Whatever the short-term support from the US for Ukraine, on the horizon there remains the possibility of a Trump presidency in November. Even ignoring that, by now we should have learned that the security of Europe must be achievable by Europe alone. The events of the last two and a half years have made it crystal clear that Europe must develop the means to protect itself.
Sometimes one should assume the worst about international relations, not because you distrust your friends or wish to denigrate their intentions, but because it is the pragmatic thing to do. If allies eventually come through with their support, then all is well and good. But if they do not, at least you have assumed that outcome to be what the future holds, and you have made sensible preparations accordingly.
There seems to be an assumption that if Trump is elected to power, with all his brazen willingness to let Russia do what it will with Europe, that calamity will result; a global era of autocratic domination will emerge. Maybe. But this outcome is not pre-ordained. It is only a likely development if we languidly assume that an international order of free states can only be ensured by the US and that a US retreat from engagement with the international community or NATO would presage the end of liberty as we know it.
I want to suggest that we should end our speculation and pontificating on the future of the US’s commitments. This is a capitulation to the idea that the future of Europe and liberty depends on the US and its actions. Instead, we must get Europe in shape.
Will Trump Choose Opponent of Ukraine’s Interests for Sensitive Diplomatic Role?
European history and confidence
Let’s remind ourselves of the confidence that Europe should possess. The concept of a state committed to the ideas of freedom was essentially a European one. Ancient Athens was hardly free according to our modern standards. Yet from that grand old city marched the ideas of individual liberty and the accountability of power, which infected Rome, sprung up in the Italian city states of the Renaissance and eventually ripped through the whole of Europe during the Enlightenment like a wildfire. In their wake, some of the finest science and culture took flight.
The writings and musings of America’s founding fathers, not least in The Federalist Papers, which laid the groundwork for the Republic, are saturated with inspiration from this European history and its personalities. The founders admired John Locke for his revolutionary disposition. Montesquieu inspired them with his separation of powers. Polybius’s ideas on mixed constitutions, themselves adapted from Aristotle, fascinated them as much. And Machiavelli’s dark warnings electrified their suspicion of power.
The Russo-Ukrainian war is a raw and visceral call to action, a chance for Europe to dwell on its history and realize that it has the heritage to provide independent and inspirited leadership in the ideas of freedom.
Just as the foundations of liberty existed before the United States emerged in 1776, so it is true that the future of human freedom does not depend on the United States indefeasibly remaining the transmission belt of liberty. When the Athenian-led Delian League collapsed, ideas of freedom were still pursued by ancient Rome. Today, of course, the Delian League is nowhere to be seen, and yet some of us consider ourselves to be free. Many nations and alliances can be the guardians of free minds.
In some sense, one might say the critics in America are right. Europe has become too dependent on American largesse, too inured to the idea that global freedom is coterminous with, and inseparable from, a US-led alliance. There is a lazy complacency in such an attitude. The Russo-Ukrainian war is a raw and visceral call to action on this front, a chance for Europe to dwell on its history and realize that it has the heritage to provide independent and inspirited leadership in the ideas of freedom.
European leadership anew
How would an era of leadership emerge?
First, intellectually, the ideas of freedom have never been more relevant in a world in which technology, social media and military power have confronted them with new challenges. We should encourage a type of second enlightenment, vivifying a new generation to think about freedom and to spark a revitalized discussion and energy in its defense, especially in our schools and universities. Science and art stand center stage in this view of civilization.
Second, on more practical matters, Europe needs to construct a military alliance that can guarantee its security. This does not imply an end to NATO, but one might imagine a military grouping ready to protect Europe alone. This new Delian League – for the sake of argument, let’s call it DEMOS (the alliance of DEmocratic Military OrganisationS) – could emerge from the fire of the Russo-Ukrainian war. DEMOS’s military doctrine would be simple: the creation and coordination of a military strength capable of defending Europe from threats.
A properly planned arms capability, military integration and doctrine of defense would ensure that Europe has the wherewithal to shield its borders from attack and secure the sovereignty of its members. DEMOS, a purely defensive alliance, would have agreed minimum participation levels for membership, coordinated forces on land, sea and in the air, and the ability to respond rapidly to dangers.
Such an alliance should not be an institution of the EU, in which it would run the terrible risk of militarizing the EU. Furthermore, many states might join the alliance that are not in the EU. I refer not only to Britain, but to other liberal democracies in Europe, and potentially beyond. Indeed, conceived in the right way, such an alliance might strengthen, not weaken, the core of NATO.
This would be an alliance committed to guarding the values of accountable and representative government, impartial legal systems, equality before the law, freedoms of expression; that panoply of ideas that together embody the democratic world and which we loosely consider to the be the basis of “free” states.
Despite the awful maelstrom of the Russo-Ukrainian War, here is an opportunity for Europe to grasp this historical instant and energize itself with a refreshed and animated purpose.
Third, a second independent axis of liberty is no bad thing, whatever the future direction of the US. A single-point failure in any global architecture is dangerous, as it is in the design of an airplane or a car. The ideas of freedom are too precious to allow the world to collapse into a dark age of authoritarianism on account of one break in the chain.
What the totality of this situation represents is the opportunity for what one might consider a new awakening of European values. In this age, we repudiate the imperialism and inter-state rivalries of that first age of enlightenment, but we have the confidence to embrace all its most spectacular characteristics. We have the courage to believe in the ideas of free nations, and, because of the Russo-Ukrainian war, to grasp the reality that the values that underpin them are not abstract phantasms of a former epoch, but the real principles that we must enliven once more if our traditions of liberty are to survive contact with the modern world.
All these ideas seem to be fanciful and academic in the context of the war, but this sudden jolt to European consciousness, the brutal awakening caused by the worst war of aggression on European soil since the Second World War, is precisely what makes this vision about as unacademic as it can be. Our way of life and the future safety of European states depend on its realization in short order.
Despite the awful maelstrom from which these needs emerge, here is an opportunity for Europe to grasp this historical instant and energize itself with a refreshed and animated purpose. A modern age of science, culture, political liberty, democracy, strength and creativity. A second age of Europe.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
