Old Europe’s instinct is to double down on what fails. A new discipline of thinking can liberate sandbox generals from their hamster wheel. The 18 August 2025 White House visit of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, flanked by Europe’s anti-Russian leaders, should have been nothing less than a clarion call – startling, undeniable, impossible to ignore.Zelensky’s theatrical performance at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue transformed him into the world’s tragicomedian, while his European entourage surrendered dignity and honor, compounding the immeasurable disaster of Europe’s whatever-it-takes remilitarization.1. Introduction: The Sputnik moment the West failed to noticeThe debasing and futile act of supplication in D. C. ought to have jolted the West’s strategic imagination like the game-changing Sputnik moment – the shock of the small Soviet silver sphere that pierced the heavens, shattering illusions, exposing complacency, and demanding a ruthless reckoning.The grim summer spectacle in the White House was destined to hammer home, with jarring force, the sterility of yesterday’s doctrines, reflexively invoked as default response. The public fiasco ought to have revealed that true geopolitical stability cannot be cobbled from the debris of a bygone order, but demands that leaders confront new realities, seize initiative, and chart a bolder, decisive course.Yet despite the palpable, hypertoxic fallout of their policies, material and immaterial alike, Old Europe’s anti-Russian warriors doubled down compulsively on what had evidently failed – military buildup to shield against Russia and contain the so-called “predator” – mistaking restless motion for mastery, and chimera for progress.Like hamsters, European armchair generals barrel forward endlessly on a wheel of their own making, expending ever more effort for ever more strain – trapped in a cruel cycle where spinning breeds pain, and persistence only deepens the folly and absurdity of the manifest charade.To avert the annihilation of the Old Continent and open the path to a more luminous future for all global stakeholders, its power brokers must embrace strategic reinvention and craft a game-changing geopolitical blueprint – one that is forged through a new, more enlightened cognitive framework, unshackled from the past and attuned to the demands of a new era. Read more Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 24: Diplomacy by disembowelment – Old Europe’s self-destructive DC tour 2. Process as enabler: The transformative force of divergent metathinkingAchieving enduring geopolitical stability demands more than a habitual reflex. To excel, Western strategists must confront the limits of their own reasoning and summon bold, truly innovative solutions through what I call “divergent metathinking” – an intellectual crucible for leadership.This pioneering metacognitive discipline, harnessing process as a transformative enabler, fuses three intertwined operations of the mind into a unified, purposeful force: System 2 reasoning (predominantly asking “what” and “how”), double-loop reflection (harnessing the power of “why”), and open-expanse imagination (daring to explore “what if”).In practice, however, the opposites of these illuminating modes often coalesce into a single reactive pattern: swift, instinctive impulses dominate (System 1), assumptions persist unchallenged (single loop), and convention stifles imagination (boxed mind).This amalgam of mental shortcuts is nothing more than a mere reflex – unworthy of the title “thinking”. Cognitive habits, social pressures, and institutional norms conspire to create a predictable, rigid, and suffocating landscape of the mind – ripe for disruption by the liberating force of divergent metathinking.In three decisive ways, this new discipline of reflective cognitive practice breaks from the status quo and transcends it – hence the Greek prefix meta (μετά, meaning “beyond”): beyond instinct, beyond assumption, beyond constraint.But insight alone is never enough. To be of consequence, it must be forged into a lofty vision, hammered into a shrewd strategy, and executed with ruthless precision. Such mastery demands a veritable transmutation – of organizations, of behavior, of cognition itself.At its core, divergent metathinking runs on three interlocking engines, each amplifying the others, each propelling thought beyond old limits to remake the world.System 2 reasoningMany of our actions are guided by the snap judgments of System 1 – the intuitive, reflexive mind, relying on gut feeling, pattern recognition, and heuristics. It operates unconsciously and effortlessly – jerking a hand from a hot stove, snatching a cookie without thought, or driving a familiar route on autopilot. A formidable ally in executing routine tasks, it can swiftly turn into a subtle saboteur, prone to bias and error when confronted with the novel and the complex.System 2 thinking counterbalances this instinctive mode, hinging on careful deliberation grounded in logical analysis and factual evidence. Raising questions such as, “What is the most rational course of