Afrasianet - Mazen Al, Najjar - Eight decades after two devastating world wars and 3 decades after the end of an expensive Cold War, the Ukraine war broke out, as if Europe had taken the war by surprise and seemed different from what the world has known in recent decades.
It has squandered much of its wisdom and political, diplomatic and strategic capital, and the absurdity of the wars of mass destruction that the industrial age has made possible in resolving major conflicts, and has achieved peace among its nations and achieved stability, unity and great prosperity.
It seemed to have learned much from its history and conflicts, abandoning fascist and Nazi nationalist tendencies, which fuel conflict and violence, and "unanimously" on liberal democracy as the final choice, and facing challenges, disagreements and risks with wisdom, patience and diplomacy.
The Ukraine war was a revealing moment and a crossroads! Europe reacted to a coup d'état, reverted to the options of militarization, wars, austerity and self-destruction, beat the drums of war and expensive armament, financed the armament of Ukraine, identified with the incitement of the Biden administration and the imperialist globalization camp to deepen the conflict and drain Russia and blockade it with the widest economic sanctions in history, and the absence of policies of openness and cooperation.
German Apostasy
Most seriously, Germany, the locomotive of the European Union, has lost its ability to lead wisely and prevent the war from spreading and escalating. Germany could have led a position within NATO not provoking Russia by entering Ukraine into the alliance, but it did not! Germany is now sorely lacking a competent, visionary political elite and capable leaders such as Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Gerhard Schröder, and Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of German unification, despite British and American opposition and obstruction, an achievement that minimizes the continued American occupation and the deployment of tens of thousands of American troops on German soil.
During the Cold War, these leaders from the vital center of German politics, the Social Democrats and the Christian Democratic Union, embarked on a policy of opening up to the East (Soviets), importing Soviet natural gas via the first pipeline in the early eighties, despite strong American opposition. Angela Merkel was the last of the strong leaders whose policies opened up to Russia and the import of (cheap) Russian gas to achieve the highest welfare and competitiveness of Germany's economy.
The French historian and thinker, Emmanuel Todd, notes that the Western disregard for Russia is associated with a dangerous strategic disregard for the decline of the military industrial base in most Western countries, and today it translates into a vacuum in European weapons stores and an inability to meet Ukraine's needs for "stupid" and "smart" weapons and ammunition.
Europe and NATO
Todd argues that NATO is sinking into Europe's "subconscious": "Its military, ideological and psychological mechanisms are not there to protect Europe, but to control it." He sees Russia in the process of victory over the alliance, which has entered a new phase in Europe centered on the London-Warsaw-Kiev triangle, and NATO cannot win this war for fundamental reasons.
Todd monitors the state of the European Union and the decline of its role internationally, with the decline of the role of the Franco-German axis within the Union.
The European Union has abandoned Europe and its interests, deprived it of cheap energy and trade with Russia, imposed heavy economic sanctions on itself, adopted exorbitant US energy purchases at many times the price of Russian energy, reduced the US trade deficit, exacerbated the European trade deficit, and doubled the profits of American energy companies and taxes received by the US Treasury!
Historically, whenever Germany – after its reunification in the 19th century – tried to rise and take a role equivalent to its geopolitical, historical and civilizational weight or to lead Europe and strengthen its influence in it, the Anglo-Saxon alliance would call Russia into the conflict to thwart the German project, and ultimately empty Germany's energy and ability to expand, and even destroy or divide it, as happened in two world wars and after.
This is perhaps the background of Todd's reading of the future balances of the international system, which sees the inevitability of a Russian-German alliance with deep geopolitical and anthropological roots, with the retreat of the American-centered Protestant West (as Donald Trump's policies indicate, for example), and the emergence of the global South as a rising power independent of the West!
Salam Almontaser
Recently, while ceasefire negotiations are underway in Ukraine, and signs of détente between Washington and Moscow are growing, the EU is blocking the peace process whenever possible.
French President Emmanuel Macron's attempt to send NATO troops to Ukraine can only be understood as obstruction. Moscow made it clear early on that it would not accept these forces under any circumstances, and it is obvious that only impartial forces can guarantee a ceasefire.
According to German researcher Fabian Scheiedler, since taking over as EU foreign policy coordinator, Kaya Callas has openly opposed peace negotiations. The thrust of her public statements: Moscow cannot be trusted, and Putin does not want peace. Last December, she tweeted: "The EU wants Ukraine to win the war. We will do whatever it takes to make that happen."
That is, the only way forward is not diplomacy, but the "peace of the victor," even if it proves impossible. While EU countries are increasingly resentful of Callas because their position does not represent all EU governments, public opposition is barely heard.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen endorsed Callas' position in early February, saying: "My vision is the same as it has been for the last three years: Ukraine must win this war." On February 23, she added on Danish television: "We fear that peace in Ukraine is more dangerous than war!" This is a remarkable statement.
