The moment could have been jubilant. This Thursday, October 6, the heads of state and government of 44 European countries were to meet in Prague to discuss the future of the continent. This unprecedented forum will undoubtedly go down in history as a symbol: that of the awareness of a common destiny for more than 600 million inhabitants, from the Atlantic to the Caucasus.
The atmosphere, however, was not festive but marked by gravity. This rally was indeed organized under pressure from a country that poses a serious threat to its neighbours: Russia. It was in reaction to the invasion of Ukraine launched in February by Vladimir Putin that France proposed the creation of this European political community. An initiative taken up by the European Union, which launched the invitation cards.
A fragile and powerful link unites these 44 countries: the attachment to democracy. Admittedly, this is never fully acquired. As a matter of principle, it must be consolidated and constantly renewed to take into account the changing aspirations of populations faced with the challenges of the moment. Its anchoring also varies according to the States and their history. But this model attracts. This is the lesson offered by Ukraine, by its progressive detachment from Russia, to which it was intimately linked. Its inhabitants want to integrate the West. They shed their blood for it.
Opposite, Vladimir Putin’s regime deploys a logic of force that the essayist Jean-François Bouthors dissects in a recently published book (1). Trained in the KGB – the Committee for State Security, political police of the Soviet Communist Party – during the Cold War, the master of the Kremlin exercises his power in the mode of confrontation. He does not tolerate dissensus: those who disagree must be defeated. The dramatization of the issues serves as justification for the brutality of his methods.
This is how he established his absolute authority in Russia and advances his pawns abroad. For him, only force is capable of ordering the world. He is a resolute adversary of the European Union, which deploys a model of shared sovereignty contrary to his own. Assigning Russia the mission of saving the West from decadence, he dreams of vassalizing the continent by undermining from within – thanks to complacent relays – the countries that make it up and by weakening confidence in the democratic system.
One might think that the logic of violence carried by a quasi-dictatorship endowed with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world would easily prevail against smaller states torn by their divergent interests. However, Ukraine, powerfully helped by the West, shows that it is not, while the meeting in Prague testifies to the resilience of the European experience attempted after the barbarism of two world wars.
Reconciliation and the obstinate search for compromise make it possible to achieve and share security and prosperity. Where the logic of force wants to impose its aims, democracies experience that there is never an end to permanent adaptation to change. It is also the basis of life. Between the two models, it is not difficult to know which is more likely to guarantee freedom, justice and peace.