historical Illusions

The conflict has dispelled Western post-Cold War assumptions about the end of major European wars, revealing that the previous six decades of peace depended more on American military deterrence than on fundamental changes in international relations.²¹ The Pax Americana, sustained through American funding and weaponry, proved essential for global stability rather than resulting from any inherent evolution in human nature or international conduct.

The erosion of the Westphalian order, marked by Russia’s unchallenged actions in Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), and the ongoing Ukraine war (2022 – present), might have contributed to Hamas’s strategic calculations regarding Israel. In the context of Russia framing its actions as Global South resistance to Western hegemony, and amid growing Western intellectual sympathy for decolonial narratives, Hamas likely calculated that its assault on Israel – portrayed as a Western colonial presence – would garner similar understanding in influential circles.

The outbreak of conflict delivered a devastating blow to the European ethical framework, challenging its foundational assumptions in several critical ways. It demolished the “perpetual peace assumption” that had underpinned European thinking since 1945, proving that economic integration and shared institutions alone could not prevent military aggression. This triggered what scholars describe as the “return of history” – a recognition that traditional power politics and military force remain relevant in international relations.

The response has been dramatic. Germany’s creation of a 100-billion-euro special defense fund (Sondervermögen) and the 30-40 percent increase in NATO members’ military spending represent a fundamental shift in how European societies view the role of military power. This shift has been widespread and concrete: 23 of 32 NATO member states have now committed to spending two percent of their GDP on defense, while the continent has significantly expanded its weapons production capabilities.²² The reported increase in nationalist sentiment in 12 EU member states marks a significant reversal of post-war trends toward diminishing collective identities.

4. The Rise of Social and Political Tensions

The normative transformation has had troubling secondary effects on European society, particularly in the resurgence of political extremism and social tensions. The acceleration of far-right movements across Europe represents a fundamental challenge to post-war democratic consensus. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland party (AfD) has achieved particularly notable success, reaching support levels exceeding 20 percent in certain regions.²³ This surge in right-wing populism represents not just a political shift but a challenge to the post-war consensus that had kept such movements on the margins of European society.

This surge in extremist politics reflects deeper structural changes in European society, particularly the socioeconomic disruptions caused by globalization. The systematic erosion of middle-class economic security has generated widespread social discontent, as younger generations face diminishing prospects of matching their parents’ living standards. The transfer of significant governmental powers to supranational bodies, combined with unprecedented immigration from non-European countries, has created a perfect storm of social and economic anxieties. The Ukraine conflict has accelerated these trends by undermining faith in post-war liberal internationalism, though different political extremes have drawn markedly different conclusions from this disillusionment.

The far-right movements advocate a return to what they perceive as traditional European values – emphasizing patriarchal family structures, Christian identity, ethnic homogeneity, and strong national sovereignty. Their support for Putin’s Russia stems from seeing it as a defender of conservative values against Western liberalism. By contrast, far-left movements (with the notable exception of the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance in Germany) maintain their commitment to post-national multiculturalism and increased immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries. Their sympathy for Putin’s Russia derives instead from anti-Western sentiment and opposition to American hegemony. Despite their opposing views on nationalism and immigration, both extremes pose distinct challenges for European Jewish communities. The far-right’s ethnic nationalism inherently threatens Jewish integration, while the far-left’s combination of post-national ideology and tolerance of imported antisemitism creates its own risks. As seen in the rise of anti-Zionist sentiment among far-left groups, their post-national ethos paradoxically exempts Jewish national aspirations from their otherwise universal support for minority self-determination.

The marked increase in nationalist and xenophobic sentiments has manifested in disturbing ways. According to a July 2024 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights survey, 96 percent of European Jews reported experiencing antisemitism in the past year, with 80 percent feeling it has worsened in recent years. Half worry about their safety and that of their families, and over 70 percent occasionally hide their Jewish identity.²⁴ This alarming trend across Europe signals a troubling breakdown in the post-war commitment to combating religious and ethnic hatred. This rise in antisemitism is particularly concerning given Europe’s post-war commitment to preventing the recurrence of such prejudices.

These developments have created specific challenges for European Jewish communities, who have historically flourished within the framework of liberal democracy. The simultaneous rise of both far-right antisemitism and far-left anti-Zionism has placed these communities in an increasingly precarious bind, reminiscent of historical patterns that many thought Europe had permanently overcome.