This week marks a crucial fundraising initiative for Naked Capitalism. So far, 1345 supporters have contributed to our mission to confront corruption and exploitative practices, particularly within the financial sector. We invite you to lend your support through our donation page, where you can find options for contributing via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. You can also explore our fundraising motivations, accomplishments from the past year, and our objective for this campaign, original reporting efforts.
The challenge facing Europe is its lack of a cohesive state identity, an issue intrinsic to its economic stability. The future strength of the euro is jeopardized as it feels more plausible to envision Europe disintegrating than to consider a similar fate for the United States. Today, such fragmentation appears to be a messy but tangible possibility.
The modern nation-state is a historical construct, as noted by Martin van Creveld in The Rise and Decline of the State. He argues that the modern state reflects an evolutionary process—manifesting a distinct political and sociocultural arrangement rooted in European history. Even today, Euro-America remains the quintessential embodiment of the nation-state.
The United States represents an advanced iteration of this political model, characterized by a multi-layered federal structure that coexists with individual states. In a global context where progress is often measured by GDP growth, this arrangement can be seen as a natural progression for an entity that asserts sovereignty along with a monopoly on legislation and recognized violence.
This idea of sovereignty is anchored in the belief that a nation, as represented by the state, is the sole author and agent of its destiny. Eckard Bolsinger, in The Autonomy of the Political, refers to this as the will to representation—a useful abstraction. This will does not demand active participation; rather, its strength lies in its very abstraction.
As Bolsinger notes, the emergence of this will to representation—central to state sovereignty—necessitates a departure from tyrannical or oppressive rule. Historically, the American and French revolutions serve as paradigmatic examples of such a transformation, where the state, as an expression of popular will, became the architect of its collective fate.
This suggests that violence can serve as a pathway to state sovereignty. However, this violence must be legitimate and sanctioned; only violence sanctioned by political and legal frameworks garners acceptance from the international community.
These concepts derive from principles established by the Peace of Westphalia. Within a nation’s territory, the state represents the highest authority; its laws are supreme and cannot be overridden by any external source. Gianfranco Poggi, in The Development of the Modern State, emphasizes that only through a politically validated act of violence against oppression—declared the “will of the people” via a constitution—can existing laws be overthrown.
Such an act of violence, which liberates a nation from tyranny, becomes its origin story. Historical examples include the Spanish Reconquista, the French Revolution, and Italy’s Risorgimento. This act not only legitimizes the new state but also claims total political—indeed, existential—territory, as citizenship is intertwined with the notion that one’s identity is bound to the sovereign representation of the nation.
The European Union aspires to transform Europe into a nation-state, as envisioned in the Pleven Plan, which proposed political unity alongside a defense agreement. This ambition proved overly ambitious, leading early proponents like Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman to advocate for gradual integration—from economic cooperation to political union.
These figures emerged as prominent advocates for the European Union, hoping it would prevent future civil conflict on the continent. However, they did not foresee that becoming a nation-state would necessitate the use of violence once again. Today, it is recognized that other powerful forces have also sought to achieve this goal, albeit for varying reasons.
The United States, via the CIA, was a significant catalyst. The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE) was established in 1948 as a privately funded initiative aimed at promoting European federalism and countering communism. Declassified documents reveal that from 1949 to 1960, U.S. intelligence disbursed around $4 million to the European Movement. Some claims suggest that, in 1958, as much as 53.5% of its funding originated from ACUE. For Washington, the primary goal was to unify Europe in opposition to the Soviet threat—an effort also driven by Kissinger’s famous inquiry: “Who do I call in Europe?”
Another powerful force influencing the EU’s formation was the Bilderberg Group, created in 1955 to facilitate transatlantic dialogue. Initially a low-profile organization, it is now widely known among global elites. Minutes from its early meetings affirm that discussions surrounding a European monetary union were integral to its agenda. Étienne Davignon, a former EU commissioner, later commented in an interview with EUobserver that the group played a crucial role in crafting a unified currency—the euro.
However, the euro grapples with a fundamental dilemma: it embodies a form of sovereignty that is constitutionally nonexistent. Following the Treaties of Rome in 1957, which established the European Economic Community, and Maastricht in 1992, which created the European Union, the logical next step was to draft a European constitution for political legitimacy. This proposal was rejected twice by European voters. Subsequent attempts to navigate around this rejection through the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) have left a constitutional void that persists today.
As the European Union does not function as a state, it cannot assert itself as the ultimate legal authority or demand the highest civic obligations from its citizens. It also lacks the power to impose taxes, leaving fiscal sovereignty in the hands of national governments—the only entities claiming to embody the popular will at the state level. This situation poses significant risks; without taxation authority or the legitimacy of final law enforcement, the EU remains precariously exposed.
The European Union’s success—and particularly the viability of the euro— hinges on the transformation of Europe into a unified state. The failure of the Union would fundamentally undermine the currency, leading to profound repercussions for the global financial system. Would the euro retain its value without a sovereign European Central Bank? Unlikely. Consider the nations holding reserves in euros, making up about 20% of global totals, or the interconnected European banking system denominated in euros: the potential disruption is vast and unpredictable.
Yet, the challenges facing the EU project stem as much from internal sources as from external pressures. To sustain the economic foundation of the European Union while aspiring to form a single state, the EU has implemented policies that undermine the integrity of its member states.
Informed by postmodern theories emphasizing “liquid individuals,” European leaders have underestimated the nation-state’s power to shape the identities of its citizens. For individuals to feel a vested interest in the nation and to regard the state as an expression of their sovereignty, they must conceptualize the nation as an extended family. Consequently, any attack on the nation is perceived as a personal assault.
The European Union’s challenge to the nation-state emerges from the necessity to delegitimize smaller states in pursuit of becoming a sovereign state itself. Citizens have noticed this shift, leading to widespread disengagement from the EU initiative, as evidenced by consistently low turnout in European elections. Many do not comprehend how “what is beneficial for Europe” translates to personal gain, and they are acutely aware that substantial power lies with unelected and unaccountable entities—the European Commission and the European Central Bank. This disenchantment has fueled nationalistic rhetoric among opportunistic politicians.
To address this issue, European elites can only advance toward the forming of a European state. Retracing their steps is not an option, as the dynamic of state formation possesses its own momentum. In this context, the force driving the state is intertwined with the fate of the euro. The European Union represents an economic initiative that requires a state framework, and all efforts will be devoted to achieving this—failure would spell the end of the project.
To realize this objective, the Union wields two primary instruments: warfare and the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) introduced by the ECB. A full-fledged war against Russia might not be necessary; the mere perception of one could suffice. Nonetheless, should a conflict arise, it may foster a stronger “European will” than any treaty could produce. The specific outcome of such a conflict may be less significant than the narrative that emerges, framing Europe’s experience as liberation from tyranny. This moment could provide the justification for a constitution, consequently enabling a parliament equipped with taxation powers—transcending national governmental authority.
Establishing conditions that facilitate this pivotal moment appears to underlie the current war narrative promoted by European elites. The crisis stemming from either an actual or perceived conflict may serve as the ideal opportunity to deploy the ECB’s digital currency, especially as groundwork is laid through digital identification systems. At that juncture, a fully realized European state may emerge—and with it, the euro would secure its future.
