By arming ourselves, we are reinforcing Russia’s sense of insecurity. More than defense, what we urgently need is a commitment to European diplomacy with Moscow.
An opinion piece by Gérard Bodifée (astrophysicist and philosopher), Réginald Moreels (humanitarian surgeon), Tom Sauer (professor of international politics at the University of Antwerpen), and Philippe Van Parijs (philosopher at the Catholic University of Louvain)
Source: LaLIbre.be
Security is shared security. Even if the European Union spends hundreds or thousands of billions on weapons, insecurity will persist in Europe, especially in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, if Russia does not feel secure. Paradoxically, by arming ourselves, we reinforce Russia’s sense of insecurity. Unfortunately, our European politicians seem to be falling into this trap once again, driven by both fear of Russia and a thirst for power and prestige.
However, fears of a Russian attack on a NATO or European Union country (of which Ukraine is not currently a member) are unfounded. This year alone, European NATO member states (including the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Norway) are spending $500 billion on defense, which is four times more than Russia. We have far more artillery, tanks, armored vehicles, fighter planes, helicopters, ships, and soldiers. Russia only has an advantage in nuclear weapons, bombers, and military satellites. As Minister Francken himself says, this will never enable Russia to reach the Grand Place in Brussels. After years of war, Russia would not be able to take Kyiv. Therefore, the Russian threat is being exaggerated in our media by those who have an interest in doing so, starting with the military and the defense industry.
It’s a question of power
If Western European political leaders support this view, it is more a matter of power than security. Rather, it is because they feel they have too little power. The European Union’s tense reaction to the American-Russian meeting in Saudi Arabia is a striking example of this mindset. Feeling ignored, the EU concluded that its greatest deficiency was military power. However, someone should make it understand the implications of the above figures on defense budgets and capabilities. If this arms race detracts from other, more useful public spending, it will ultimately harm the European economy. Some argue that this is precisely the intention of the Trump administration.
Listen to the “enemy,” try to put yourself in their shoes, and learn about the historical, political, and cultural causes of the conflict, rather than simply repeating “Russia is the aggressor.”
What we urgently need more than defense is a commitment to European diplomacy with Moscow. For over three years, the European Union has avoided this path. Even today. Visits to Kyiv, whether accompanied by tears or not, will not move things forward. Instead, dare to go to Moscow! See the dialogue through to the end.
At the negotiating table
Listen to the “enemy,” try to see things from their perspective, and learn about the historical, political, and cultural causes of the conflict. Don’t just repeat “Russia is the aggressor.” Even better, instead of seeking a ceasefire, immediately sit down at the negotiating table to work out a lasting peace agreement.
Once the agreement is reached, the EU must ensure that both Ukraine and Russia feel secure. This is possible if the legitimate national security interests of this major regional power are considered. As long as Russia is not integrated into the European security architecture on an equal footing, it will be forced to use Ukraine as a neutral buffer state. This is only natural in a balance-of-power constellation, which is, by definition, precarious.
Instead, a regional collective security organization that includes Ukraine and Russia must be created. This organization could operate within the framework of NATO, which is now conceived as a collective security organization rather than a collective defense organization. Another option would be to strengthen the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). These organizations are not directed against an external enemy; rather, they aim to guarantee security between member states by establishing agreements regarding war and peace, including mutual military assistance in the event that a member state violates the rules. These organizations would replace the alliances directed against an external enemy that currently exist in both the East and West.
Threats of hybrid warfare
Within this regional collective security organization, the European Union should pursue its defense integration for efficiency reasons without attempting to build a military-industrial complex similar to those of the United States or the USSR during the Cold War. It is even more appropriate for the EU to focus on combating threats of hybrid warfare, even though these threats will diminish considerably after a peace agreement. Most importantly, the EU should cooperate with countries around the world to address the major issues of global warming and drug proliferation. For these reasons, we do not need additional F-35 fighter jets equipped with European nuclear weapons.
Rather than maintaining its current defensive stance, the EU must urgently lend its support to the Trump administration’s disorderly diplomatic efforts to end this deadly and destructive war as quickly as possible, while guiding them in the right direction.
