Caterina Tani Ukraine: EU’s challenge of challenges As often happens, political speeches are steeped in rhetoric, especially when the stakes are high. This is what one could also think about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s declarations when he addressed the European Parliament and EU leaders in February, stating that Ukraine is fighting Russian invasion to defend the “European way of life”. Indeed, Zelensky came to Brussels, via London and Paris, to call on Europeans to provide ‘weapons, weapons and weapons’, not to succumb to Moscow, and to speed up the country’s accession project. After all, he reminded EU top officials, “Ukraine is Europe.” The Ukrainian leader does what he must and can do, driven by a combination of iron determination and the desperation of someone seeing no possible goal other than the ‘victory at all costs’ of Churchillian memory. Rhetoric or not, when he mentions the war as a risk to the European way of life, Zelensky speaks the truth. The conflict risks jeopardising the Union itself. The EU has survived many crises, and many are yet to come. From the failure of the EU Constitution to sovereign debt crises, Brexit, the still ongoing migration challenge, Covid, populism, and so forth. But certainly, the attempted Russian ‘Blietzkrieg’, which has turned into an excruciating existential war - on both sides for different reasons - seems the most serious and, at the same time, potentially transformative or de-constructive event of the EU’s history. Shocked and dismayed following the invasion and driven by the emotional wave provoked by the valorous Ukrainian resistance, the EU has supported the country not only with words, as happened during other recent European conflicts, but also with actions. Perhaps the European objectives do not match those of the Ukrainians, unwilling to give up any portions of territory, but are ‘realpolitikly’ scaled down to Ukraine’s survival as a country with a territory as large as possible and to avoiding at all costs nuclear or conventional escalations involving the bloc. However, the EU’s top-level unity and determination to support the invaded country, unthinkable until some time ago, is noteworthy. Among other things €20 billion were already delivered, and additional €20 billion is planned for 2023, while more than 4 million refugees have been taken in. Also, the EU is providing arms to Ukraine for the first time through its €3.6 billion ‘European peace facility’, a 2021 off-budget tool to bypass the peaceful nature of the EU, and new sanctions are in the pipeline. Meanwhile, the EU - not without reservations – decided to deprive itself of Russian fossil fuel and accelerate the green transition, a bold but potentially suicidal political move. On top of all that, there are the single or multiple initiatives of the member states, resulting from various bilateral meetings, in coordination with the United States, to deliver military means of all kinds, which now also include the German-built Leopard MBTs as well as the increasingly likely combat fighters, such as F-16s, Eurofighters or Gripens. Even more surprising is Germany’s ‘Zeitenwende’ (‘change of era’) after decades of stubborn pacifism as well as the French paradigm shift and similar initiatives elsewhere. Many have announced that the era of European ‘naivety’ is over. More realistically, the Union has removed, sometimes recalcitrantly, the blinkers it has been wearing for several decades. Is the dove ‘hawking’, then? Indeed, the changes taking place are remarkable. However, history, geopolitics, interests, energy issues and, finally, the public opinions of that very democracy that we strenuously try to defend, raise serious doubts about the answer to the question. Even if the Union is united in public, positions among member states have been distant until not long ago. Suffice it to think about when Germany was building the North Stream 2, going against US’ advice’ and de facto intensifying ties and dependence on Russia, while in the far east of the Union, some countries were still experiencing a sort of post-traumatic stress disorder from the Soviet invasion. Back to present, beyond words and intentions, it is by no means certain that Germany - which represents the heavyweight of the Union from many perspectives - will be able to overcome its longstanding taboo about wars completely. It is becoming increasingly clear that it should be up to Berlin to take the reins of a future European defence, in which, along with France, others will have to be massively involved. Then there is the serious energy question: could people’s impoverishment and likely future crises jeopardise the work the Union is trying to put in place? And finally, the biggest challenge: public opinion. If the social situation deteriorates, the rise of populism is behind the corner. Zelensky, who pushes to join the Union before 2024, when elections will happen, understood well that the situation might change. Should the Union split over these issues, or should Ukraine fall, nothing would be the same as before. This is not sufficiently clear to public opinions generally focused on the here and now. But, now more than ever, it is essential to open our eyes and look at the big picture. To understand that it was thanks to this Union – the innovative and even crazy ‘top down’ idea of a few visionaries – that we could grow and prosper as never before. Based on invaluable values, such as justice, democracy, respect for human and civil rights, freedom, and the primacy of the individual over the state, the EU is a happy island in a world of continuous instability and turmoil. And the island must be defended - starting with continuing to help Ukraine. Based in Brussels, Caterina Tani is MilTech’s NATO and EU Affairs Correspondent. 4 · MT 2/2023 Observations from Brussels
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM5Mjg=