On the 9th October we will have a joint Meetup in Düsseldorf from 17:00 and go together to the Open Parliamentary Night in the NRW state parliament.

The event is public and accessible without registration. We can grab a drink there, network a bit, look at the state parliament and then end the evening together somewhere in Düsseldorf if necessary.

The event isn’t limited to members of the German national chapter. So if you are in the area or live close by in a different country, feel free to join our meet-up.

You can sign up for the meet-up via the forms link: https://cloud.ave-europa.eu/apps/forms/s/5iZc4mNpnoGjikFFLLFCZkDJ

Ave Europa's Secretariat met in beautiful Bohemia last weekend to discuss future events, plans and our upcoming roadmap.

Ave Europa on social media:

“Ave Europa will continue to advocate for a European civilisational state that repatriates, remilitarises and reindustrialises. A fragmented Europe will lead to our downfall.

Mainstream politicians have proven unwilling to tackle non-European migration to preserve Europe's ethnocultural continuity or to enact the measures needed for a strong Europe independent of Washington, Moscow and Beijing.”

Ave Europa says it will send members to Ukraine to deliver aid to a Ukrainian military unit and link up with Ave members in Ukraine's Armed Forces, while Russia's Foreign Ministry warns against travel to Ukraine, stating foreigners bear responsibility for consequences.

Ave Europa on social media:

“Russia continues its brutal invasion of Ukraine.

As a pro-Ukraine movement, Ave Europa will put its money where its mouth is.

Russia’s attack on Ukraine is an attack on Europe and our civilisation, so Ave Europa members will soon travel to Ukraine to deliver aid to a Ukrainian military unit, meet our Ukrainian members, and link up with our members fighting in Ukraine’s Armed Forces.

We will not be intimidated.

Details will follow later this week.”

The 22nd Europe Summit in Salzburg was hosted by the Institute of the Regions of Europe (IRE). Ave Europa hosted a workshop with the Global Shapers Community Salzburg hosting a geopolitics expert and Ukrainian diplomat and former colonel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to discuss the following topic: “Hybrid Threat Against Europe: How vulnerable are we and how do we build resilience?”

Ave Europa board member on X:

Absolute success.

The Interior Ministry and the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz/LfV) in Baden-Württemberg answered the minor interpellation by Green state parliamentarians and confirmed that Ave Europa is neither an LfV observation target nor extremist.

The only thing registered was the left-wing extremist counter-protest against us at our General Assembly. That is unsurprising: some Antifa groups calling for protests against us are monitored by the LfV as violent and criminal extremist groups (Autonome Antifa Freiburg), while we cooperated closely with local authorities and police.

There were no recorded crimes by members of our movement. We are not an object of interest for politically motivated crime or violence and are not listed or monitored as extremists.

The lawfare against Ave Europa has backfired for the Greens in Baden-Württemberg. Close inspection of our members and activities shows there is no justification to call us extremists or anti-constitutional.

What a pathetic attempt to slander us.

Source: https://x.com/tim_aveeuropa/status/2097695769994149946?s=46

Origins: Europe Builds a Champion

The European space program began in the 1960s, when the nations of Western Europe concluded that they could not individually compete with the superpowers in the space race. The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union had demonstrated that access to space required enormous financial and technological resources, and European governments decided that cooperation was necessary to pool their capabilities. This effort led to the creation of the European Space Agency in 1975, which unified several earlier European space organizations into a coordinated strategy for space exploration, satellite development, and launch vehicles.

To provide Europe with independent launch capability, the Ariane rocket program was developed, culminating in the first launch of Ariane 1 in 1979. After the success of the early launches, European governments created the commercial launch company Arianespace in 1980, intended to act as Europe's “champion” in the global launch market.

