The European Commission recently unveiled a plan to rearrange the European Union and strengthen the block defense capacities. By 2030, the Commission intended to arm Ukraine and develop the military of the Member States to the extent necessary to dissuade or counter the Russian aggression. To finance this effort, the Commission plans to borrow 800 billion euros (873 billion dollars) over the next four years.
It is encouraging that Europe has finally woken up to the Russian threat and developed a credible defense strategy in the medium term, especially since the transatlantic rift widens. But the block may not have as much time to prepare as it wishes. Fortunately, there are ways to speed up the implementation of the plan.
The most important question may be funding. About a quarter of the 800 billion euros that the Commission wishes to mobilize can be obtained immediately by exchanging frozen Russian assets (90% of which are in cash) for EU obligations. Given the reluctance of certain Member States to seize the assets of the Russian State, to exchange them for obligations of zero interest of 20 years, for example, could be a politically acceptable compromise.
More generally, there is not much to suggest that the entry or exchange of these assets would significantly affect the euro or the rule of law in Europe. In fact, it can even increase the probability of ultimately perceiving compensation from Russia for damage caused by its aggression.
Second, although information and threats of sweet power can be less tangible than cyberrencies that the commission’s plan rightly highlights, they are just as dangerous and must be treated. An excellent example is the growing popularity of far -right and far left populist forces supported by Russian and Chinese operations on Tiktok and other social media platforms. These political parties often promote the Kremlin agenda, especially at the end of support for Ukraine.
The consequences of these power in power could be devastating. In addition to aligning themselves on Russia, their inclination to implement simplistic solutions to complex problems would create uncertainty and chaos, undermining the leading institutions of the EU and its internal cohesion. This institutional weakness and this fractured unit would only stimulate Russian aggression.
Freedom of expression should not apply to disinformation hawkers. The EU must therefore prohibit Russian and Russian media, including apparently independent points of sale, and more closely monitor the use of Tiktok, Telegram and other social media platforms for the potential dissemination of pro-Kremlin propaganda. European politicians with links with Russian President Vladimir Putin, such as those who have pressure for the North Stream II project, should also face repercussions, so that the internal costs prevail over the advantages conferred by these connections.
Similarly, the mechanisms of governance of the European rearmament effort should be “in the orbán test” to prevent a single European country aligned in Kremlin – like Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orban – to derail the project. Creating a “coalition of willingly” would also allow Canada, Japan, South Korea and other countries to join the effort.
Admittedly, Russian influence campaigns are not the only one or even the main reason why the far -right populist parties have gained ground in Europe. To erode support for these parties, European leaders must solve the real problems that have fueled their increase. For example, European leaders can weaken anti-immigrant feeling by reforming migrant support programs in order to encourage employment, for example by coupling integration services (including linguistic training) with the progressive elimination of social benefits.
The block can also counter populism by improving results for European workers and economies. The very act of rearning will create new jobs, while gentle power efforts could also benefit European industry. The “grain from Ukraine” humanitarian program, which provides Ukrainian products to African countries and Asia, faced with food shortages, could easily be extended to include European foodstuffs (which the EU can finance thanks to its common agricultural policy).
Finally, the EU should use options other than hard force to alleviate the strategic threat posed by Russia. For example, EU leaders could discreetly ensure the leaders of the nations currently occupied by Russia for the recognition of the block as independent states. This has already worked: Polish private leaders told Leonid Kravchuk, who became the first president of Ukraine, that Poland would recognize an independent Ukrainian state.
Russia may seem a powerful monolith, but in reality, it is a paper tiger with a ruined economy. The regional elites will soon realize that they no longer to tolerate the racism, economic exploitation and expansionism of the Kremlin. In fact, many free countries (including Poland and Finland) emerged from the disintegration of the Russian Empire in 1917, after its defeat during the First World War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, after its withdrawal from Afghanistan two years earlier. To extend the life of an imperial entity which is apparently permanently at war has no meaning.
The EU must take these measures in parallel with its rearmament efforts-whatever the negotiations or the cease-fire agreements. Russia has shown that it can speak for years, as it did between 2015-22, without effect, and Putin will use any cease-fire to prepare another attack, while intensifying the hybrid war of Russia, including information operations and sabotage. Putin’s imperial ambitions will not be derailed by speaking, and any hope of “concluding an agreement” with Russia will only prevent it from achieving these objectives. If Europe wants to live freely, it must act quickly.
Publisher’s note: Copyright, Project Syndicate. This article was published by Project Syndicate and was republished by the Kyiv Independent with permission. The opinions expressed in the OP-ED section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the independent kyiv.
Trump’s prices risk a disaster while Russia’s bipartite strategy offers hope
Unfortunately there is nothing good to say about the announcements that US President Donald Trump made during his recent event of the “Liberation Day” in the Garden Rose of the White House. As we can “healthy residential”, try the economic policies of Trump, there is simply no coherent justification for his so-called …
