Who is defining “Europe”?

  When I was studying in the UK, there was a period of time when I held a paper on Eurocentrism and went around “running meetings”. First some British conferences – the British consider themselves ‘Eurocentric’, so no one has ever questioned my terminology. Later, he presented papers at international conferences. During the question-and-answer session, a Polish scholar in the front row immediately stood up: “You always say ‘Eurocentrism’, I don’t feel comfortable listening to it. Poland has never been part of this ‘center’. I think you should say ‘a few countries’ The representative of Western centralism’, and most European countries are also victims of this ‘centrism’.”
  Since then, I have noticed: British, French and German scholars use “Eurocentrism”; while the Dutch professor who teaches EU law , to explain to me that Finland has long been outside the NATO system to “avoid being represented” by Finnish scholars who do not talk about “Eurocentrism”.
  In their view, “Europe” is an idea that is constantly being reshaped, shaped by a handful of major powers. The “Europe” being shaped ultimately acts on realpolitik, creating a series of absurd problems. A Russian scholar asked: “Isn’t the European order supposed to include Russia? Is a ‘Europe’ excluding Russia a complete Europe? Why has ‘dialogue with Russia’ become a multiple-choice question?” asked a Canadian scholar who has lived in France for a long time: ” Don’t you think it’s the election of 40 million French that decides the fate of 700 million Europeans?” The
  ”represented” will not be silent after all. Fierce ones such as Russia are willing to use military action and deterrence to participate in the shaping of “Europe”. Moderates are like most European countries: the Netherlands has changed from a founding member of the EU to the leader of the “New Hanseatic League” and the “Frugal Four”, which opposed a series of German-French-led policies; the three Baltic countries, which had high hopes for the EU, formed a de facto “Intra-EU alliance”; Nordic countries “unify their voices” internally before participating in EU and NATO summits in order to defend their own interests; Poland and Hungary concluded an “offensive and defensive alliance” to avoid being sanctioned by the EU…
  When a small number of European powers and Its leaders are no longer the “consensus builder” but the “leader” of the multilateral order. Besides Germany and France, when the “third country on the European continent”, Italy and other European countries are forced to form different alliances within the existing multilateral framework. “Gangs”, how could such a “Europe” not face reconstruction?
  The fact that the last cover story on “Europe” focused on Berlin, Paris and London is a reflection of reality. The responsibility for the breakdown of Europe should not be attributed to the ordinary people who are also “represented”. In the past few years, when I have been in contact with the “European elites” of the so-called major powers, I often feel that their cultural background and limited vision have caused “unconscious centers” Doctrine” and “Unstoppable Care”. The countries and the multilateral order that suffer as a result are far from being confined to the European continent. And Europe’s lesson warns that if a more equal, rational, and representative order is not rebuilt, lasting peace and long-term prosperity will eventually come to nothing.