What do you think?
Rate this book
After Europe
In this provocative book, renowned public intellectual Ivan Krastev reflects on the future of the European Union—and its potential lack of a future. With far-right nationalist parties on the rise across the continent and the United Kingdom planning for Brexit, the European Union is in disarray and plagued by doubts as never before. Krastev includes chapters devoted to Europe's major problems (especially the political destabilization sparked by the more than 1.3 million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia), the spread of right-wing populism (taking into account the election of Donald Trump in the United States), and the thorny issues facing member states on the eastern flank of the EU (including the threat posed by Vladimir Putin's Russia). He concludes by reflecting on the ominous political, economic, and geopolitical future that would await the continent if the Union itself begins to disintegrate.
128 pages, Hardcover
First published April 18, 2017
93 people are currently reading
1670 people want to read
About the author
Ivan Krastev
44 books171 followersIvan Krastev (Bulgarian: Иван Кръстев, born 1965 in Lukovit, Bulgaria), is a political scientist, the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, permanent fellow at the IWM (Institute of Human Sciences) in Vienna, and 2013-14-17 Richard von Weizsäcker fellow at the Robert Bosch Stiftung in Berlin.
He is a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group and is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.
From 2004 to 2006 Krastev was executive director of the International Commission on the Balkans chaired by the former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Bulgarian Edition of Foreign Policy and was a member of the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London (2005-2011).
His books in English include "After Europe" (UPenn Press, 2017), "Democracy Disrupted. The Global Politics on Protest" (UPenn Press, May 2014), "In Mistrust We Trust: Can Democracy Survive When We Don't Trust Our Leaders", (TED Books, 2013); "The Anti-American Century", co-edited with Alan McPherson, (CEU Press, 2007) and "Shifting Obsessions: Three Essays on the Politics of Anticorruption" (CEU Press, 2004). He is a co-author with Stephen Holmes of a forthcoming book on Russian politics.
He is a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group and is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.
From 2004 to 2006 Krastev was executive director of the International Commission on the Balkans chaired by the former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Bulgarian Edition of Foreign Policy and was a member of the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London (2005-2011).
His books in English include "After Europe" (UPenn Press, 2017), "Democracy Disrupted. The Global Politics on Protest" (UPenn Press, May 2014), "In Mistrust We Trust: Can Democracy Survive When We Don't Trust Our Leaders", (TED Books, 2013); "The Anti-American Century", co-edited with Alan McPherson, (CEU Press, 2007) and "Shifting Obsessions: Three Essays on the Politics of Anticorruption" (CEU Press, 2004). He is a co-author with Stephen Holmes of a forthcoming book on Russian politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
December 21, 2019
4.5 This was my first Krastev, but it won’t be my last. It is basically a long essay on the challenges facing Europe/European Union, with a focus on the migration crisis and East-West divide. Events can quickly make this type of book obsolete, but After Europe is still as relevant as it was in 2017. It is insightful, eloquent and not afraid of reality. Despite its brevity, it doesn’t feel shallow - Krastev is simply too good for that and manages to cram a surprising amount of nuance into 100 pages. For most people, I assume his deep understanding of Central and Easter Europe is the major draw - and bless him, that understanding is sorely needed in the Western half of the Union. Personally, I especially enjoyed his take on topics I have been thinking about for a while, but don’t see addressed that often: the possibility of rapid societal change; the shifting role of the working class; the troubles of meritocracy. I would highly recommend this book to all Western liberals who struggle to understand Orbán & Co. I would also recommend it to all Eastern Europeans who like to think of themselves as clear-eyed realists, but dislike taking a close look at what’s happening in their countries (this is equally true of the very liberal people like me who are too attached to their illusions and the more conservative/populist elements who refuse to take responsibility for what their flirting with the far right is doing to the country they claim to love). Ultimately, I think Krastev’s biggest value is his ability to really ‘see’ uncomfortable issues and address them in a non-patronising way, without being compromised by the dark side. It’s not full 5 stars because the conclusion - which I otherwise loved - felt too abrupt and because Krastev’s deterministic streak can occasionally be too pronounced for me. These are minor and possibly unfair criticisms, however, and should not stop anyone from picking up the book.
July 11, 2017
Basically a book-length op-ed, you wish for more depth, but Krastev is good at explaining complex phenomena without it feeling like too simplified. He is probably at his best in explaining central-eastern European thinking to western audiences. Bringing together various observations and original insights, this will be tomorrow's conventional wisdom.
3,5/5*
3,5/5*
August 27, 2018
4.5⭐
The most comprehensive attempt to analyze the political challenges of the European Union that I have encountered so far. It closes some of the gaps, and expands focus and one-sidedness of other books on the same theme (The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, The Tyranny of Silence, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam).
The most comprehensive attempt to analyze the political challenges of the European Union that I have encountered so far. It closes some of the gaps, and expands focus and one-sidedness of other books on the same theme (The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, The Tyranny of Silence, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam).
October 16, 2017
Смислено и логично четиво. Разбираема логика, спокоен анализ, липса на високопарна претенция. Струва си!