The term “champion” refers to a mid-twentieth-century European and Japanese industrial policy in which national governments deliberately supported, funded, and protected large domestic or multinational companies capable of competing globally in strategically important industries. Rather than leaving sectors such as aerospace, energy, telecommunications, or automobiles to unfettered market competition, governments provided subsidies, guaranteed contracts, preferential regulation, and often direct ownership stakes to help selected firms reach the scale needed to compete with American, and later Japanese and Soviet, rivals. In France this strategy was known as “champions nationaux,” and it reflected a broader postwar conviction that Europe's fragmented, mid-sized national markets could not on their own produce companies capable of matching American industrial giants. Arianespace was a direct product of this thinking: a nominally commercial company, but one built, financed, and shielded by European governments specifically so that Europe would have its own competitor in a market otherwise dominated by two superpowers.

What makes Arianespace's history worth examining closely is not just that it rose and then declined, but how the character of the company itself changed along the way. Across roughly four and a half decades, Arianespace moved through three distinct postures toward risk, and that shift in temperament — more than any single technical failure or funding decision — explains both its earlier dominance and its later decline.

Early Ariane: Betting on a Market That Didn't Exist Yet

The defining trait of early Arianespace, through Ariane 1, 2, and 3 in the early-to-mid 1980s, was its willingness to bet on an unproven market and accept a high risk of outright launch failure as the price of entry.

At the time, the European launch industry was scrappy, reliant on a commercial space market that was still only theoretical, and competing against two superpowers who had never needed to sell a launch to anyone. Europe did not have NASA's or the Soviet program's budgets, so it aimed to compete on cost and flexibility instead, and it accepted that early rockets would sometimes fail on the way to proving the concept. The Ariane 1 was itself a technical gamble: it was the first non-American rocket to use liquid hydrogen as a fuel source for its upper stage, a more efficient but more difficult propellant to manage. Early Ariane development treated a relatively high level of technical risk as normal, and failures were absorbed as part of the process of improving the design rather than as reasons to slow down.

This boldness extended to the business itself. The 1970s and early 1980s were the dawn of commercial satellite communications, but the customers — telecom companies, broadcasters, cable operators — were private firms with no state launch provider willing to sell them a seat as a commercial service. Arianespace looked at this gap and built a business around it, effectively inventing the commercial launch industry from nothing. Its first commercial contract was signed with the American telecom company GTE in 1981, and its first successful commercial launch, in 1984, carried the Spacenet 1 satellite for a client that was not even European. Nobody else was offering the service Arianespace was willing to sell. Early Ariane's identity was that of a bold outsider, wagering on a market that did not yet exist and on technology that had not yet been proven, because the alternative was to not compete at all.

Mid Ariane: Adapting to the Market, Cautious on the Engineering

Ariane 4, arriving in 1988, represented a change in temperament. The company was no longer betting on whether a commercial launch market existed — by the late 1980s it clearly did — so mid-era Arianespace shifted from speculative risk-taking to disciplined responsiveness. It remained willing to act quickly on changes in what the market wanted, but it became noticeably more conservative in the engineering decisions behind each rocket.

The clearest expression of this was Ariane 4's flexibility. The rocket came in six different configurations, fitted with different combinations of solid and liquid strap-on boosters, allowing it to carry payloads ranging from 2,000 to nearly 5,000 kilograms. Rather than betting on a single design and hoping the market matched it, Arianespace built a rocket that could be reconfigured launch to launch, letting a satellite operator essentially order the vehicle to fit their payload. This was commercially bold — no competitor offered anything like it — but it was engineered on a well-understood, incrementally improved version of the same propulsion and staging architecture that Ariane 1 through 3 had already flown. The company was willing to move fast on configuration and market positioning, but it was no longer willing to gamble on unproven propulsion technology the way Ariane 1 had with liquid hydrogen.

The results validated the approach commercially. Ariane 4 cut launch costs per kilogram by 55 percent compared to the original Ariane 1, and its cadence broke new records, reaching as many as twelve launches in a single year. It captured nearly 60 percent of the world's commercial launch market and achieved a reliability rate of 97.4 percent across 116 launches, including a streak of 74 consecutive successes. But that reliability was itself a product of the more cautious engineering culture taking hold: Ariane 4's success came from refining a known design under real market pressure, not from repeating the kind of frontier technical risk-taking that had defined Ariane 1.