Irrational behavior
Schidler notes that because of the Ukraine war, the risk of nuclear war is higher than it has been since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. At that time, humanity survived nuclear annihilation only with great difficulty. Could peace be more dangerous?
The claim that Ukraine is capable of winning the war and regaining lost territory is far from reality. The Pentagon chiefs of staff and the Ukrainian military have publicly acknowledged that the war is deadlocked, and that neither side will win. This statement proved to be overly optimistic, and the situation in Ukraine has since deteriorated.
It suffered territorial losses, and lost gains in the Russian Kursk. Every day the war continues brings it closer to collapse, taking many lives, and burdening it with debt. However, senior EU leaders still refuse to acknowledge these facts. Not only are they failing to take diplomatic initiatives and make realistic proposals to save Ukraine from the worst, they are undermining the ongoing negotiations.
In all these cases, Schedler observes a contradictory pattern: although the EU has an existential interest in putting out the fire on its doorstep, it exacerbates the situation and tries to continue a hopeless war. In doing so, he is sacrificing his security interests and the survival of the Ukrainian state, which he claimed to protect. Rather, the EU contributes to its geopolitical isolation rather than presenting itself as a mediator between the main blocs, as the only rational option given its geographical location.
How can seemingly irrational behavior be explained? Indian historian Vijay Prashad doubts that European political elites primarily want to maintain their prestige. He invested too much political capital in the "victor's peace" narrative, sacrificing many lives for it, and spending tens of billions on it.
A failed narrative
If Moscow now agrees to a ceasefire and, eventually, a peace treaty, it will refute the claim that negotiations with Putin are impossible. The question will inevitably arise as to why the EU does not support the Istanbul peace negotiations in spring 2022, which almost ended hostilities. Hundreds of thousands of casualties could have been avoided, and Ukraine would have been spared heavy territorial losses.
Indeed, the panic rearmament of the EU, and Germany in particular, may become questionable. If Russia's war objectives turned out to be limited territorial, and not aimed at devouring the whole of Ukraine and NATO as a dessert, the possibility of a new peace order and the option of ensuring greater security through disarmament could loom in the long term.
But the possibilities, Schedler said, run counter to horrific scenarios of a Russian invasion that has hundreds of billions to arm Europe's parliaments, including amending Germany's constitution to allow for massive military spending.
The main EU governments and Britain bet politically on this paper. Is this a reason why they can't change course? Are they willing to sacrifice the possibility of peace in order to preserve a failed narrative? After grave mistakes made in past years, this will be the most serious of all.
Building a State of War
But more is at stake now. The scenario of a Russian attack on NATO, however unlikely, is not only used to legitimize European rearmament, but also to dismantle the welfare state, which Europe no longer bears in the face of this existential threat.
The Financial Times summed up the rearmament program: "Europe must shrink the welfare state to build a war state." If a peace deal is struck too quickly, the project to tighten austerity for rearmament could falter. How will the majority agree to dismantle public health services, education, public transport, climate protection, and social grants if there is no longer a satiating consumer monster crawling westward?
Noam Chomsky noted that the dismantling of the welfare state in favor of the military-industrial complex is an old project that dates back to the New Deal era, the time of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt when the early social security program was passed.
According to Chomsky, social benefits raise people's desire for greater self-determination and democratic rights, thereby hindering authoritarian rule. In contrast, military spending generates profits and high economic growth without giving people a dangerous opportunity offered by social rights.
According to Scheiddler, neoliberal powers in the EU have sought decades to reduce social welfare and increase military spending. Keeping this monster alive would do a lot of good to legitimizing a new round of austerity. This will not be the first time war has been used to weaken the working class.
The legend of "stab in the back"
There is another possible motivation for the EU's lack of constructive diplomacy: preparing for a new "stab in the back" myth. If the EU maintains the achievable "victor's peace" narrative — though it knows it is out of reach — while Trump brokers a peace settlement, America's neoconservatives and their counterparts in Europe could promote the idea that the Trump administration has stabbed Ukraine and its supporters in the back and is responsible for losing the war.
This makes it possible to hide the catastrophic mistakes of the Biden administration and European leaders under the carpet and blame all the blame on their political opponents. The elements of this novel are already being worked out with passion on both sides of the Atlantic.
But this strategy is utterly destructive. It will only fuel extremist forces inside and outside Ukraine that want to undermine the peace and fuel the illusion of reversing casualties with more weapons and the continuation of the war. This makes the path to Ukraine's civil war more likely; it will mean more instability for Europe and the risk of renewed confrontation with Russia.
Schidler concludes that if Europeans are concerned about their own security and that of Ukraine, the only logical alternative is honesty. Western strategies in Ukraine have failed. The exclusive focus on armaments and refusal to engage in diplomacy has proven to be a mistake.
Europe should be aware of the facts and strive to overcome a bad situation and prevent it from worsening, and that means actively contributing to the peace process with constructive proposals rather than blowing them up from the sidelines.