July 31, 2024
Ivan Krastev’s short book After Europe is the most comprehensive essay on the future challenges of the European Union that I’ve encountered to date. Krastev provides a broad, sweeping analysis of the multiple crises that have washed over Europe in the past decade (financial crisis, eurozone crisis, Ukrainian crisis, refugee crisis, and Brexit, to name just a view). He views the refugee crisis, which he calls “Europe’s 9/11”, as the most path-breaking because it has permanently undermined the liberal consensus and accelerated the rise of right-wing populism. To quote the author:
“The inability and unwillingness of liberal elites to discuss migration and contend with its consequences, and the insistence that existing policies are always positive sum (i.e., win-win), are what make liberalism for so many synonymous with hypocrisy. This revolt against the hypocrisy of liberal elites is fundamentally reshaping Europe’s political landscape.”
The result is a major realignment in European politics: If the eurozone crisis divided the union over a north-south axis, the refugee crisis has helped replace the old left-right balance with an attitudinal divide between globalists and nativists, between large cosmopolitan cities and the countryside, between Europe’s West and East. The result is a profound and existential identity crisis that jeopardizes the future of the union.
Despite its brevity, the book analyzes these new realities in sufficient depth and in a highly perceptive manner. The 2020 edition comes with a new afterword that concludes that Brexit may have saved the union, at least for now, by making the prospect of disintegration sufficiently unattractive. Krastev concedes, however, that the European project remains in a perilous state: “The disintegration of the EU is still a specter haunting Europe—and as with any ghost, it has the capacity to vanish before our eyes and then reappear at the very moment we begin to believe it’s finally disappeared forever.”
“The inability and unwillingness of liberal elites to discuss migration and contend with its consequences, and the insistence that existing policies are always positive sum (i.e., win-win), are what make liberalism for so many synonymous with hypocrisy. This revolt against the hypocrisy of liberal elites is fundamentally reshaping Europe’s political landscape.”
The result is a major realignment in European politics: If the eurozone crisis divided the union over a north-south axis, the refugee crisis has helped replace the old left-right balance with an attitudinal divide between globalists and nativists, between large cosmopolitan cities and the countryside, between Europe’s West and East. The result is a profound and existential identity crisis that jeopardizes the future of the union.
Despite its brevity, the book analyzes these new realities in sufficient depth and in a highly perceptive manner. The 2020 edition comes with a new afterword that concludes that Brexit may have saved the union, at least for now, by making the prospect of disintegration sufficiently unattractive. Krastev concedes, however, that the European project remains in a perilous state: “The disintegration of the EU is still a specter haunting Europe—and as with any ghost, it has the capacity to vanish before our eyes and then reappear at the very moment we begin to believe it’s finally disappeared forever.”
April 10, 2018
This essay is a must-read for every West European (especially German), left-wing liberal citizen, because Krastev succeeds in explaining the completely different political stance which has been present in East-Central Europe for a couple of years. Being exposed to German media and statements from leading German politicians, I have gained a new perspective without moral superciliousness thanks to this book. According to the author, the European Union is facing predicaments which have the potential to desintegrate/make this political project collapse.
A worrying, but also instructive read. Hopefully, this is some bedtime reading for Mrs Merkel.
A worrying, but also instructive read. Hopefully, this is some bedtime reading for Mrs Merkel.
September 15, 2025
Europe, and specifically the European Union, is currently undergoing a deep crisis. There are two main factors driving this onerous situation. The first one is the refugee crisis that Krastev characterises Europe's 9/11 moment due to the impact to the European societies and their perceived change of way of life. The second factor rests on the resurgence of populism in the form of voters' rebellion against the meritocratic elites. The old ideological divide between the Right and the Left is becoming anachronistic and replaced by a division between cosmopolitan minded elites and nativists who have roots to their community and their country. But Krastev is also pointing to the bigger picture of a crisis of liberal democracy and how globalisation and the western model cannot coexist because their internal properties are full of contradictions.
While democracy in Europe has always been used as an instrument for inclusion, it is now being transformed into a tool for exclusion by keeping migrants outside Europe's borders. The emergence of the illiberal political consensus is not limited to extreme Right or extreme Left parties. The biggest threat comes from the mainstream parties and leaders who are gradually adopting the rhetoric of the extreme parties but, most importantly, lies in what they don't say - that diversity is good for Europe. Here we have an altering of the values upon which the architecture of the European project has been created.
The EU from its inception had internal contradictions that were swept under the carpet because the short term benefits way exceeded the longterm drawbacks. In this sense the European project was always an idea in search of reality and what held it together in the immediate memory of the post World War world has started to crumble. Concepts, and their practice, such as democracy, human rights, tolerance, values of globalisation, civility, cultural distinctiveness, and solidarity are being redefined by the migration crisis. For example, human rights and solidarity have been one of the pinnacles of the European project to attract people and nations outside its borders to join the Union. Now they are used to promote the exactly opposite; how to keep people outside their borders. Krastev contents that Europe is currently facing its own "Galapagos" moment, where its "postmodern order has become so advanced and particular to its environment that it is impossible for others to follow." It isn't only the changing values under question. Brexit, the welfare state, an aging population, a ballooning debt, are all contributing factors to the crisis the Union is facing.
In some sense the opposition to the influx of migrants, despite the longterm economic benefits, is a normative one. After all migrant workers will do manual jobs that local populations are not interested in. The normative threat puts into question the coherence of a society, the "we" and the belonging. It is the perceived threat of a collapsing moral order that turns individuals against foreigners. In the European context of a declining population the Nation is a continuation of the memory of one's family after their death. It is the shield against mortality. This is why the demographic imagination creates negative reactions not only against foreigners but also against social changes like gay marriage. Endorsement of these trends is like endorsing your own disappearance.
