For the USA, China and Russia, imperial thinking is dominant, they view the world as "zones of influence". Europe is faced with the choice of whether to oppose them. By Daniel Smilov.
The words of 2025 - empire and autocracy - are actually the two axes that structure political processes in the world. 2025 outlined these axes very clearly and created the conditions for a truly existential choice. In the coming years, all countries, including Europe, of which we are a part, will have to define themselves by them. Not only countries, but also political parties within them will have to clarify their positions, which could lead to a realignment of political systems.
Empire
In 2025, the administration of President Donald Trump effectively ended the liberal, rules-based order in international relations. First, Trump violated the long-standing principles of duty-free and free trade. Second, in his security strategy, Trump defined the world as divided into spheres of influence, claiming the Americas exclusively for himself, and apparently Greenland as well. Moreover, in this strategy, Europe is left to fend for itself, while recognizing the global imperial interests of Russia and China. Most shockingly, a united Europe is presented as a threat to the interests of the American empire, and the "Heritage" foundation - a think tank close to Trump and the movement around him - has declared itself in favor of the dismantling of the EU.
Empire and imperial thinking in this sense have become the dominant paradigm in international relations. Can the idea of an international order based on rules and not imperial interests be restored? In the foreseeable future, it will be almost impossible, because the USA, China, Russia and many others are already clearly in the imperial camp and view the world as "zones of influence".
The choice before Europe
The choice that Europe and the European countries face is the following: On the one hand, they can decide to develop together as a project that can oppose other empires. This is the path of deepening integration in the EU, of federalizing defense, foreign policy and part of fiscal policy. The EU is not an empire, insofar as it is built entirely on a voluntary basis and does not claim its own zones of influence. But the EU is also a universal project similar to the empire and is its only possible competitor. This is because it is built on universal principles: whoever respects them will be able to join if they want. A union of sovereign states with shared sovereignty can effectively oppose imperial ambitions. After all, the EU is the second or third largest economy in the world with enormous wealth and potential.
The other path for the EU is the disintegration of individual nations, which will orient themselves towards certain zones of imperial influence or will opportunistically try to build national (mini) empires. Some will strive to remain in a possible German empire, others - in the Russian, and still others - in the Turkish. And the choice of states (especially the smaller ones) in this case will not be important - the imperial centers will divide them up. And these imperial centers will be outside of Europe as a whole.
Autocracy
The second axis of political division is free democracy versus tyranny and autocracy. Tyranny advanced in 2025, to the extent that the leader of the free world, Donald Trump, welcomed (not only in Alaska) Vladimir Putin, one of the leaders of the autocratic camp, as an equal. Moreover, in the US security strategy, opposition to autocracies and defense of democracy are increasingly giving way.
Autocratic tendencies are also noticeable in developed democracies, most advanced in countries such as Hungary, although the erosion of free democracy has not seriously advanced in the EU. Attempts at autocracy in Bulgaria, for example, ended with the largest protests in defense of democracy and freedom in decades - hundreds of thousands took to the squares and overthrew the government. Serbia and Turkey are examples of very advanced autocratization in Europe, while in Russia the process is completely complete and it has returned to imperial autocracy.
The new political "cleavage"
On the surface, it may seem that the political "cleavage" ("faults") in Bulgaria, and around the world, are between liberals and conservatives, "Sorosoids" and "kopecks", etc. But this is only side noise and a propaganda effect. Based on the two main axes - empire and autocracy - the political formations that are emerging in our country, and in Europe, are the following four:
Eurodemocrats
These are parties that see the future of democratic Bulgaria in a strong and united Europe. In order for the EU to assert its autonomy in the imperial world, it must be strong militarily, foreign-politically and fiscally. Ukraine is the first line of defense of a united Europe that can stop the expansion of Russian autocracy towards the borders of the EU: this also explains the solidarity that the EU collectively shows to the attacked country.
In this category of parties in our country, PP-DB falls and, as far as official positioning is concerned, GERB and MRF. The problem with the latter two is that there is a significant discrepancy between their official position and their behavior in relation to the democratic axis, which makes it possible to classify them in the next category.
Euro-autocrats
These are pro-European parties, which, however, have autocratic tendencies. In Bulgaria, both GERB and DPS fall into this category, not as openly stated positions, but as political practice.
The capture of state institutions, the imprisonment of political opponents, the domination of the mainstream media with opaque forms of pressure, structural corruption are all practices that are part of the repertoire of autocracies. Still, covert autocracy is a better option than the open autocratic demands of Viktor Orbán, for example. Byzantine, Balkan politics is more behind-the-scenes, but it can also lead to similar levels of concentration of power.
Impero-autocrats
These are parties that serve a foreign imperial project - say Russian or Turkish - or opportunistically hope for some kind of national mini-empire of their own. Often they do both together. The example of an impero-autocrat in the European plan is the aforementioned Viktor Orban, who already seems to speak on behalf of some imaginary Central European empire, the successor to the Austro-Hungarian. In the modern world, such boutique projects are, of course, impossible, and Orban's very usefulness is more like a Trojan horse for Russia, for the USA in the EU. In a similar manner, parties such as "Vazrazhdane" and "Veličie" can be viewed in our country. Kornelia Ninova sought to turn the BSP into an Orban formation with a traditional Russian bias. Although she did not completely succeed, her mark on the socialists remains and they are currently in a serious identity crisis.
Impero-democrats
These are parties that in themselves are for democratic and free domestic politics, but internationally they are against the EU and even cherish their own imperial ambitions. Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands are paradigmatic examples of such parties.
Farage's imperial bias is obvious and it resonates with Britain's imperial heritage, but at the same time it shows that even it cannot claim true imperial status in the modern world of superpowers like the USA and China. It is no coincidence that (at least for now) Britain is simply losing out on Brexit, as the vast majority of Britons understand it. However, this does not prevent Nigel Farage's new project from gaining momentum, which is a demonstration of the potential of the imperial democrats. In Bulgaria, ITN can be somewhat placed in this category. Rumen Radev's unborn project would probably also be placed here or in the upper category (impero-autocrats).
***
The new cleavages are displacing the old division "left-right" and its newer variation - liberals and conservatives. Certainly, the labels of the four categories of parties may change, but the described essence will remain. Also, new parties may aim for tactical reasons to remain ambivalent between the different categories in order to attract more voters. But at some point they will have to define themselves along the axes of empire and autocracy, which will be key in politics.
The combination of empire and autocracy usually leads to war. This is the historical experience of humanity. The war in Ukraine happened before we understood the real reason for it. And it is the return of empires and lack of freedom in Europe. There is time to oppose these processes, but the problem is that many will prefer to support them for the purpose of party and electoral gain.
This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and the DW as a whole.