"Now, European history is being written by Putin, Trump, and Xi."

As the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell (Pobla de Segur, 1947) experienced firsthand one of the most serious moments in recent European history: the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Now, four years into the war and with the European Union, threatened on several fronts, facing an existential challenge, Borrell speaks to ARA in his office at CIDOB, the organization he chairs.

How would you define the current geopolitical moment? Are we in chaos?

— We are at the end of an era: a world is ending and will not return. And a new one is emerging that we don't yet fully understand. The world that we Europeans knew, where we grew up and in which we placed our trust, no longer exists. And there are many people in Europe who resist accepting that there is a break with the United States and would like things to remain as they have been until now, but they are wrong. Nothing will ever be the same again.

Voices from the White House speak of a decadent Europe led by mediocre leaders.

— If I were still a high-ranking official in the European Union, I probably couldn't say this, out of diplomatic prudence, but now I must say that the United States, represented by Trump, can no longer be considered a friend of Europe. And what's more, they don't even try to hide it. What I don't understand is how some people in Europe still applaud them. The situation is very serious.

What can Europe expect from the United States with whom it no longer shares common values?

— This is the point. We are no longer an ideological unit; we don't share the same values. And I'm not talking about American society, which is very pluralistic and diverse; I'm talking about those who are in power now. We are children of the Enlightenment, and they are children of what they call the dark enlightenmentThe Black Enlightenment [a movement that opposes liberal democracy and universal rights, and expresses pessimism about human progress]. The expression says it all, doesn't it?

In this context, what should Europe do? You argue that appeasement doesn't work…

— The first thing Europe must do is try to be more united and more coherent. But with the 27 countries that make up Europe today, I don't see how greater unity or coherence can be achieved. The day after Munich, Marco Rubio went to Hungary to see Orbán and remind him that he is the US's favorite in Europe. You are my manAnd it was a miracle he didn't go to see Meloni. The European landscape is a club of states that lacks sufficient internal cohesion, sufficient coherence, and where there is too much ideological divergence.

The landscape does not inspire optimism.

— Look, I believe that Europe, as we've understood it until now, wasn't built for this world. This world has taken us by surprise. It's not our world. We often forget, but we created Europe after the Second World War to prevent another war between Europeans. And from this perspective, Europe is an overwhelming historical success. And in that world, which wasn't globalized and where there was a confrontation between two great powers, we were a military protectorate. But I repeat: that world no longer exists. And now we find ourselves in a situation where, to survive, we must make Europe an instrument for security and defense. But if we truly want to create a Europe that serves collective security, we should draft another treaty, change the model. We should envision a different Europe… not with all 27, certainly, but with those who truly want to commit to it, a leading federal group that pools taxation, foreign policy, and defense, without the right of veto. I don't know how many there would be, but Germany and France must be included, obviously.

So, where do we begin? Do we start with the Berlin-Paris axis talking about nuclear deterrence?

— Whether we like it or not, nuclear deterrence is part of security and defense. Even though it seems horrifying, it's part of our defensive capabilities. Why doesn't the United States attack North Korea? Because they have an atomic bomb. Why did they attack Iraq? Because they didn't have one. Why have they attacked Iran? Because they still don't have one, and to prevent them from acquiring one. Therefore, I understand that some sectors in Europe are beginning to think that it's better to have nuclear weapons ourselves and not trust a friend who does… And we can't ignore the fact that, in the current context, nuclear weapons are a weapon of war, a last resort. And that Russia has been frightening us, threatening us, ever since the invasion of Ukraine began.

You played a very important role in the European response to the start of the invasion of Ukraine. How do you see the situation today, after four years of war?

— Trump wants a quick solution. It doesn't matter what it is, but he wants it done quickly and to make it clear that he's the one who brought peace to Ukraine. But Putin is in no hurry. What Russia wants is what it wanted from day one: regime change in Kyiv, favorable to the Kremlin's interests, like the one it has in Belarus. It wanted to achieve this in a few weeks, but the gamble backfired, the war has become bogged down, and having reached this point, I don't think he's willing to stop it for a small price. It will continue, and he doesn't care what Trump says, because he has little incentive to stop the war. Therefore, in the best-case scenario, I think we'll have a Korean-style solution, that is, a scenario similar to Korea, a frozen war: there's no peace, but there's no war either.

What is Putin like up close?

— Cold, just as he seems. He's very much in control of his emotions. I've had the opportunity to speak with him a few times, and he's a man who is very clear that his historical objective is the reconstruction of imperial Russia. He has written about it, spoken about it, and theorized about it. For him, Ukraine is an inseparable part of Russia, and his view is that the Western world has poisoned the minds of Ukrainians to manipulate them against their Russian brothers.

You asked Putin about the murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

— Yes… I was President of the European Parliament, and my members asked me to ask President Putin, who was also present at a European Council meeting near Helsinki, who had killed Anna Politkovskaya. I asked him, just like that, how are you and I doing? It wasn't an easy question to ask, I assure you, and neither was the conversation that followed.

What did he say to her?

— What right did he think he had to ask her this?

How to conduct European policy with Russia or China?

— The problem is that the EU doesn't have a clear foreign policy. All its member states have their own, individually, but collectively we fail to reach an agreement. We need the famous unanimity, which caused me so much grief during my years in office, and that unanimity almost never exists. We only had it at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to help Kyiv, but it soon disappeared… and look now: Hungary, for example, has already said it won't contribute another penny to Ukraine. We haven't had unanimity in responding to the crises in the Middle East, and the Gaza war, in particular, has been a huge source of division among European partners. And, of course, being a geopolitical actor when you don't have a common foreign policy and you also don't have a joint military capability is very complicated.

