Who Speaks for “Us”?

Populism and the loss of shared context

Image generated with ChatGPT.

Many people today recognise the same uneasy feeling, even if they describe it in different ways. Decisions are made that shape their lives, yet those decisions seem to come from somewhere else — distant, abstract, impersonal. Not openly hostile, but unfamiliar. As if politics no longer passes through the world they know.

This sense of distance is fertile ground for populism.

Populism is often treated as a political problem: a style of rhetoric, a threat to democracy, a rejection of facts. But it can also be understood differently. Seen through a cultural lens, populism looks less like a doctrine and more like a reaction — a response to the feeling that public life has lost its connection to everyday experience.

At the heart of populism lies a simple question: Who speaks for “us”?
Not who governs most competently, or who follows the rules best, but who feels recognisable. Who understands how life is lived. Who belongs.

Modern democracies rely heavily on rules, procedures and institutions. This is necessary. Complex societies cannot function without clear laws, formal decision-making and expert knowledge. But over time, this way of governing can become distant. Politics begins to speak in the language of policy papers, statistics and legal frameworks — a language that makes sense, yet feels strangely empty.

When legitimacy has to be explained, rather than felt, trust becomes fragile.

Populist leaders thrive in this space. They do not primarily offer better solutions, but a different kind of connection. They speak in simpler terms, draw clear lines, and personalise responsibility. They name enemies and allies. In doing so, they restore a sense of context — even if that context is simplified or exclusionary.

Migration often intensifies these dynamics.

Migration is not only the movement of people; it is the movement of ways of life, habits and expectations. For many, this creates a vague sense of loss: familiar rhythms change, unspoken rules no longer seem shared. Populist narratives turn that unease into a story. Migrants become symbols — not only of change, but of the fear that no one is safeguarding what once felt self-evident.

This also helps explain why facts alone rarely weaken populism. Statistics and policy arguments address questions of efficiency and legality. Populism speaks to something else: recognition, dignity, and the feeling of being seen. When people feel unheard, being corrected does little to restore trust.

None of this means that populism offers good answers. It often simplifies, divides and excludes. But dismissing it as ignorance or manipulation misses the deeper issue. Populism is a signal that shared context is eroding.

The real challenge, then, is not how to silence populism, but how to rebuild forms of politics that reconnect rules with lived experience, and institutions with everyday life.

Who speaks for “us” remains an open question. Ignoring it will not make it disappear — it will only ensure that others answer it more loudly.

How the War in Iran Will Change What We Eat

A farmer asking himself: what now? (Image generated with AI.)

For many Europeans, food still feels predictable. You go to the supermarket, and everything is there. Prices have gone up in recent years, but the system still seems to work.

That sense of stability is now under pressure.

Not because of something happening in European fields, but because of what is happening far away — in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Military tension, blocked shipping routes, and rising insurance risks are disrupting one of the world’s most important trade corridors. As a result, energy prices are climbing, fertiliser supplies are tightening, and transport costs are rising — all at the same time.

What begins there does not stay there.

A system under strain

The Strait of Hormuz is best known for oil, but it is just as critical for natural gas and fertiliser. When that transport route is disrupted, the effects spread quickly. Energy becomes more expensive, fertiliser becomes less available, and moving goods becomes more costly.

These are not separate problems. They reinforce each other — and together they shape the cost and availability of food.

Energy hits the plate first

The impact is already visible across Europe. In the Netherlands, some fishing boats are staying in port because diesel costs have risen to the point where going out to sea is no longer viable. When boats stay in harbour, fish disappears from the market — just as grey shrimp have largely disappeared in recent years when costs became too high.

In Spain, tomatoes that supply much of Northern Europe are becoming more expensive because transport costs have increased sharply. Supermarkets in Germany and Belgium are already adjusting prices to reflect these higher costs, and consumers are noticing.

The pattern is simple: when energy becomes expensive, food follows. And this comes on top of several years of rising food prices, which have already stretched household budgets across Europe.

Fertiliser hits the plate second

At the same time, fertiliser is becoming less available. This is less visible, but just as important.

Modern agriculture depends on fertiliser to maintain yields. When supply tightens, farmers have to make difficult decisions. They may use less fertiliser, switch to crops that require less input, or reduce production altogether.

These decisions happen months before harvest, but their consequences are long-lasting. Lower fertiliser use leads to lower yields, which means less food entering the system later in the year. And because agriculture follows fixed seasonal cycles, a missed opportunity cannot be recovered.

Europe has to adapt

Europe is deeply connected to this system. It depends on imported energy, imported fertiliser, and long supply chains that link producers and consumers across borders. When all three come under pressure at once, the effects begin to accumulate.

Food becomes more expensive, some products become less available, and choices narrow. This is not a sudden shock, but a gradual tightening of the system.

Diets will have to adapt — not by choice, but by necessity.

A harder reality

For a long time, Europe has lived with the assumption that food is always available, that no matter what happens elsewhere, the shelves will remain full.

The war in Iran shows how fragile that assumption is. Food depends on energy, on fertiliser, and on stable global trade routes. When those are disrupted, the effects travel far — and they reach into everyday life.

What is changing is not just the price of food. It is something more fundamental: the quiet return of a reality Europe once knew well — that what we eat is shaped by forces far beyond our control, and that those forces can shift faster than we expect.

Myth, Memory, and Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer

The two Marys in their boat, symbolizing the legendary arrival of early Christians on this shore.

A Story from the Sea

At the edge of the Camargue, where land fades into marsh and sea, stands a church that looks like a fortress. It is here that local tradition places a striking beginning.

The story does not start here, however, but far to the east, in the lands of Palestine. In the years following the death of Christ, his followers were increasingly under pressure—from both Roman authorities and local opposition. According to tradition, a small group of women and early believers were forced to flee. They were placed in a fragile boat, without sail or rudder, and cast out to sea.

Carried by currents rather than by human control, the boat drifted across the Mediterranean until it reached this remote coastline. On board were Marie Jacobé and Marie Salomé, close relatives of Jesus, and, in many versions, Mary Magdalene. With them was also a woman named Sara, whose story would take on a life of its own in the centuries that followed.

Whether history or legend, the power of the story lies in the journey itself: a passage from persecution to arrival, from uncertainty to landfall—here, at the edge of Europe.

The fortified church of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer.

A Sanctuary of Stone and Presence

The church reflects both danger and refuge. Built as a defensive structure against attacks from the sea, it offered physical protection in turbulent times. Inside, however, the atmosphere softens. The Romanesque forms, filtered light, and quiet spatial rhythm create a sense of inward movement.

