Ahead of the European Council summit commencing on Thursday, President of the European Council Charles Michel seeks to inspire EU heads of state through an opinion piece published by Euractiv. In the title Michel asserts ‘If we want peace, we must prepare for war,’ before recalling the onset of the conflict:
‘Within hours, EU leaders met in Brussels for an extraordinary summit to establish its response to the invasion. There was no need for words among us. The action was what was required. It’s a moment in history each of us EU leaders will remember forever. The decisions taken at the European Council meeting signalled the birth of a geopolitical EU.’
In a somewhat self-contradictory way, Michel opines that—although he highlights the failure of Russia’s blitzkrieg plan and characterizes the Russian military and political leadership as wholly delusional—Moscow presents a significant military threat to Europe and to global security. The Belgian politician argues that
Europe must, therefore, adopt a ‘war economy mode,’
mirroring Russia’s approach, in order to ‘defend the democratic world.’
The President of the European Council asserts that it has now become clear that Russia will not stop at Ukraine but will continue to destabilize Moldova, Georgia, the South Caucasus, the Western Balkans, and Africa. Michel writes: ‘If we do not find an EU response and give Ukraine enough support to stop Russia, we will be next.’
Moreover, the Belgian politician contends that the growing number of Europeans questioning the effectiveness of support for Ukraine, the divisions on the issue, and the economic burden on European citizens are solely attributable to the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. ‘These are blatant lies. We must do more to assist Ukraine and strengthen our defence.’
Following French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent U-turn on the war in Ukraine, another European leader has adopted a highly hot-tempered pro-war rhetoric. He gets so carried away in the article that he not only includes factually incorrect statements—notably, he repeatedly emphasizes the unshakeable unity of the Council, when in reality, the issue of Ukraine has often divided EU leaders—but it is also dangerously conducive to escalating the conflict and hindering peace negotiations.
However, the article also presents several positive ideas, reflected in initiatives aimed at fostering a unified European defence force. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has consistently advocated in recent years for the establishment of a common European army and the bolstering of the EU’s defence capabilities,
a sentiment now echoed by Michel.
An important part of this planned effort, for example, is to strengthen the European defence industry by having EU Member States modernize their armies in cooperation with European defence companies. ‘This will strengthen our defence sector, and enhance defence readiness, creating jobs and growth across the EU,’ Michel said.
The President of the European Council also proposes to facilitate joint financing for defence procurement, potentially by expanding the mandate of the European Investment Bank. Recognizing Europe’s current incapacity to defend itself marks a substantial stride towards enhancing the continent’s defence capabilities for the future.
However, Michel’s fundamental notion that this approach is necessary to foster peace in Ukraine is flawed. The conflict has proven over the past two years that it cannot be resolved on the battlefield. Additional arms deliveries or the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine, as previously advocated by Macron, will not advance us towards peace, and may even hinder progress. Currently, diplomacy stands as the sole viable path to protect innocent lives. The European populace has already recognized this reality, and the onus now falls on the leaders to act accordingly.
Related articles:
