The Left and the Defense of Europe

A common observation in sociological analysis is that societies change more rapidly than prevailing ideas. We are formed in childhood and youth, which is when we acquire notions of how things are, what values ​​to defend, and what the appropriate options are at any given moment. With the acceleration of social change, it becomes very difficult for our beliefs and values ​​to transform at the same pace as the circumstances in which we live; and this fact, so evident at this moment, has many consequences, both in the difficulty of reaching agreements between generations and in the near impossibility of accepting new options, even if our lives are at stake. What we have always believed cannot suddenly be abandoned and denied, because deep down we believe that things are as they are and that, after certain scares, everything will return to how it was.

But now we find ourselves in an unexpected change, and many things must be rethought. Given the political shift in the United States, the debate has begun on the need to strengthen Europe's defense, an issue we hoped would never arise again. Well, it's here now, and we can't simply close our eyes and say that doing so doesn't correspond to our values ​​or that it's an excuse to enrich arms manufacturers. We've grown accustomed to viewing distant disasters with compassion and condemnation, but always with the comfort of knowing that they are no longer possible in Europe. Now we have a terrible war in Europe and an even more horrifying one at our continent's doorstep. Wars that are not driven by the basic needs of any people, but by autocratic elites who seek above all to assert their power and continuity. And who are capable, surprisingly, of dragging their people into killing and dying in that pursuit.

Among us, we on the left have always been anti-militarist, we have opposed investment in weapons, wars, violence, and the desire for conquest, which destroy lives, cultures, and wealth. It is necessary to apply resources to strengthening equality between people, to improving everyone's standard of living, to making the earth more habitable and beautiful. All of these objectives are opposed to war. And as a feminist, even more so: women have been designated to care for life, to make it grow, not to destroy it. Our contribution to society is civilizing, not destructive, precisely to the extent that civilization is precisely the development of the process that makes us equal, that contradicts nature's tendency to make us unequal, some stronger than others. For the strongest to win is to go back, to destroy everything that has been built with so much effort to give equal opportunities to those born with everything against them.

I've always shared the anti-war position. However, it now seems to me that refusing to confront the rapidly changing geopolitical situation is precisely continuing to reason with schemes from the past, which are no longer useful to us. Preserve European values? Of course! But the way to preserve them is capable of defending them, of imposing them on whoever wants to annihilate them. And, unfortunately, the threat posed at this moment is not of a discursive nature; the triumph of some values or others may depend on armed confrontations rather than on reasoning or results at the ballot box. The Cold War was such precisely because it produced what was called the "balance of terror." If you can do as much damage to me as I can to you, perhaps it's better not to play this game. However, to achieve this situation, there must be a balance in the war effort, otherwise, we can see what's happening in Ukraine and Gaza.

From my point of view, at this point we must strive to equalize our forces with those of our potential enemies. With enormous control over what is invested in, who decides at each moment, and how far to take this escalation. Clearly understood, not to add to the general disaster by attacking other countries, but as a primary defensive element that cannot be ignored. We cannot look the other way, saying "Oh, no way!" Simply because we don't like it; it wasn't our objective, and what we wanted was precisely the opposite: to advance in equality and peace.

A different issue is who will have to lead this process and how Europe, this troubled Europe of today, must continue to affirm and define, precisely, its most cherished democratic values. This is the other leg of a defense that we need to be strong and secure.