Are Putin and Trump friends?

— They get along well. I've seen things up close, and I think they get along because they're two characters cut from the same cloth. Both have little respect for established norms: Trump says his only limit is his morality, or his strength; Putin thinks exactly the same. But Putin is smarter than Trump.

The extreme right, Trojan horses of the United States and Russia, is within the EU.

— Europe has never had so many enemies, neither within nor without. Look, we Europeans used to be the great architects of history, but in today's world, history is written by others. Currently, history, including European history, is being written by Putin, Trump, and Xi Jinping. And none of the three are our friends: Putin is our greatest enemy, followed by Trump, and then, much further behind, by Xi. And indeed, within Europe we have many enemies who are directly opposed to the European project and the project that allows Europe to become a geopolitical actor.

European defense agreements, for example, those concerning aviation between Germany, Spain, and France, face many challenges in their implementation. So, between reality and theory, how can we move forward?

— This is simply a problem of industrial cooperation between some countries, which is important because defense is carried out with weapons, and weapons must be produced. But there are many other problems. To begin with, there's the very structure of the EU's institutional architecture. The division of responsibilities, the allocation of powers between member states and the European Union, is incredibly confusing. Member states claim that security and defense are the exclusive competence of the states. However, at the same time, they have sought to develop a common policy, and now there is a Commissioner for Defense, but the European Commission has no competence in matters of security and defense. Furthermore, there's a mess with the treaties, because it's said that the European Commission doesn't represent the Union in matters of security and defense, yet its president, Ms. von der Leyen, spends all day talking about European security and defense.

What does he propose?

— Let's get things in order. Let's redraft a treaty that clearly defines who does what. Do we want a defense union, or not? Well then, whoever wants it must be prepared to organize a structure that forgoes unanimity and ensures our militaries are interoperable. I'm not calling for a European army with a capital E, because the military is the ultimate expression of national sovereignty and won't disappear as long as states exist. But at the very least, let's make our militaries interoperable and part of an integrated European structure responsible for our territorial defense. If that's not possible with all 27 member states, then with those who are interested.

But for that, we need European industry.

— And a command and control system, and a system of organization and training, and a military doctrine. Listen, does NATO have an army? No, NATO doesn't have an army. NATO is capable of mobilizing units from the armies of its member states, and they are trained and equipped to wage war together. But NATO doesn't have an army. NATO blows the whistle and says, "You, one infantry battalion; you, two artillery regiments." And they are all planned out, prepared, and trained to do the job together.

Is it possible to be a pacifist in Europe today?

— I consider myself a great pacifist… I assure you I've never had any interest in waging war; on the contrary, I think agreements, dialogue, and cooperation are the way to do things. Now, I'm not exactly an angel living in an ideal world either. Look, two weeks before the war in Ukraine started, I was in Donbas, on the border, and I was talking to the Ukrainian prime minister. I was still talking to him about the negotiations, and he said to me, "On the other side of this border, there are 150,000 guys armed to the teeth. And they're going to attack us. And when they attack me, what will you do?" And that's the question. Did the Ukrainian government want war? Well, it seems not, because they knew they had everything to lose. Now, once the war has started, what have they done? They've tried to defend themselves. Is the best way to avert war to show that we're defenseless? I, frankly, don't think so.

You have been one of the few strong voices against Israel's war in Gaza. Have you felt ashamed by European policy?

— Yes, very much so, and I still feel it. I think we've reached ground zero in the abandonment of our principles. We Europeans, and especially the Germans with the Holocaust, have been world champions at exterminating entire populations. We've also been world champions at showing remorse. And now we're world champions at looking the other way… at refusing to see what's happening. A few days ago, the Israeli Parliament declared that the West Bank is now theirs. This is what's called an annexation. And who has raised their voice? Who has said anything? What we're seeing is a complete violation of international law, of United Nations resolutions, of common sense… And has anyone gone to the Security Council to say that this is a blatant and unadulterated annexation? The Palestinians are the great forgotten people of history.

The Security Council is another multilateral institution adrift due to the power of the President of the United States.

— It's been many years since there's been any agreement in the Security Council, because when one side doesn't veto it, the other does. And the last agreement in the Security Council was when Russia and China approved Trump's plan for Gaza. That's the last straw. Yes, naturally, the United Nations is in its current state, and I get the impression that the United States intends to replace the United Nations with this dismantling of the Peace Council, which, incidentally, some European countries have decided to join.

And what should Europe do about China?

— It is essential that Europe eventually forge closer ties with China, without losing sight of the fact that we have very different political values ​​and that we must protect our industry. China is China, among other things, because of the massive investments made by European and American industrialists. The Chinese used to require us to establish companies where we couldn't hold a majority stake, commit to technology transfer, and have decisions closely controlled by the Communist Party in order to invest in them. Now, the European Commission wants to create a regulation that says exactly the same thing about Chinese investments in Europe. They have to establish companies where they don't hold a majority stake, commit to technology transfer, and be more or less under our control. What has happened? They now have the same technological investment capacity that we once had. And that is the changing world. New powers are emerging, and we are no longer what we once were, and neither are they.

But perhaps we Europeans should believe that we are indeed a power.

— Yes, in some ways we are a power… we are the world's leading commercial power. And until now we were, and still are in some areas, a major technological power. We are a major regulatory power, though less so these days, because to be a regulatory power you must have the capacity to make others accept your rules or not threaten you with consequences if you implement them, as Trump does. But we have the power; what we lack is the will to do it right.

Fifteen years from now, how do you envision Europe?

— I don't know about fortune-telling... but I think it all depends on how the war in Ukraine goes. If Putin gets his way and turns Ukraine into a second Belarus, this will surely embolden him to go even further.