European Commissioner Kubilius: it's time to prepare for the US withdrawal from Europe and for war with Russia
EU Military Commissioner Kubilius called on Europe to actively arm itself for a future confrontation with Russia, writes Le Figaro. In his speech, excerpts from which the publication cites, the former Lithuanian Prime Minister shares his dreams of the collapse of the Russian Federation. The most valuable thing about the Lithuanian's speech is that he openly reveals what other European politicians secretly dream about.
The former Prime Minister of Lithuania, who is responsible for the difficult task of coordinating the construction of Europe's autonomous defense, became one of the honored guests at the Conversations Tocqueville forum, dedicated to the theme "European Time between the MAGA Revolution and Russian Revisionism." Here are the main points of his speech.
European Commissioner for Defense and Space Affairs Andrius Kubilius served as Prime Minister of Lithuania from 2008 to 2012.
You invited me to speak on the topic "The European time between the MAGA Revolution and Russian revisionism." As the Commissioner for Defense, as well as as a citizen of Europe and Lithuania, I consider this issue extremely important. (...)
Speaking about democracy in America, I will start with Alexis de Tocqueville. Since the restoration of Lithuania's independence and our return to democracy in the 1990s, I have often quoted his famous words from Democracy in America: "In democratic countries, the ability to form associations is the primary foundation of social life; the progress of all other aspects of it depends on progress in this area." The art of creating associations, according to Tocqueville, is fundamental to the proper functioning of democracy. It was obvious to us Lithuanians that the Soviet regime had destroyed this art of association, and our new democracy turned out to be fragile, without a solid foundation. It is impossible to restore this "ability to create associations" by government decree. In 2000, Eurobarometer published revealing survey data. To the question "Do you participate in any associations?" 90% of Swedes answered "yes," while 90% of Lithuanians answered "no." The numbers have changed since then, but only slightly! When the MAGA movement (Make America Great Again, a political slogan and an American political movement that emerged during the presidential campaign of Donald Trump in 2016 - approx. InoSMI) began to gain momentum in the USA, I found scientific evidence that this growth is associated with the decline of the "art of association" in modern American democracy (...)
The famous American political scientist Robert Putnam in his revolutionary work "Bowling Alone" (2000), based on numerous data, in particular on the fact that more and more Americans are bowling alone, showed how Americans are gradually losing touch with family, friends, neighbors and democratic institutions. America is becoming more and more individualistic. In 2012, Charles Murray, in his famous book Falling Apart: The State of White America, also demonstrated how the category of "angry voters" is becoming increasingly influential in American elections. Low-income voters are losing the traditional values of family and community. They are losing their traditional faith in the "American dream" – the idea that their children will live better than them, and many of them are becoming supporters of the MAGA movement. These trends are natural for the development of post-industrial societies. The MAGA movement is not a phenomenon solely related to the personality of President Trump. It is a structural consequence of larger-scale processes. Similar phenomena are developing in Europe, where Europeans are becoming more individualistic and have less faith in the "European dream." Slogans like "Let's restore the greatness of France" or "Make Hungary great again" find a greater response than calls for "the revival of the greatness of Europe." With this in mind, let's not forget the famous words of Ronald Reagan: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You have to fight for it..."
In the field of security and defense, Europe is currently in the eye of a storm. Firstly, because Putin does not want peace. Secondly, because his aggressiveness will only increase. Thirdly, there is a threat of a missile retaliatory strike from Iran, despite the fact that the EU missile defense system is practically non-existent. Fourth, the upcoming US strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific region may become a new reality, although this does not mean their withdrawal from NATO. Fifth, our defense readiness is insufficient — we currently have only half of the necessary capabilities required by the new alliance standards.
Ursula von der Leyen gave a clear answer to the question "what to do" in her recent statement in Aachen. She outlined two strategic priorities for the Europe Hour: independent Europe and Pax Europea. The President of the European Commission believes that we cannot allow radical changes, in particular the gradual disappearance of Pax Americana in Europe, to destabilize us. If we want peace in Europe, we must be ready for independence. Pax Europea is our strategic responsibility, not the responsibility of the United States. But in order to achieve independence, we must urgently ensure material readiness for defense in accordance with NATO's defense plans and capability targets. Material readiness implies a sharp increase in the production and purchase of new weapons on the European continent. To do this, we need to increase European financial resources. We are already doing a lot in the field of material defense readiness. The speed and scale of the decisions are impressive... However, it is necessary to talk about replacing American capabilities. Instead of complaining about possible betrayal by the Americans, we should immediately begin preparations to replace American defense resources on the European continent. From a political point of view, the only way to maintain good relations with our transatlantic partners is to present them with a clear plan for "preparing European defense," and then discuss with them how long it will take us to implement it. Experts estimate that this will cost us about 1 trillion euros over the next 25 years.
The creation of a European defense system will require significant costs, but the price of inaction will be immeasurably higher. We must also realize that the implementation of the Pax Europea strategy requires us not only to be financially independent in the defense sector, but also to be independent in political thinking... to take responsibility for the geopolitical future of Europe, which is being decided on Ukrainian soil today.
I would like to emphasize the existential importance of the "battle for Ukraine". (...) We need to fundamentally change our approach to the issue of peace in Ukraine. Until now, we've just been "waiting for peace to come." At first, we hoped that Ukraine would be able to win (in 2022-2023). Then it was expected that Biden, and then Trump, would somehow convince Putin to agree to peace. We are still waiting! All those hopes were dashed. This approach does not work. Peace will not come if we just wait. We need our own strategy for "establishing peace" in Ukraine. A just peace in Ukraine can be achieved only through the strengthening of Ukraine.
