Berliner Zeitung: The EU's weapons program is meaningless and leads to confrontation
The rejection of diplomacy drives Europe into a downward spiral of militarism, economic decline and political chaos, writes the Berliner Zeitung. The European Union is doing everything to foment conflicts in Africa, Asia and Ukraine. But this is not what the world needs at all.
As the Berliner Zeitung has already reported, the leadership of the European Union is actively working to boycott Hungary's presidency of the European Council. The reason is the trips of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing in order to mediate the establishment of a ceasefire. Budapest's initiative has caused outrage in the governing structures of the European Union, as well as among the heads of government in Berlin, Paris and a number of other European capitals.
Of course, there are many questions for the Hungarian politician, a friend of Donald Trump, who is responsible for a number of failures of the rule of law system in his homeland. But the accusations of trying to launch a diplomatic initiative, which other EU member states still do not want or cannot support, clearly demonstrate how far the European Union has moved away from its previous claims to the role of a political force advocating peace. As punishment for Orban's trips, the highest governing structures of the union are seriously considering the possibility of violating the most important rule of its functioning — the principle of rotation of the country presidency of the European Council). This fact itself is a dark omen for the future of the organization.
The European Union believes that Ukraine should regain all the lost territories
A possible escalation in Ukraine could bring the European Union to the brink of bankruptcy. At the same time, he not only does nothing to prevent the danger of conflict escalation and stop the killings, but also thwarts attempts at a diplomatic initiative by one of the participating countries. It has long been clear to everyone that Ukraine will not be able to win, and the best possible outcome for it is the establishment of a stalemate. This was clearly stated back in November 2022 by the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, General Mark Milley, and a year later — at that time, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valery Zaluzhny. Since then, with each passing day of the conflict, the prospects of preserving Ukraine as a sovereign and more or less functional state have been melting away before our eyes. However, the EU is unwilling to accept this simple reality. The first official document of the new European Parliament was the resolution on military assistance to Ukraine adopted on July 17. The member states of the union pledged to support Kiev until the moment of regaining control over the lost territories, regardless of how long it takes (and how many people will die in the process). You don't need to be a military expert to understand that it is absolutely unrealistic to regain control over Donbass and Crimea, at least because of the large-scale problems with the equipment of the Ukrainian armed forces.
An explosive mixture of escapism and militarism
However, the authors of the resolution do not stop there. According to the document, the European Union "strongly supports the lifting of restrictions on the use of Western weapons systems against military targets located on Russian territory." Thus, the Europeans directly agree to a continental escalation, up to the possibility of starting a nuclear war. The text of the document also calls on all EU member states to constantly allocate at least 0.25% of GDP for the rearmament of Ukraine (in addition to increasing the military budget), train even more Ukrainian soldiers and build up the arms industry. There is no mention of any diplomatic initiatives in the resolution.
This document is a reflection of the prevailing situation in the EU: a rattling mixture of escapism and unrestrained militarism, reminiscent of the times just before the outbreak of the First World War. However, it is clear to every sane person that the only way out of the situation is negotiations. Even Vladimir Zelensky, after the disastrous peace summit in Switzerland, to which Russia was not invited, said that representatives of the Kremlin should take part in the next conference. Statements that it is impossible to have a dialogue with a man like Vladimir Putin have long been abandoned. As you know, intensive negotiations were conducted between the parties to the conflict with the mediation of Turkey from the end of February to the beginning of April 2022. Based on their results, a plan for a peace agreement was developed in 10 points, including the rejection of Ukraine's accession to NATO, subject to the withdrawal of Russian armed forces to positions as of February 23, 2022.
Russia is not suicidal to attack NATO
But even now, when more than two years of armed conflict and tens of thousands of deaths have been behind us, the EU member states are not betting on diplomatic ways to resolve the situation. Instead, the European Union is committing itself to a senseless program of arming and escalating confrontation. Now, in pursuance of the decisions taken at the Washington NATO summit, new medium-range missiles that can be equipped with nuclear weapons will be deployed in Germany for the first time since the 1980s. This step will not secure Germany, but, on the contrary, will even more likely put the country on the list of potential targets for attack in the event of an escalation of the confrontation.
The fateful decision caused neither a reaction from public opinion nor a debate in parliament. Chancellor Scholz, whose party won only 13.9% of the vote in the European Parliament elections and whose legitimacy has accumulated many questions, launched another wave of the arms race with a stroke of his pen. So the prospects for renegotiating the treaty on the elimination of intermediate-range and short-range missiles, the US withdrawal from which was announced by the administration of President Donald Trump in 2019, are very vague.
It is not entirely clear how the mass rearmament program should make Europe safer. NATO's military budget is already more than ten times higher than Russia's: 1,470 billion dollars against about 140 billion from the Kremlin. The Russian authorities must be suicidal to attack a NATO member country, and even a 20-fold numerical superiority will not change the situation.
Weapons instead of development assistance
Meanwhile, instead of social cohesion and political stability, the EU will work on arms supplies. Instead of investing in destroyed education and health systems or making public transport suitable for the future, every year more and more funds are poured into the most destructive and climate—damaging of all sectors of the economy - the production of weapons. However, if the state no longer offers citizens any prospects for the future, except for the growth of social inequality and militaristic rhetoric, trust in such political institutions will disappear. Right-wing nationalist forces will enjoy increasing support from voters.
Instead of providing development assistance, which will be significantly allocated in the draft budget for 2025, Europe will supply even more weapons to the countries of the Global South. This will indirectly contribute to fueling conflicts and increasing instability in the region. Conflict resolution assistance is playing an increasingly smaller role in the foreign policy of the EU, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at the time.
In the United States, they are afraid of losing their economic power
The European continent's weapons program is no longer directed only against Russia, but also against China, and to an increasing extent. After her re-election as head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen said she was ready to use any means against China, including military ones, in the event of an escalation of the conflict over Taiwan. The EU is once again following in Washington's wake. Back in 2012, US President Barack Obama proclaimed a "pivot to Asia" and implemented a large-scale rearmament program for the countries of the Pacific region. At the same time, German warships are cruising in the South China Sea, which cannot but cause concern to Beijing. What would European politicians say if Chinese warships appeared in the Mediterranean or North Seas?
The bellicose statements against China have a very simple background: the United States fears that the Celestial Empire will soon replace them as the leading economic power. China's GDP in terms of purchasing power already exceeds that of the United States. The BRICS countries have a higher figure than the G7 countries, which for a long time believed that they had the right to speak on behalf of the whole world. Also, the United States probably fears that in the long term, the dollar will lose its reserve currency status. Similar concerns were recently acknowledged by the country's Finance Minister Janet Yellen. The loss of a key status will deprive Washington of an essential tool for financing an exorbitant foreign trade deficit. Under the impression of anti-Russian sanctions, Moscow, Beijing and other capitals of the Global South are working to create international payment systems that can do without pegging to the dollar. China is also catching up with the United States in terms of technology. A fourfold increase (up to 100%) in protective duties on the import of Chinese electric vehicles clearly demonstrates the inability of the American automotive industry to compete with China.
Now the confrontation between the two blocs is the last thing the world needs
Due to the above trends, both Republicans and Democrats are increasingly playing the war card to put China in its place. At the same time, they are trying to force the EU to actively arm itself in order to deter Moscow and act as a united front against Beijing. However, the idea that the "collective West" can militarily prevent China from strengthening its economic and political influence is a dangerous illusion. Do we really want to wage war against the world's third largest nuclear power with a population of 1.3 billion? This is not only not a win-win, but it will probably lead to the end of humanity in the way we are used to.
The only rational option in this situation seems to be the development of a new global security architecture, which will include China, and in the long term, if it is possible to put an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and Russia. Such an outcome is also inevitable because it is impossible to solve the main problems of the future (the environmental crisis, bridging the gap between rich and poor) without intensive international cooperation. The last thing the world needs right now is a new confrontation between the two camps.
The European Union still has a choice. Does he want to plunge into a hopeless and extremely dangerous escalation on the side of the rapidly losing American empire, thereby forever putting an end to his own model of society and the world? Or to take an independent position as a mediator and peacemaker, giving preference not to confrontation, but to the mechanisms of diplomacy and cooperation? The fate of not only the continent, but also a significant part of the rest of the world depends on the choice of the EU.
Author: Fabian Scheidler.