The populist turn on the other hand is at its heart the manifestation of the friction between democracy and globalisation. There is either the option of restricting democracy in order to gain competitiveness in international markets, or limiting globalisation by building democratic legitimacy at home. Exporting democracy outside the borders of EU at the expense of national sovereignty. This leads to the rise of nativist feelings that are exploited by populist parties and translated into an identity crisis.
After Europe is a thought-provoking statement summed in a self-reflection that the European elites will need to take into account to avert a dark future. The pessimistic tone might be necessary as a wake up call to fix the troubles of European unity.
While democracy in Europe has always been used as an instrument for inclusion, it is now being transformed into a tool for exclusion by keeping migrants outside Europe's borders. The emergence of the illiberal political consensus is not limited to extreme Right or extreme Left parties. The biggest threat comes from the mainstream parties and leaders who are gradually adopting the rhetoric of the extreme parties but, most importantly, lies in what they don't say - that diversity is good for Europe. Here we have an altering of the values upon which the architecture of the European project has been created.
The EU from its inception had internal contradictions that were swept under the carpet because the short term benefits way exceeded the longterm drawbacks. In this sense the European project was always an idea in search of reality and what held it together in the immediate memory of the post World War world has started to crumble. Concepts, and their practice, such as democracy, human rights, tolerance, values of globalisation, civility, cultural distinctiveness, and solidarity are being redefined by the migration crisis. For example, human rights and solidarity have been one of the pinnacles of the European project to attract people and nations outside its borders to join the Union. Now they are used to promote the exactly opposite; how to keep people outside their borders. Krastev contents that Europe is currently facing its own "Galapagos" moment, where its "postmodern order has become so advanced and particular to its environment that it is impossible for others to follow." It isn't only the changing values under question. Brexit, the welfare state, an aging population, a ballooning debt, are all contributing factors to the crisis the Union is facing.
In some sense the opposition to the influx of migrants, despite the longterm economic benefits, is a normative one. After all migrant workers will do manual jobs that local populations are not interested in. The normative threat puts into question the coherence of a society, the "we" and the belonging. It is the perceived threat of a collapsing moral order that turns individuals against foreigners. In the European context of a declining population the Nation is a continuation of the memory of one's family after their death. It is the shield against mortality. This is why the demographic imagination creates negative reactions not only against foreigners but also against social changes like gay marriage. Endorsement of these trends is like endorsing your own disappearance.
The populist turn on the other hand is at its heart the manifestation of the friction between democracy and globalisation. There is either the option of restricting democracy in order to gain competitiveness in international markets, or limiting globalisation by building democratic legitimacy at home. Exporting democracy outside the borders of EU at the expense of national sovereignty. This leads to the rise of nativist feelings that are exploited by populist parties and translated into an identity crisis.
After Europe is a thought-provoking statement summed in a self-reflection that the European elites will need to take into account to avert a dark future. The pessimistic tone might be necessary as a wake up call to fix the troubles of European unity.
February 5, 2019
As someone who has only recently been exposed to the history and politics of Europe, this book was both informative and insightful in discussing the European Union's survival in the wake of recent populist movements across Europe, the breakdown of Western liberal idealist assumptions as the threatened majority unites against the meritocratic elite and the foreigners, and the paradoxical circumstances that brought about this crisis. Growing up in a liberal and very much meritocratic environment, I was led to be perplexed at and condemning of the British decision to leave the EU as well as the election of Trump. There seemed to be a disconnect between the liberal ideal and the rising populist movements, but I couldn't get a good grasp on it. There seemed to be more to it than just fear of immigrants or plain ignorance. The author does a great job in explaining the anxieties of the right and the growing disillusionment in democratic governments. His insights into the appeal of populism helped me understand Trump and his supporters.
November 4, 2018
Es el análisis más certero que he leído sobre la situación política actual. Si sólo pudiera recomendar un libro en todo el año, sin duda sería este.
May 21, 2018
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3000747.html
This is the book that everyone is quoting in the Brussels bubble at the moment. Fortunately Ivan’s worst predictions about 2017 did not come to pass, but we are not out of the woods yet. There are a number of key elements here. Krastev believes that the EU is in serious crisis, and may even be on the point of disintegration (though he admits that that will only happen if France or Germany decides to pull the plug). His perspective is an Eastern European one, concerned that the migration crisis has critically weakened the the political left, the credibility of human rights issues, and the discourse of compassion and tolerance. This has had a negative impact on democracy; he looks at three other referendums that took place in 2016 to examine the paradoxes of the democratic process. He is full of good one-liners:
“The right to be governed wisely can contradict a citizen’s right to vote. This is what has always made liberals anxious about democracy.”
“The new populist majorities perceive elections not as an opportunity to choose between policy options but as a revolt against privileged minorities[.]”
“A decade ago, the British polling agency YouGov undertook a comparative study between a group of political junkies and a similar cohort of young people who actively participated in the Big Brother reality show. The distressing finding of the study was that British citizens felt better represented in the Big Brother house. It was easier for them to identify themselves with the characters and ideas being discussed. They found it more open, transparent, and representative of people like them. Reality show formats made them feel empowered in the way that democratic elections are supposed to make them feel but don’t.”
“What makes meritocrats so insufferable, especially in the minds of those who don’t come out on top in the socioeconomic competition, is less their academic credentials than their insistence that they have succeeded because they worked harder than others, were more qualified, and passed exams that others failed.”