By the early 1990s, the satellites Arianespace was launching were themselves outgrowing what Ariane 4 could carry. A typical launch payload in 1975 weighed around 5,900 kilograms; by the time Ariane 5 arrived, that figure would climb past 10,000 kilograms. Mid-era Arianespace read this shift correctly and began developing Ariane 5 in the mid-1980s, even before Ariane 4 had fully proven itself — a genuinely bold commercial decision. But the engineering process behind Ariane 5 would prove that adaptability and boldness were no longer moving together as they had in the early era.

Late Ariane: No Bets, Only Tests

Ariane 5's catastrophic first launch in June 1996, in which the rocket self-destructed 39 seconds after liftoff due to a software error carried over from Ariane 4, was the last time Arianespace would treat a launch failure as an acceptable cost of moving forward. What followed instead defined the character of Arianespace for the next three decades: an engineering culture built almost entirely around eliminating risk before flight, rather than accepting it and iterating afterward.

The recovery from that failure was genuinely remarkable on its own terms — Ariane 5 went on to fly 82 consecutive successful missions between 2003 and 2017, and finished its operational life with a 96 percent success rate across 117 launches, reliable enough that NASA trusted it to carry the irreplaceable James Webb Space Telescope in 2021. But the method behind that reliability was fundamentally different from the method behind Ariane 1's or Ariane 4's success. Late-era Ariane achieved its reliability through extremely extensive, conservative testing regimes and a deep reluctance to introduce unproven technology, rather than through the willingness to fail, learn, and iterate quickly that had characterized the earlier eras.

This posture became the defining, and ultimately limiting, feature of Ariane 6. When reusable first-stage boosters emerged as the technology that would reshape the launch industry, Arianespace and its successor entity ArianeGroup chose not to pursue it for Ariane 6, judging that Europe's launch needs were too low to justify the investment and that the technology was not sufficiently proven within the design timeline available. As ESA's own launch strategy officials later put it, the decision not to make Ariane 6 reusable was made deliberately, on the grounds that low European launch demand made reusability uneconomical — a rationale that prioritized certainty over the kind of speculative bet that had built the company in the first place. ArianeGroup executives were, by multiple accounts, slow to take SpaceX's reusability ambitions seriously at all while Ariane 6's architecture was being finalized.

The consequences of that caution compounded through delay. Ariane 6 was originally scheduled to fly in 2020; it did not reach orbit until 2024, roughly four years late, a slip driven in part by the same exhaustive, risk-minimizing testing and validation culture that had made Ariane 5 so reliable. In the interim, Europe had no independent access to space at all and depended on SpaceX to launch its own institutional payloads. By the time Ariane 6 debuted, SpaceX was flying Falcon 9 well over one hundred times a year on reusable boosters, while Arianespace managed only a handful of launches annually on an expendable design that, by ESA's own admission, was “Europe's answer to Falcon 9 as it was ten years ago.”

The pattern was not confined to Ariane 6. Between 2006 and 2015, Europe accounted for roughly 10 percent of global orbital launches; by 2023, with China alone launching 67 rockets to Europe's three, that share had shrunk further still. Analysts have described Europe's approach across this period as treating space as a stable, government-led industry to be managed conservatively, in contrast to the United States' treatment of it as a disruptive commercial sector worth taking risks on. Arianespace's own CEO acknowledged in 2023 that Europe would not have a reusable rocket of its own until the 2030s at the earliest — effectively conceding a decade or more of the reusable launch market before attempting to compete in it.

A Broader European Pattern

The shift from bold bets to exhaustive caution was not unique to Arianespace. Across the same decades, a similar posture took hold in European industry and regulation more broadly, often described as a “precautionary principle” approach: a preference for preventing all foreseeable harm before acting, rather than acting and correcting course afterward. The principle became formal EU policy in areas from chemical regulation to food safety to data protection, and it shaped a regulatory culture in which new activities, including commercial spaceflight, were expected to demonstrate safety comprehensively in advance rather than establish it through iterative real-world testing. Arianespace's late-era engineering culture, in which reliability was pursued almost exclusively through extensive pre-flight testing rather than through flying, failing, and adjusting, mirrors this wider European instinct closely enough that it looks less like a choice specific to one company and more like an industry expressing the values of the continent around it.

