With the sowing of weapons from the Atlantic to the Urals, which now do not bother as an expensive bob for future generations and without a clear plan for the future, EU enters a new cold war. Ursula von der Layen He seems excited when he talks about Europe’s “re -equipment”. Polls seem to be right. European citizens, after being bombarded by their leaders with war announcements and warnings of the threat to the gates, seem to approve the announcements. The fears of borrowing, which will burden future generations, no longer have a place in public dialogue. Nor is the big decades of “Soft Power”, Europe as a mild power that gains prestige and recognition thanks to its commitment to peace and the prosperity of its citizens, structured on a vigorous social state.

The slogan of Charles de Gaulle, adopted by Conrad Adenauer and later used Gorbachev in the years of Perestroika, for a Europe of peace and reconciliation “from the Atlantic to the Urals” seems outdated.

The plan now, still unclear in its details and compared to its implementation time, foresees rockets, tanks, airports, anti -tank arrays and camps from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Even Germany, which has survived for decades unarmed, even in the warmest periods of the Cold War has now been occupied by an insistence on seeing itself naked and threatened. And declares determined to equip. At any cost.

Another “historical” session

The Europeans, except for Orban and some of the little ones who are mourning about the fine letters of the plan but do not speak, are boasting a meeting of “historical decisions”, but it comes from a hurry, but at the same time delayed. It is not just that the war has been closed for three years and everyone knows that it cannot be won, as Zelnsky imagines it at least.

Is that the Donald Trump He had shown his moods for eight years. And for at least a year his return to the White House seemed sure. So why now this flush? Can a continent of millions be heterogeneous by the casual moods of an insolvent “ally”?

The time when Putin was talking as an official invited to Budestag in Berlin in 2001, he certainly never existed. Some, however, used to remind his 2007 warnings at the Munich Security Conference of the same year, which were largely ignored. Europe looks like a patient, who wakes up after years from the coma and jumps out of bed to run in a speed race. Most likely to collapse.

So what exactly justifies the “historical session” claim? The 150 billion loans, which will some magical way to become 800 to implement the plan? And how does this number come about? Based on what plan and with what institutional registration by a Commission, which at least under the conditions is not entitled to finance the defense. “The European Union can only take action in the areas in which its Member States have authorized it under EU conditions,” the Commission’s website still writes. Funding of military activities is not mentioned anywhere.

Which next day

The most worrying thing, however, seems to be completely absent from a strategy for the future, not just the immediate, in relation to how the war in Ukraine will end, which Europeans decided to make it their own, following the tactics of heterosexuality by the decisions of the previous US administration.

What no one shows a willingness to describe is the relationship with neighbor Russia, but also with Trump’s US. Europe is slipping into a new cold war, but without the clearly shared roles of the era of bipolarism, which brings insecurity and new debts, which allows no optimism for the future of future generations.

Why is there any decisive “interference” attempt at this weird Trump-Putin dialogue that seems to trap the EU in a deadlock? How do the overwhelming statements of self -trauma on Rearm are in line with the almost submissive style of European policies, which continue to express their faith in the importance of cooperation with the US? Are they really determined to “autonomy” or do they believe they are bluffing and will force the US president to go back?

Is there any thoughts about the post-Trump, but also about the post-Putin era? Will there be a return to a smooth transatlantic relationship again? Will the Putin regime succeed a similar or even worse dictator? And how much will the formation of all this be affected by the current stance of Europeans? Will the impact on the societies of the communities of titanic funds in military purposes will be discussed and approved by the (at least on paper) (at least on paper).

All of these are issues that should at some point be raised over the table beyond jokes and microficits. And most of all the discussion must start with the first and fundamental question. Can Europe aim to transform it into a military superpower that can look into the eyes of the US, Russia, and even the vast China? What cost and how much time will this take? There are many who question the realism of such a plan anyway. Even under the nuclear umbrella, generously offered by Emmanuel Macron.