It’s clear that the book is to a certain extent in dialogue with David Goodhart’s The Road to Somewhere - the two quote each other, and their diagnoses are not so far apart. Yet I find Krastev much more palatable, I guess because he is sad rather than smug, and doesn’t rant inaccurately about the euro.
In the conclusion to the book, he somewhat pulls his punches, noting that if the EU can demonstrate enough flexibility to meet the challenges from within, disintegration is not inevitable.
"Flexibility—not rigidity—is what may yet save Europe. While most observers ask how populism can be vanquished, in my view the more apposite question is how to respond to its venality. What will increase the likelihood of the European Union surviving is the spirit of compromise. Making room for conciliation should be the major priority of those who care for the union. The EU should not try to defeat its numerous enemies but try to exhaust them, along the way adopting some of their policies (including the demand for well-protected external borders) and even some of their attitudes (free trade is not necessarily a win-win game). Progress is linear only in bad history textbooks."
It’s a decently short book, only 120 pages, and well worth getting.
This is the book that everyone is quoting in the Brussels bubble at the moment. Fortunately Ivan’s worst predictions about 2017 did not come to pass, but we are not out of the woods yet. There are a number of key elements here. Krastev believes that the EU is in serious crisis, and may even be on the point of disintegration (though he admits that that will only happen if France or Germany decides to pull the plug). His perspective is an Eastern European one, concerned that the migration crisis has critically weakened the the political left, the credibility of human rights issues, and the discourse of compassion and tolerance. This has had a negative impact on democracy; he looks at three other referendums that took place in 2016 to examine the paradoxes of the democratic process. He is full of good one-liners:
“The right to be governed wisely can contradict a citizen’s right to vote. This is what has always made liberals anxious about democracy.”
“The new populist majorities perceive elections not as an opportunity to choose between policy options but as a revolt against privileged minorities[.]”
“A decade ago, the British polling agency YouGov undertook a comparative study between a group of political junkies and a similar cohort of young people who actively participated in the Big Brother reality show. The distressing finding of the study was that British citizens felt better represented in the Big Brother house. It was easier for them to identify themselves with the characters and ideas being discussed. They found it more open, transparent, and representative of people like them. Reality show formats made them feel empowered in the way that democratic elections are supposed to make them feel but don’t.”
“What makes meritocrats so insufferable, especially in the minds of those who don’t come out on top in the socioeconomic competition, is less their academic credentials than their insistence that they have succeeded because they worked harder than others, were more qualified, and passed exams that others failed.”
It’s clear that the book is to a certain extent in dialogue with David Goodhart’s The Road to Somewhere - the two quote each other, and their diagnoses are not so far apart. Yet I find Krastev much more palatable, I guess because he is sad rather than smug, and doesn’t rant inaccurately about the euro.
In the conclusion to the book, he somewhat pulls his punches, noting that if the EU can demonstrate enough flexibility to meet the challenges from within, disintegration is not inevitable.
"Flexibility—not rigidity—is what may yet save Europe. While most observers ask how populism can be vanquished, in my view the more apposite question is how to respond to its venality. What will increase the likelihood of the European Union surviving is the spirit of compromise. Making room for conciliation should be the major priority of those who care for the union. The EU should not try to defeat its numerous enemies but try to exhaust them, along the way adopting some of their policies (including the demand for well-protected external borders) and even some of their attitudes (free trade is not necessarily a win-win game). Progress is linear only in bad history textbooks."
It’s a decently short book, only 120 pages, and well worth getting.
January 1, 2019
A quick read about future challenges that Europe will face in upcoming years. Populism, liberalism, nationalism and other terms that shape our politics.
March 15, 2020
see raamat (mis raamat ta nii väga isegi on, kaks pikemat esseed pluss ees- ja järelsõna) seletas mulle ära õige mitu asja, millest olen ammu püüdnud aru saada, aga pole saanud, sest kui küsin neilt, kes arvavad maailmast enamvähem minuga ühtmoodi, siis nemad ka ei saa aru, aga kui püüan kuulata neid, kes arvavad teistmoodi, siis me lähme tülli ja keegi ei saa targemaks.
Krastev on bulgaaria poliitikateadlane ja tema perspektiiv on ida-euroopa oma. ta on liberaalsete vaadetega, seega me ei lähe tülli; ja meid vaevavad samad küsimused, aga ta pakub ka vastuseid ja vähemalt mulle tundub, et see kõik võib olla päris pädev. tahaks tegelikult, et kindluse mõttes kinnitaks neid vastuseid ka keegi "teiselt poolt", antud juhul siis... populistlike parteide valijad. seda, kas nemad suudaks raamatut tülli minemata lugeda, kahjuks ei tea, loodan, et keegi proovib ja ütleb mulle.
need küsimused keerlevad kõik selle üle, mis Euroopas ja Euroopaga on viimastel aastatel juhtunud. Krastrevi nägemuses muutis kõike pagulaskriis (ja oma 2017. aastal kirjutatud raamatus pole ta veel kindel, kas liit üldse püsima jääb; 2019. aasta järelsõnas nendib, et jäi ja et nüüd enam ilmselt ei lagune ka; miks, see on omaette huvitav). ta räägib meritokraatiast ja tehnokraatiast (kuidas see juhtus, et rahval on "on ekspertidest kõrini"?), räägib sellest, kuidas Fukuyamal ei olnud ajaloo lõpu osas õigus ja käsitleb põhjalikult seda, mida ta kutsub "Kesk-Euroopa paradoksiks": "miks Kesk-Euroopa valijad, kes moodustavad arvamusküsitluste järgi maailmajao kõige Euroopa-meelsema valijaskonna, on valmis aitama võimule Euroopa Liidu vastaseid parteisid, mis avalikult vaenavad sõltumatuid institutsioone nagu kohtud, keskpangad ja meedia?"
see oli mu jaoks see raamat, mille alguses lugesin läbi Ellus, aga siis läksin raamatupoodi, ostsin endale oma eksemplari ja ühtlasi ühe hariliku pliiatsi ja tõmbasin umbes poolele tekstist jooned alla ja ümber. väga palju olulist leidsin seal enda jaoks ja tõesti tunnen, et saan nüüd ennast ümbritsevast maailmast ja inimestest palju paremini aru. soovitan.