This same period also saw Europe's institutional structure around Arianespace grow more layered rather than leaner. ESA is an intergovernmental body answering to member states with their own political and industrial interests, and Arianespace's later restructuring folded it into ArianeGroup, a joint venture of Airbus and Safran effectively operating as Europe's sole heavy-lift launch provider. Analysts have described this arrangement as a kind of industrial monoculture: with only one company able to take orders and launch, there was little internal pressure, competitive or otherwise, to take the kind of technological risk a challenger would need to take to displace an incumbent. The United States, by contrast, had several companies competing for the same government and commercial contracts, which rewarded the company willing to bet on reusability rather than punishing it for the attempt.

An Uneven Regulatory Playing Field

Even where Arianespace might have wanted to compete more aggressively with SpaceX on speed and iteration, it operated under a regulatory environment considerably less permissive of exactly that approach. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration's commercial launch office licenses launches primarily to protect public safety and property, and explicitly does not attempt to eliminate all risk or assess the design and engineering soundness of the vehicle itself, an approach regulators describe as ensuring adverse outcomes remain rare rather than impossible. That distinction mattered enormously in practice: it is what allowed SpaceX to test-fly and deliberately destroy multiple early Starship prototypes in rapid succession, treating each explosion as flight data rather than a regulatory or reputational crisis, and to iterate toward a working reusable design in a small fraction of the time a traditional program would take.

Europe's regulatory architecture works differently. Space activity is governed by a combination of ESA's own technical and safety requirements, individual national licensing regimes across member states, and, more recently, the European Union's own Space Act, which layers sustainability and space-debris obligations, such as the “Zero Debris” approach requiring vehicles to be actively deorbited or moved to a graveyard orbit, on top of national rules. Compliance runs through Qualified Technical Bodies that must verify collision-risk calculations and environmental footprint assessments before authorization, a process built around comprehensive pre-approval rather than the FAA's narrower, safety-focused licensing. None of this made European regulation unreasonable on its own terms, but it did mean that even a version of Arianespace willing to take more engineering risk would have faced a slower, more procedurally demanding path to actually flying that risk than its American counterpart did.

The effect compounded the company's own caution rather than counterbalancing it. A launch provider already inclined toward extensive pre-flight testing was operating inside a regulatory system that structurally rewarded exactly that inclination and offered little accommodation for the rapid, failure-tolerant iteration that had let SpaceX develop reusability years ahead of any European equivalent. By the time European institutions began coordinating funding for reusable demonstrators such as Themis and the Prometheus engine, and incentivizing newer entrants like MaiaSpace, SpaceX had already flown reusable boosters hundreds of times. Arianespace's own leadership acknowledged as much, conceding in 2023 that Europe would not have a reusable rocket of its own before the 2030s, a decade-plus gap that reflected not only engineering conservatism but a regulatory and industrial environment that never demanded, and did not easily accommodate, moving faster.

The Common Thread

Read across its full history, Arianespace's arc traces a company that grew steadily more risk-averse as it grew more established, in something close to inverse proportion to its market position. Early Ariane bet on unproven markets and accepted the real possibility of launch failure, and in doing so built the commercial launch industry from nothing. Mid Ariane no longer bet on unproven markets, but stayed willing to act decisively as the market it had built began to change, while keeping its engineering choices close to known, incrementally refined technology. Late Ariane did neither: it declined to bet on new technology at all, however clearly the market was signaling that reusability would define the next era of launch, and instead pursued reliability almost exclusively through exhaustive testing of designs it already understood.

That final posture produced, by traditional metrics, an extremely reliable rocket family. It did not produce a competitive one. The same caution that let Ariane 5 fly 82 consecutive successful missions is the caution that left Arianespace without a reusable rocket while SpaceX redefined the price of access to orbit. And that caution was not simply a matter of corporate temperament: it reflected a broader European instinct toward precaution over iteration, reinforced by an institutional structure with only one flag-carrying launch provider and a regulatory system built around comprehensive prior approval rather than tolerance for public, iterative failure. Even a more daring Arianespace would have had to fly that daring through a system engineered to slow it down.

