TheMarketForIdeas

“The light comes from the east” – a go-to byword spread in Eastern Europe in the dawn of the Communist rampage to come, hiding one of the most tragic optical illusions in history. However, the saying is, in fact, much older. “Ex oriente lux” marks the ultimate (“Eastern”) spiritual origin of our (“Western”) world: Indo>European populations, Greco>Roman syntheses, Judeo>Christian religions. All these, E>W. It would also be the other way around. “Ex occidente lex” shows us that the law and order of civilization flourished where an unmistakable chain reaction between various ideas and institutions occurred. The recipe, for Niall Ferguson, includes competition, science, private property, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic. This time, the arrow is W>E. While this explains the historical rise of the “West” over the “Rest”, it predicts a reversal of polarity too, amid Western degeneration under the cumulative burdens of intergenerational over-indebtedness, market over-regulation, legislation hypertrophy and civic atrophy. The “Rest” (Westernized or at least modernized) demands a reassessment of its share of participation within the production (and consumption) of “a better future”. With the East (aka Asia) at the forefront.

If we were born as a species in Africa, we grew up in Eurasia thanks to “fortunate latitudes” (Ian Morris), to take life to heart in the New World, diffusing via globalization a model of civilization that has made us richer, older, but not necessarily wiser. By the way, remember Edward O. Wilson’s superb pun: “we have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology”. Eurasia is the geometric (not just geographical) locus of this awareness, a space in which world history is shown to us synchronically: atavistic impulses in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and in those of the Middle East; a Europe still struggling between Charlemagne’s unity and post-Westphalian sovereignties; an Asia in which technologies are bursting disruptively thanks to the abundance (albeit unequally distributed) of population, capital and critical minerals. Inevitably, given this display, Europe looks more and more intensely towards Asia. Yet, differently from the United States (the “self-invited” stakeholder in Eurasia), as well as differently from the Russian Federation (the “rusty hinge” of Eurasia). Hence “the” question: shall Europe have an Asian privileged future or will it be just some kind of a semi-peripherical estate of the lordly Orient?

In the last two decades, the European Union has outlined its own way of “reading” Asia: pragmatic, commercial, multilateral. For instance, Brussels negotiates with Beijing on sensitive issues – from huge trade imbalances (over 300 billion euros deficit in 2024) to the tacit support offered to Russia in the war in Ukraine. Nonetheless, it does not burn bridges. Quite on the contrary. The EU-China summit this July (quickly following a rendezvous with the more likeminded Japan) was the perfect image of this juggling act: Europeans criticized, threatened with customs duties, but at the same time discussed rail corridors and solar energy projects. For the EU, Asia means markets plus resources. Reducing it to one word, it is about “inevitability”. China is already Europe’s largest trading partner, India and ASEAN are engines of growth, and major infrastructure initiatives – from the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) – are redrawing the routes over the hyper-continent. Europe is responding with the Global Gateway and investments in Central Asia, a sign that it understands the consecutive and compounded lessons of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine: supply chains get rusty and break so swiftly once left to chance.

To gain Asia’s favour, Europe has competitors. If the EU thinks about Asia through trade figures, America does so (also) through military maps. The “Pivot to the Indo-Pacific”, launched in the 2010s, has become a doctrine. Washington is building defensive alliances (AUKUS, QUAD), repositioning troops, openly supporting Taiwan and labelling China as a “major threat”. This is also where transatlantic tension stems from: Washington wants Europe focused on the Eastern flank (Russia, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea), while it is playing its “great game” in the Pacific. From Russia, we hear Putin’s speeches about “Greater Eurasia” and “the return to Asia”, through which the Kremlin is trying to reinvent its strategic identity. Still, the mutual positionings denote ambiguity or duplicity: yes, Russia has moved closer to China (gives hydrocarbons, takes technology, and appears diplomatically frequentable), but Siberia remains poorly connected and peopled, and Chinese investments are disquieting in many sectors. In all this scenery, there is one European country, once well-tied with all these sorts of Easts (from Middle to Far), that could be relevant in this global resettlement if in its foreign affairs it listened to its own anthem: “Awaken Thee, Romania(n)!”.

Recommended readings:

Books

1. Blackwill, R. D. & Harris, J. M. (2016) War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     Classic primer on the strategic use of economic tools, still central to understanding great-power rivalry.

2. Ferguson, N. (2021) Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. New York: Penguin Press.
     Wide-ranging historical perspective on crises, useful for framing pandemic and geopolitical shocks.

3. Frankopan, P. (2023) The Earth Transformed: An Untold History. London: Bloomsbury.
     Environmental history linking climate shifts to geopolitical transformations across centuries.

4. Gerbaudo, P. (2021) The Great Recoil: Politics After Populism and Pandemic. London: Verso.
     Explores political realignments triggered by COVID-19 and their global strategic implications.