Krastev on bulgaaria poliitikateadlane ja tema perspektiiv on ida-euroopa oma. ta on liberaalsete vaadetega, seega me ei lähe tülli; ja meid vaevavad samad küsimused, aga ta pakub ka vastuseid ja vähemalt mulle tundub, et see kõik võib olla päris pädev. tahaks tegelikult, et kindluse mõttes kinnitaks neid vastuseid ka keegi "teiselt poolt", antud juhul siis... populistlike parteide valijad. seda, kas nemad suudaks raamatut tülli minemata lugeda, kahjuks ei tea, loodan, et keegi proovib ja ütleb mulle.
need küsimused keerlevad kõik selle üle, mis Euroopas ja Euroopaga on viimastel aastatel juhtunud. Krastrevi nägemuses muutis kõike pagulaskriis (ja oma 2017. aastal kirjutatud raamatus pole ta veel kindel, kas liit üldse püsima jääb; 2019. aasta järelsõnas nendib, et jäi ja et nüüd enam ilmselt ei lagune ka; miks, see on omaette huvitav). ta räägib meritokraatiast ja tehnokraatiast (kuidas see juhtus, et rahval on "on ekspertidest kõrini"?), räägib sellest, kuidas Fukuyamal ei olnud ajaloo lõpu osas õigus ja käsitleb põhjalikult seda, mida ta kutsub "Kesk-Euroopa paradoksiks": "miks Kesk-Euroopa valijad, kes moodustavad arvamusküsitluste järgi maailmajao kõige Euroopa-meelsema valijaskonna, on valmis aitama võimule Euroopa Liidu vastaseid parteisid, mis avalikult vaenavad sõltumatuid institutsioone nagu kohtud, keskpangad ja meedia?"
see oli mu jaoks see raamat, mille alguses lugesin läbi Ellus, aga siis läksin raamatupoodi, ostsin endale oma eksemplari ja ühtlasi ühe hariliku pliiatsi ja tõmbasin umbes poolele tekstist jooned alla ja ümber. väga palju olulist leidsin seal enda jaoks ja tõesti tunnen, et saan nüüd ennast ümbritsevast maailmast ja inimestest palju paremini aru. soovitan.
November 3, 2025
Durante el máster leímos algunos fragmentos de este libro, que en su momento me resultaron muy interesantes. Además, considero a Ivan Krastev uno de los principales politólogos e intelectuales liberales de nuestro tiempo, centrado especialmente en el estudio de la Unión Europea. Por todo ello, me lo dejé pendiente para leerlo con calma más adelante.
Antes que nada, conviene recordar que el libro fue publicado en 2017, por lo que es importante tener presente los grandes acontecimientos inmediatamente anteriores: la crisis de refugiados de 2015 y el Brexit, junto con el auge paralelo de los movimientos de ultraderecha y nacional-populistas en todo el continente.
A partir de este contexto, Krastev diagnostica los desafíos a los que se enfrenta la UE y reflexiona sobre su futuro, marcado por la tensión constante entre integración y desintegración. Aunque el texto puede resultar algo caótico en su estructura, ofrece ideas y reflexiones muy sugerentes. Por ejemplo, en un pasaje especialmente provocador, el autor sostiene que la crisis de refugiados fue “el 11-S europeo”, una evidente hipérbole, pero que encierra cierta verdad: elección tras elección, la migración ha ido ocupando un papel central en el debate político europeo, convirtiéndose en uno de los principales ejes del discurso público.
Donde el libro resulta más débil, en mi opinión, es en su parte propositiva: Krastev plantea pocas soluciones concretas, y en ese sentido deja cierto sabor a poco. En cualquier caso, es una lectura muy interesante, aunque inevitablemente algo desactualizada por haber sido escrita en 2017.
P.D.: Estoy especialmente orgulloso de haberlo leído íntegramente en inglés; llegó un punto en el que ni siquiera era consciente de ello. También ha ayudado que el vocabulario y la gramática eran bastante sencillas.
Antes que nada, conviene recordar que el libro fue publicado en 2017, por lo que es importante tener presente los grandes acontecimientos inmediatamente anteriores: la crisis de refugiados de 2015 y el Brexit, junto con el auge paralelo de los movimientos de ultraderecha y nacional-populistas en todo el continente.
A partir de este contexto, Krastev diagnostica los desafíos a los que se enfrenta la UE y reflexiona sobre su futuro, marcado por la tensión constante entre integración y desintegración. Aunque el texto puede resultar algo caótico en su estructura, ofrece ideas y reflexiones muy sugerentes. Por ejemplo, en un pasaje especialmente provocador, el autor sostiene que la crisis de refugiados fue “el 11-S europeo”, una evidente hipérbole, pero que encierra cierta verdad: elección tras elección, la migración ha ido ocupando un papel central en el debate político europeo, convirtiéndose en uno de los principales ejes del discurso público.
