EU: from the branch of Peace (which uses peace funds to buy weapons) and a continent of ‘new rights’ from militaristic societies?
In recent years, the European narrative has changed so rapidly that those less attentive to international dynamics find themselves in a quandary. We remember when the European Union faithfully pledged itself and presented itself as a sign of world peace. The joy of the fall of the Berlin Wall was still vivid. But then, NATO, aimless and in search of a new destiny, to preserve itself, launched itself into dark adventures. Thus, the Europe envisioned by the founding fathers is now a distant memory.
A recent report, commissioned by Ursula von der Leyen and written by the former prime minister of Finland Sauli Niinistö (ironically from one of the most Russophobic countries on the continent), it shows us that music has changed. It is no longer just support for Kiev that was planned to be incorporated into NATO in a regional war with Russia, but a global war for the transition to a new multi-polar structure that Brussels opposes in every way, even with weapons.
Regardless of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, the European Union seems determined to finally close with Russia, adopting the posture of a war fortress. No wonder, then, that the new mantra launched by the European Commission is: “Prepare to survive 72 hours on your emergency supplies!”, along with the usual positive humanitarianism and the futile assertion that all that is not the case and rise.
Nuclear Ghosts and Survival Gear
But the report is clear: EU citizens should accumulate reserves for three days to deal with potential crises. From nuclear threat to sabotage and cyber attacks, it all seems to be part of the “imminent global disaster” package courtesy of the EU. And if you weren’t worried enough, President von der Leyen says: “It’s not a promotion, it’s a deterrent.” But to discourage who, exactly? A Russia painted as the embodiment of absolute evil or the European citizens, now confused and scared by the drastic measures?
Gianandrea Gaiani, in an interesting live video on Otolina TV, highlights how this all looks like a post-apocalyptic movie script. The document, in fact, makes war seem almost inevitable, as if the EU has thrown in the towel on the very idea of peace. And what about European citizens? More and more incredible audience, transformed into extras in a political drama that did not choose acting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jYbcmGQQQ2k
72 hours of freedom denied
The EU, therefore, which has always given the right to peace as an inalienable victory, now seems ready to go straight to war, armed not with peace olives but with bullets and emergency supplies. The key word, in this theater of the absurd, is “should”. Yes, “Should” replenish essential items, as if they were casual advice, perhaps said in a kind tone, but nevertheless peremptory. A paternalistic and increasingly authoritarian EU, cloaking its decisions in an aura of “supreme sense” and an unfailing humanitarian spirit.
But why this rush if they said until yesterday that there is no risk of nuclear power? Why the concern to teach citizens how to live, instead of pushing for serious diplomacy to the end? Wars are avoided by dialogue, not by massive military preparations. However, it seems that our beloved leaders would rather imagine an apocalyptic scenario than face the uncomfortable task of serious political awareness. They prefer to prepare people for the worst rather than deal with Moscow, as if the disastrous future is already written in the stars.
The Big Question
And we must ask ourselves: does the European leadership consider nuclear war to be an inevitable fate? Is it really better to see millions of citizens prepare with food supplies rather than compromise and negotiate for peace? The suspicion is that this EU is no longer with beautiful declarations of peaceful cooperation, but an entity that is ready to do anything to avoid its own position. Even at the cost of taking us to the bank.
The truth is that the EU is pushing for “war”, not peace. These rulers have arbitrarily ended the right to peace and life of people in the EU. They will not negotiate peace, although this is their direct duty and responsibility for the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Are we ready to accept all this in silence? Are we really as ”stupid animals” as they seem to consider us? The time for reflection is now, before it is too late.
see also:
Interview: The Shift in European Union Policy – A Conversation with Dr. Elisa Marconi, International Relations Expert
Time.news Editor: Good morning, Dr. Marconi. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent transformation in the European Union’s stance on defense and security, particularly in light of the current crisis in Ukraine.
Dr. Elisa Marconi: Good morning! I’m glad to be here. It’s a pivotal moment for the EU, and I think there’s so much to unpack.
Editor: Absolutely. The EU has historically prided itself on being a bastion of peace. Yet, recent reports suggest that it’s shifting to a militarized paradigm while suggesting to citizens that they prepare for emergencies, including nuclear threats. What do you think has prompted this significant change?
Dr. Marconi: Several factors. Firstly, the geopolitical landscape has dramatically altered since the onset of the war in Ukraine. The EU is now faced with a direct threat from Russia, which has forced it to reevaluate its long-standing doctrine of peace through diplomacy. It’s also a response to the broader global shift towards a multipolar world where security guarantees are increasingly militant.
Editor: The report commissioned by Ursula von der Leyen, authored by former Prime Minister Sauli Niinistö, seems to underscore an alarming sentiment—the EU may be preparing for a long-term confrontation with Russia. Do you believe this perception is warranted?
Dr. Marconi: Yes, the report paints a grim picture that many in Europe are grappling with. By urging citizens to stockpile supplies for 72 hours, it implies an acknowledgment of potential crises and disasters, something that contradicts the EU’s foundational narrative of peace. It’s troubling, as it not only reflects a change in policy but also potentially instills fear and uncertainty among the citizens.
Editor: Speaking of fear and uncertainty, how do you think these messages are being received by the European populace? There seem to be echoes of overreach and paternalism in the EU’s recent communications.
Dr. Marconi: It’s a complicated dynamic. On one hand, there’s a sense of security in preparedness; on the other, many are feeling patronized and even manipulated. The language around “survival” and “deterrence” evokes images of an aggressive, militaristic state, which contrasts sharply with the EU’s proclaimed values of democracy and human rights.
Editor: Indeed, the report seems to suggest that the EU is bracing itself for conflict rather than striving for a peaceful resolution. You mentioned earlier that the EU might be throwing in the towel on the idea of peace. Can you elaborate on that?
Dr. Marconi: Certainly. The emphasis on survival gear and emergency preparedness signals a shift in mindset. What once was a commitment to negotiation and soft power is now leaning towards hard power and military readiness. This transition raises ethical questions about the EU’s role: Are they prepared to sacrifice their core values in the name of security?
Editor: Given this new direction, how do you foresee the implications for EU citizens and their rights moving forward?
Dr. Marconi: The implications could be profound. The EU has historically been a model for rights-based governance, but if we’re seeing a shift towards authoritarian decision-making under the guise of security, it could undermine the civil liberties that European citizens have enjoyed. A climate of fear can easily lead to the erosion of rights and freedoms.
Editor: It sounds like the EU is navigating a precarious path. In your view, what steps can be taken to uphold the principles of peace while addressing legitimate security concerns?
Dr. Marconi: A balanced approach is essential. The EU should engage in open dialogues with its citizens, advocate for diplomatic solutions, and maintain support for humanitarian efforts. It needs to reaffirm its commitment to peace while recognizing that security is part of that narrative—not a replacement for it.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Marconi. Your insights provide a clear understanding of the complexities facing the EU today. We appreciate your time and expertise on this critical issue.
Dr. Marconi: Thank you for having me. It’s an important conversation we need to keep having as the situation evolves.