In a recent opinion piece for the Financial Times, Martin Sandbu argues that Europe is undergoing a geopolitical awakening, moving away from its traditional reliance on global economic interdependence. The article suggests that rather than merely reacting to the weaponization of trade by powers like China, Russia, or the United States, the EU should proactively utilize its own industrial chokepoints. By leveraging its dominance in sectors such as advanced semiconductor lithography (ASML), green energy turbines, and uranium imports, Europe could create strategic dependencies that deter external aggression and export boycotts.
Sandbu posits that European leaders must shift from managing partnerships to projecting power. This would involve lowering the threshold for using “anti-coercion” tools, allowing the EU to deploy economic retaliation preventatively rather than just reactively. The goal is to move beyond simple resilience toward a state of indispensability, where rival states are forced to respect European interests because they cannot afford to be cut off from essential European technology and services.
Our Take
At the 451 Institute, we believe this proposal is, quite literally, the exact opposite of what a healthy society should do. Our mission is centered on Attack Surface Reduction: the systematic effort to shield critical institutions and infrastructure from being disrupted for political reasons. While the Financial Times suggests “weaponizing” these systems, we argue that using essential infrastructure as a tool of coercion represents an unacceptable expansion of the “attack surface” for global conflict.
When the core mission of a critical institution, whether it be technology manufacturing, finance, or energy, is subordinated to partisan or geopolitical objectives, its social contract is breached. This “weaponization” logic is a form of majority overreach that risks turning every economic interaction into a zero-sum game. Instead of fostering indispensability through threats, we must reinforce institutional neutrality to ensure that critical systems remain reliable, independent, and insulated from political manipulation. Turning society’s gears into weapons doesn’t prevent conflict; it ensures that when conflict happens, the damage is total.