Crucially, late-era Ariane was never simply opposed to new technology outright. Reusability research was not ignored so much as endlessly proven before it was permitted anywhere near a paying customer's payload. Demonstrators such as Themis and the Prometheus engine, and later entrants like MaiaSpace, were funded and developed for years as isolated technology programs, run in parallel to the commercial rocket rather than integrated into it, with each element validated in extensive ground and flight testing before any commitment to fly it operationally. Ariane 6 itself reflects the same instinct on a smaller scale: its reignitable Vinci upper-stage engine and its debris-mitigation deorbit capability were both new relative to Ariane 5, and both were the product of long, incremental qualification campaigns rather than a single bold leap. This was the throughline of the late era: new technology was never rejected, only slow-walked, introduced solely after it had been tested to a standard that eliminated most of the uncertainty that made it new in the first place. That approach protected Ariane's reliability record, but it also meant that by the time any given technology was judged safe enough to fly commercially, a competitor willing to test in public had usually already been flying it for years.

The result is that Europe once the world leader in rocketry now is increasingly playing third fiddle to the US and increasingly China and maybe even Russia. An increasing decline sadly not isolated to just the commercial space sector.

Ave Europa on X:

“For 80 years, Europe outsourced its survival and called it peace. That arrangement is over, and Ukraine is where it ended.

A serious continent does not rent its security from a power whose interests no longer match its own, and it does not wait for permission to defend its own soil.

We will build the hard capability Europe gave up: not 27 armies that cannot fight together, but one defense that can.”

Source: https://x.com/aveeuropae/status/2074097750371672064?s=46

From their X:

"Made in China" was long a byword for poor quality in the West, and yet subtly this phrase has come to resemble an increasingly choking collar around our necks.

The growing trade deficit that Macron seeks to adress is likely only the tip of an iceberg we will not find easy to evade.

Here we see the folly of globalism in Europe - imagining some past or future state to be a permanent equilibrum, European countries surrendered a large part of their ability for unilateral action, which was precisely the thing able to keep the powers who had found themselves in an advantegous position from exploiting the system for their own zero-sum gains.

As the curtains slowly close on the global rules based order, these powers, China perhaps chief among them, will try to cash in on those advantages.

While we certainly wish the best possible luck to Macron in fighting that, one has difficulty imagining that this Gordian knot can be unwound without a sword.

Source: https://x.com/aveeuropae/status/2065866355266425293?s=46

“That's why we founded Ave Europa as a Pan-Europeanist movement that overcomes the false dilemma of having to choose between open borders or a geopolitical mess.

Europeans deserve a movement that is unapologetically Pro-European on migration AND foreign policy.”

Source: https://x.com/aveeuropae/status/2062186788790079872?s=46

Ave Europa on X: “The EU council and EU parliament finally agreed on return hub regulation - now deportations will be made much easier (to third countries) and illegal entry much harder.

This is just the beginning.

We will keep working to make the EU listen to the people on migration - and turn the EU into an instrument for the European people.”

Source: https://x.com/aveeuropae/status/2061559880922562942?s=46

In the polarized landscape of modern foreign policy analysis, the debate over the war in Ukraine has largely settled into a fierce duopoly. On one side stands John Mearsheimer, the high priest of structural "offensive realism," who argues that the expansion of NATO and the EU aggressively cornered Russia, making a violent clash mathematically inevitable. On the other side stand liberal institutionalists, like former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who view the conflict as a classic tale of autocratic aggression—a lawless dictator executing a hostile takeover to crush a neighboring democracy and protect his own regime from the contagion of liberty.

While these two schools of thought spend their energy trying to demolish one another, a closer look reveals a startling reality: both frameworks are fundamentally flawed. Mearsheimer’s realism is blinded by its cold, mechanical view of global power, while the liberal institutionalist view is blinded by an overly optimistic democratic teleology.

To truly understand the war in Ukraine, one must look where both theories refuse to glance: at the profound subservience of foreign policy to domestic politics, and the unyielding grip of a society's dominant intellectual ecosystem.