Above the altar, the two Marys are shown in a boat, a simple image that captures the essence of the story. Below, in the crypt, stands Sara—known as Sara la Noire—covered in layers of cloaks, jewelry, and offerings brought by pilgrims. These gifts are acts of gratitude or hope, not decoration.

The statue of Sara la Noire, covered in offerings from pilgrims—an enduring symbol of listening, protection, and devotion.

Sara’s origins are uncertain, but her meaning today is clear. She is especially revered by Roma and travelling communities, who see in her a figure of recognition and protection. She has been described as one who listens—a presence for those who feel unheard.

Ritual, Memory, and Mystery

Each year, especially in May, the town fills with pilgrims. Statues of the saints are carried from the church to the sea, and often into the water itself, recalling their legendary arrival. These processions are not simply reenactments; they are lived experiences, marked by strong emotion and a sense of shared participation.

Throughout the church, ex-votos—small offerings left behind—tell personal stories of illness, survival, and gratitude. Together, they form a quiet testimony to the human need for meaning, connection, and hope.

Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer resists simple explanation. It is a place where legend, history, and personal experience merge, and where the mystery itself becomes part of its power. People arrive out of curiosity or belief, but many leave with the sense that something has shifted—however slightly—within them.

Hannah Arendt, AI and Social Media: The Risks of a World That Thinks for Us

A portrait of Hannah Arendt created with AI.

Hannah Arendt (1906 - 1975) is often seen as a thinker of the past, shaped by the rise of totalitarian regimes in 20th-century Europe, especially Nazi Germany. But her work is not just about that time. It is about something more basic: what happens when people stop thinking for themselves.

One of her most striking ideas came from watching the trial of Adolf Eichmann. She expected to see a monster. Instead, she saw an ordinary man who followed rules and spoke in clichés. He did not really think about what he was doing. That led her to a simple but troubling insight: great harm can come from people who do not think.

This idea feels very relevant today. The world around us makes thinking easier to avoid. Social media rewards quick reactions instead of careful reflection. Algorithms show us what we already agree with. AI tools give us fast, clear answers. None of this forces us to stop thinking—but it does make it easier not to.

Arendt also believed that this kind of situation often grows out of loneliness. When people feel disconnected from others and from the world around them, they look for simple explanations and guidance. In the past, political ideologies filled that gap. Today, digital platforms and AI sometimes play a similar role. They offer connection, but often in a way that stays on the surface and does not challenge us.

This links to a question that is becoming more important: what do we lose when technology does more for us? AI can help us work faster and find answers quickly. But if we start relying on it for judgment, interpretation, or even conversation, we may slowly lose the habit of thinking things through ourselves.

Arendt also warned that the real danger is not just lies, but confusion about what is true. In today’s digital world, information is filtered and repeated in ways that can make almost anything seem believable. AI adds to this by producing answers that sound convincing, even when they are not fully reliable. Something can feel right without actually being true.

This creates a problem. The world may seem clear and coherent, but it becomes harder to question or check what we see.

We are not living under totalitarian rule. But some of the conditions Arendt described are still present: people feeling disconnected, a weaker sense of shared reality, and a growing reliance on systems that guide our thinking.

Arendt did not offer simple solutions. Instead, she stressed something more basic. Thinking is not just a skill—it is a responsibility. It takes time, effort, and a willingness to pause and reflect.

In a world where technology makes everything faster and easier, that responsibility becomes more important.

The real question is not what AI and social media can do for us. It is whether we continue to think for ourselves.

The Giant Clay Jars of Valdepeñas (Spain)

Rows of traditional clay tinajas in an underground cellar in Valdepeñas.

If you descend into one of the old wine cellars of Valdepeñas, you may find yourself walking through a silent forest of giant clay vessels. These monumental jars, called tinajas, once formed the heart of the region’s winemaking tradition. Some are taller than a person and can hold thousands of litres of wine.

Wine has been produced in this part of La Mancha for a very long time. Archaeological evidence suggests that vines were already cultivated here by Iberian peoples and later by the Romans. The written history of the town itself begins in 1243, when several small settlements in the “Valley of Stones” were united under the name Valdepeñas—a place already known for its wine culture.

By the early modern period, the region had become one of the major wine suppliers of central Spain. When Madrid became the royal capital in the 16th century, demand for wine increased dramatically, and the vineyards around Valdepeñas expanded to meet the needs of the growing city.

In those centuries, the wine was not stored in small oak barrels as we often imagine today. Instead, it was kept in enormous earthenware vats like the tinajas seen in the photo. Some traditional vessels held more than a thousand litres and were sometimes partly buried in the ground to keep the temperature stable during fermentation and storage.

The cellars themselves were often carved into the soft limestone beneath the town. In the cool darkness, rows of these giant jars stored the harvest of the surrounding vineyards. Wine could ferment slowly, settle naturally, and remain stable for long periods before being transported to other cities.

In the 19th century Valdepeñas entered a new phase. Railways connected the town to the rest of Spain, and large quantities of wine were shipped across the country and even overseas. The town became one of Spain’s best-known wine centres, a reputation that continues today with its protected designation of origin (D.O. Valdepeñas).

Modern wineries now rely mostly on stainless-steel tanks and smaller oak barrels. Yet many historic bodegas still preserve their old tinajas. Walking between them is like stepping back into an earlier chapter of European wine history—when wine was produced and stored on a monumental scale beneath the streets of Valdepeñas.

From the Marquis de Sade to Jeffrey Epstein

Power, Desire, and the Abuse of Freedom

An AI portrait of Jeffrey Epstein and Marquis de Sade.

In the late eighteenth century, Europe was in upheaval. Monarchies were collapsing, revolutions were spreading, and Enlightenment thinkers were promoting reason, equality, and human dignity. It was in this charged atmosphere that the Marquis de Sade lived and wrote.

De Sade was not just a controversial thinker. He was repeatedly accused—and in several cases convicted—of serious abuse of vulnerable people, including coercion, violence, and the exploitation of young women and prostitutes. His writings did not merely describe cruelty; they celebrated it, presenting domination and suffering as legitimate forms of pleasure.

Even in an age that was questioning authority and tradition, this crossed a line. He spent long periods in prison. Society, however inconsistently, recognized that what he represented was not freedom, but a radical denial of human dignity.

Power Without Accountability

More than two centuries later, Jeffrey Epstein operated in a world of global elites—private jets, luxury properties, and access to political and scientific influence.

Epstein was not a theorist. His actions are documented in court cases and testimonies. He:

• recruited, abused and traficked underage girls, often through a network of intermediaries

• paid victims, normalizing exploitation as a transaction

• maintained properties where abuse took place over extended periods

• cultivated relationships with powerful individuals, some of whom continued to associate with him even after his conviction in 2008

This was not hidden in the shadows alone. Warning signs were visible. Yet access, status, and influence allowed him to continue for years.

