Drawing on her research at the Historical Archives of the European Union, Katerina Klimoska argues that Europe’s current geopolitical awakening is less a departure from the past than a rediscovery of ideas embedded in European integration from its earliest postwar years
For many observers, the European Union’s recent embrace of geopolitical language marks a significant break with its past. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, growing tensions between the United States and China, debates over strategic autonomy, and renewed attention to defence cooperation have all contributed to the rise of what policymakers call 'geopolitical Europe'.
The assumption behind much of this debate is that Europe is becoming geopolitical only now. My research at the Historical Archives of the European Union (HAEU) in Florence suggests otherwise.
Archival documents reveal that concerns about political order, Europe’s international position, and collective action existed from the very beginning of the European integration project. What has changed is not the geopolitical concerns, but the language through which they are expressed.
The dominant story of European integration presents the project as a response to war through economic cooperation. According to this narrative, institutions such as the European Coal and Steel Community were designed to foster reconciliation, promote prosperity, and make future conflict impossible.
These objectives were undoubtedly important. Yet documents from the late 1940s and 1950s reveal a broader ambition. European leaders were also grappling with the collapse of the old European order. They faced a continent devastated by war, weakened internationally, and increasingly divided by Cold War tensions.
For many postwar European leaders, integration was not merely an economic arrangement but a means of stabilising Europe's place in a rapidly changing international environment
For many of them, European integration was not merely an economic arrangement. It was a way of reorganising political authority and stabilising Europe’s place in a rapidly changing international environment.
One of the most striking findings from the archives concerns the language used by early federalists such as Altiero Spinelli. Long before the European Union existed, federalist thinkers argued that Europe required a new political framework capable of overcoming the limitations of the nation-state system.
The Hague Congress of 1948 provides another revealing example. Discussions frequently portrayed European unity not simply as a mechanism for cooperation between governments, but as a response to a deeper political crisis. European unity, delegates argued, was essential for preserving democracy, preventing future conflict, and restoring Europe’s international relevance.
Archival documents also frequently invoked ideas of a common European civilisation and shared destiny, suggesting that many contemporaries viewed Europe not merely as a diplomatic arrangement but as an emerging political community.
In these debates, Europe appeared as more than a geographical space. It emerged as a political project to address the failures that had led to two world wars.
Documents also show that these ideas extended beyond federalist circles. Materials related to the Schuman Declaration and the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community suggest that many countries felt economic integration carried broader political implications. Coal and steel were not simply economic sectors but the foundations of industrial and military power in postwar Europe. While official discourse emphasised reconstruction, cooperation, and practical problem-solving, contemporary debates often connected these initiatives to questions of governance, authority, and Europe's future organisation.
Yet the archives reveal something striking. The architects of European integration rarely spoke the language of geopolitics as we understand it today.
Instead, they emphasised peace, reconstruction, cooperation, modernisation, and technical coordination. The Schuman Plan, for example, was officially presented as a practical solution for managing coal and steel production. However, contemporary debates surrounding the proposal show that many participants understood its wider political significance.
Unlike contemporary political actors, the architects of European integration emphasised peace, reconstruction, cooperation, modernisation, and technical coordination
Economic integration became a politically acceptable way of pursuing broader forms of coordination and governance. Major institutional transformations were often justified as technical necessities rather than political choices.
Jean Monnet's papers reveal a similar approach. Rather than pursuing European unity through sweeping constitutional projects, Monnet emphasised practical cooperation, shared administration, and incremental institution-building. Political transformation, in his vision, would emerge gradually through common governance rather than through a single founding moment.
This pattern appears repeatedly across the archival record. Europe’s founders did not reject politics. Rather, they advanced political objectives through the language of expertise, administration, and functional cooperation.
Recognising these historical origins changes how we understand contemporary debates about geopolitical Europe.
Current discussions often present strategic autonomy, security cooperation, and geopolitical ambition as evidence that the European Union is abandoning its traditional identity. The archives suggest a different interpretation.
Questions about Europe’s role in the world, its capacity to act collectively, and its relationship with wider international orders have accompanied European integration from the beginning. They were present in debates surrounding postwar reconstruction, in discussions about Europe’s place within the western alliance, and in early visions of European political unity.
Archival materials show that European integration developed alongside wider debates about the western alliance and Europe’s role within the emerging Cold War order
Archival materials from collections at Fondation Paul-Henri Spaak and the Council of Europe show that European integration developed alongside wider debates about the western alliance and Europe’s role within the emerging Cold War order. European unity was frequently linked to concerns about democracy, security, and Europe’s ability to act collectively in an increasingly divided world. From this perspective, integration was not only about overcoming the legacy of war within Europe, but also about defining Europe’s place in a changing international system.
The language has changed, but many of the underlying concerns remain remarkably familiar.
Europe’s geopolitical turn is therefore not entirely a turn. It is, at least in part, a return to questions that shaped the European project from its earliest postwar origins.
Understanding these historical origins reminds us that debates about strategic autonomy, defence cooperation, and Europe’s global role are not departures from the integration project. They are contemporary expressions of questions that have accompanied European integration since its earliest postwar decades.
The archives remind us that European integration was never solely about markets or institutions. It was also about political order, collective purpose, and Europe's place in the world. Understanding that history may help us better navigate the choices facing Europe today.