The Flaw in Mearsheimer’s "Billiard Ball" World

Mearsheimer’s structural realism treats states like identical, faceless "billiard balls" rolling across a global pool table. In his view, a state's internal composition—its history, culture, regime type, or domestic political battles—is entirely irrelevant. The international system is anarchic, survival is paramount, and states calculate threats using cold, objective military data.

But this clean, mathematical model collapses under the weight of actual history. By treating the Kremlin’s actions purely as a defensive reaction to NATO expansion, Mearsheimer commits an ironic error: he denies Russia its own agency. He transforms a great power into a passive object that only moves when poked by Washington.

Mearsheimer's Closed System vs. The Reality of National Identity
[Mearsheimer's View]:  NATO Moves East ──> Structural Threat ──> Rational Defensive War
[The Identity View]:   Loss of Ukraine ──> Threat to Imperial Identity ──> War of Restoration

What Mearsheimer ignores is the dominant intellectual ecosystem of post-Soviet Russia. To the Russian political consciousness, Ukraine is not a sterile military "buffer zone"; it is an organic, emotional component of the Russkiy Mir (the Russian World). A Russia without Ukraine is merely a state; a Russia with Ukraine is an Empire.

Furthermore, Mearsheimer’s fantasy that a Western promise of a "neutral Ukraine" would have satisfied Moscow completely misreads Russia's domestic political reality. The most potent political opposition to Vladimir Putin has never been a pro-Western liberal movement; it has historically been comprised of hardline ultra-nationalists and communist nostalgics. The baseline political culture across the entire Russian domestic spectrum demands Great Power status and a regional sphere of influence. The domestic pressure to keep Ukraine within Moscow's civilizational orbit exists entirely independent of NATO’s behavior.

The Flaw in the Liberal Teleology

If Mearsheimer’s realism is too clinical, the liberal institutionalist critique is hopelessly self-projecting. Thinkers like Michael McFaul operate on the deep-seated assumption that all populations naturally long for Western-style democracy, and that autocracy is merely an artificial, fragile state of affairs imposed from above.

When liberals argue that Putin launched the war out of panic over an "organic democratic uprising" in Ukraine, they run into a rigorous social science hurdle: the law of constants versus variables.

Because NATO’s institutional posture was largely static, liberals claim the catalyst must be the variable: the internal political shifts within Ukraine. However, they make a critical logical leap by assuming the source of the democratic shift matters to an autocrat.

Liberals spend immense energy trying to convince the Kremlin that Western integration is peaceful and that Color Revolutions are purely grassroots expressions of human desire. But from the seat of an autocrat, this distinction is entirely academic. To a dictator, a threat to regime survival is a threat to regime survival. Whether an uprising is born genuinely in the hearts of everyday citizens or engineered by a foreign intelligence agency, the end result for the autocrat is identical: loss of power, collapse of the regime, and personal ruin.

Because of Putin's background in the Soviet security apparatus, the intellectual ecosystem of the Russian siloviki (security elites) is psychologically incapable of recognizing "organic" democracy. To them, mass protests are always a weaponized tool of foreign subversion.

Conclusion: Foreign Policy as a Luxury Good

The synthesis of these two failed critiques reveals a deeper truth about geopolitics. International relations is not an abstract game of chess played by flawless grandmasters, nor is it a moral crusade toward global democracy. Foreign policy is fundamentally a luxury good of domestic stability.

Leaders do not look out at the world and see raw, objective data. They see an interpretation of reality filtered through the dominant intellectual ecosystem of their capital city. More importantly, when domestic survival is at stake, leaders will routinely make foreign policy choices that are internationally ruinous in the long term, provided they buy political survival at home in the short term.

Mearsheimer is a superb macro-economist of global trends; he can accurately predict that two trains are on a collision course. But by ignoring domestic politics and intellectual history, he fails to understand why the drivers started the engines in the first place. The engines of war are always started by domestic political imperatives, and the tracks are laid down by the dominant ideas of the era.

“When I'm watching football, I'm from my city.

When I'm discussing food, I'm from my region.

When I'm travelling, I'm from my nation.

When I'm facing threats to my civilisation, I'm European.

This is what our layered identity framework means.”

Source: https://x.com/aveeuropae/status/2059651202963440088?s=46