The Same Logic, Different Language

What links de Sade and Epstein is not just what they did, but how their actions reflect a deeper mindset.

De Sade argued openly that:

• moral limits are artificial

• the strong have the right to dominate

• empathy is weakness

Epstein never wrote this down, but his behavior followed the same logic. The systematic nature of his actions—organizing, paying, and repeating abuse—points to more than impulse. It suggests a belief that others exist to be used.

In both cases, human beings were reduced to objects:
for pleasure, for control, or for experimentation.

Epstein’s reported interest in genetic “improvement” adds another layer. It echoes older, dangerous ideas that some people are superior and entitled to shape the future of others.

A Necessary Judgment

It is tempting to respond to stories like these with cynicism—to say that all elites are corrupt, that morality is a façade, that nothing really changes.

But that reaction risks blurring something essential: not everything is the same, and not everything is acceptable.

What de Sade described and what Epstein practiced are not controversial lifestyles or boundary-pushing ideas. They are clear violations of human dignity:

• coercion

• exploitation of the vulnerable

• abuse of power

De Sade was imprisoned because his actions and ideas were recognized as dangerous. Epstein was eventually arrested and exposed because, despite failures, there were still institutions and individuals willing to act.

That is the line that matters.

Freedom does not include the right to harm others.
Power does not justify exploitation.
Intelligence does not excuse abuse.

The comparison between these two men should not lead to fascination, but to clarity. Across centuries, the pattern is the same—and so must be the response: firm rejection.

Further Reading

• Marquis de Sade – Justine

• Neil Schaeffer – The Marquis de Sade: A Life

• Julie K. Brown – Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

When Farming Reached Iberia - the Neolithic transition

Neolithic decorated clay vessel (c. 5500–3500 BC) from the Cueva del Higuerón near Rincón de la Victoria (Málaga), now displayed in the Museo de Málaga. Hand-made and decorated with impressed patterns, pots like this belong to the earliest farming communities of the Iberian Peninsula.

Around 7,500–5,500 years ago, life on the Iberian Peninsula began to change in a profound way. For thousands of years people had lived as hunter-gatherers, moving through landscapes rich in animals, plants and marine resources. But during the sixth millennium BC, new communities appeared along the Mediterranean coast bringing something revolutionary: farming and herding.

Archaeologists call this moment the Neolithic transition.

The Arrival of the First Farmers

The first Neolithic communities of Iberia cultivated crops such as wheat and barley and kept sheep and goats. They used polished stone tools, flint sickles for harvesting, and—perhaps most visibly—ceramic vessels. These early farming groups did not appear everywhere at once. The earliest sites are often found along the Mediterranean coast, especially in caves and rock shelters. From these coastal footholds, farming gradually spread inland.

Archaeologists believe these communities likely arrived by sea from other parts of the western Mediterranean, possibly from the Italian or Ligurian coasts. Another possibility, still debated, is that some groups reached southern Iberia from North Africa across the Strait of Gibraltar. Wherever they came from, their arrival created one of the most important cultural encounters in European prehistory: the meeting between incoming farmers and local hunter-gatherers.

A Landscape of Caves and Coasts

Southern Iberia—especially the coast of Málaga and Granada—is rich in caves that preserve traces of this transition. These caves were often occupied repeatedly for thousands of years.

At sites along the Andalusian coast, archaeological layers show the gradual shift from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to Early Neolithic farmers, including pottery fragments, stone tools, shell ornaments, and remains of domesticated animals.

Even after farming arrived, people continued to exploit the sea. Shellfish, fish, and other marine resources remained important in daily life along the Mediterranean coast.

In other words, the Neolithic did not replace earlier traditions overnight—it blended with them.

A Pot from the Beginning of Farming

A quiet witness to this transformation can be seen today in the Museo de Málaga. The clay vessel shown here was found in the Cueva del Higuerón, a cave near Rincón de la Victoria, just east of Málaga. It dates to the Neolithic period between about 7,500 and 5,500 years ago. At first glance it may look simple: a hand-made clay pot with decorative impressions along its rim. But this object tells an important story. Pottery like this is one of the clearest signs that a community had entered the Neolithic world. Clay vessels allowed people to store grain, cook food, and transport liquids, making them closely connected to farming life.

Unlike modern ceramics, Neolithic pots were made without a potter’s wheel. The clay was shaped by hand, decorated with simple impressions or incised patterns, and fired in basic kilns or open hearths. Each pot was therefore unique. The decorative band around the rim of this vessel—made by pressing tools or cords into the wet clay—was not strictly necessary. It was a human touch: a moment where utility became design.

A Quiet Revolution

When we look at objects like this pot, we are seeing the material traces of one of the biggest revolutions in human history.

The introduction of farming meant:

• more permanent settlements

• new technologies such as pottery

• domesticated animals and crops

• new social structures and ways of organizing land.

Within a few centuries, these early farmers transformed landscapes across the Iberian Peninsula.

Yet the people who made this vessel were still close to older traditions. They lived in caves near the sea, gathered shellfish, hunted animals, and moved through familiar territories that had been used by hunter-gatherers long before them.

This clay pot, now resting in a museum display case, therefore stands at the meeting point of two worlds: the last hunter-gatherers and the first farmers of Iberia.

The Four Troublesome Heads by Georges Méliès

While visiting the Museo Picasso Málaga, we unexpectedly encountered a small piece of film history: Un Homme de Tête (1898) by the French filmmaker and magician Georges Méliès.

The film lasts barely a minute. Méliès sits at a table, removes his own head, places it on the table, and then calmly grows a new one. Soon several identical heads are singing and moving next to each other like a strange little choir.

For audiences in 1898, this must have looked like pure magic. In reality Méliès used simple but ingenious techniques such as multiple exposures and stop-camera editing—methods that made the camera itself a magician’s tool.

Seeing this playful experiment in the Picasso Museum makes sense in an unexpected way. Artists of the early twentieth century were fascinated by new ways of showing reality. Just as Méliès multiplied his own head on screen, Pablo Picasso would later fragment faces and perspectives in his paintings.

Different media, but the same spirit: curiosity, experimentation, and the joy of discovering what images can do.

And all of it captured in a film that lasts barely a minute.

Can the U.S. and Israel Win a War with Iran — Or Has Winning Become Impossible?

At the start of the war, the language was familiar: targets destroyed, capabilities reduced, pressure increasing. It is the language of progress — and ultimately, of victory.

But very quickly, a more difficult question emerges: what would “winning” actually look like?