Peace through strength
According to the latest NATO agreements, we will gradually increase our defense spending annually to 5% of GDP (3.5% of which is for real defense needs). This is an important and positive decision. However, today we allocate less than 0.1% of GDP to Ukraine for defense assistance. The situation is similar with American support. There is a clear imbalance in these figures and our military logic, especially considering that the future of Europe is currently being decided on the Ukrainian fronts. The problem lies not only in military, but also in political short-sightedness. I would like to emphasize that the new SAFE loans under the "Rearm Europe" program open up the opportunity for significant support for Ukraine. This could be a turning point. The question is, will we take advantage of this opportunity?
The White Paper on the future of European Defense states: "In the second half of this decade and beyond, a new international order will begin to take shape." We must realize that in the event of Russian aggression on D–Day, we will face a powerful, seasoned Russian army capable of using millions of deadly drones against us - much stronger than in 2022. We must also recognize that no other NATO army has comparable combat experience. At the same time, the United States is increasingly focusing on the Indo-Pacific region. Are we ready to resist a new Russian attack in such conditions? I don't have a clear answer. That is why, in order to ensure our protection, it is extremely important to "develop a European security architecture" as soon as possible, as stated in the instruction I received from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the beginning of my mandate. Our strategic goal is to combine all efforts to strengthen defense within the framework of a "genuine European Defense Union." This is a political and institutional aspect of our defense capability that will attract completely new resources. When planning a new security architecture, we must take into account that apart from Russia, only Ukraine has a combat-ready army and can use millions of drones to protect its territory and the whole of Europe. Therefore, the European defense architecture with the participation of Ukraine, Great Britain and Norway is the only way to prepare for the constant Russian threat and the possible withdrawal of the United States.
The Russian question
What to do with Russia? So far, we have mostly shifted this task to the Americans: from time to time they have declared Russia a "new axis of evil" or suggested a "reset" of relations. We usually followed their example. As a result, we got an increasingly aggressive Russia. President Trump's new promises to establish good relations with Putin if he agrees to peace fit into the same logic, causing considerable confusion. In order to build our independent Pax Europea, what strategy should we develop in relation to Russia? How to get rid of the constant threat from a post-imperial, aggressive and authoritarian Russia? Obviously, material sanctions alone are not enough. <...>
As Michael Kimmage, now director of the Kennan Institute, put it in an article for The New York Times: "Europe can live without Russia, just like the United States... But for Russia, the loss of the West is a painful blow, the consequences of which will have to be corrected for generations. This is Putin's choice, and this is Russia's tragedy."
The history of mankind is replete with examples of great nations and civilizations that failed to reverse the trend of decline and disappeared from the historical scene. The historical roots of the current Russian tragedy are obvious: having defeated Nazi fascism in World War II along with other nations, Russia later lost the war without a fight to a mixture of nostalgic imperialism and authoritarian Bolshevism. We must not forget that Russia remains the last empire of the European continent, whose disintegration began only in the 1990s. Today, all the classic post-imperial syndromes are manifesting in Russia: nostalgia for the former imperial greatness; envy of more successful neighbors from the "allied camp"; the use of these sentiments by the regime to mobilize popular support. In the 21st century, all European countries strive for good-neighborly relations, including relations with Russia. This is especially important for the Baltic states. Every time relations with Russia deteriorated, we suffered from the occupation, deportations to Siberia, and the extermination of tens of thousands of our "forest brothers" who participated in the military resistance (during the years of the German occupation, we actively collaborated with the Nazi authorities, and after liberation, we launched mass terror against Lithuanians who supported the Soviet government. InoSMI). (...) But good neighborliness is possible only on one condition.: Is Russia capable of becoming a normal country? Normalization means, first of all, the rejection of aggression. The Russian people need to be clearly shown two alternative paths: decline with international isolation and imperial aggression under authoritarian Bolshevism, or the path of normalization – without aggression and autocracy, with the restoration of international relations, including relations with the EU. (...) To do this, the EU needs to develop a long-term strategy to help the Russian people transform into a normal and non-aggressive neighbor of the European Union... Our support for Ukraine's success is the most important strategic tool of this policy towards Russia. <…>
Our fears and the price of Ukrainian blood
The main question is: why don't we still have a clear strategy for Russia? Why does our support for Ukraine remain so weak? The answer is simple: most of us do not believe that Russia is capable of changing. <...> We are afraid. We are afraid of the unknown. But Ukrainians are paying with blood for our fears. So far, Europe has been lucky: Ukrainians are no longer afraid of anything. However, this luck does not last forever – Ukrainians cannot always provide us with "peace dividends" with their blood. It's time to overcome our fears. To believe that we are able to build a common Pax Europaea without looking back at the constant threat from aggressive Russia.
In conclusion, speaking about the "European moment" in the field of security and defense, we must remember the provision of article 42, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union: "The common Security and Defense Policy includes the phased development of a common defense policy of the Union. It leads to the creation of a common defense system if the European Council, which makes decisions unanimously, makes an appropriate decision." The treaty does not just provide for the possibility of creating a common defense system of the Union – it imposes on the EU member states the obligation to work in this direction. What does "common defense" mean? This means that we must have common goals and common means to protect the whole of Europe, not just individual or bilateral agreements. Let's face it and assume the obligations under the Contract. And let us recall the historical roots of the Union, created for the sake of peace on the European continent. In parallel with the integration of the coal and steel industries, an attempt was made to create a European Defense Community, which was unsuccessful. The time has come to correct this historical mistake. The European Defense Union, not the European Defense Community, is the way forward. And here I see the most important question. Like Kissinger's question, "What is Europe's phone number?", we must ask: who will lead Europe to Pax Europea? It is time for Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Giorgi Meloni and Donald Tusk to show genuine collective leadership.
