1. War fashion. Now it's time to talk about weapons. It's the latest thing in European politics. And President von der Leyen is displaying a financing proposal to buy weapons worth 800 billion euros with unusual pride. It's logical that Europe should arm itself at the moment when it's not paranoia to believe that there is a Russian-American confluence to squeeze the uncomfortable space that exists between the two powers (and with China lurking). We annoy them, and we should be happy, because it means that we are someone. And, at the same time, we must be able to create consensus among ourselves to move forward, that is, to show how, despite a plurality of doctrines, convergence on the priorities of a moment is possible. But that requires political greatness that is scarce among a political staff that too often does not go much beyond the squabble in front of the networks.
Trump's entourage – the neo-oligarchs who support him (the president will pass and they will continue) – despise us. Arming oneself may be necessary to gain respect. Even if the balance of power is uneven, raising the bar is a way of setting limits. But one cannot pretend that the rearmament of Europe is a great ideal shared by all nations and the citizens who inhabit them. And the behaviour of some, with the ineffable Macron at the forefront, could make it seem so. It is not with weapons that we will gain respect. Weapons must be at the service of a clear objective: a project for Europe that is burdened by misgivings and a certain corporatism.
Worse still, the warlike flight forward could, at the end of the road, lead to an accommodation to the underlying objectives of the courtship between Putin and Trump to dilute the structural enmity that should separate them. Post-democratic authoritarianism is the meeting point. And it is about dragging Europe along or leaving it as a relic, a memory of a past – liberal democracies – that they would like to condemn to a corner of history. And in fact, putting the focus on weapons is the law of both presidents in a nihilistic phase. At the service of a specific objective: the implementation of an authoritarian neo-capitalism, based on the weakening of democracies, to which, from different origins and traditions, they have declared war.
Look at Ukraine, look at Trump's eye on Greenland and Canada. The differences within Europe, the movements of active characters like Macron or Meloni, increase suspicions about this reality. The meeting between Macron and Trump is the model of the cynicism of body language taken to the limit. Is Macron in a phase of binary mutation? If it weren't for the fact that his image is well worn in France, it would be something to look at.
2. Uncertain future. Why do we arm ourselves? To defend our uniqueness or to pave the way for the new authoritarian version of capitalism to come? This is the question that should reach the European authorities who overwhelm us with their self-satisfaction because countries are giving in and signing up for military spending without too much consideration. It is what must be done, they say. Sánchez himself plays along, with a lower profile than others, without being able to say too much why. It is no coincidence that everything coincides at a time of blurring of social democracies and of radicalisation, slowly but surely, of the liberal right, with the authoritarian right occupying more and more space. We arm ourselves to defend Europe, but the extreme right is closer than ever to power in France and we all know that if one day, in Spain, the PP governs, it will be with Vox, which is slowly capitalising on the frond warlike of the moment.
Arming ourselves to defend ourselves, that is, to maintain the reputation – increasingly less evident – of Europe as a bastion of democracy, threatened even in the United States by theotechnocracy, only makes sense if citizens are offered a new commitment that gives perspective to the new generations. Because it is difficult to understand why it is easy to find money for armies and why it is so difficult to finance welfare. Something is happening in the balance of values that had founded European pride. It seems to me that being more armed does not make us better off. Not even safer. In any case, we will have entered into the game of those who make armament the ideological horizon of the moment so that some can continue to rule with impunity. It would be good if our leaders explained to us clearly what they are protecting by arming us. Lest we end up discovering that with this apparent gesture of emancipation there is more acceptance of thestatus quo than anything else.
