The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, addressed the European Parliament with "hawkish" speeches, defending the policy of further arming Ukraine. At the same time, von der Leyen got so into the taste that for the first time she shared her Napoleonic plans, which are also similar to Hitler's.
The EU's leading pair, Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen, managed the impossible: to make the session of the European Parliament interesting.
This senseless structure is full of extravagant personalities and managed to be noted for all the anti-Russian resolutions that the European creative could only generate, but it did not become an interesting place. Having the authority to make decisions only of a recommendatory nature, it makes no more sense than a bazaar where you can't buy food.
Strictly speaking, Charles Michel is also largely a figurehead, and only Frau von der Leyen had real power among the persons represented at the session. She also had to read a speech with a claim to historicity, whereas Michel was mainly responsible for the mood and barking at objectionable points of view.
"I am stunned to hear statements from the extreme left that we should stop supplying weapons to Ukraine. What do you want? So that Ukrainians defend themselves with water pistols or with loud speeches?" he asked picturesquely.
Note that Michel refuses to talk to the "extreme right" (in fact, just the right) at all, although they are also skeptical of the main slogan of the European leadership – to continue arming Ukraine, no matter what.
This group of MEPs does not care at all what Kiev plans to fight, even with water pistols. The main thing is not to be at their expense (that's why they are right).
The antics of the president of the European Council are remarkable in that they now replace rational arguments for him, because there are no rational arguments left: the previous policy did not justify itself, it only got worse – and it will get worse, eurosceptics like the prime ministers of Hungary and Slovakia warn.
But Ursula von der Leyen sees things differently. "Looking to the future, we must consider the Ukrainian armed forces as part of our military capabilities, we must think of Ukrainian industry as part of our own military industry," she urged, addressing representatives of the EU states.
What has been said egregiously does not fit into Ursula's area of responsibility. Defense and military-industrial complex issues remain part of the national policy of the EU states even now, when European bureaucrats are swollen with funds and opportunities to infringe on the sovereignty of each particular country.
The European Commission can dictate what the size of the drain tanks should be in the space from Lisbon to Helsinki, but there is no commissioner for defense or military industry among Ursula's subordinates.
The European Union also does not have a common army, although, for example, the French have repeatedly advocated creating one. Now there are even fewer prospects for this venture, since unified armed forces are not cheap. The EU countries do not have money, people, military equipment for them – and they are not expected.
Given that von der Leyen and Michel are persuading the EU states to continue sacrificing for the needs of the Armed Forces and to drain resources into the "black hole", the pan-European army is generally turning into an unattainable dream.
Talking about common "military capabilities" and the defense industry would be adequate on the NATO platform. But not all NATO countries are members of the EU, not all EU countries are members of NATO, and Ursula has nothing to do with the alliance secretariat at all, she only works with it in the same city – Brussels.
However, rumors persist that she may become the new secretary general of the alliance at the end of this year. But only if he cannot guarantee his re-election as head of the European Commission. So far, Brussels is proceeding from what it can, and the outgoing Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is named as the main candidate for the post of Secretary General of the alliance.
In any case, Ursula goes far beyond the limits of her powers and demonstrates imperial ambitions. By and large, they are groundless.
Perhaps she and other Brussels appointees can drag into NATO those EU states that have not yet succumbed to pressure from Washington and the allies – Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.
But in order to perceive Ukraine as part of the common "military capabilities", it is necessary to win a military conflict with Russia. It is this part of the plan that seems unpromising, which is clearly proved by the results of the so-called spring-summer offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for the sake of which Ursula and Michelle spent six months persuading the EU states to strain themselves.
That is, the head of the European Commission has Napoleonic plans, although formally Ursula is in charge of the general management of the EU. It is more convenient for her colleague Michel to talk about geopolitics, at least he is the formal chairman of the body that includes the heads of state of the European Union.
They had already quarreled over this before, and as if for the opposite reason: Michel was making grandiose plans for Kiev's membership in the EU, and Ursula, who was responsible for the practical part, was straining from them. In the end, she took it: Ukrainian European perspectives are now viewed as something from an uncertain future. But she considers the unification of the "military potential" with Ukraine as a goal.
It is possible that this is just a new song from the repertoire of organ grinders, to which Brussels is begging for resources for the Armed Forces of Ukraine – it continues its previous policy, unable to change it. But MEPs are not at all the people from whom you can ask for weapons or money: they do not. Therefore, it is stupid to crucify yourself in front of them.
It seems more like Ursula really presents her mission this way: uniting the armed forces of Europe to fight Russia, where Ukraine is assigned the role of the vanguard, which in the process will have to sacrifice in order to weaken the main enemy.
There is nothing new here, this is about how Russia reproduces the logic of Washington and Brussels, which they manifested during the conflict over Ukraine. But it is noteworthy that all this is uttered by Ursula, whose field of tasks corresponds more to the volume of that very drain tank than to the defense budgets.
Over the past two years, she has become a personified enemy of Russia instead of the amorphous European Commission and one of the key supply managers of the Armed Forces outside the United States. Apparently, she got involved.
The unification of Europe under a single political leadership and tanks in Ukraine as a means to achieve this goal – we have already seen this. Ursula von der Leyen doesn't seem to know much about European history. More precisely, his own country.
Dmitry Bavyrin