How to avoid a new world war

World War I was a kind of cultural suicide that destroyed the eminence of Europe

(Henry Kissinger)

The sentence that introduces this article constitutes the exordium of the one published recently by Kissinger himself, in whose title he raised how to avoid the occurrence of a new world war ¹.

The first conclusion is that there is indeed a risk, perhaps not so remote, that the conflict in Ukraine will not only drag on, something that seems inevitable, but that it will spread to other actors and end up directly involving the Western powers, already formally kyiv allies.

Among them, Spain.

Kissinger, the US Secretary of State behind the Western opening to China, has been insisting for some time, even before hostilities broke out, on the need to seek negotiated solutions to the current war in Eastern Europe.

In his latest book (

), written at the age of 99, he discusses the foreseeable consequences of trying to establish Russia's security line against possible threats on its western border just 300 kilometers from Moscow.

None of this justifies the criminal invasion ordered by Vladimir Putin, but it illustrates the riskiness of the policy of the Atlantic Alliance when it comes to extending its presence to eastern Europe.

Today the United States and its allies are—we are—an active part of the conflict.

The military progress of the Ukrainian resistance would not have been possible without the multimillion-dollar logistical, weapons and technological support for the kyiv government.

Meanwhile, the prolongation of the war actions has been costing both sides tens of thousands of fatalities, and untold suffering to the civilian population of the attacked country.

Also, although to a much lesser extent, the inhabitants of the European Union are beginning to suffer limitations and sacrifices in their way of life that in some cases have already ignited the flame of popular protest.

In the forecasts of Western strategic study institutes and centers about how next year will be, the greatest global risk is centered on the military evolution of the war and its economic consequences;

but also in its causes, among them the control of energy sources.

Although the Ukrainian president proclaims that there will only be a ceasefire when Russia leaves the occupied territories (another thing would be to generate confusion and discouragement in his troops) there is a conviction among analysts that this is a war that Putin cannot lose if we do not want to. face the threat of a confrontation between two superpowers that control 90% of the nuclear power in the world.

But for the same reason, the United States and the Atlantic Alliance cannot lose it either.

So, barring a true universal disaster,

diplomacy will return to exercise its functions sooner or later.

Hopefully it's sooner.

In such a scenario, in which the construction of a new world order is at stake, the general mediocrity of political leaders in democracies and the instability of a large part of them is disastrous.

This is due in no small measure to the ideological and Cainite polarization of its leaders.

In the Spanish case, the poverty of the discussion regarding the war, the absence of parliamentary debate and the adoption alone by the Government of decisions that directly affect the security of citizens and that demand the sanction of the Cuts.

We have reached an extreme in which the most important measures regarding our foreign and defense policy are carried out in an obscurantist and autocratic manner, stealing information from the representatives of our sovereignty,

I am referring, of course, to the Copernican turn in relations with Morocco, the meaning of which I agree with;

but it was carried out with a colossal arrogance, secrecy and lack of judgment.

Or to the follow-up of the initial attempt by the White House to reproduce a kind of new Cold War with China, in contempt for the interests of the European Union, for the moment gentle handmaiden of NATO's demands.

More recent is the agreement reached by President Joe Biden and our head of government to increase the naval strength of the American base in Rota by 50%, with the addition of two state-of-the-art destroyers.

I am not discussing the opportunity or not of it, among other things because the absence of information in this regard does not allow expressing any opinion, but the method used,

which does not differ much from the customs of any autocracy.

Through a piece of news in our newspaper, not a formal statement from the Executive, we have learned that it does not intend to request the approval of the Chambers for this considerable military reinforcement.

Since 2019, the governments of Pedro Sánchez have been extending the validity of the agreement with the United States through simple administrative decisions, without resorting to the support of Parliament.

However, previous governments did request the authorization of the Courts when implementing the arrival of the first destroyers or the installation of a helicopter base.

Article 94 of the Constitution requires that agreements of a military nature be previously authorized by the Courts and the agreement with Biden obviously implies an extension of the current agreement,

although the number of American soldiers and civilians attached to the base is not overflowing.

The decision to substantially expand the American naval force on Spanish soil by means of a simple administrative act is due to the Government's attempt not to represent before Washington the internal fracture of the Cabinet, since Unidas Podemos would vote against the measure.

The lack of unity of the Executive and its parliamentary support when defining foreign and defense policy or the solidity of the State in the face of threats of independence, highlights the opportunism of President Sánchez in exchange for the crumbs of power.

It is immoral, and actually quite stupid, that a genuine parliamentary debate on the war in Ukraine: its eventual consequences has not taken place under the current conditions;

the measures to be taken;

military aid to kyiv, as restricted as it was proclaimed by Sánchez himself;

the role of our diplomacy and the eventual role of our Armed Forces if there were an extension of the conflict.

But these are issues that profoundly affect the immediate future of our State and our society.

I would dare to say more than any other in these times.

How the current war in the heart of Europe ends depends on the configuration of a new world order in which the two leading powers, the United States and China, will be forced to formulate at least a system of coexistence that does not prevent collaboration.

In this new scenario, the European Union, an ally of Washington, needs to exercise more autonomy and determination on its part with regard to its security if it does not want to repeat the cultural suicide that it already carried out after the first Great War.

This will not be possible (Kissinger

) without reconciliation between the opposites.

Once the noise of the guns stops, a peaceful and stable situation in Europe will require lasting agreements with Russia.

To achieve them, it is necessary to increase the defense budget of the European States, distinguish the strategic priorities of the Union, and involve citizens in a process that manages to avoid a new world war.

In our case, none of this can be carried out through merely administrative decisions.

It is necessary to listen to Parliament, badly that it weighs on the Government.

1)

December 17, 2022

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber