Since 1979 and since the first European elections in Europe, citizens of the Old Continent had never gone to the polls wearing helmets.
We see this today, metaphorically of course, as the debate dominating Europe’s political leadership about how there will be a qualitative leap forward in the war effort in Ukraine.
French President Macron is leading the way, sending military trainers and transferring Mirage fighters to Ukraine. A step that until a few months ago seemed taboo. Mainly because it increases the risk of involving France, a nuclear power, in a conflict with Russia, another nuclear power.
But this does not constitute an escalation of the war against Russia, according to the French president.
Macron did not hesitate to take advantage of the celebrations of the 80th anniversary of D-Day and the Allied landings in Normandy to present himself as the EU leader in military aid to Kiev. And all this with a large dose of domestic consumption, so that the collapse of Macron’s “Renaissance” is not avoided in the European elections.
But unlike Britain’s “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher in 1982 and the Falklands War, Macron’s “authoritarian liberalism” as a foreign policy “hawk” will not bring any significant gains to Macronists at the polls. A clear majority of French people reject a confrontational path, which risks coming into direct confrontation with Russia.
“Playing” with war
But it is not just Macron who is “betting” on the cold war in these European elections.
The level of political debate about Europe’s prospects focuses on military issues. Having rejected any space for mediation between NATO and Russia, the EU thus renounces even the protection of its direct commercial and energy interests, simply confirming the role of “spectator at home”.
Not only the election manifestos, but also the more specific and already decided spending programs of Brussels plan for the continuation of the war in Ukraine. Promoting a gigantic rearmament effort.
But what can we expect from the same European elite that in recent years has been going from error to error, in all possible calculations and predictions? And now you simply present the decision to send increasingly powerful weapons to Ukraine, if not even troops, as a sign of unity?
These are the same leaders who two years ago announced Ukraine’s imminent and inevitable victory and who now do not hesitate to involve Europe more actively in the war.
They sow fear
What are worth for? But to scare the citizens. As they did with all previous crises. From finance to the pandemic. Because when people are afraid, they stop thinking. Are we convinced that the now perfect overlap of US-led NATO borders with those of the EU is a good thing for us Europeans? Do we really feel safer when everyone rearms like crazy, starting with Poland and Germany? Have we convinced ourselves that, in case of victory in Ukraine, Putin will also try to attack NATO?
Vladimir Putin is bad, without a doubt. He invaded Ukraine. It is clear who is the attacker and who is the defender. However, Putin has been in power for 24 years, not two days. And he had explained certain things very well a long time ago. For example, in 2007, when at the International Security Conference in Munich he said, with the presence of Merkel and Hollande, that Russia would never accept a unipolar world led by the USA.
This happened while the US, Poland and the Czech Republic were negotiating the installation of an anti-missile system that apparently changed the entire security architecture in Europe.
A measure that at the time the White House, with a great sense of humor, said was all aimed at defending Europe… from Iran! The Russians complained a lot as NATO advanced 1,600 kilometers to the east (Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland joined in 1999, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia in 2004). But essentially Moscow did nothing.
The red line
However, even idiots should have understood what the red line was for Moscow: no Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, no possible Alliance presence in two countries bordering Russia. Ukraine has a 1,576 km border with Russia, Georgia has 723 km.
Of course, there is always the free will of States, the self-determination of people… all of this must be valid. But these beautiful principles are sometimes followed and sometimes not.
The greatest risk of nuclear conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was addressed by UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the annual meeting of the Arms Control Union in Washington.
“Humanity is on a knife’s edge. The risk of using a nuclear weapon has reached levels not seen since the Cold War,” Guterres added.
Screaming voice… Or does reality no longer matter? But just interests? Internal and geopolitical…