5. Jager, S. M. (2023) The Other Great Game: The Opening of Korea and the Birth of Modern East Asia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     Historical study illuminating enduring patterns in Asian geopolitics.

6. Kaplan, R. D. (2025) Waste Land: A World in Permanent Crisis. New York: Random House.
     Kaplan’s latest meditation on global instability and shifting regional balances.

7. Khanna, P. (2019) The Future Is Asian: Commerce, Conflict, and Culture in the 21st Century. New York: Simon & Schuster.
     Evergreen argument for Asia’s centrality in the emerging world order.

8. Marshall, T. (2021) The Power of Geography: Ten Maps that Reveal the Future of Our World. London: Elliott & Thompson.
     Geopolitical storytelling through cartography, with key insights on Asia.

9. Sarotte, M. E. (2021) Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     Authoritative account of NATO–Russia tensions informing current European security debates.

10. Sciutto, J. (2024) The Return of Great Powers: Russia, China, and the Next World War. New York: Harper.
      Journalistic yet analytical overview of renewed great-power competition.

Reports

1. Brookings Institution (2021) The Uses and Abuses of Weaponized Interdependence. Washington, DC: Brookings.
     Explores how states exploit global economic networks for strategic gain.

2. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2024) Geopolitics and Economic Statecraft in the European Union. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment.
     Analyzes the EU’s adaptation of economic tools to a shifting security landscape.

3. Council of the European Union (2021) Council Conclusions on an EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. Brussels: Council.
     Formal political endorsement shaping EU engagement in Asia.

4. European Commission (2019) EU–China: A Strategic Outlook. Brussels: EC/EEAS.
     Evergreen reference outlining the EU’s critical stance on China.

5. European Commission & High Representative (2021) The EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. Brussels: EC/EEAS.
     Key joint communication positioning the EU in the Indo-Pacific arena.

6. European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) (2025) The Geopolitics of Multipolarity: How to Counter Europe’s Waning Relevance in Southeast Asia. Brussels: EUISS.
     Fresh strategic advice for EU policy in a multipolar Asian context.

7. International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) (2024) Asia-Pacific Regional Security Assessment 2024. London: IISS.
     Annual benchmark on Asia-Pacific military and strategic trends.

8. NATO (2022) NATO Strategic Concept. Brussels: NATO.
     Foundational post-Ukraine vision for NATO’s global role, including Indo-Pacific dimensions.

9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2024) Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2024. Paris: OECD Publishing.
     Evergreen regional economic analysis shaping investment and policy forecasts.

10. World Bank (2025) East Asia and Pacific Economic Update, April 2025. Washington, DC: World Bank.
      Latest economic trends and projections for East Asia and the Pacific.

Articles

1. Acharya, A. (2025) From Southeast Asia to Indo-Pacific: Culture, Identity, and the Return to Geopolitics. Singapore: Penguin SEA.
     Theoretical deep dive on cultural identity’s role in the Indo-Pacific order.

2. Brautigam, D. (2020) ‘A critical look at Chinese “debt-trap diplomacy”: The rise of a meme’, Area Development and Policy, 5(1), pp. 1–14.
     Empirical rebuttal to a popular but often misused geopolitical narrative.

3. Farrell, H. & Newman, A. L. (2019) ‘Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion’, International Security, 44(1), pp. 42–79.
     Seminal theory on the coercive potential of economic network control.

4. Gaens, B., Sinkkonen, V. & Ruokamo, A. (2023) ‘Connectivity and order: an analytical framework’, East Asia, 40, pp. —.
     Analytical model for understanding regional connectivity politics.

5. Góes, C. & Bekkers, E. (2022) ‘The impact of geopolitical conflicts on trade, growth, and innovation’, World Economy, 45(12), pp. 3651–3675.
     Quantitative assessment of how conflicts reshape economic trajectories.

6. Gurol, J. & Eick, S. (2022) ‘“Contingent power extension” and regional (dis)integration: The Belt and Road Initiative and the EU’, Asia Europe Journal, 20(4).
     Case study of BRI’s complex influence on EU–Asia relations.

7. Haacke, J. (2019) ‘The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: A critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19(3), pp. 375–417.
     Evergreen conceptual refinement on a key regional security strategy.

8. Luo, W., Kang, S. & Di, Q. (2025) ‘Global supply chain reallocation and shift under triple crises: A U.S.-China perspective’, arXiv.
     Explores supply-chain restructuring under pandemic, war, and geopolitical rivalry.

9. Simón, L., Lanoszka, A. & Meijer, H. (2021) ‘Nodal defence: The changing structure of U.S. alliance systems in Europe and East Asia’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 44(3), pp. 360–388.
     Compares alliance architectures in transatlantic and Indo-Pacific theatres.

10. Solingen, E. (2021) Geopolitics, Supply Chains, and International Relations in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
      Edited scholarly volume on the politicization of supply chains in East Asia.