The unprecedented images that have flooded news outlets and social media alike over the past few days, showing approximately 60,000 Moroccans attempting to swim into the Spanish exclave of Ceuta, have triggered a wave of reactions across Europe. Most, however, have fallen somewhere on the spectrum between opportunistic, disjointed, and, most importantly, weak.

Many prominent pro-European voices have already highlighted the hypocrisy of the Italian-Danish initiative to gang up on Spain, using the crisis as an opportunity to air long-standing grievances primarily held among center-right and right-wing governments against Spain’s center-left Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Such behaviour is selfish, hypocritical, and ultimately undermines European unity.

Yet, the most important issue has received almost no attention. There have been no serious articles, no pressing questions, and barely any discussion about identifying the perpetrator of this act of aggression against the European Union, or about what consequences should follow to ensure such an antic is not repeated. The answer to the first question is rather straightforward. Morocco orchestrated the events that unfolded in Ceuta.

Migration weaponised

Beyond the political narratives and media spectacle, dozens of people lost their lives after being used as pawns in a geopolitical game played by the Moroccan regime. But there has not been a single statement from the European Union or its member states, including Spain for that matter, explicitly acknowledging Morocco’s responsibility for this crisis and human tragedy.

Instead, official statements speak of “cooperation with the Moroccan authorities” and “working together with our Moroccan partners” to manage the aftermath and facilitate the return of migrants. As if 60,000 people simply materialised on the beaches right outside Ceuta, independently decided to swim into European territory, while Morocco just stood by as a surprised spectator.

Let us dispense with the pretense. This was an act of coercion directed against the European Union by a neighboring state that weaponised migration to extract concessions. Morocco is blackmailing the European Union and its member states for additional funding, political support in its rivalry with Algeria, favourable trade arrangements, and expanded work permit quotas, among numerous other demands.

Morocco is not unique in using this strategy against the European Union. Turkey has repeatedly used the same tactic. Belarus did the same during the Polish border crisis. Libya and Tunisia have employed similar methods. Weaponising migration has become a familiar instrument of leverage against Europe. And yet there have been virtually no meaningful consequences for these states.

States can violate agreements with the European Union, facilitate or encourage irregular migration across European borders, and then demand even greater concessions in exchange for stopping it. Europe complies time and time again. There is no deterrence, no retribution, and no meaningful punishment for governments that openly engage in this political blackmail.

Europe’s addiction to restraint

Part of the explanation is Europe’s chronic disunity. These countries feel emboldened to target Spain, Italy, or Greece, precisely because too many European governments continue to treat migration as the problem of frontline states rather than of the Union as a whole. Solidarity remains à la carte. As last week’s reactions demonstrated, many governments prefer to exploit such crises for domestic political gain with unreasonable demands.

But an equally troubling explanation is that this is a consequence of Europe’s complete reluctance to exercise hard power, pairing diplomacy with credible coercion and the imposition of tangible costs on rogue actors. The reasons are numerous. Some policymakers fear the optics of European nations exerting pressure on African or Asian countries with colonial histories. Others are paralyzed by concerns over short-term economic consequences.

There are also those who genuinely and naively believe that Europe’s moral superiority requires it to reject power politics altogether, convinced that responding forcefully would mean abandoning its values. But regardless of the motivation, the outcome is the same. Europe increasingly projects the image of a wealthy, elderly man, reclining in an armchair while his neighbour repeatedly smashes his windows and sets fire to his garden, handing over yet another bag of money.

The international environment has changed dramatically. Civility, gentleman’s agreements, and appeals to international norms are no longer universally viewed as strengths. Increasingly, they are interpreted as signs of weakness. From major powers such as the United States, to revisionist powers like Russia, to regional actors including Turkey, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Libya, and others, governments have learned that Europe’s instinct is restraint.

Deterrence requires consequences

Hard power, of course, takes many forms. Nearly 60% of Morocco’s exports are destined for the European market. Would the Kingdom have reconsidered its actions had the European Union responded the following day with a comprehensive trade embargo on Moroccan goods, enforced by naval means? Would future attempts at migration blackmail become less attractive if they carried immediate and painful consequences?

The same question applies elsewhere. Would Belarus have repeated its strategy of flying migrants to Minsk and transporting migrants to Poland’s border had it faced significantly harsher consequences the first time, including European action within Belarusian territory? The precise form such responses should take is open to debate, but the broader point remains: deterrence is only credible when adversaries believe there are real costs for crossing certain red lines.

And because we live in the age of social media, deterrence must also be communicated through actions that are visible and immediately felt. Consequences cannot be confined to diplomatic exchanges, or policy shifts whose effects unfold years later and remain invisible to the wider public. They must be blunt, unmistakable, and highly visible.

In an era where narratives are shaped by images, viral clips, and instant reactions, deterrence must resonate emotionally as well as strategically. Europe has chosen a foreign policy centered on diplomacy, economic cooperation, and rules-based international relations. That is a legitimate strategic choice. But the rest of the world has increasingly mistaken that choice for incapacity.

Europe has become reluctant not merely to use harder instruments of power, but even to remind others that such instruments exist. They need a reminder that Europe is a force to be reckoned with, not an actor that can be endlessly exploited for money while its historical guilt and commitment to international law are treated as guarantees that it will never respond decisively.

If not respect, then fear

Too many regimes have come to assume that Europe’s respect for treaties, conventions, and the ‘rules-based international order’ mean they can act with impunity, confident that the response will stop short of imposing truly painful costs. That perception must change. Deterrence does not require constant confrontation, but it does require credibility.

States are far less likely to exploit their relationship with the European Union if they know it is both capable of and willing to employ anything from economic coercion to “gunboat diplomacy” or, as internet slang would put it, the “FAFO doctrine” when sufficiently provoked. Only when those costs are seen as both real and unavoidable, will many think twice before attempting to weaponize migration or coerce Europe again.

Unity and solidarity among Member States remain indispensable. The problems of Spain, Italy, Greece, or Poland are European problems and must be treated as such. But unity alone is insufficient. Europe must also rediscover the willingness to project strength, impose consequences, and defend its interests with credibility and ruthlessness. Those who do not respect Europe, should ultimately fear it.