Is it destroying Iran’s military capacity, stopping its nuclear ambitions, forcing regime change, or simply restoring deterrence? These are not the same objectives. Some are military, others political, and some may not be achievable at all. When goals diverge, even success on the battlefield can fail to produce a clear outcome.

More striking still is that the strategic rationale itself remains unclear. This is not just a hard war to win — it is a war whose end state is difficult to define.

Why Military Success Is No Longer Enough

For much of modern history, war followed a simple logic: defeat the enemy’s army, and political results would follow. That logic still matters, but it no longer works on its own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Ukraine all show the same pattern: military superiority does not guarantee a lasting political outcome. Power can dominate the battlefield without shaping the result.

There is also a more practical constraint. Modern warfare depends on complex, expensive systems — missiles, interceptors, air defense — that cannot be produced quickly or in unlimited quantities. Stockpiles are limited, and production capacity is slow to expand.

A war can be started quickly. Sustaining it is much harder.

A War of Endurance, Not Decision

In this conflict, the asymmetry is clear. The United States and Israel need visible results. Iran may only need to endure.

At the same time, the war extends beyond the battlefield into a wider system of constraints:

• Energy markets, where disruption affects global oil and gas flows

• Regional stability, where escalation spreads beyond a single front

• Military supply chains, where limited production constrains the pace of war

• Domestic support, where public opinion limits how long governments can continue

These pressures reinforce each other. Rising costs, strained supply chains, and political fatigue make prolonged conflict increasingly difficult to sustain.

The burden is not evenly shared. The United States itself faces limited direct risk, but its allies depend heavily on scarce and expensive defensive systems. The ability to continue the war may depend less on offensive success than on whether these partners can hold out.

At the same time, the economic impact spreads far beyond the region — through oil, gas, shipping, and even fertilizer markets — often hitting the most vulnerable countries hardest.

Together, these pressures define what economic resilience now means in practice: the ability to absorb shocks, sustain pressure, and continue functioning under disruption.

In this kind of conflict, time works differently. The stronger side seeks a quick result. The weaker side benefits from delay. The longer the war lasts, the less likely a decisive outcome becomes.

Ending Without Losing Face

If objectives are unclear, resources constrained, and outcomes shaped by forces beyond direct control, then the question is no longer how to win, but how to end the war.

That is a harder problem. Ending such a conflict requires a way out that allows all sides to step back without appearing to lose. These exits are political, negotiated, and often ambiguous.

The longer the war continues, the harder this becomes. Costs rise, positions harden, and expectations can make compromise politically untenable. At the same time, the complexity of the conflict makes it increasingly difficult for any one actor to control its trajectory.

The real question, then, is not whether the United States and Israel can win this war, but whether their leaders are willing and able to shift from a logic of victory to a logic of termination.

If they are not, the war may continue not because it can be won, but because it has become too difficult to end.

Further Reading

• Rupert Smith — The Utility of Force

• Donald Stoker — Why Nations Lose Wars

• Hew Strachan (ed.) — The Changing Character of War

• Adam Tooze — lectures on war and the global economy (On YouTube)

Rastapopoulos and the Business of Influence

Image created with AI

In the adventures of Tintin (1929 - 1976), villains rarely appear as villains. They wear good suits, run international companies, and speak the language of progress and opportunity. At first glance, these stories may seem like a story from another time. Yet the patterns they reveal feel uncomfortably close to decisions being made in our own time.

No one embodies the dealmakers that we are talking about better than Roberto Rastapopoulos, the cigar-smoking tycoon who first appeared in Cigars of the Pharaoh (1934). Behind his elegant offices and film studios lay a network of smuggling, bribery, and intimidation that stretched across continents.

Rastapopoulos’ genius was not the crime itself, but his ability to make the system work for him.

If Hergé were writing the stories today, Rastapopoulos would probably not be dealing in opium or stolen jewels. His warehouse might instead contain rows of AI drones, missile components, and autonomous aircraft being prepared for “defense contracts.”

Everything would look perfectly legitimate.

Government officials would speak about security. Companies would talk about innovation. Investors would discuss growth markets.

But Tintin — and readers of Tintin — would look beyond the hardware.

• A contract appears after a convenient political donation.

• A procurement board is chaired by an old acquaintance.

• A strategic position goes to a relative of someone powerful.

• A competitor quietly withdraws after an unpleasant conversation.

Corruption opens doors. Nepotism keeps them open.

From the outside it all looks modern, technical, even respectable. Yet the structure behind it would be instantly familiar to anyone who has followed the adventures of Tintin.

Because in Rastapopoulos’ world, the real product was never opium, diamonds, or weapons. The real product was influence. And influence, once captured, can move markets, governments — and sometimes even wars.

The Celts: Europe’s First Cultural Network

Image created with AI

When we travel slowly across Europe — as many culture lovers do — we begin to notice something curious. Landscapes change, languages shift, cuisines evolve. Yet certain patterns return: hilltop settlements, spiral motifs, sacred springs, warrior legends. Part of this shared layer goes back to a people who never built an empire and never wrote their own history, but who shaped Europe in lasting ways: the Celts.

A Cultural Europe Before Political Europe

The Celts were not one nation. They were a wide network of tribes who shared languages, beliefs, artistic styles and ways of life. At their height, they spread from Ireland to Anatolia in modern Turkey.

What they created was something like a cultural Europe long before any political unity existed. They travelled, traded, fought, and mixed with local populations. Rather than replacing earlier cultures, they blended with them. This is why so many regions in Europe still feel both different and strangely connected.

From Alpine Origins to a Continent

Their earliest roots lie in the Alpine world of the early Iron Age. These were skilled farmers, miners and traders. Salt, copper and tin brought wealth. Trade connected them to the Mediterranean, and prosperity encouraged expansion.

Over centuries, Celtic groups moved into Gaul, Iberia, the British Isles and Central Europe. They helped shape early versions of cities that would later become Paris, Lyon, Vienna and London. In many places, hybrid cultures emerged. In Spain, for example, Celtiberian societies combined Celtic and Iberian traditions.

Europe, even then, was a layered landscape.

Warriors, Poets and Craftsmen

Ancient writers often focused on Celtic warfare, but archaeology reveals a more complex society. The Celts valued beauty, craftsmanship and storytelling. Their jewellery and weapons were highly sophisticated. Poets and musicians held respected roles. Druids acted as religious leaders, judges and teachers.

Trade and craftsmanship were prestigious paths. Metalworkers and merchants enjoyed status close to that of elites. This world encouraged individuality and self-expression — something that still resonates in Europe’s regional cultures today.

Why They Never Built an Empire

Despite their vast reach, the Celts never formed a unified state. Loyalty remained local. Rivalries between tribes were frequent. When Rome expanded, Celtic resistance was fierce but fragmented.

