The title may sound absurd, but consider it for a moment. No, I haven’t taken a knock to the head. Instead, this is an exercise in appreciating the unintended consequences of their actions and the light they’ve shed on some uncomfortable truths about Europe’s political and economic dependencies.

Let’s think back to a few years ago when the EU was, quite astonishingly, increasing its dependence on Russian energy, particularly natural gas. The situation was brewing silently, potentially bringing Europe to a dangerous point where it would be bound to Moscow for its energy needs.

But then came 2022: Putin invaded Ukraine and, suddenly, Europe was jolted awake to the precariousness of its dependency. This awakening, this sudden realisation of the potential danger, is crucial in understanding the EU’s energy vulnerabilities. If Putin hadn’t taken that drastic and catastrophic step, the EU might still be laying down pipelines, locking itself deeper into reliance on Russian resources without a second thought.

Nord Stream wasn’t just about fuel; it symbolised the gradual but deepening energy ties between Europe and Russia. Despite warnings from some corners, many European leaders downplayed the risks, effectively burying concerns under the guise of cost-efficiency and environmental impact arguments.

Putin’s aggression disrupted this trend before it reached an irreversible stage. It forced European leaders to quickly diversify their energy supply lines and consider alternatives like LNG imports, renewable energy and local energy production to bolster resilience.

However, it’s telling that a geopolitical threat, not foresight from EU institutions, triggered this rethinking. Without the crisis in Ukraine, how far would this dependency have extended? Could the EU have eventually found itself politically paralysed, unable to make certain decisions without Russian approval? This was a wake-up call that the EU desperately needed, as uncomfortable as it may be to admit.

Then there’s Donald Trump, whose blunt approach to NATO shook the EU’s trust in the permanence of the US as a reliable defence partner. Trump’s rhetoric was often aggressive, questioning why American taxpayers should bear the costs of European security.

This shocked many but led to a long-overdue examination of Europe’s reliance on American military support. Trump’s calls for European nations to contribute more towards their defence capabilities could have easily been dismissed as another controversial outburst, but the core message had merit.

If Trump hadn’t shaken this foundational pillar, Europe might still be drifting along, expecting the US to continue as its ultimate safeguard. Instead, European leaders started to recognise the need for independent defence strategies, sparking renewed discussions around a united EU defence force and investment in military infrastructure and technology. Imagine if Europe had delayed these conversations any longer; it could have been too late to build the necessary defences by the time a major crisis hit.

So we’re left with a sobering question: if these two figures could unwittingly expose the EU’s dependencies on foreign powers for such fundamental needs, what other vulnerabilities are lurking beneath the surface? It raises concerns about the EU’s policymakers’ oversight – or lack thereof.

After all, these were not obscure or technical issues. Energy security and defence are pillars of any stable union, and the EU has an army of officials and MEPs meant to prevent precisely these kinds of strategic oversights. Yet here we are, questioning whether actions by leaders outside the EU brought these issues to light.

As it happens, there are other areas where Europe is heavily dependent on foreign powers, and these have yet to stir the same level of urgency.

Consider Europe’s reliance on microelectronics, for instance. The EU is now playing catch-up, trying to build capacity in microchip production and semiconductor manufacturing, industries that East Asian countries, particularly Taiwan, have long dominated. But let’s be honest: if tensions escalate between China and Taiwan, Europe could face a crippling shortage of these essential components.

Are we poised to miss more looming threats simply because they haven't yet erupted into a full-blown crisis?- Alexiei Dingli

Modern technology depends heavily on semiconductors – used in smartphones, medical devices, automobiles, and telecommunications infrastructure. If a conflict disrupts this supply chain, Europe may be unable to maintain even essential technological functions, let alone continue developing advanced technologies.

Yes, the EU is starting to invest in its semiconductor production, but it’s a slow process that will take years, if not decades, to yield results. Why was this not a priority before, when the risks were evident, and the global supply-chain fragilities were already well-known? Why did it take the EU so long to recognise the urgency of self-reliance in an area critical to its economy and national security?

Another looming issue is artificial intelligence (AI). The EU has done commendable work leading regulatory discussions around AI ethics, data privacy and safe AI development.

However, while Europe was busy with its regulatory frameworks, it overlooked an equally critical aspect: creating and deploying home-grown AI models that could rival those from global tech giants.

Today, major players like Apple and Meta are cautious about releasing advanced AI models in Europe, citing concerns over compliance and data restrictions. This reluctance is a blow to the EU’s innovation landscape, putting European researchers and companies at a disadvantage compared to their American and Chinese counterparts.

Without its robust AI ecosystem, Europe could soon depend on foreign technologies for AI advancements, mirroring the earlier dependencies on energy and defence.

The long-term consequence? Europe might need help to leverage AI for economic growth and technological leadership while others push forward. It’s another case of the EU missing the forest for the trees – championing regulation but neglecting the infrastructure and investment needed to be a leader in this space.

So, what’s next? This moment should be prompting some serious reflections. Are we poised to miss more looming threats simply because they haven’t yet erupted into a full-blown crisis? The EU’s leadership needs to ask itself some tough questions: how can it ensure that oversight failures like these never happen again? Can it strike a balance between regulating foreign influence and building local strength?

If the EU continues to be reactive, waiting for a geopolitical shock to highlight its weaknesses, it risks perpetuating a dangerous cycle of dependency and vulnerability.

As we confront today’s challenges, Europe needs a strategic shift in anticipating, preparing for and protecting against external shocks. The EU can no longer afford to wait for a crisis to compel necessary change.

The real question is whether Europe has learned enough to address tomorrow’s threats proactively.

Alexiei Dingli is a professor of artificial intelligence.