Artemis and the crisis of American universalism

The narrative surrounding US space exploration – particularly its claim to represent “all mankind” – requires renewed scrutiny. During the Apollo era, this framing served a clear strategic purpose: to position American technological achievement as a universal human milestone rather than as an expression of Cold War rivalry. Today, as Washington advances the Artemis programme, it is attempting to revive that language. Yet the geopolitical and informational context has changed fundamentally. 

In 1969, the Apollo 11 Moon landing was accompanied by a plaque declaring that those who set foot on the Moon came “in peace for all mankind.” This message resonated globally, but it existed alongside a starkly different reality. Even as American astronauts set foot on the Moon, President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger were executing the brutal Vietnam War on Earth – marked by one of the most intense aerial bombing campaigns in history. Between 1965 and 1975, the US and its allies dropped over 7.5 million tons of ordnance across Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. That is more than triple the tonnage dropped in all theatres of World War II combined1. The dissonance between the universalist rhetoric of peace and the conduct of war was evident, even if it was not widely contested in real time. 

That relative lack of contestation reflected the structure of the information environment. During the Cold War, narratives were mediated through state institutions and a limited set of global media channels. Today, by contrast, social media and decentralised platforms amplify alternative perspectives, including those rooted in postcolonial critique. Historical episodes such as the 1953 coup against the elected Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh by CIA and MI6 to suit British oil interests, or recent ones such as the abduction of the Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro by the US to assert control over Venezuelan oil assets, are no longer peripheral to global discourse – they are central to how US actions are interpreted. 

The Artemis programme is unfolding in a far more contested geopolitical environment than Apollo – and, notably, in parallel with active conflict. The April 2026 launch of Artemis-2 coincided with a US- and Israeli-led military campaign targeting Iran and Lebanon. On the day of the launch, while the Artemis-2 crew comprising commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, mission specialists Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen set sail for a lunar flyby, US President Donald Trump, in a primetime address, escalated tensions further by declaring that the United States would “bring [Iran] back to the stone ages.” Such rhetoric, coupled with ongoing military operations with catastrophic consequences for civilian life and critical infrastructure, underscored the extent to which American space achievements are again being juxtaposed with the projection of hard power on Earth.  

Like the Apollo missions during the Vietnam War, today’s Artemis narrative of unity and collective human ambition evolves alongside vivid, real-time images of conflict, making the contrast sharper and harder to reconcile. Just as the hopeful imagery from the Apollo’s landing was juxtaposed by iconic photographs from Vietnam, such as the Napalm girl, so too are as the inspiring visuals shared by the Artemis-2 crew juxtaposed by recent scenes of dead Iranian elementary school girls from Minab. This throughline highlights a persistent contradiction: even as the US reaches ever more into deep space, it continues to perpetrate violence on Earth. But unlike the past, digital technology and satellite imagery makes these opposing realities instantly visible and jarring. 

The global space landscape is becoming increasingly multipolar, with countries like China and India achieving major milestones in lunar exploration as the US advances its Artemis programme. China has completed multiple lunar missions, including landings, sample returns and far-side exploration, while India has demonstrated significant progress, including evidence of lunar water ice and a south pole landing. These developments highlight the growing capabilities of Asian space powers and the decline of space dominance once held by the US and Russia, making claims of representing “all humanity” less convincing. 

Simultaneously, scepticism toward Western-led global norms is rising. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has faced stiff resistance from the US, which has not ratified its founding treaty and has actively opposed its jurisdiction, even sanctioning ICC officials. The EU, seen as a normative power, is also facing criticism. Its response to illegal occupation and conflicts, particularly in West Asia, has raised concerns about selective adherence to its stated principles. It has weakened EU’s claims to moral authority and complicated the legitimacy of the West-led rules-based international order. This dissonance presents a profound strategic dilemma for Europe. 

European policymakers must ensure that their participation in Artemis does not signal tacit endorsement of aggressive or illegal American geopolitical manoeuvres. Europe should champion a ‘rules-based lunar order’ that is legally insulated from terrestrial conflicts. It should also resist the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ lunar exploration model. ESA must strengthen independent launch capabilities, including human-rated launches, and diversifying global partnerships, such that the EU can safeguard its commitment to multilateralism and prevent space from becoming a theatre for polarized hard powers.  

Furthermore, ESA should have a strategic ‘look East’ policy, strengthen ties with India (ISRO), keep up pragmatic engagement with China (CNSA), while promoting interoperability. ESA must act as a ‘global bridge’ advocating for common technical standards that allow European hardware to work across both American and Asian platforms, ensuring Europe remains a non-expendable partner to all sides, while insulating its space ambitions from any single nation’s political shifts. 

Apollo’s history shows that alignment is difficult to sustain, and it may be even harder for Artemis amid ongoing US conflicts. Success will depend not just on technological achievements but on credible narratives. In a multipolar world, claims of serving all humanity must be backed by consistent, real-world actions, not just rhetoric.

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.