Donde el libro resulta más débil, en mi opinión, es en su parte propositiva: Krastev plantea pocas soluciones concretas, y en ese sentido deja cierto sabor a poco. En cualquier caso, es una lectura muy interesante, aunque inevitablemente algo desactualizada por haber sido escrita en 2017.
P.D.: Estoy especialmente orgulloso de haberlo leído íntegramente en inglés; llegó un punto en el que ni siquiera era consciente de ello. También ha ayudado que el vocabulario y la gramática eran bastante sencillas.
April 6, 2019
V prvom rade - názov je zavádzajúci. Knižku som bral do rúk hlavne preto, aby som si prečítal, čo si autor myslí o budúcnosti EÚ a nie aby mi rekapituloval udalosti krízových mesiacov počas utečeneckej krízy. Nedozvieme sa nič o možnom budúcom usporiadaní nášho kontinentu po kolapse únie, napríklad o bábkovom Medzimorí, ktoré by tu rada mala Putinova verchuška.
Ale Krastev neskôr začne byť zaujímavý. Knihu písal v dobe, keď sa skutočne zdalo, že všetko je v prdeli, systém nefungoval, utečenci prúdili, západ sa rozhádal s východom, juh so severom, zvolili Trumpa, Le Penová išla hore, odhlasovali brexit a čakali nás kľúčové voľby, ktoré tí dobrí skrátka nemohli vyhrať a aj ja som to vtedy tak cítil. Ale on pomerne vizionársky napísal, že ten, kto už raz bol svedkom veľkej historickej zmeny, vie, že determinizmus je len obyčajnou ilúziou. Aj keď sa nám niečo zdá jasné, nemusí byť.
Autor sa v knihe obáva, že rozpad Európy sa udeje na osi západ / východ a pomerne úspešne popisuje unikátnu mentalitu nášho regiónu. Prečo sme vlastne tak proti registrovaným partnerstvám, keď sú postkomunistické krajiny sekulárne a vlastne relatívne tolerantné? Hovorí o provinčnosti Stredoeurópanov ako štátotvornej vlastnosti, o tom, že slovenský antikozmopolitizmus je vlastne tínedžerským vymedzením sa voči nútenému internacionalizmu za komoušov, alebo o tom, prečo nenávidíme bruselské elity, aj keď sú objektívne úspešné a že Európu by mal zachrániť iný druh kompetentných lídrov ako sú meritokrati. Dva roky pred Čaputovou.
Štyri európske hviezdičky.
Ale Krastev neskôr začne byť zaujímavý. Knihu písal v dobe, keď sa skutočne zdalo, že všetko je v prdeli, systém nefungoval, utečenci prúdili, západ sa rozhádal s východom, juh so severom, zvolili Trumpa, Le Penová išla hore, odhlasovali brexit a čakali nás kľúčové voľby, ktoré tí dobrí skrátka nemohli vyhrať a aj ja som to vtedy tak cítil. Ale on pomerne vizionársky napísal, že ten, kto už raz bol svedkom veľkej historickej zmeny, vie, že determinizmus je len obyčajnou ilúziou. Aj keď sa nám niečo zdá jasné, nemusí byť.
Autor sa v knihe obáva, že rozpad Európy sa udeje na osi západ / východ a pomerne úspešne popisuje unikátnu mentalitu nášho regiónu. Prečo sme vlastne tak proti registrovaným partnerstvám, keď sú postkomunistické krajiny sekulárne a vlastne relatívne tolerantné? Hovorí o provinčnosti Stredoeurópanov ako štátotvornej vlastnosti, o tom, že slovenský antikozmopolitizmus je vlastne tínedžerským vymedzením sa voči nútenému internacionalizmu za komoušov, alebo o tom, prečo nenávidíme bruselské elity, aj keď sú objektívne úspešné a že Európu by mal zachrániť iný druh kompetentných lídrov ako sú meritokrati. Dva roky pred Čaputovou.
Štyri európske hviezdičky.
October 25, 2019
Not a lot of things in there have been groundbreaking new for me, but that's mainly because I'm quite familiar with the topic already. But it is definitely a good summary of the problems the EU is facing today and a good place to start for someone who is looking for a good overview. If there have been more own thoughts by the author and less quotations it could have end up being a four star rating for me. I also have to mention that this was published in 2017 and if anyone thought it couldn't get any worse, we all know how that ended.
#NonFictionChallenge
#PublishedByAnUniversityPress
#NonFictionChallenge
#PublishedByAnUniversityPress
July 24, 2020
Något tunnare och med fragmentarisk än Ljuset som försvann, som jag tyckte var väldigt ögonöppnande. Här är temat EU inför flyktingkrisen, eller snarare EU:s mer grundläggande kris: ”en idé på jakt efter en verklighet”. Intressant att läsa den såhär tre pr efter utgivning, då coronakrisen sätter de tidigare i ett lite annat ljus. Krastev är svepande och målar med breda penseldrag, men har också några riktigt bra poänger och är värd att lyssna på. Särskilt intressant när han framställer populismen som en reaktion på långt dragen meritokrati.
