War in Ukraine: The EU must understand that it is no longer the angel

Enlarge image

Saint Michael, depiction from the Rila Monastery in Bulgaria

Photo: iStockphoto / Getty Images

History is like "a horse without a rider galloping through the night."

With this image, Spanish Prime Minister Félipe Gonzalez described the night the Berlin Wall fell.

Since February 24th we are living in such a moment again.

In the early hours of that day, the story stormed out of the stables.

Will we be able to rein them in again?

Russian President Putin has threw himself into the unthinkable by invading Ukraine.

He crossed the Rubicon.

There is no turning back for him.

Fire and flame, all or nothing.

The recognition of the two Donbas republics on Monday, February 21 opened the door to the stable.

Within three days the horror began.

Political will and a cool head are now of the essence for Europeans.

The former is in abundance, the latter is in short supply.

The Geopolitical Awakening

In times of great danger, unexpected powers are released.

On the one hand there is Ukraine, which bravely took the first blows and won a stunning victory in the battle for public opinion in Europe.

We are no longer dealing with a chaotic country of forty million people on the Black Sea, but with a nation that presents itself as the bearer of Europe's democratic promise, with its President Volodymyr Zelenskyj as the universal hero.

Germany's political mobilization came at least as unexpectedly.

After years of hesitation, the Federal Republic now intends to upgrade seriously.

Besides, she started supporting Kyiv militarily.

Berlin breaks with its economic policy towards Moscow, recognizes its dependence on gas as a strategic mistake and confronts the naivety and hypocrisy of the German export model.

What the eastern neighbors and several US presidents have not managed to do for many years, Putin has achieved in one fell swoop: Germany has geopolitically awakened.

Chancellor Scholz spoke in the Bundestag of a "turning point in time".

It was a reminder of how, three weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Helmut Kohl single-handedly launched the plans for German unity in the Bundestag.

This spectacular second German »Wende« brings more unity and strength to the entire European Union.

Europe is using its economic strength and is willing to accept losses in its standard of living in the interest of security and peace.

This willingness to make great economic sacrifices is new and testifies to a deepening political-strategic understanding.

It is noteworthy that the European Union is supplying 450 million euros worth of arms to Kyiv, something that was taboo until last week.

The EU has the impression that it is crossing its very own Rubicon.

But the implications of the German awakening go further.

As long as Europe's most powerful country was militarily reticent, Europe could not be strong.

Now that Germany is investing in its army and accepting the realities of international power politics, much can change.

As long as the impetus for geopolitical action came primarily from France - this was the case from General De Gaulle to President Macron - most other countries remained suspicious of greater European involvement in military matters.

Now that Berlin is increasing its commitment, Paris will feel less alone.

Other laggards in defense spending, like the Netherlands or Italy, will no longer be able to hide behind Germany.

The new role for Poland

However, the recent events are also encouraging for Poland and the other Central and Eastern European EU member states.

For years, their warnings about Russia were seen as exaggerations in western and southern European capitals (except perhaps London).

This has now changed.

There will also be convergence in the assessment of threats and risks: that is the prerequisite for joint geopolitical action.

It should also not be forgotten that the Polish prime minister, together with the Lithuanian president, came to Berlin before the German »Zeitenwende« to appeal to Scholz's conscience.

That too was unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

Poland was in the dock for violating the rule of law.

Today, peace and security trump these legitimate concerns.

There's a lot of applause greeting Germany's geopolitical awakening in the rest of Europe (and the United States).

But there is also a certain unease.

How will this sudden change play out in the long run?

Despite all the reliability that the neighbors associate with Germany, there is also something mysterious about this country.

Are we witnessing one of those moments of emotional political change again, like after the Fukushima disaster, when the German public surprised itself and found a new consensus on nuclear energy within days - without having thought through the long-term consequences?

Changing times are ruthless moments

So we see political energy in abundance, in Germany and in Europe.

What is missing is strategic calm.

And that's worrying.

Twitter triumph over the Russian army's blatant military blunders is premature.

