Okay, here’s a breakdown of the key arguments and themes presented in the text, along with a summary of its overall message. I’ll organize it into sections for clarity.I. Core Argument: EU Weakness & Internal Divisions

The central argument is that the European Union is facing a important crisis of leadership, cohesion, and strategic clarity. The author believes the EU is demonstrating a risky combination of:

Geopolitical ambition without geoeconomic understanding: Leaders are eager to project power and influence (especially regarding Ukraine) but lack a solid grasp of the economic realities and consequences of their actions.
Internal Disunity: There’s a growing divide within the EU between those advocating for increased militarization and those prioritizing the single market and social model. This is exacerbated by differing approaches to international crises (Ukraine vs. Gaza/Israel).
Weakened Commission: Ursula von der Leyen is criticized for creating an “autocratic regime” within the Commission,suppressing expertise,and undermining established coordination processes.This has left the EU ill-equipped to handle complex challenges.
Dependence on the US: The EU’s position is fundamentally constrained by its asymmetry with the US. The author suggests the EU was “wrong-footed” by the US on Ukraine and ultimately lacks the leverage to dictate outcomes.

II. Specific Examples & Supporting Points

Ukraine vs. Gaza/Israel: The author highlights the hypocrisy of strong EU support for Ukraine alongside a failure to sanction Israel, even when there’s a legal obligation to do so. This demonstrates a lack of consistent principles and a double standard.
MFF (Multiannual Financial Framework): The current proposal for the EU’s long-term budget is deemed inadequate to address the challenges facing Europe. Its seen as a missed opportunity for the EU to “upgrade itself.”
motion of censure Against von der Leyen: While the motion failed, the author argues the votes against dismissal weren’t necessarily a sign of confidence in von der Leyen, but rather a fear of instability.
Transatlantic Crisis: The author points to a “deep and genuine transatlantic crisis” stemming from the EU’s lack of preparedness and strategic missteps.
Ancient Parallel (2010-2012): The current situation is compared to the Eurozone crisis of 2010-2012,where European leaders were slow to recognize the severity of the problem. The author warns that the current “simultaneous stress” in economic, financial, and security dimensions could be overwhelming.

Post-2022 Shift: After the start of the war in Ukraine, some Europeans believed they had become “from Mars” as well, asserting their independence from the US.
* Reality Check: The author argues it’s time for Europeans to reassess their position and acknowledge their continued dependence on the US. They need to realistically evaluate what kind of world they want to build and whether the EU can effectively represent its values without compromising its strategic interests.

IV. Overall Tone & Implication

The tone is highly critical and pessimistic. the author expresses deep concern about the future of the EU, suggesting that its current trajectory is unsustainable. The implication is that without significant changes in leadership, strategy, and internal cohesion, the EU risks further weakening and potentially facing a more serious crisis. The phrase “uphold will become unattainable” suggests a loss of the EU’s core principles and purpose.

In essence, the text is a warning about the EU’s internal weaknesses and its inability to navigate a complex geopolitical landscape. It calls for a sober reassessment of the EU’s role in the world and a renewed commitment to strategic thinking and internal unity.

Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of the text or analyze it further.