Von der Leyen's Europe no longer cries, but allows itself to be reckoned with

We are too late to raise the barricades that Machiavelli proposed in Chapter XXV of The Prince, but it is not true that there is no alternative to the Trump project.

Von der Leyen's Europe no longer cries but allows itself to be taxed

We have been slow to raise the barriers that Machiavelli recommended in Chapter XXV of The Prince, but it is simply not true that there is no alternative to the Trump plan.

The Commission President is right when he asserts that Europe can no longer be the guardian of a world order from which there will be no return, but it is necessary to clarify what he means.

Russian expert Richard Sakwa recently published a book on the ideology of the 'Second Cold War' in which he draws on the classic distinction between the post-1945 international system and its various orders and sub-orders (remember, the first, second and third world?).

Sakwa said that after the collapse of the socialist world, the West, the so-called First World, developed a broad project aimed at the progressive integration of many countries with its belief in an international law.This power is international and continental in nature, with the continued expansion of the European Union and the creation of trade and militancy between democracies.

The Trump project, in the context of the erosion of the American era and the rise of China, is a project of an alternative world order.In this sense, a possible interpretation of Von der Leyen's speech is that, due to the change of the American project, which does not consider the protection of the enlarged Western countries, the European Union cannot be the only pillar in the world of this world order.This is a pessimistic diagnosis - it seems to give Humanity more substance and ability to create reality than is possible - but it rests on the true basis of reading the world as it is and preparing for the worst.Even if Trump loses in the midterm elections and there is a peaceful transition through impeachment or in 2028, American democracy will emerge deeply scarred from the experience and broken international leadership.

The truth is often associated with Niccolò Machiavelli's opinion, in the repeated reading of a single work, The Prince.However, the Florentine does not limit himself to giving us a pessimistic reading of the nature of power, but invites those who have political rights to work in the world to be ready to use the means of wealth.However, Von der Leyen's speech is not only a disease, it is not a road map.Although "Europe at the Crossroads" is a lazy title for any future-looking conference or project, it is clear that there is more than one option before us, and von der Leyen's vision is a page.

The president of the commission says that we are heading for a lawless world where applying to Iran the question that has guided thinking on the justice of war for centuries - whether war is imposed by force, as in Ukraine, or voluntarily, as in the case of Israel and the US attack on Iran - no longer makes sense.War, almost like a Greek principle, is the father of many things.Gives little to deal with the government.

“This regime is causing destruction and destabilization throughout the region through its ‘proxies’ armed with missiles and drones,” said Von der Leyen.Some would argue that the phrase applies perfectly to Israel, but the friend/foe distinction is especially relevant to a world where politics has substantially changed the world of procedures and guarantees.We cannot face a world of rulers armed only with a piece of paper, be it the UN charter or the will of King Robert Baratheon.

This strategy is well explained by the views of the Commission and the German Chancellor of the impossibility of maintaining the trans-Pacific link.But it is worth asking if this strategy is prudent in the face of a relationship that we cannot afford to lose, or if it is a sign of a change in the world.What does the transatlantic relationship mean today?Trump has not continued the demands of the United States since Obama asked our Europeans to fulfill their own defense responsibilities, but he has stopped supporting Ukraine, threatened Denmark with troops, imposed tariffs, and publicly questioned the validity of the NATO mutual defense treaty.

Whatever the realists say about the pieces of paper, NATO is as credible as Article 5. The old transatlantic link is lost with Zelensky's detention in the Oval Office.What Trump wants to build is a different kind of deal.One where security is not a public good granted by the hegemon despite the freeloading of Europeans, but a reward administered to those who demonstrate the desired behavior—in the case of Trump, humiliation—or denied to those who do not behave as intended.And, in addition, a reward that is not a gift, but instead feeds the supremacy of America, forcing the Europeans to reach a bad level of spending on US defense material, instead of realizing their own economies of scale for the defense of Europe.

One might think that given the very modest progress made in common European defense during von der Leyen's two terms, which are not exclusively suited to him, given his modest powers, giving in to Trump's proposed deal is seen as inevitable in the hope that he will not give us a worse alternative.A combination of cunning, daring and prudence.

We Europeans have wasted the 4 years that Fortune gave us with the Biden mandate and the heroic resistance of Ukraine.We are late in building the dams that Machiavelli recommended in Chapter XXV of The Prince, but it is simply not true that there is no alternative to the Tropic Project.Carney Kennedy's speech on Iran undermined the credibility of his vaunted speech about the Middle Power Alliance.However, a political initiative starting with a league of democracies, aimed at subordinating the Trumpists (Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Korea, Australia), but extending beyond the political West, including Asian democracies (India or Indonesia), African democracies (South Africa or Nigeria, or Latin American democracies (Colombia)) may be a strong enough order that the US and China do not have a multilateral institution.

This is not nostalgia or idealism, but purely personal interest.Our herbivorous and gentrified continent will not raise fierce canines or sacrifice Spartan warriors.The sphere in which we are concerned to fight is the sphere of political power, not brute force.After 1989, the Western international political order came to an end.But it may take a battle to maintain the 1945 system. It took two world wars to create it.

* Luis Buza García is Professor of Political Science at the Autonomous University of Madrid.He is part of the Jean Monnet Collaboration Spain, which collaborates with El Confidential to publish analyzes on European issues.

The Commission President is right when he emphasizes that Europe is no longer the guardian of a global order of no return, but it is worth clarifying what he means.