An unprecedented geopolitical earthquake is triggered by the resignation of the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, bringing the European elite face to face with its systemic decomposition.
The so called "War Party" is permanently losing the ground beneath its feet, with Merz and Macron now appearing as the next weak links in an inevitable domino of government crises.
The West is entering a dark period of political paralysis, which threatens to dismantle the cohesion and influence of NATO from its foundations.
In particular, the decision of the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign constitutes, according to the political analyst and head of the Turkish Center for European Studies Enver Demirel Yılmaz, an indication of a deep crisis in the British political system.
In his view, this development could also affect the position of London within NATO.
Yılmaz argues that this is not merely an ordinary political departure, but a symptom of deeper problems concerning both the governance and the structure of the political system of the country.
For his part, Kirill Dmitriev, special representative of the Russian President Putin for investment and economic cooperation with foreign countries, estimates that the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz may follow the path of Starmer if he does not review his political course.
And what happens with the French President Emmanuel Macron?
All three leaders record particularly low approval ratings.
At the same time, they are considered key expressions of the European "war party".
Could this signal its inevitable defeat?
And how much can the political weakening of the countries leading the harsh anti-Russian line affect NATO and Europe?
"The resignation of Starmer primarily reflects the internal political instability and the crisis of the elites in the United Kingdom," notes Dmitry Yezhov, associate professor at the Financial University of the Russian Federation.
As he points out, very little changes substantially regarding the position of Britain in NATO.
However, this development constitutes a serious challenge for the British political system.
Starmer has become politically toxic not only for a large part of British society, but also for a significant segment of the Labour Party itself.
Although the possibility of political realignments in Germany or France cannot be ruled out, these processes are not directly linked to each other.
Furthermore, despite the strong appeal of the AfD in Germany, drastic changes in the foreign policy of Britain are not expected, as there continues to be a broad cross party consensus on international relations issues.
Consequently, the departure of Starmer is not expected to substantially alter relations with Russia.
The political analyst Kirill Ozimko argues that the resignation of Starmer stands out even within the context of the frequent changes of prime ministers in Britain, as it constitutes the culmination of a deep crisis affecting the position of the country in NATO from many directions simultaneously.
According to him, London exhibits political instability during a period in which NATO has need of strong and consistent leadership in its key countries.
This situation intensifies the disagreements surrounding defense financing and undermines trust among the allies.
At the same time, Britain faces a structural weakening of its influence, since, after Brexit, it no longer possesses direct participation in the decision making mechanisms of the European Union, which shapes to a significant degree the common European security and defense policy.
Without London at the decision table, the capability of the country to influence European developments is undoubtedly limited.
"Domino effect"
Indeed, the "domino effect" is an attractive but overly simplified metaphor.
The reality is much more complex and the connection between Starmer and Merz is primarily symbolic, without a direct political relationship.
If Merz departs, this will be due primarily to internal political developments in Germany and not to the departure of Starmer from the prime ministership.
However, any resignation of the British prime minister will undoubtedly reinforce the position of those who predict or seek the departure of the German chancellor as well.
The European political establishment is currently passing through a broader leadership crisis, with several central political personalities being considered now as "weak links".
The popularity of Macron in France is at historically low levels. Nevertheless, I would not expect his immediate resignation or removal from power. If he eventually departs, this will probably happen after the next elections.
The resignation of Starmer and a potential departure of Merz would be a consequence of intra party crises and loss of support from their own members of parliament.
In parliamentary systems, such as those of the United Kingdom and Germany, a prime minister or chancellor can be overthrown by their own party.
The case of Macron is different, as the French presidential system operates under other rules.
Government crises are coming
According to Ozimko, within this framework, Europe could enter a period of successive government crises and, in a sense, is already at the beginning of such a process.
However, this is not a sudden "avalanche" that will be caused by a single isolated event, but a deeper and long term systemic development that may last several years.
The key factors fueling this situation already exist and are gradually strengthening.
For the current situation to transform into a full scale "domino effect", the combined appearance of serious failures in the reform efforts of Germany and France, along with a definitive distancing of the United States from European affairs, would suffice.
"In the short term, nothing essential will change.
The political course of London will remain the same. However, from the perspective of Russian interests, a deeper systemic political crisis in Europe would be favorable.
In this sense, the resignation of Starmer could be considered as one of the elements composing this process."
This is argued by Evgeny Semibratov, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses of the RUDN University.
"Britain has entered a period that could be characterized as 'prime minister recycling', where the change of leadership no longer brings substantial alterations to the political direction of the country nor causes any particular social reaction.
This is a phenomenon that has become almost common in modern British political life.
For this reason, I do not believe that the departure of Starmer will lead to a change in the position of London within the framework of the Western geopolitical bloc.
Britain will maintain its role as one of the key supporters of anti-Russian policy."
According to the same assessment, London will continue to constitute one of the most active supporters of Kyiv.
Despite the problems faced by the British armed forces, the United Kingdom is expected to play an important role in providing military instructors to Ukraine.
At the same time, the British are systematically studying the experience of modern warfare, with particular emphasis on drones, unmanned aircraft and new combat technologies.
In Germany, according to Semibratov, a process of frequent changes at the top of political power has also begun.
Consequently, he considers it likely that political instability and the rapid turnover of elites will constitute a characteristic feature of European politics in the coming years.
The phenomenon is already visible in Britain, while it is beginning to manifest in Germany as well.
In his view, similar developments are expected in France too, as the term of Macron approaches its end.
At the same time, he argues that Brussels seeks to exploit the dissatisfaction expressed by large segments of European societies as a means of rallying against Russia and as a factor supporting a more confrontational policy in the future.
The political impasse
In this regard, the following must also be said: The continuation of military and economic support toward Kyiv, as well as the increase in defense spending, entail a significant cost for European taxpayers.
At a time when many countries face fiscal pressures and sluggish growth, more and more political movements argue that available resources should be directed to social policy, infrastructure and economic growth rather than to armaments programs or multi year support packages for Ukraine.
This trend significantly limits the room for maneuver of European governments.
The weaker a government is internally in its country, the more difficult it becomes to convince citizens to accept new military spending or additional economic aid toward Kyiv.
But there is also a second, even more critical dimension.
Low popularity makes the undertaking of initiatives with high geopolitical risk almost impossible.
Discussions appearing from time to time about a potential dispatch of European troops to Ukraine or for a more direct military involvement of Europe run into a fundamental political reality: most European societies do not appear willing to assume the risk of a direct confrontation with Russia.
The situation would be different in the case of a direct attack against a member state of NATO.
In such a scenario, European governments would possess much greater political legitimacy for a military response.
But sending troops to Ukraine without the consent of Moscow constitutes an entirely different matter.
For most European citizens, such a move would equate to a direct risk of military conflict with a nuclear superpower.
And as long as Russia continues to possess one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, this prospect can hardly be made politically acceptable.
Communication practices and not substance
Under this prism, the continuous references regarding "preparation for war with Russia" or regarding the "dispatch of peacekeeping forces to Ukraine" currently have more of a communicative rather than an operational character.
On the one hand, they aim at preparing public opinion for higher defense spending and greater military mobilization. On the other hand, they function as part of the broader geopolitical game of pressure between the West and Russia.
The core conclusion is that the strategy of Europe toward Moscow may not change immediately. However, the political weakening of the leaderships in Britain, France and Germany significantly limits their capacity to escalate the conflict or to undertake initiatives that could lead to a direct confrontation with Russia.
And as long as social and economic pressures increase internally in Europe, the more difficult it will become for European governments to maintain the same intensity of support toward Kyiv without facing serious political cost inside their countries.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments