US policy: how should Europe respond?
US tariffs against the EU, threats to take over Greenland, offensive remarks by high-ranking US officials in a Signal chat - the tone between Washington and Brussels is becoming increasingly sour. Commentators discuss what Europe's focus should be and whether massive rearmament is the right strategy.
Russia no longer the biggest threat
Rafael Vilasanjuan defines new fronts for Europe in El Periódico de Catalunya:
“Russia would have a hard time subjugating the entire EU. Poland and the Baltic states will be very tempting targets, but if in three years Moscow hasn't even managed to get militarily inferior Ukraine under control, the idea that it poses a threat to the EU is a fantasy. ... The real war we face is not mainly military, but commercial, economic and strategic. And this is where we must go on the offensive: investing in technology, in a global knowledge space, in a commercially open and powerful continent. Because the main enemy is no longer Russia, but the US.”
Tightrope between independence and convenience
While Europe can't be completely independent of other world powers, more thought must be put into the structure of its dependency, politician Tommaso Nannicini explains in La Stampa:
“We need to decide whether we want to pursue multiple conveniences by allying ourselves with various powers, depending on the sector - from defence to energy, from technology to trade - or whether we want to pursue a single strategic convenience by sheltering under the wing of a single power. ... Political forces would do well not to shy away from the dilemma between independence and convenience: the new political tightrope walk of our time.”
Time to keep a cool head
A change of mentality is needed, but without overdoing it, De Standaard believes:
“A heightened state of alert is becoming the new leitmotif. Europeans must boost their resilience. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, this requires a significant change of mentality. Yet we must also keep a cool head. It makes little sense to feed the average European a daily dose of fear. That would jeopardise the uniqueness of this region. As US President Franklin D. Roosevelt said 100 years ago, 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself'.”
Major changes long overdue
Trump is offering Europe the opportunity for a much-needed reorganisation, writes Élet és Irodalom:
“Both Europe's cheeks are red from Trump's slaps and humiliations. ... Europe is being forced to rearm and will probably have to use the US tariff war to conquer new markets. The EU has been ripe for change for some time, in particular its outdated decision-making system and its impossibly weak defence. The main source of Europe's strength, but also its weakness, is its strict adherence to its hard-won common rules, maintaining the right of veto in a polite environment. ... Europe needs a series of political innovations, but if it can implement them it can become a global powerhouse.”
Voters must have a say
European societies themselves must have the opportunity to legitimise any policy of rearmament, writes Efimerida ton Syntakton:
“Will the people be asked? Do they have a say? Do they prefer guns or butter? Do they prefer war capitalism? If we cut social spending to massively rearm, shouldn't the people have a say? ... There's no money for education or health but somehow money will be found for tanks, cannons and aeroplanes, they say. Loans galore. Soaring interest rates. The markets will do their work. They understand nothing of social justice. They consider it a disposable luxury. And then there's the danger of populism. ... This new policy must first be approved by the voters.”
For a more open continent
There is an alternative model for the new Europe, MEP María Eugenia Palop emphasises in Eldiario.es:
“The world is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. ... Warmongering is beginning to set the tone. ... A reactive model is emerging. But there is also an alternative one, a social, green and feminist model, the caring Europe, which, however, seems to have frozen up. ... With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the energy crisis and the triumph of the far right came another U-turn. ... The increase in military spending may act as a deterrent, but it is not necessarily effective. ... The change of cycle could also pave the way for a more cohesive integration with more democracy and less poverty, for a more open Europe and the reaffirmation of the cultural reference point we have always been.”
The risks of rearmament
A rearmed Europe must not forget its blood-soaked history, O Jornal Económico insists:
“We Europeans sometimes have a hard time getting along with each other. We are partners and share principles, problems and a common history. It is precisely this shared history that demands caution and dialogue. European disarmament was not the result of an irrepressible European pacifist urge - it can be explained by our fratricidal temptation, which was confirmed by the two great wars. Now that we are going to have weapons at our disposal again it is important that we understand the risks associated with this unavoidable choice.”
Leadership and coordination needed
MEP Petras Auštrevičius points out on Lyrtas:
“If it's already clear today that not all EU Member States will reach the target of 3.5 percent of GDP for defence by 2026, we should not keep frantically repeating this target but look for more realistic ways to boost rearmament and the defence industry. We could provide financial stimulus that goes beyond the pandemic measures - but we're not doing it. There is also a lack of political discussion on whether parts of the EU structural funds could be used to strengthen defence. What are we waiting for? Unfortunately, the EU still lacks the determination to coordinate and take the lead in this critical phase.”