action, informed by every shred of data, known or to be discovered” or “How should we allocate resources to maximize impact”, it calls for conscious reasoning, penetrating reflection, and uncompromising control: taking precautions to avoid injury, weighing nutrition choices, or planning around road closures. Read more Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 23: The art of political tragicomedy – Zelensky’s playbook It is this deliberate, analytical, fact-driven reasoning that empowers movers and shakers to tackle complex problems and forge decisions with positive, transformative, and enduring impact. In particular, engaging System 2 is an indispensable requirement for charting a course with clarity and insight in today’s turbulent, complex, and perilous geopolitical arena, fraught with high-stakes, multifaceted challenges.Double-loop reflectionMost people operate in single-loop mode: patching errors without ever challenging the assumptions that produced them. Like a thermostat that merely nudges the temperature back to a preset point, or police increasing patrols to reduce crime, they treat symptoms instead of zeroing in on root causes – forfeiting the chance to lay the groundwork for truly resolving the real, underlying problem.Double-loop thinking shatters that simplicity, plumbing the depths of understanding. It runs on two intertwined feedback loops: one addressing visible actions, the other probing the bedrock assumptions, asking whether the mental models, systems, goals, or methods themselves need to change, thereby opening the door to more fundamental, transformative, and sustainable solutions.By repeatedly asking “why”, problem-solvers operating in this mode transcend quick fixes. Rather than merely correcting errors on the surface (a single feedback loop), they interrogate the latent beliefs that shape their understanding of a problem and, if necessary, alter them while reframing the challenge itself.Return to the thermostat: Instead of simply adjusting the heat, the double-loop thinker asks the hard meta-question, “Should the target temperature itself be different?” The same principle applies to policing: Rather than addressing crime merely in a knee-jerk, seat-of-the-pants fashion by ramping up surveillance, a resourceful mind might explore whether deep-seated social inequalities lie at its root and, if so, enact systemic changes.Or consider education: When pupils fail, a single-loop teacher piles on extra worksheets; a double-loop educator questions the very assumptions behind learning, rethinks methods, and creates architectures that genuinely empower understanding.Open-expanse imaginationWhat I call “open-expanse imagination” – the antithesis of boxed thinking – is the art of perception without limits. As an exploratory, unconstrained, and audacious approach to generating ideas, it transcends convention – a true exercise in “meta” thinking. This operation of the mind sparks curiosity, opens fresh perspectives, and incubates visionary, boundary-free concepts. Imagine the steppe: a vast, seemingly limitless plain stretching to the horizon, unbounded and untamed.An open-expanse mind dares to sense, apprehend, and envision the world anew, embracing radical, unthinkable alternatives. He contemplates questions like, “What if everything we thought we knew was wrong?” and, before any consideration of budget, technology, or practicality, “What if anything were possible?” Read more Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 22: The Empathy Mirror – Leveraging the power of protected relatability To fully grasp the power of open-expanse inquiry, imagine, by way of example, a world in which delivery drones replace every urban courier truck – just one of countless possibilities waiting to be conceived.In fact, many of the marvels we take for granted today – like the internet in every pocket or instant global communication – sprang from what might be called a “disruptive meta-thinker”, bold enough to envision the seemingly impossible and bring it to life.3. Practicing divergent metathinking: Harnessing smart questions as catalystsA sharp, discerning mind does not merely answer questions – it interrogates both questions and answers.Consider a wise business advisor: He resists the instinctive urge to respond hastily, pausing to probe whether the question itself is truly the right one. If it is not, he reframes it to uncover the root causes of a conundrum and unlock enduring solutions. Before moving to implementation, he meticulously scrutinizes every answer, leaving no stone unturned.Sharp, analytical questioning is the opening gambit that ignites three-dimensional divergent metathinking. Remarkably, the triad of cardinal operations at the heart of this new discipline of mind can be simultaneously galvanized into purposeful, expansive motion by one single, thought-provoking question. It is summoned to shatter any specious inquiries of the past, which habitually funneled thought into blind alleys and dead ends, thereby closing off horizons of possibility.By enthroning reason above instinct, such an overarching, catalytic question awakens and nurtures the