December 29, 2018
Το μικρό αυτό βιβλίο του krastev αποτελεί το πλέον επίκαιρο έργο για την τρέχουσα κατάσταση στην Ευρώπη. Ήδη σε κάποια σημεία η επικαιρότητα το έχει ξεπεράσει, ωστόσο η ανάλυση που κάνει είναι διαχρονική. Να σημειωθεί η εξαιρετική και σύγχρονη βιβλιογραφία όχι μόνο επιστημονική αλλά και λογοτεχνική.
Να το διαβάσετε, είναι απολαυστικό, κατανοητό και με ευφυώς δομημένη επιχειρηματολογία για το παρόν και το μέλλον της Ευρώπης.
Να το διαβάσετε, είναι απολαυστικό, κατανοητό και με ευφυώς δομημένη επιχειρηματολογία για το παρόν και το μέλλον της Ευρώπης.
February 2, 2020
A really thought-provoking deeply pessimistic yet unfortunately not impossible account on the possible future of a project called EU. Having been written in 2016, with a tad more optimistic afterword added in 2019, it leaves you thinking “What next?” and shows how the britons’ torment with Brexit may easily be one of the reasons of reducing the heat and leave-desire within EU, at least for the time being.
November 10, 2018
I expected quality, but didn´t think that this book is probably the best text I have read this year. Ivan Krastev´s thoughts about contemporary Europe are surgical and although he is not painting very happy future, there is a glimpse of hope that comes from tough learning points. Great contribution to any debate about EU.
December 5, 2019
Dozens of interesting points and quotes. Incredibly thought-provoking, free-flowing text in a small package. But while its analysis is interesting, its final part is definitely lacking and I find myself wishing that Krastev would write an "After After Europe" with more ideas for the future rather than simply an analysis of the past and present.
September 15, 2024
Considering that the publication date is perhaps a little less recent, we have already experienced the struggles, shocks and changes, but interesting observations on various topics such as revolutions, migration, meritocracy, populism, referendums, paradoxes of us in the East and society in the West. The reality is not rosy, of course, but I don't think the book has slipped into some kind of tragic pessimism or doomerism. We shall see...
July 16, 2018
An excellent political analysis of the European crisis from a liberal point of view.
June 5, 2022
Apparently the decades of Marxist formation don't leave much space for independence, or critical thinking. A rehash of the old fears: the sky is falling and you need a nanny.
November 12, 2018
Nedá sa mi na tú knihu pozerať inak ako cez to, čo sme na jar robili a cez voľby, počas ktorých som ju čítal. Je to dobrá kniha, ale je prekvapivé ako veľmi je text zastaralý, hoc je celkom nový.
October 27, 2017
Early on in this book, Krastev says he intends to offer a reflection on the fate of Europe in the style of Gramsci's "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." There is much of the former; the latter feels like an afterthought. But the intellect is powerful and sharply focused. While the book isn't long (mercifully these days!) I found myself highlighting a lot of the passages.
Krastev writes from Hungary, where the promise of 1989's liberation feels squandered, where populations are shrinking as the young and qualified people on whose contributions the country's hope depends opt instead to migrate to where they think life will be richer.
"The migration crisis confronts liberalism with a contradiction that is central to its philosophy. How can our universal rights be reconciled with the fact that we exercise them as citizens of unequally free and prosperous societies?" writes Krastev, as the "birth-right lottery... challenges the major promise of liberal politics and defines the central role of migration in global affairs. In today’s connected world, migration is the new revolution—not the twentieth-century revolution of the masses, but a twenty-first century exit-driven revolution enacted by individuals and families."
This is a very convincing account of why both sides of the equation — migrated from and migrated to — are breeding grievances that will not go away for decades (never mind what happens when the tide of climate refugees is added to economic migrants).
"The refugee crisis has made it clear that eastern Europe views the very cosmopolitan values on which the European Union is based as a threat, while for many in the West it is precisely those cosmopolitan values that are at the core of the new European identity.... It is instructive that while Pope Francis was taking in Syrian refugees to live in his house, Catholic Bishops in Hungary and Poland were expressing the same anti-refugee sentiments as their governments. It is this historically rooted suspicion of anything cosmopolitan, and the direct connection between communism and internationalism, that partially explains central Europe’s sensitivities when it comes to the refugee crisis."
"In his book The Globalization Paradox, Harvard political economist Dani Rodrik suggests that we have three options to manage tensions between national democracies and globalisation. We can restrict democracy in order to gain competitiveness in international markets. We can limit globalisation in the hope of building democratic legitimacy at home. Or we can globalise democracy at the cost of national sovereignty. What we cannot have, Rodrik makes clear, is hyperglobalisation, democracy, and self-determination simultaneously. But this is precisely what most governments want...The outcome is unworkable: you end up with democracy without choices, sovereignty without meaning, and globalisation without legitimacy."
"Living through a great disruption teaches you several lessons. The most important is that what defines the direction of history is sometimes a chain of minor events amid a background of big ideas."
Krastev writes from Hungary, where the promise of 1989's liberation feels squandered, where populations are shrinking as the young and qualified people on whose contributions the country's hope depends opt instead to migrate to where they think life will be richer.
"The migration crisis confronts liberalism with a contradiction that is central to its philosophy. How can our universal rights be reconciled with the fact that we exercise them as citizens of unequally free and prosperous societies?" writes Krastev, as the "birth-right lottery... challenges the major promise of liberal politics and defines the central role of migration in global affairs. In today’s connected world, migration is the new revolution—not the twentieth-century revolution of the masses, but a twenty-first century exit-driven revolution enacted by individuals and families."