The Romans brought organisation, discipline and long-term strategy. Gradually, most Celtic regions were absorbed. Yet conquest did not erase local traditions. Instead, Roman structures blended with Celtic cultures, creating new forms of society across Europe.

A Legacy That Never Disappeared

By the early centuries of our era, Celtic political power had faded. But their cultural influence remained. Languages survived in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany. Myths and artistic traditions shaped medieval Europe. Place names, landscapes and festivals still carry their imprint.

The Celtic story reminds us that Europe was never built only by empires. It grew through movement, exchange and cultural mixing. In that sense, the Celts were among the first to live the reality of a connected yet diverse continent.

If we travel with curiosity, we can still see their traces — not as isolated ruins, but as part of a shared European memory.

Further Reading

• Barry Cunliffe — The Ancient Celts

• Miranda Aldhouse-Green — The Celtic World

• John Collis — The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions

• Archaeological guides to major Celtic sites such as Hallstatt, Bibracte and Numantia

Rutger Bregman and the Possibility of a Better World

Rutger Bregman

In a time when public debate often assumes the worst about human nature, the Dutch historian and writer Rutger Bregman has built a career around a strikingly different idea: most people are fundamentally decent, cooperative, and capable of building a better society—if institutions allow it.

His books, especially Utopia for Realists and Humankind: A Hopeful History, combine history, social science, and moral argument to challenge common assumptions about human behavior, poverty, and economic systems.

A More Optimistic View of Human Nature

At the center of Bregman’s thinking is a simple but controversial claim: humans are not naturally selfish and violent. Instead, cooperation, empathy, and trust have been crucial to our evolutionary success.

Many famous historical stories, he argues, reinforce an overly pessimistic image of humanity. Looking more closely at history—from wartime behavior to everyday crises—often reveals the opposite: people helping one another rather than descending into chaos.

If this more optimistic view is correct, it has important consequences for politics and economics.

Poverty as a Lack of Money

One of Bregman’s most famous arguments concerns poverty. Rather than seeing poverty as a moral failure, he describes it as something simpler: a shortage of money.

From this perspective, direct support—simply giving people money—can be one of the most effective solutions. This idea lies behind his support for a universal basic income, a policy in which every citizen receives a regular payment from the state.

Supporters argue that such a system could reduce bureaucracy, eliminate extreme poverty, and give people greater freedom to shape their own lives.

A Critique of Modern Capitalism

Bregman does not call for the abolition of markets or capitalism. Instead, he argues that modern capitalism operates under rules that often favor the wealthiest actors.

One of his most widely discussed moments came during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he criticized global elites for celebrating philanthropy while avoiding serious discussion about taxation. For Bregman, fair taxation and the closing of tax havens are essential for a more balanced economic system.

Rethinking Work

Another theme in Bregman’s work concerns the nature of modern work. He has helped popularize the debate about so-called “bullshit jobs”—roles that even the people performing them feel contribute little to society.

At the same time, many socially essential professions—teachers, nurses, and caregivers—often receive lower pay and status. This contrast, he argues, suggests that markets do not always reward what is most valuable to society.

What His Vision Would Mean

If Bregman’s ideas were widely implemented, the result would not be a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism but a redesign of its rules.

Extreme poverty might largely disappear through direct income support, taxation systems could become more transparent, and social policy would rely more on trust than suspicion.

Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, Bregman’s work invites readers to consider a simple question: what kind of institutions would we build if we truly believed that most people are basically good?

Further Reading

• Rutger Bregman - Utopia for Realists

• Rutger Bregman - Humankind: A Hopeful History

• Davos speech by Rutger Bregman at the World Economic Forum (2019)

• David Graeber – Bullshit Jobs

Cancho Roano: A Sacred Complex in Iron Age Spain

An artist impression of Cancho Roano.

In the quiet countryside of Extremadura, far from Spain’s main tourist routes, lies one of the most intriguing archaeological sites of the Iberian Peninsula: Cancho Roano.

At first glance the place looks modest—low walls, foundations, and a protective structure over the excavation. Yet beneath this calm landscape lies the story of a sophisticated Iron Age society that was deeply connected to the wider Mediterranean world.

Cancho Roano is not just an archaeological site. It is one of the most fascinating puzzles of prehistoric Spain.

An Accidental Discovery

The site came to light almost by accident.

For a long time a low mound near the town of Zalamea de la Serena was believed to be nothing more than the remains of an old agricultural structure. In the 1970s, when the landowner tried to level the mound for farming, workers encountered thick walls of adobe and stone, together with ancient objects.

Archaeologists quickly realized that the mound concealed something extraordinary. Excavations began in 1978 and soon revealed a large and carefully planned building hidden inside the hill.

A Monument from the Iron Age

The complex dates roughly between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE, during the Iron Age, centuries before the Romans arrived in Spain.

At that time the Iberian Peninsula was home to many different cultures. Communities in the southwest were linked through trade to Phoenician merchants from the eastern Mediterranean and later to Greek traders. Through these contacts luxury goods, new technologies, and religious ideas spread far inland.

Cancho Roano seems to belong to this world of exchange and cultural mixing.

The archeological site of Cancho Roana.

Palace, Sanctuary, or Both?

The building itself is surprisingly sophisticated.

Constructed on a stone platform and surrounded by a wide moat, the complex is organized around a central courtyard. Rows of small rooms line the sides of the building. Archaeologists found storage spaces, working areas, and rooms that appear to have had ritual functions.

The objects discovered there are remarkable: bronze vessels, imported Greek pottery, ivory pieces, jewelry, and tools related to textile production.

Because of this mixture of finds, archaeologists still debate the exact function of the site. Some see it as a sanctuary, a sacred place where rituals and offerings were made. Others interpret it as the residence of a local elite, a rural center of power that controlled agricultural production and trade.

Many scholars today think it may have been both: a palace-sanctuary, where political authority and religious practice were closely linked.

A Mediterranean World in Western Spain

One of the most fascinating aspects of Cancho Roano is how strongly it reflects connections with the wider Mediterranean.

The architecture shows similarities with sacred buildings found in places such as Etruria in Italy or Phoenician sites around the Mediterranean. Imported ceramics and luxury goods confirm that the community living here was not isolated. Instead, it was part of a network of exchange stretching across the ancient world.

Even in this rural corner of Extremadura, people were connected to distant cultures and ideas.

A Deliberate End

The story of Cancho Roano ends in a mysterious way.

Around the late 5th century BCE the building was deliberately destroyed. Before abandoning the site, its occupants carefully burned parts of the complex and then sealed the structure beneath layers of earth.

