On the many current concerns regarding the situation in Ukraine, the ongoing international tensions and the hypotheses of the so-called and unspecified “rearmament of Europe”, our Observatory offers four simple observations.
Understanding well what happened
To avoid biased, reductive or instrumental assessments, it is necessary to take into account the entire framework of the issue. Some responsibilities for what happened, on both sides, have been highlighted, but many others have not come to light or it is believed that they should not be taken into consideration. Events of this magnitude cannot be explained synchronically, based on what happens at a certain moment, but diachronically, by committing to reconstructing a complex framework of events and remembering the behavior of the many actors. Since, then, war is also waged with the tools of communication, prudent caution is needed in indicating the culprits. It is wiser to outline a detailed framework of responsibilities and try to overcome conflicting preventive judgments. There are no facts that deserve to be absolutized compared to others. It is not a question of avoiding indicating culprits, it is rather a question of avoiding indicating THE sole and absolute culprit and, once identified and punished, put one’s conscience at ease.
The system of alliances
International politics must wisely manage the system of alliances. The entry of a country into a military alliance such as NATO or an economic-political alliance such as the European Union is full of consequences of various kinds, especially when these same alliances show the need to be rethought. In times of tension and with unclear prospects, it is advisable not to take steps that, in this field, exacerbate relations in such a way that no one feels threatened. The question of “borders” must also be addressed with caution, learning realistically from what has already happened in this field in the past, especially in Eastern Europe, and with regard to the needs of peoples as well as those of States. In any case, it is not good to place on the shoulders of a country, whatever it is, more than it can bear for its integrity.
Rearmament policies
The arms race is often motivated by causes other than the presumed threat of an enemy and is a harbinger of increasingly destructive clashes. People arm themselves to resolve other economic crises, or to divert tensions present in their own society onto the battlefield, to take possession of war booty of a different nature, or to keep alive, under the pretext of an emergency situation, political structures that are declining. Rearmament policies do not always and automatically guarantee one’s own security, especially when they worry others who feel threatened. Security can also be guaranteed in other ways. We are against the creation of a “common defense” of the European Union that would repeat mistakes already made recently and would lead to a strengthening of the Union itself to the point of transforming it into a super-State precisely at the moment in which it should be critically rethought.
The path of horror
To think of basing one’s fortunes on rearmament means embracing the path of evil. Without denying the exercise of a prudent right to defense, weapons are not products like others, they are not at the service of man: they serve to kill, maim and destroy. Their use produces horrors whose duration transcends the life of the generations responsible for them, fueling a chain of hatred that feeds itself over time. Weapons essentially constitute a reification of evil. Seizing the industrial opportunity that is currently being offered to us to ward off a very serious crisis responds to human logic, but “cursed be the man who trusts in man”.
(Foto: Pixabay)
