President Emmanuel Macron's appeal to European countries for an eventual sending of soldiers to Ukraine has caused concern on the continent and rejection by governments.
Even the United States has stated that it would not send soldiers to fight.
Macron is faithful to his character, an enlightened conservative, imbued with the Gaullist values that still inhabit the presidency of the French Republic, despite having been occupied by the frivolity of Sarkozy and the style without precise attributes of Hollande.
From the first day, with his impressive four-minute solo walk through the halls of the Louvre, he made clear his majestic idea of the presidency of the highest republican authority.
Macron visited Putin at moments of maximum crisis, and came out burned from meetings in which he only received distance: remember the long table at which the Russian president sat him, denying him the slightest concession.
Aware that European countries are not in the mood to expand military commitment and that it is difficult for public opinion to accept that war is knocking on the doors of Europe, at a time when France is living with stress and a certain isolation , the accelerated changes that threaten us, Macron wanted to draw attention to the resignation prevailing among European leaders.
France always one step ahead.
This is his conviction, which does not change no matter how much rejection he accumulates.
Macron cannot sit still.
The calendar overwhelms him.
He has arrived so young that before he is fifty he will be former president of the French Republic.
How will you work out his ambition?
In any case, its challenge deserves consideration because Europe cannot live forever in the complacency of being the most exquisite corner of the world.
And even less so when the Union has accelerated into the path of post-democratic authoritarianism, also in France, where Marine Le Pen now has many points to be Macron's heir.
I therefore allow myself to understand the French president's appeal as a call to remove Europe from a space of comfort that is not at risk right now, but that could be.
The trauma of World War II and the fracture of Europe has made Europeans seek comfort in the taboo of war.
No more wars.
And, without a doubt, the collapse of the Soviet-type regimes consolidated this idea.
The Russian crisis allowed the kidnapped Eastern countries to return to Europe naturally.
And the speed with which Germany carried out its victimless unification, confirming the weakness of soulless Eastern regimes, was a moment of greatness.
But history continues, and Europe, from the comfort of it, has seen that the world changed and refuses to believe it.
Wars, which have continued to exist (and grow) everywhere, are now knocking at your door.
And there is no greater fool than he who does not want to see.
That's why it seems to me that the debate cannot be reduced to war yes, war no.
The principle that problems have to be resolved peacefully seems beyond doubt to me.
And it is in this culture that the new generations must be trained.
But this cannot mean crossing our arms.
And there are situations in which it may be necessary to intervene.
Would we let Russia take over Ukraine without lifting a finger?
When the Russian army entered kyiv two years ago, did the country have to be handed over to it?
Was it not a moral obligation of European countries to give Zelensky the necessary support to resist?
Taken to a certain point, the taboo of violence only benefits the invader.
It seems to me a tragic unintended effect of a certain idea of peace.
And even more so at a time when threats and wars are multiplying.
Unfortunately, right now, as the war in Ukraine has evolved, there are only two options left: a confrontation with European participation that would imply unforeseeable consequences, or an agreement, based on fait accompli, which is still an incentive for the Putin's totalitarian delusions are repeated in these or other scenarios.
Also against Hitler there were those who opted for appeasement.
We have Israel's occupation war on Gaza just a foot away.
Beyond some gestures from Pedro Sánchez and Emmanuel Macron himself, what has Europe done to avoid it?
Nothing.
We boast of pacifism and there is not even a consensus to accept that the Hamas attack is susceptible to being characterized as a crime against humanity, but so is Israel's response, with the aggravating factor of the massive destruction of a territory.
I have no doubt that the commitment to peace has to be the reference position.
But it cannot serve as an alibi to facilitate the task of those who operate ruthlessly destroying lives and peoples.
The risk of catastrophe in the midst of so much atomic weaponry is real, but it cannot be resolved by looking elsewhere, but rather with a lot of political activity and pressure when necessary.
Personally, I have to confess that I would not understand that Europe was reducing aid to Ukraine to facilitate Russian accommodation, and that if one day Putin takes a step further, European leaders will limit themselves to the role of resigned spectators of the fall of the Ukrainian regime.
For peace, of course.
Josep Ramoneda
is a philosopher and journalist.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_