This does not appear to have been the result of war or accident. Instead, archaeologists believe it was a ritual closure—a symbolic act marking the end of the sanctuary’s life.

Why this happened remains unknown.

Why Cancho Roano Matters

Cancho Roano is unique in western Europe. Few places offer such a clear glimpse into the complex societies that existed in Iberia before the Roman conquest.

The site shows that these communities built monumental architecture, accumulated wealth, and maintained connections with the Mediterranean world. It reveals a society where religion, politics, and trade were closely intertwined.

Standing among the quiet ruins today, it is easy to forget how vibrant this place once was. Yet Cancho Roano reminds us that long before Rome arrived, southwestern Spain was already part of a dynamic and interconnected ancient world.

Further Reading

Sebastián Celestino Pérez & Javier Jiménez Ávila — El Palacio-Santuario de Cancho Roano
José María Blázquez Martínez — El Santuario de Cancho Roano
Javier Jiménez Ávila — Cancho Roano y la Protohistoria de Extremadura
Manuel Bendala Galán — Protohistoria de la Península Ibérica

A Necklace from 5000 Years Ago

Shell necklace from the Early Copper Age (c. 3000 BC), made from pierced seashells and discovered in the dolmen of Cuesta de los Almendrillos near Alozaina (Málaga). Now displayed in the Museo de Málaga.

In a quiet display case in the Museo de Málaga lies something unexpectedly familiar: a necklace made entirely of small seashells. At first glance it looks almost modern — the kind of necklace you might see today in a seaside market.

Yet this one is about 5,000 years old.

The necklace was found in the dolmen of Cuesta de los Almendrillos, near Alozaina, and dates to the Early Copper Age. Each shell was carefully pierced and strung together into a long loop. Some are smooth, some still show their fine natural ridges, but together they form something unmistakable: jewelry.

And that is the first surprise.

When we look at this necklace, we are not looking at something strange from a distant prehistoric world. We are looking at something that would not feel out of place today. Walk through a coastal market anywhere around the Mediterranean and you will find shell necklaces that look remarkably similar.

Five thousand years have passed — yet the idea is exactly the same.

A Necklace Worn in Life

Objects like this often come from megalithic tombs, collective burial monuments built by early farming communities across Iberia. The dolmen at Cuesta de los Almendrillos was one such place. People were buried there together with objects that mattered to them: tools, pottery, and sometimes personal ornaments.

But a necklace like this was almost certainly not made for the tomb. It was worn in life.

Someone once gathered these shells, pierced them one by one, and threaded them onto a cord. Someone wore this around their neck — perhaps daily, perhaps on special occasions. Shells also hint at connections: they come from the sea, and inland communities often valued them precisely because they traveled from elsewhere.

The Familiarity of the Past

Standing in front of the display in the Museo de Málaga, the realization slowly settles in.

Humans still collect beautiful things from the sea.
We still pierce them.
We still string them together.
We still wear them.

Materials change — gold, silver, glass, plastic — but the impulse is identical. Jewelry is one of the most persistent human habits, appearing in cultures across the world and deep in the archaeological record.

This simple necklace reminds us that the people of the Copper Age were not so different from us.

Five thousand years ago, somewhere in southern Iberia, someone held a handful of shells and had the same simple thought many people have had since:

These would make a beautiful necklace.

Streets that made a city: the Decumanus Maximus and Cardo Salvius of Roman Cartagena

When we think of Roman cities, we tend to think in monuments. But Rome was built first on streets.

In ancient Carthago Nova — today’s Cartagena — two main axes shaped the city: the Decumanus Maximus, running east to west, and the Cardo Salvius, running north to south. Together, they organised movement, power and daily life. Before entering a theatre or a forum, you were already inside Rome simply by walking these roads.

The Decumanus Maxima: an urban spine

The Decumanus Maximus in Cartagena.

The Decumanus Maximus was Cartagena’s main east–west artery. Adapted to a hilly landscape and a busy harbour, it was not a ceremonial boulevard but a working street. Shops opened onto it, carts passed through it, conversations and transactions filled it. This was Rome as routine rather than spectacle.

The Cardo Salvius: life at street level

The Cardo Salvius in Cartagena.

Crossing the decumanus was the Cardo Salvius, the city’s principal north–south street. Its name hints at importance and local pride. Lined with houses, workshops and public buildings, it connected residential areas with the civic and economic heart of the city. This was a street designed for presence, not speed.

Roman Cartagena (Carthago Nova) you can still walk today

What makes Cartagena special is that these streets are still visible. Near Parque de El Lago, sections of both the decumanus and the Cardo Salvius lie exposed at their original level. Wheel ruts, paving stones and drainage lines remain clearly readable. Here, Rome is not imagined — it is encountered underfoot.

Where streets became a city

The intersection of decumanus and cardo was the core of Roman Cartagena. From this logic flowed the forum, the theatre and other monuments. Streets came first; buildings followed.

Rome did not rule only through emperors and armies. It ruled through infrastructure, repetition and familiarity. In Cartagena, that logic is still written in stone.

What Evolution Teaches Us About Power and Conflict

John Maynard Smith

In 1973, the British evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith published a book that would quietly reshape how scientists think about conflict: Evolution and the Theory of Games.

Maynard Smith, who spent much of his career at University of Oxford, was not writing about politics or diplomacy. He was studying animals. Yet his ideas may help explain a surprising amount about the modern geopolitical world.

Hawks and Doves

Maynard Smith introduced a simple model to understand conflict in nature. Imagine two types of behavior:

• Hawks escalate immediately. They fight aggressively for territory, food, or status.

• Doves avoid real fighting. They threaten a little, display strength, but retreat before serious damage occurs.

When two hawks meet, the result can be destructive: both risk injury.
When a hawk meets a dove, the hawk wins easily.
When two doves meet, they avoid costly violence and usually share or withdraw.

The key insight was striking: if the cost of fighting is high enough, a population made entirely of hawks is unstable. Pure aggression destroys itself. Nature therefore tends to produce a balance of strategies — what Maynard Smith called an evolutionarily stable strategy. Conflict exists. But it is limited.

Why Threats Often Replace War

Across the animal world, species rarely fight to the death. Instead, they rely on ritualized displays: antlers clashing, birds spreading wings, animals roaring or circling. These displays are not pointless theatre. They are a way to signal strength while avoiding catastrophic costs. In other words, nature evolved something that looks suspiciously like deterrence.

The Geopolitical Parallel

Look at today’s world and the pattern becomes recognizable.

Great powers threaten. They posture. They test each other’s resolve.
Military exercises replace battles. Sanctions replace invasions.
Rhetoric escalates while leaders quietly try to avoid direct collision.

From the perspective of Maynard Smith’s model, this is not surprising. When the cost of war becomes extreme — especially in a nuclear age — a world of constant hawks becomes dangerously unstable. If every actor behaves like a hawk, sooner or later two hawks collide. And in modern geopolitics, the injuries would be catastrophic.

The Dangerous Moment

But Maynard Smith’s work also highlights something unsettling.

Stable systems depend on a recognition of costs.

If leaders begin to believe that conflict will be cheap — or that opponents will always retreat — hawkish strategies suddenly become attractive. Escalation becomes rational again. History shows that many wars begin precisely when actors misjudge those costs. In evolutionary terms, the system briefly forgets the price of being a hawk.

A Lesson from Evolution

Maynard Smith never intended his work as political theory. Yet it offers a useful lens for understanding power and conflict. Peace is rarely the result of goodwill alone. More often, it emerges from a shared understanding that some fights are simply too expensive to win. Nature discovered this long before humans invented diplomacy. The real question for our time is whether political leaders still remember the same lesson.

Further Reading

• John Maynard Smith - Evolution and the Theory of Games

• John Maynard Smith & George.R. Price - The Logic of Animal Conflict

• Richard Dawkins – The Selfish Gene

Ukraine and the Old European Story of the Small Village That Refused to Surrender

Some covers of English editions of the Asterix comic.

Every Asterix comic begins with the same idea: Gaul is entirely occupied by the Romans. Well, not entirely. One small community still holds out — the village of Asterix.

The story is humorous, but the theme is ancient and deeply European: the tension between large empires and small societies that refuse to submit.

In the comics, Rome represents overwhelming power. The empire has legions, roads, administration, and the confidence that its expansion is inevitable. Around the village stand Roman camps that symbolize imperial order.

The village of Asterix is the opposite: small, noisy, and stubbornly independent. Its inhabitants argue constantly, its chief is carried around on a shield, and its strength comes from the magic potion brewed by the druid Getafix.

Yet somehow, the village holds out.

The comparison is not perfect, but the image inevitably recalls Ukraine today. Faced with a far larger neighbor that claims historical and strategic rights over its territory, Ukraine has refused to accept that size alone determines the outcome.

In the Asterix stories, the villagers rely on magic potion. Ukraine relies on determination, technological ingenuity, and the support of a coalition that does not want the rules of Europe rewritten by force.

Europe’s history is full of similar moments. Time and again, small communities resisted larger empires — sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

That is why the story of the village of Asterix still resonates. It reflects a deeply rooted European belief: that freedom and identity are worth defending, even against overwhelming power.

When Republics Drift: Tacitus and the Politics of Our Time

Image created with AI.

Around the year 100 AD, the Roman historian Tacitus looked back on the political world he had lived through and saw something unsettling. Rome still had its Senate. Laws were debated, magistrates held office, and the language of republican government survived. Yet everyone understood that real power now rested with the emperor—whether under Tiberius, Nero, or later Domitian.

Tacitus captured this transformation with quiet precision. Rome had not suddenly abandoned its republican institutions. Instead, those institutions had slowly adapted to a new reality in which authority was increasingly concentrated.

For modern readers, that observation feels strikingly familiar. Across the democratic world—particularly in the United States—political debates increasingly revolve around the strength of institutions, the limits of executive power, and the resilience of constitutional systems. Tacitus does not offer a blueprint for the present. But his histories reveal a recurring pattern in political life: freedom rarely disappears through dramatic collapse. It fades gradually, while institutions continue to function.

A Senator Writing After the Republic

Tacitus was not an outsider observing Rome from afar. He was a senator who had served under several emperors, including the authoritarian reign of Domitian. His career unfolded in a political system where public institutions still existed, but where criticism of imperial authority could be dangerous.

After Domitian’s death, Tacitus began writing his great historical works, including The Histories and The Annals. These books explore the early decades of the Roman Empire and the reigns of emperors such as Tiberius, Nero, and others who shaped the imperial system.

What makes Tacitus remarkable is not only what he records, but how he interprets it. His histories are less concerned with battlefield drama than with the mechanics of power: how rulers influence institutions, how elites behave in changing political environments, and how a political culture gradually adjusts to new realities.

Institutions That Remain, but Change

Rome did not lose its republican structures overnight. The Senate continued to meet and to vote. Courts functioned. Public ceremonies preserved the appearance of the old order.

Tacitus shows how these institutions slowly evolved under imperial authority. Emperors shaped the political climate in which decisions were made. Legal mechanisms could be used to silence rivals. Public debate became more cautious as people learned where the true boundaries of power lay.

What makes Tacitus’ account so compelling is his restraint. He rarely launches direct attacks on the system. Instead, he describes events carefully, allowing readers to see how authority shifts even while institutions outwardly survive.

The Quiet Adaptation of Elites

A central theme in Tacitus’ work is the behavior of Rome’s political elite.

The Senate once stood at the center of Roman public life. Under the empire, it continued to exist but operated within a system dominated by the emperor. Senators responded in different ways. Some openly praised imperial authority. Others remained silent. A few attempted resistance and paid a heavy price.

Tacitus portrays these figures with striking nuance. They are not simply villains or heroes. Many are pragmatic individuals navigating a system that has fundamentally changed.

This raises one of Tacitus’ most uncomfortable questions: when freedom erodes, is it only because rulers seize power—or also because elites adapt to the new order?

A Lens for the United States—and Beyond

Tacitus does not tell us that modern republics will follow the same path as Rome. History never repeats itself so neatly. But his work offers a powerful framework for thinking about political change.

In the United States, institutions remain strong and deeply rooted. Congress legislates, courts interpret the law, and elections regularly shift political power. Yet debates about executive authority, the role of the judiciary, and the stability of democratic norms have become increasingly central to American political life. Presidents rely more frequently on executive orders and emergency powers. Political battles over the courts have intensified. Trust between branches of government has grown more fragile. None of these developments mean that the American republic is destined to follow Rome’s path. But Tacitus reminds us that the health of institutions depends not only on laws and constitutions. It also depends on political habits, expectations, and the willingness of elites to respect the limits of power.

These tensions are not unique to the United States. Across Europe and other parts of the world, societies are also debating the balance between strong leadership, institutional independence, and democratic accountability.

Tacitus helps us see why these debates matter.

The Slow Drift of Political Systems

Tacitus never wrote a formal theory of politics. Yet his histories contain one of the most enduring observations about power.

Political systems rarely collapse overnight. The greater danger lies in gradual change: the expansion of authority in times of crisis, the normalization of exceptional powers, and the quiet adaptation of institutions to new political realities. By the time these shifts become obvious, the system itself has already evolved.

That insight, drawn from the experience of ancient Rome, continues to resonate today. Tacitus reminds us that republics are not only sustained by laws and institutions. They are sustained by the political culture that surrounds them.

When that culture changes, freedom can fade—even while the structures of government remain.

Further Reading

• Tacitus – The Annals

• Tacitus – The Histories

• Tacitus – Agricola

• Tacitus – Germania

• Ronald Syme – Tacitus

• Christopher Kelly – The Roman Empire: A Very Short Introduction

• Miriam Griffin – Nero: The End of a Dynasty

• Anthony Everitt – The Rise of Rome

The Cathedral of Bourges: Gothic Architecture and its Messages Carved in Stone

The façade of the Cathedral of Bourges rising above the narrow streets of the old town.

In the quiet center of France stands one of the most remarkable Gothic churches in Europe: Saint-Étienne Cathedral in Bourges.

At first sight it looks like many other medieval cathedrals—towers, flying buttresses, and stained glass rising above the rooftops of the old town. But Bourges reveals its uniqueness the moment you begin to explore it, both inside and outside.

The cathedral tells its story not only through space and light, but also through sculpture.

A Bold Vision of the Gothic Age

Construction of the cathedral began in 1195, under Archbishop Henri de Sully. The eastern end was built first, followed during the thirteenth century by the nave and façade. The church was finally consecrated in 1324.

What makes Bourges exceptional is its plan. Unlike most Gothic cathedrals, it has no transept. Instead of forming a cross shape, the building stretches forward in a continuous space composed of five parallel aisles running the full length of the church.

The central nave rises high above two layers of side aisles, creating a powerful sense of depth and perspective that draws the eye toward the choir.

Geometry in Stone

Medieval builders believed that geometry reflected the divine order of the world. At Bourges this idea becomes visible in the architecture itself.

The cathedral appears to follow a carefully structured system of proportions. The plan and the vertical structure are closely related, giving the building an extraordinary sense of unity. Even today, Bourges feels less like a collection of separate parts than like a single architectural idea carried consistently through the entire structure.

The Sculptures Above the Doors

Before you even enter the cathedral, however, one of its most striking features awaits you above the great portals of the west façade.

These sculpted scenes—known as tympana—form a vast stone narrative carved above the entrance doors. In the Middle Ages they functioned almost like a public book, telling biblical stories to a largely illiterate population.

The Last Judgment carved above the central portal of Bourges Cathedral.

The central portal presents a dramatic vision of the Last Judgment. Christ sits in majesty at the center while angels, saints, and resurrected souls fill the scene. Below, the dead rise from their graves while demons drag the damned toward hell. The imagery is both vivid and deeply human: fear, hope, redemption, and justice all appear in the carved figures.

The portals on either side depict other episodes from Christian tradition, creating a sculptural introduction to the sacred space inside.

For medieval visitors arriving in Bourges, the message would have been unmistakable: this building was not just a church, but a gateway between the earthly world and the divine.

Beneath the Cathedral

Below the choir lies another fascinating space: the vast crypt. Because the cathedral was partly built over an old ditch near the Roman city walls, medieval builders constructed a massive substructure to support the new church.

Today the crypt holds sculptures, fragments of earlier decorations, and the tomb of Jean, Duke of Berry, the great patron famous for the illuminated manuscript Les Très Riches Heures.

A Quiet Masterpiece

Bourges Cathedral is now recognized as one of the great achievements of Gothic architecture and has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Yet compared with more famous cathedrals such as Chartres or Notre-Dame in Paris, Bourges often feels surprisingly calm.

Perhaps that makes it easier to notice what medieval builders understood so well: that architecture, sculpture, geometry, and light can all work together to tell a story.

At Bourges, that story is still written in stone.

Europe, Melos, and the Return of Geopolitics

The Lesson of Melos (image created with AI)

In 416 BC the powerful city of Athens confronted the neutral island of Melos during the Peloponnesian War. The Melians appealed to justice and neutrality. The Athenians answered with the cold logic of power.

“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Soon afterwards Athens besieged the island. When Melos fell, the men were executed and the women and children enslaved.

Thucydides recorded this episode not to glorify power, but to expose how international politics sometimes works when survival, fear, and prestige dominate the decisions of states. For Europe today, the uncomfortable relevance of that ancient dialogue is becoming increasingly clear.

Europe’s Great Experiment

For seventy years Europe has pursued one of the most remarkable political projects in history. After two world wars the continent tried something radically different: replacing power politics with rules, institutions, and economic integration. The European Union became a system in which borders opened, sovereignty was shared, and disputes were managed through law rather than force. Inside Europe, that experiment worked astonishingly well. Outside Europe, however, the world never fully adopted the same logic.

The Return of Hard Geopolitics

Over the past decade Europe has rediscovered that it still lives in a wider international system shaped by power. The Russian invasion of Ukraine reminded Europeans that territorial war has not disappeared from the continent. Military strength and deterrence — concepts that many hoped belonged to the past — suddenly became central again. At the same time Europe faces instability along its southern horizon. Tensions involving Iran, Israel, and the United States affect energy markets, shipping routes, and regional stability. A wider conflict in the Middle East would quickly reverberate through Europe’s economy and politics. Above these regional crises lies a deeper transformation: the long-term strategic rivalry between China and the United States, which is reshaping global trade, technology, and alliances. These developments are not separate events. They are parts of a single geopolitical landscape in which the balance of power is shifting again.

Europe Between Power and Rules

Europe today occupies a unique position in that landscape. Economically it is one of the largest powers in the world. The European Union’s combined economy rivals that of the United States and China, and its regulatory influence shapes global markets. Yet in strategic and military terms Europe remains fragmented and still depends heavily on American security guarantees through NATO. This creates a fundamental tension. Europe believes deeply in a rules-based international order. But the stability of that order ultimately depends on power — military, economic, and political — capable of defending it.

The Lesson of Melos

The tragedy of Melos did not happen only because Athens was powerful. It happened because Melos had no reliable structure of power around it: no strong alliances, no credible deterrence, and no ability to shape the strategic environment in which it lived. Europe today is obviously not Melos. It is far larger, richer, and more influential. But the ancient story still raises a question that Europe cannot ignore. A political order based on rules works only when those who believe in it also possess the capacity to defend it. Europe has spent seventy years building one of the most successful political systems in modern history. The challenge of the twenty-first century may be learning how to protect it in a world where power politics has returned.

Further Reading

Thucydides — History of the Peloponnesian War (Book V, Melian Dialogue)
Donald Kagan — The Peloponnesian War
Richard Ned Lebow — The Tragic Vision of Politics
Graham Allison — Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?
Mark Leonard — The Age of Unpeace
Timothy Garton Ash — Homelands