Bad news for Ukraine's Zelensky - in reality, the European Union is a bureaucratic discussion club that no one takes seriously

 

Will the voters of the European Union not pay attention to the dangerous speeches of these militaristic European Union bureaucrats and the waste of money they spend on buying up a lot of morally obsolete weapons from all over the world, instead of seriously working on restoring the European Union's lost competitiveness in the economy?

 

"Shortly after becoming president in 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron said that the main reality that Europe must come to terms with is the "progressive and inevitable withdrawal of the United States" from the continent, which in turn requires Europe to develop its own "independent defense capabilities." Macron is not the first to say this. In 1962, his predecessor, President Charles de Gaulle, briefly and succinctly stated the purpose of the then-common market. "What is the point of Europe?" the general asked. And he replied: "The point is that it is not dominated by the Russians or the Americans." This idea was met with less approval than smiles – the French supposedly want to restore the world that existed before the Battle of Waterloo, when France was the most powerful country in Europe. Those times are long gone, they will not be restored, but the idea of ​​E. Macron and Ch. de Gaulle that Europe should be independent of other countries has become extremely relevant, after Donald Trump turned his back on Ukraine, and partly on Europe. Last Wednesday, E. Macron insisted that the future of Europe should not be determined by either Washington or Moscow. This time, E. Macron’s remark did not raise smiles.

 

With D. Trump flirting with Vladimir Putin and Washington cutting military and intelligence support to Ukraine, people have started to think more seriously about Europe’s strategic independence. A few weeks ago, the prospective German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claimed that he would prioritize creating independent European defense capabilities, because we can no longer rely on the United States. This is something that no German leader has ever said before. Last Wednesday, he said that “events in Europe and the world are developing faster than we expected just a week ago.” According to him, “the principle of whatever is necessary must now also be applied to our defense.”

 

But there is still a glimmer of hope that the United States will not abandon its traditional friendly policy towards Europe, if not in the coming year, then in four years, when Trump is no longer the US president. Therefore, there is no need to burn bridges. If the United States wants, perhaps unconsciously, to alienate Europe, the most responsible officials of the most powerful European Union (EU) countries are trying to satisfy Trump’s whims and criticize him as gently as possible. And they are in a hurry to emphasize the exceptional importance of good relations with the United States. For example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK) Keir Starmer explained that “we must reject any false choice between our allies, between one side of the Atlantic or the other <...> This is a special relationship <...> I want it to grow stronger.” This stance is largely based on the belief that without US backing, it would be impossible to protect peacekeeping forces in Ukraine if a ceasefire were agreed. According to Starmer, however, so far about 20 random countries have expressed their willingness to join the “coalition of the willing” and help defend Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement.

 

Some ordinary politicians are mercilessly condemning Trump. French Senator Claude Malhuret compared him to the Roman Emperor Nero, explaining that never in US history has a president capitulated to his enemy, supported an aggressor against his ally. Resounding and bold words, but they will remain without effect.

 

The current EU chief diplomat Kaja Kallas is also not wrapping things in cotton wool. This wins her applause, but reduces her influence. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio unilaterally canceled a meeting with her after she arrived in the US. I do not know the exact reasons, but I think various factors contributed: her belligerent rhetoric, the fact that Estonia is not a significant country and that she represents the EU, and therefore, according to the Trumpists, bureaucrats, not the state. Stalin allegedly asked contemptuously how many divisions the Pope had. The same could be asked about the EU. While it, like the Pope, has a lot of soft power, this power is waning as more and more so-called Third World countries turn away from the West, especially as foreign aid is cut as defense budgets increase.

 

There is no shortage of good intentions. On Thursday, the EU approved a European rearmament plan that could increase European defense spending to 800 billion euros, including a 150 billion euro loan program to buy more weapons. The plan is to make EU budget rules more flexible so that countries can invest more without violating strict deficit rules. Individual countries are not far behind. Parties hoping to form Germany's next government have agreed to revise borrowing rules and create a 500 billion euro infrastructure fund to modernize the military and revive the economy.

 

Fine words and lofty aspirations do not always translate into reality. The difficulties of armaments are illustrated by the plans announced a few weeks ago by the United Kingdom to increase defense spending from the current 2.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 2.5 percent by 2027, i.e. by two tenths of a percentage point over three years, partly financed by reducing the United Kingdom’s aid budget from 0.5 percent of GDP to 0.3 percent in 2027. More ambitious plans may now be announced, but the weakened state of the British economy cannot be ignored.

 

The economic situation of other major European countries is similarly bleak. France’s budget deficit is more than six percent of GDP, twice as large as EU rules allow. Money will not fall into the French treasury like manna from heaven. Attempts to cut social spending would cause a storm. Mass protests erupted when the intention to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 was announced. The new Prime Minister Francois Bayrou declared that there would be no new or higher taxes that could harm the purchasing power of the middle class, and that it was important to protect French companies from rapidly increasing taxes. Workers and residents of Germany and the UK are not as docile as Lithuanians, they are not afraid to take to the streets. It is estimated that in 2024 neither Italy, nor Spain, nor Canada allocated at least 1.5 percent. of GDP to defense. The defense spending of these three countries shows that they do not prioritize defense because they feel safe. They will increase funds for national defense, but it is unlikely that they will reach the three percent currently being discussed.

 

It is time to rethink what organization, what formats are best suited to lead and ensure European defense. With D. Trump becoming president, the USA is no longer the solution. Designed to promote cooperation and peace, the EU is also not the right instrument. Its cumbersome procedures, its requirement for unanimity for important decisions, often turn it into a parlor for talking heads. The UK, Norway and perhaps Turkey will play an important role in ensuring security, but they are not EU members. Moreover, Russia and now the US view the EU as a bureaucracy, not a state that commands its own armed forces. It does not help that the EU “leader” U. von der Leyen was Germany’s defense minister when the country’s armed forces were completely depleted, and she lacks credibility.”