Keeping your cool is now a matter of life and death.

Averting the threat of nuclear war has absolute priority.

To insist that Putin is bluffing is irresponsible.

This fact does not seem to have reached all political leaders.

On the day the EU announced its arms deliveries, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hastily announced EU membership for Ukraine.

Selenskyj promptly submitted the official application.

Poland and other Eastern European countries cheered and MEPs applauded.

The more hesitant member states remain silent or talk about procedures and timetables, nobody wants to take away a glimmer of hope from the Ukrainians at this moment.

»Turning points« are moments of ruthlessness.

Nevertheless, it is negligent when von der Leyen ignores the fact that for the Kremlin, whom we want to bring to reason, the promises of NATO and EU commitments since 2008 and 2014 have been a primary source of conflict.

In a moment of high tension, diplomatic formulas such as "long-term perspective" or "maybe someday" are counterproductive.

It is tragic, but such declarations come too soon at best.

At worst, they will be another false promise.

The EU summit in Versailles, which begins today, must not repeat for the EU what the infamous Bucharest summit in April 2008 was for NATO - when Ukraine and Georgia had already been offered membership, although it was clear that they would not will not come.

And how should we imagine the outcome: the former Soviet republic of Ukraine joining the EU without becoming a member of NATO at the same time?

The latter would mean crossing a geopolitical red line, at least risking a nuclear war between America and Russia.

But how should the EU free Ukraine from Moscow's clutches without the US?

There is a military aid clause in the EU treaty, Article 42.7, which is a kind of counterpart to Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

But it has never been tested.

Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, other countries that want to evade Moscow's grip, immediately followed Ukraine and also applied for membership.

During the great eastward enlargement of the European Union, Poland and the other new members always joined NATO first, and only then the EU.

For some (like Poland) there was a five-year gap, for others (like Slovenia) just a few weeks, but the nuclear safety guarantee always came before EU accession, and with good reason.

The counter-example would be Finland and Sweden, which are in the EU but outside of NATO (as are Austria, Ireland and Cyprus).

But these states were neutral in the Cold War and were not behind the Iron Curtain.

In view of the Russian threat, Finland and Sweden could now also want to join the alliance.

It may be more urgent for the Union to reduce strategic ambiguity for these members (if they wish) than to increase it dangerously for all.

Europe must become realistic

All this shows that this war is plunging Europe into deep problems.

Europe has still not freed itself from its strategic carelessness.

How else could it be?

The new way of thinking in terms of "power", "interests" and "identity", in terms of "history" and "geography" is fundamentally at odds with Brussels' traditional self-image as a neutral and open space.

The EU was created to overcome power politics, tear down borders and walls, and defuse national rivalries.

Its founders saw the Fellowship as the vanguard of world peace, not as an agent to compete with others.

Europe should be a moral beacon that speaks the language of values, friendly and haughty at the same time.

This vocation was reinforced after 1989:

Now that history has come back so brutally, it will take time to correct these flaws.

The mere call for a "geopolitical commission" (as von der Leyen calls it) or for more "European sovereignty" (as it says in the German coalition agreement) is not enough.

Neither does the delivery of arms to Kyiv.

The existing institutions of the EU are overwhelmed by this change.

An angel with a sword is still an angel.

If Europe is to emerge as a power among powers, capable at some point even of commanding destructive military forces, it will need a different political language to speak about itself and its place in the world.

The European Union will have to change its ethos and demeanor.

She has to understand that she is then no longer the angel who liberates the continent and the world from evil and tyranny - but a mortal, strategic and realpolitik actor who also knows the limits of his power and his time.

In the coming days, weeks and months, a crucial question will be: Can we accept coexistence with a geopolitical opponent, be it in Moscow or Beijing?

Will we manage not to see him as the devil incarnate?

Not trying to destroy it lest we project (again!) into a post-historical future of universal peace?

Will it be possible to deal with him as a rival?

Politically, this is perhaps the real Rubicon that Europe must cross.

Translated by Tobias Rapp.