full force of System 2 thinking – systematic, analytical data processing that opens horizons of deliberation previously unseen. When the query probes underlying assumptions, the inquirer also taps the power of double-loop reflection. And, as a crowning flourish, questions aimed at creative breakthroughs unleash open-expanse imagination with boundless potential.As a fitting overture, even the opening lead question itself deserves to be held aloft, turned in the light, and scrutinized through the prism of divergent metathinking.In geopolitics, applying the analytical rigor of slow System 2 thinking to problem framing yields an unmistakable lesson: Anti-Russian hawks in Old Europe are evidently pursuing a flawed line of inquiry.To break free, Western strategists must leapfrog into divergent metathinking, scrutinizing and reframing their implicit, habitual geopolitical question – the myopic one that ensnares them in the hamster wheel of military escalation: “How can we defend ourselves and our allies against Russia, the unprovoked aggressor, and decisively deter it from ever attacking European nations again?”Analytically refracted through a System 2 lens, this structurally flawed line of inquiry exemplifies the perils of the complex-question fallacy. It is loaded, masking several biased, question-begging assumptions – “begging” to be proven – much like asking, “When did you stop beating your wife?”.Such a manipulative interrogation is an insidious trap, cornering opponents by implicitly presuming guilt before any evidence has been provided. In the marital example, the questioner presumes the husband has been inflicting violence on his wife, though this has not been established. Read more Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 21: Pity picks sides – Ukraine mourned, Gaza shadowed, Russia blamed Any response to such an inappropriate, loaded inquiry surrenders to its dubious premise. Yet, as a caveat, it must be recognized that a complex question is deemed fallacious only when its embedded claims are contested.Time for a dose of double-loop scrutiny: The hawkish security-related query on Russia brazenly conceals three unproven assumptions, nested like Matryoshka dolls. First, that Russia is an aggressor; second, that its supposed aggression was unprovoked; and third, that this alleged habitual, unprovoked aggressor must be deterred – assumptions accepted uncritically, shaping policy with unchecked force. Beyond being loaded, this surreptitious question corrals thought into unproductive channels, setting loose a self-perpetuating vicious cycle of fear and hostility.Manifestly, Russia’s leaders would dismiss each of the embedded conjectures as patent falsehoods. Concerning the alleged lack of provocation, they would adduce the attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) on Donbass that preceded the Special Military Operation (SMO). Russian power brokers would also bristle at the label “aggressor”, insisting that the SMO constitutes a defense of the motherland. Beyond this, they would dispute the implicit assumption that Russia must be deterred, asserting that it is a peace-loving nation, posing no threat to any other state.Answers are fleeting, tied to circumstance; but the right question is a genuine paradigm-shifter, unfurling new horizons of thought. The challenge, then, is incontestable: What inquiry could supplant the fallacious construct, liberating Western strategists from the hamster wheel of escalation?As a provocation for thought, policymakers might in the first instance ask: “What bold, innovative approaches could transform Europe’s relationship with Russia, forging a profound, enduring, and mutually beneficial partnership, capable of unfreezing a sustainable peace dividend?”Better still, once incisive analysis and relentless scrutiny of assumptions have stripped away every vestige of illusion, Europe’s hawks might infuse their inquiry with open-expanse imagination, daring to ask: “What if Russia, long cast as the threat, could instead become Europe’s greatest security asset?”Undoubtedly, this alchemical question – the kind that catalyzes iteration upon iteration of divergent metathinking – can summon bold, revolutionary solutions to the security conundrum, casting Russia not as a looming threat but reimagining it as a boundless wellspring of unprecedented opportunity. What might such a novel, groundbreaking blueprint look like when rendered in paradigmatic form?[Part 5 of a series on European defense. To be continued. Previous columns in the series:Part 1, published on 19 March 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 14: ‘Whatever it takes’ revisited – Euromaniacs exploit threat bias againPart 2, published on 14 May 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 15: Kakistocratic defense splurgers destroy Europe;Part 3, published on 30 August 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 23: The art of political tragicomedy – Zelensky’s playbook;Part 4, published on 6 September 2025: Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass No. 24: Diplomacy by disembowelment – Old Europe’s self-destructive DC tour]