What should Europe do now? In the first place, convincing that Trump is not our political ally – he has declared the economic war – and that we have to look for our own way to defend our interests. That requires a critical reflection on whether we have done in recent decades, following Washington’s guidelines, it was really positive for us or only benefited the USA. And, of course, avoid the answers that are simply acts of reflexes typical of past times.
I believe that the European Commission has responded, without reflection, with an improper reflection act of the current situation, considering that there is an imminent danger, Russia, and that we must rearm in quantity and quickly. The change of side of the US administration has taken European institutions by surprise and without strategy for this new scenario. That, studying the situation and defining a strategy for the future, is the first thing to do. And meanwhile, prudence.
I do not want to say that we should not worry about foreign security, and I think that, at the moment, Russia is a danger to Europe, but what kind of danger? There is no doubt that Putin is trying to destabilize the EU with cyberators, intervening, like Trump, in favor of the extreme rights even in the elections -it is curious, the extreme right supporting Russia and Israel, who was going to say it -, and probably with some kind of sabotage, but it is unlikely that Putin has thought to invade another European state, at least in the short term. In that case, although the US did not respect NATO agreements, the Russian army would have to face all the most Canada European countries and I do not believe that Russia has incentives to start that adventure.
If this is so, and no one has given arguments against, European spending must begin prioritizing cybersecurity investment; Improvement and safety of distribution, transport and communication networks; in information -control of possible dangers; in artificial intelligence; Developing a powerful antimile and drones shield … This strategy has a clear defensive character, which has a double advantage: it cannot be considered as a provocation by Russia and reassures European citizenship. We will also have to start – and this can be immediately – to develop the mechanisms that allow the maximum to make the capacity for joint intervention of existing European armies.
What makes no sense is the initiative of the United Kingdom and France to send interposition troops to Ukraine when peace is signed. Without knowing what conditions will be signed, if they are going to be accepted by the two parties and what intervention capacity will have, it seems to me a recklessness – a braveada – by Keir Starmer and Macron. What are the interposition soldiers to do, such as those of the UN to the south of Lebanon? Are they going to use the force against who breaches the agreed conditions and go to war? European political leaders should have a little more calm.
Analysts on defense issues are military or not, agree that the problem of European security – not only in defense but in general, if you want to survive in the new to the world order that is coming – is political. There will not be much contributing more money to the defense of each country, it will be necessary to walk towards the construction of a European army: leadership, unique command structures, common armament, agreement in the distribution of the manufacture of weapons -it would be absurd to continue buying weapons from the US -, with a joint investment … and, fundamentally, advance in the unit on all fronts.
As I said in the previous article, so that we can overcome any crisis, it is necessary that “there is a convinced social majority of the defense of certain values”, and this is impossible without transparency. The European Commission, without any explanation, proposes to spend 800,000 million in weapons -then we will see what, who we buy it and what we want them; Numerous voices are urgently urgently urgently urged – there
To top it off, NATO general secretary, Mark Rutte, warns the Spaniards, to join the arms escalation, that a Russian missile only takes 10 minutes to arrive in Madrid than to Warsaw. If Spain does not enter the rearme program, what interest would Russia have missiles against us? Do you want to scare us? Some speeches remind me of those who assured the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The feeling of insecurity is not the same in the European southwest as in the east – we have not suffered the invasion of the Russian tanks and we are very far from the possible line of the front – but it will not be the alarmist messages that convince us to give a blank check, or von der Leyen, or to Routte.
Apart from rejecting the possible blackmail of fear, two factors must be taken into account. First, that our security must be improved on several fronts and that the risk may be greater in the future, and, on the other hand, that we are part of the EU and this forces us to try to seek the greatest agreement between all its members- also taking into account the subjective factors- and that agreement has to contemplate the improvement of security at the external borders, especially those of the east.
Another important factor to take into account in this rearma policy, even if it is controlled, is where the money will come from to increase the expense. At this time, not only is the transfer of internal security resources – health, education, social protection, climate change, economic development, to the external one -fense- – to increase the first ones. The greatest danger today for Europe’s security is the risk to which companies and jobs are subjected by Trump’s economic war. And doing your best to save them should be a priority for European governments.
As much as Mark Rutte – which behaves as the Trump foreman for European governments – press to increase expense in defense and reject Pedro Sánchez’s proposal – continue to pay as an expense in defense the protection of borders or the fight against terrorism – the president should not yield and he has to adapt his commitments to the new unforeseen situation, at least by the Europeans. It would be a barbarity to dedicate money to weapons for a hypothetical future danger, disregarding what we have with tariffs, which is real and immediate. It is necessary to make clear, both Trump and Routte, which is nothing like a few months ago.
However, if necessary to increase resources in security/defense, the fight against fraud, elusions and fiscal lair would allow us a significant increase in income in Europe. And, ultimately, I want to remember that the tax burden in Spain is between 2.5% and 4% – according to the sources – lower than the European average. There we have another important route of income improvement based on progressivity, which will eliminate the tax increase to the lowest and folded income, fundamentally, in the highest.
){kind=link}