This is a very convincing account of why both sides of the equation — migrated from and migrated to — are breeding grievances that will not go away for decades (never mind what happens when the tide of climate refugees is added to economic migrants).
"The refugee crisis has made it clear that eastern Europe views the very cosmopolitan values on which the European Union is based as a threat, while for many in the West it is precisely those cosmopolitan values that are at the core of the new European identity.... It is instructive that while Pope Francis was taking in Syrian refugees to live in his house, Catholic Bishops in Hungary and Poland were expressing the same anti-refugee sentiments as their governments. It is this historically rooted suspicion of anything cosmopolitan, and the direct connection between communism and internationalism, that partially explains central Europe’s sensitivities when it comes to the refugee crisis."
"In his book The Globalization Paradox, Harvard political economist Dani Rodrik suggests that we have three options to manage tensions between national democracies and globalisation. We can restrict democracy in order to gain competitiveness in international markets. We can limit globalisation in the hope of building democratic legitimacy at home. Or we can globalise democracy at the cost of national sovereignty. What we cannot have, Rodrik makes clear, is hyperglobalisation, democracy, and self-determination simultaneously. But this is precisely what most governments want...The outcome is unworkable: you end up with democracy without choices, sovereignty without meaning, and globalisation without legitimacy."
"Living through a great disruption teaches you several lessons. The most important is that what defines the direction of history is sometimes a chain of minor events amid a background of big ideas."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 14, 2018
Always presents both sides of an issue, seemingly with detachment. It is the style of the diamat school, overusing the word "paradoxically" and letting the argument unfold every which way, as in the end the conclusion is always fixed. Krastev does not adhere to a mechanical concept of history, in fact he offers a cautious forecast at the end. Yet two thirds of the book are just unsavory filler:
- he adopts Fukuyama’s wrong presumption that western liberalism has won in 1989, when there was nothing to win, as communism was not real as an option - it was slavery dressed up in dialectical materialism, smoke and mirrors and Potemkin villages;
- says that Europeans believe exporting democracy no longer insures stability, something that Putin would surely endorse;
- ...and that they would rather see Gaddafi reinstated in order to protect them from immigrants (citation needed)
- ...and more Putinisms: Eastern-Europeans thinking that Europe is culturally abnormal.
- cites polls on the fear of terror attacks and equals them to the attitude towards immigration, in a forced logical connection;
- jumps from immigration to “robots takin ahr jerbs” to guaranteed minimal income, to decline in European living standards if immigrant workers are kept out - all on one page.
The final third is where Krastev shines, putting forward and explaining the three issues crucial for the survival of the EU: the rise of the populist parties, the dearth of political drive among young Europeans and the alienation of the meritocratic elites.
- he adopts Fukuyama’s wrong presumption that western liberalism has won in 1989, when there was nothing to win, as communism was not real as an option - it was slavery dressed up in dialectical materialism, smoke and mirrors and Potemkin villages;
- says that Europeans believe exporting democracy no longer insures stability, something that Putin would surely endorse;
- ...and that they would rather see Gaddafi reinstated in order to protect them from immigrants (citation needed)
- ...and more Putinisms: Eastern-Europeans thinking that Europe is culturally abnormal.
- cites polls on the fear of terror attacks and equals them to the attitude towards immigration, in a forced logical connection;
- jumps from immigration to “robots takin ahr jerbs” to guaranteed minimal income, to decline in European living standards if immigrant workers are kept out - all on one page.
The final third is where Krastev shines, putting forward and explaining the three issues crucial for the survival of the EU: the rise of the populist parties, the dearth of political drive among young Europeans and the alienation of the meritocratic elites.
April 24, 2020
Profound and interesting thinking on the future of democracy in Europe and the future of the EU and required reading for those interested in the motivation behind today's populist movements and the limits of the so-called meritocracy to represent national interests in addition to European ones. It resonates with my experience speaking to "Leavers" one year in Cornwall, when they argued that it didn't matter if the economy tanked after Brexit, because at least we'd all be in it together. Krastev's argument is formed around this sentiment exactly as the reason for the rise of populism - this majority's attempt to protect their sense of belonging through nationalist sentiments, especially as a reaction against immigration. Krastev is only vaguely hopeful, but in a Machiavellian way that says if we ride out the bad times long enough, Fortune may just dish out something to produce a shift we need to preserve democracy. I wonder if Covid19 might be one of those things: not fortunate, but something that forces all of us together in the same boat. Provided we can coordinate the rowers, we'll get to shore OK.
June 21, 2020
I finish everything, but will admit I did not finish this one. This long op-ed has the usual quotes from the usual sources, like Fukuyama. As everything in the introduction is almost exactly repeated in the chapters that follow, down to the quotes, you're perhaps better off just reading the introduction and conclusion.
February 4, 2018
Too liberal for my taste.
Could have explained better the similarities between the Gypsies (the Romans) and the refugees (economic emigrants). The Romans are despised in Bulgarien for not wanting to contribute to the society.
Also lacking a more in-depth understanding of why Greece accepted all the economic tightening, rather than just leaving the euro.
Could have explained better the similarities between the Gypsies (the Romans) and the refugees (economic emigrants). The Romans are despised in Bulgarien for not wanting to contribute to the society.
Also lacking a more in-depth understanding of why Greece accepted all the economic tightening, rather than just leaving the euro.
February 21, 2019
Vyborna analyza sucasneho stavu. Nie, facebook nemoze za vsetko. Napisane s lahkostou a cistotou.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews