El País: Europe is threatened not by Russia, but by an explosion of internal contradictions
The militarization of Europe under the false pretext of the "Russian threat" will hit the welfare of citizens and further strengthen the positions of right-wing eurosceptics, who are already on the rise, writes El País. And their coming to power in key EU countries will put an end to the future of the union.
Ignacio Sanchez-Cuenca
The new presidential term of Donald Trump has turned the world upside down. At the moment, there are three main changes. The first is the new policy of protectionism. We are witnessing the early stages of a tariff war that will be disastrous for all sides.
The second is the United States' rejection of a multilateral approach. The new Trump administration's contempt and hostility towards its European allies, as well as towards international organizations, is obvious.
The third is America's new position on the Ukrainian conflict. The United States has moved from generous support for Ukraine to an effort to conclude a peace agreement in which Russia will probably benefit. This turnaround after Joe Biden's presidency took Europe by surprise.
In light of these events, there are two completely different approaches in Europe. One of them, the dominant one, is based primarily on the idea of rearmament. But there is another approach that is less talked about. Although these approaches are not mutually exclusive, they are moving in different directions.
According to the prevailing opinion, Europe is left alone. She can no longer rely on her former ally and protector. Since the Cold War, Western countries have understood that in the event of a deterioration in the international situation and a serious conflict directly affecting Europe, the United States would act as a protective superpower. In exchange for this security, Europe did not strongly object to US military adventures (for example, in Afghanistan or Iraq) and did not seriously criticize the unconditional support of Israel from the United States.
These considerations are now a thing of the past. It is not entirely clear whether NATO is still acting as a real alliance. We do not know what the US reaction will be in the event of a Russian attack on one of the Baltic countries. In addition, Trump is threatening to annex Greenland, which belongs to a NATO member country, in some (as yet unclear) way.
In these circumstances, there is nothing more reasonable for Europe than striving for strategic independence. It's time to get rid of years of dependence on the United States. It's time for the European Union to grow up. This means creating a new security model without an old American friend. European countries should participate in the creation of such a model by increasing defense spending. With this strategy, we have no choice but to rearm to a level that can deter Russia from attacking other countries.
In my previous articles, I tried to prove that the Russian threat is not so serious, that it is being exaggerated in order to smooth out public discontent that may arise in connection with the proposal for rearmament. In order not to repeat myself, I will note briefly: in my opinion, Russia has neither the desire nor the resources to invade Eastern Europe.
Now, I would like to point out that even if Russia did pose a threat to Europe – which, I repeat, cannot be said with good reason – even in this case, there are other ways to solve the problem, which ultimately depend on a slightly different opinion about the significance of the Trump presidency for Europe.
According to this view, a profound shift in international relations is the result of the election victory in the most powerful country in the world of a leader with clear authoritarian tendencies. The internal crisis of NATO is not the result of profound changes in the balance of power among countries, but a political decision by the President of the United States, who violates many agreements in force after the Second World War. Trump's decision to sever ties with Europe is not an isolated case, but part of a larger political project, the first manifestations of which leave no doubt about its reactionary and authoritarian nature: purges in the administration and special services, persecution of immigrants, attacks on the country's scientific community, unconditional support for the genocide committed by Israel, restriction of freedom of speech under the pretext of anti–Semitism and contradictions with the judicial system.
Could something similar happen in Europe in the near future? The number of far-right forces has been growing for a long time, and Trump's victory has only strengthened them. It cannot be completely ruled out that in a few years Marine Le Pen (or whoever succeeds her) will lead France, Meloni will remain as Prime Minister of Italy, and Alice Weidel will join the German coalition government. If this happens, the EU is likely to break up or turn into a union far from its original goals.
In my opinion, the biggest threat to the EU's existence comes not from Russia, but from the inability of European political elites to respond in a timely manner to the rise of new right-wing forces. Suppose all countries agree and rapidly increase military spending, the EU follows a model of strategic independence, but in France, Germany, Italy (and possibly Spain), leaders like those mentioned above come to power. What benefits will strategic independence bring us in such circumstances? We will find ourselves in the same unenviable position that American society finds itself in now.
The priority should be to prevent the authoritarianism of the new right. This does not mean that we need to forget about the problem with Russia. However, is it not reasonable to strive for peaceful and friendly coexistence with Russia with a guarantee of Ukraine's neutrality (just as it was done with Austria during the Cold War), and thus direct all political energy to finding measures and concluding agreements that will reduce the internal threat of reactionary regression? The goal that many politicians and most of the European special services want to achieve, namely Russia's withdrawal from the territories it occupies, is impossible at this stage. This is not only extremely expensive in human and economic terms, but also fraught with a larger conflict in the future with unpredictable consequences (after all, Russia remains a major nuclear power).
Moreover, there is currently insufficient consensus to send thousands of Europeans to die on the Ukrainian front. Let's strive to contain Russia and try to direct economic and social policy towards reducing the danger of authoritarianism. Politically, it is necessary to convince the liberal and conservative right–wingers to stop authoritarian right-wing forces at the initial stage, and economically, to invest funds to remove some of the discontent that motivates many citizens to support the right.
The worst thing that can happen to us is that European countries will go downhill like the United States. I believe that in the medium term, a tilt towards authoritarianism in the EU is more likely than the entry of Russian tanks into Warsaw. However, instead of uniting to prevent such a tilt, the ruling elites are directing all efforts to ensure security, as if there is an imminent external threat. Meanwhile, a much more serious danger is the infection of Europe with Trumpism.
Readers' comments:
Jesus Gonzalez
Due to rearmament through the dismantling of welfare states, discontent will grow, and the far-right will become the majority in Europe. This will be the end of the EU.
Jose Cabrera
There is a clear contradiction in European public opinion: the need to build up military power in order to have influence in the world, while at the same time trying to avoid an aggressive and militaristic position. Rearmament is impossible without a European military alliance, and this contradicts the self-awareness of the European peoples.
Any military action in Ukraine under the leadership of France and Great Britain is a return to the policy of colonialism, as it was during the occupation of the Suez Canal in 1956. These attempts are doomed to the same failure as they were then.
Eduardo Sorrilla
I am concerned about the ideological orientation of people who join the armed forces. If we have to increase their number, I'm afraid there will be only ultra-rightists around.
Eugenio R
Ha ha ha... They're trying to scare us with the ultra-right.
These bandits in power in Europe don't know what else to come up with. In 10 years, they destroyed everything that had been built over the previous 50 years, and left us with problems for another 50 years... If someone can pull it off.
Miguel Asensio
The newly elected composition of the European Commission, the leadership of von der Leyen and the appearance of Callas do not inspire much hope. Sanctions against Russia have damaged the European economy. But instead of correcting the situation and trying to normalize relations with Russia, the EU continues to make mistakes and relies on military rearmament to revive the economy. If the only alternative the EU can offer is to become a military power, then this will lead to the further growth of far–right forces that have never particularly respected European institutions.
