On 18 February 2026, the Department of International Relations, together with the European Institute and the European Foreign Policy Unit at LSE hosted HE Pedro Serrano, the European Ambassador to the UK, at this event to discuss Europe in a post-liberal world. Dr Federica Bicchi and Dr Spyros Economides joined the conversation, chaired by Professor Karen E Smith.
Europe has all it takes to survive (and maybe even thrive) even as the liberal international order fades. As obituaries are written over the transatlantic alliance and the Russian invasion of Ukraine rages on, EU Ambassador to the UK Pedro Serrano argues that Europe’s leaders know what needs to be done, can do what needs to be done, and now, just need to do it.
Serrano said a few different players brought Europe back to the era of power politics. First, Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea pierced the norm of territorial sovereignty on the continent. Second, China’s assertive behaviour in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait, alongside the consolidation of power at home, has contributed to renewed geopolitical competition. Third, an increasingly unpredictable United States has retreated from long-standing multilateral commitments.
Europe’s leaders know what needs to be done, can do what needs to be done, and now, just need to do it.
What will Europe do about it?
Serrano said Europe is strengthening its economy and taking defence seriously. He noted the recent EU-India free trade agreement, a multi-billion-euro defence investment strategy and SAFE loan programme for joint arms procurement. Even as Europe participates in ceasefire negotiations, Serrano emphasised that military support for Kyiv would continue to secure a favourable settlement.
More broadly, the way forward will be through enlargement, Serrano’s most progressive point of the night. There are 10 countries currently aiming to accede to the EU, “we have to start bringing them in,” he said. Serrano suggests the EU speed up the process and allow states to enter differently from the typical process. Most negotiations with candidate countries, however, have stalled due to insufficient political stability, and fault lines exist among member states worried about upsetting the internal balance of power.
Is this optimism premature?
Discussants Dr Federica Bicchi and Dr Spyros Economides pressed Serrano on not addressing the existential issues facing the Union. They both highlighted the dangerous presence of nationalism at a moment when unity is required for security challenges. Economides called for clarity on how the EU will partner with the UK, given that disagreements over the level of cooperation persist. I had hoped for more clarity on how Brussels intends to address Washington’s unease about exclusion from the defence market.
Nationalism is not destabilising, Serrano responded, explaining that the plurality of national interests in EU decision-making makes it stronger. On the UK and other middle powers, he calls for pulling them in through initiatives and summits, avoiding a needed debate on rule-taking.
The audience questions focused on EU leadership, particularly on where authority will sit as the EU builds its security and defence arm. One audience member invoked Henry Kissinger’s apocryphal line, asking who one calls when they want to speak to the EU.
Serrano countered that the EU has a robust pantheon of leaders who cooperate well with clearly defined responsibilities. If the world wants to contact the EU, they need only choose from Ursula Von der Leyen, Antonio de Costa, or Kaja Kallas—they all have phone numbers.
Event report by Daniel VosMSc International Relations, 2026
LinkedIn: Daniel Vos
This article represents the views of the author, and not the position of the Department of International Relations, nor of the London School of Economics.
Source:
blogs.lse.ac.uk