Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), UMinho]
The new world (dis)order and the European Defence Union
(on three years since the invasion of Ukraine)
On 24 February 2022, while the planet was still rising from the depths of the pandemic, barbarity returned to the European continent – all recorded by drones and satellites in a conventional war perpetrated amid the digital age. The return of war to the European continent urges us to re-read Hannah Arendt, because totalitarian solutions are still tantalisingly tempting. [1] Arendt explains that nowhere else does Fortune – good or bad – play such a decisive role in human affairs as on the battlefield. That is why violence in war carries with it an additional element of arbitrariness.[2]
In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” from 1951, Arendt traces the subterranean elements that crystallised the astonishing singularity of the totalitarianisms of the 20th century – and their systematic attempt to make human beings superfluous. The same perplexity that arises before the terrifying images of Bucha or Mariupol – but where does this horror come from? – led Arendt to coin the expression “the banality of evil”. With this concept, she wanted to explain that someone does not have to be a monster to perpetrate an evil act – and that people can commit it for banal reasons, without ever having decided whether to be good or bad, but simply because of their inability to think, to put themselves in the place of the victims, to exercise a broad mentality or the Kantian universalisation test.[3]
In any case, as Edgar Morin explains, quoting Walter Benjamin, there is no sign or act of civilisation that is not at the same time an act of barbarity – which leads Morin to conclude that barbarity is an ingredient of civilisation that we can never suppress. Not only is it an element of civilisation, it is an integral part of it – and European history shows this, from the Roman Empire to the colonial wars of the 20th century.[4]
And yet we were perplexed by Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine because we were living at a time when European barbarism was in sharp decline. And the European cultural antidotes that played a role in this regression seemed to be able to define Europe: the humanism generated during the Renaissance from the Greco-Latin heritage; the critical and self-critical rationality that underpins the advent of science; the universalism of the Enlightenment reflected in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen; the apologetic romanticism of community, fraternity and sociality. [5]
It so happens that barbarity emerges beyond all predictions – not even Goethe’s poetry or Beethoven’s music were enough to contain the barbarity of Nazism in Europe’s most cultured nation. That is why it is necessary to be able to think about European brutality in order to overcome it continuously and decisively – in the hope that in time it will give way to civilisation.[6] For it is precisely from Western Europe, a centre of domination and conquest unprecedented in human history, that the cultural antidotes to its own barbarism have emerged.[7]
In any case, European barbarism can only be overcome based on its shared values and the awareness of the absurdity in which Europeans occasionally find themselves entangled. As Albert Camus explained, if nothing makes sense and if we cannot affirm any value, then everything is permitted and nothing matters. Thus, there is neither good nor evil and Hitler was neither wrong nor right. Without values, everything is equally the same. And because we think that nothing makes sense, we must conclude that whoever is right is the winner. If Hitler had won the war, history would have paid tribute to him – and would have justified terror and murder.[8]
These considerations are related to a perplexity that world society has been confronted with this February 2025: apparently, the post-World War II liberal order collapsed; in other words, the paradigm that has guided international relations since 1945 has been struck dead – that is, free trade, territorial integrity, respect for agreed rules, multilateralism. The new Trump administration believes that the world order that the US led until yesterday is hindering its ambitions – and that is why it is important to replace it with another (dis)order of as yet undefined contours. If we want to be even more rigorous, there seems to be a kind of return to the 19th century and the rationale of the great empires and their areas of influence.
Scholars from various fields of knowledge have tried to identify the most significant changes in this new (dis)order under construction.[9] Firstly, physical force is coming to dominate and subordinate law; in other words, there is a subversion of the idea that power can be moderated by law, or by international organisations such as the United Nations, where states cooperate with each other. The illusion of relations regulated by international law is crumbling, in a return to the “law of the strongest” that subverts the law – whether in Ukraine, Gaza or Greenland.
Secondly, war is now seen as a business; in other words, military power must generate economic and financial power. For this reason, Donald Trump wants Gaza to be turned into a property development – and Ukrainian mineral reserves to be exploited by the US. Incidentally, this is not new, and Vladimir Putin has always used war as a source of income, but now the US is also joining in this strategy, which thus acquires another scale in international relations.
Thirdly, international trade becomes part of a strategy of domination; in other words, trade tariffs are used to threaten and bargain for military support. This is something that Russia has been experimenting with for a long time, creating dependencies as it did with the EU in terms of natural gas and oil, but now the US is also joining in this strategy. Now, in this mindset in which only imperialist interests matter, Russia has gone from being a world pariah to a business partner for the US, as if the Russian leader is not being accused of war crimes in international courts. And worse: it is the court that issues war crimes arrest warrants that is sanctioned by the US.[10]
The burning question is: how does Europe’s defence stand in this scenario? Europe has been cornered by its transatlantic partner, who has suddenly ceased to be one. Donald Trump is negotiating the future of Ukraine according to his own interests and expansionist ambitions – the pursuit of a just, inclusive and lasting peace in Europe is apparently the least important thing in this equation. Moreover, Trump’s and Putin’s goals are convergent, namely, to destroy European integration, return to the great empires, and seize the European market – which is the most desirable in the world because it is where purchasing power is found.
This is why Trump and Putin’s ideologues are trying to undermine the credibility of European leaders, as was evident at the 61st Munich Security Conference, which took place between 14 and 16 February 2025, precisely on the eve of the German parliamentary elections. There are two competing visions of the world, two perspectives in assessing the threats ahead – and the Trump administration’s US is no longer proving to be a credible partner for the EU. US Vice President JD Vance dedicated his speech to criticising Europe for allegedly backtracking on democratic values and not listening to its voters; JD Vance said he was not worried about either Russia or China when it came to Europe’s security, but about a “threat from within”, namely a (supposed) retreat by the EU regarding some of its most fundamental values, such as freedom of expression, which are no longer shared with the US.
Are Europeans willing to be lectured on democracy by those who reject election results when they do not suit them? By those who support the invasion of the headquarters of democratic institutions in an attempt to prevent a change of power without bloodshed? By those who disseminate disinformation, persecute journalists and normalise manifestly illegal conflicts of interest? This would be a distorted conception of freedom of expression, typical of a “state of non-law”.
In the face of the institutional vandalism that the US is facing, Europe must remain calm, it must be the grown-up in the room. In a rather conciliatory tone, Ursula von der Leyen has urged Europeans to look beyond words – and to try to avoid indignation and clamour. The EU is adapting to this new reality, reforming to strengthen its defence and competitiveness. Faced with a change in the rules of the game, the EU has instruments to safeguard its economic security and its interests – and here the internal market plays a central role.
In any case, the EU was not removed from the negotiating table for peace in Ukraine because it was irrelevant, but because it was desirable to the imperialist powers – a target to be shot and plundered. President Trump himself has verbalised what he thinks of the EU, saying that European integration was fabricated to harm the US. In response, the European Commission has stated that, on the contrary, the EU has been a boon to the US,[11] as it has facilitated international free trade, reduced costs for European exporters, and harmonised standards and regulations for all its Member States. In other words, US investments in the EU are highly profitable, precisely because European integration has created a large unified market. The European internal market favours commercial transactions, allowing for transatlantic trade that generates more than 1.5 trillion euros annually – making it the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world.
If anything, the defence of Europeans without the US back office especially in terms of aerial and logistical coverage would be an unprecedented challenge – and it will take courage for difficult times if it turns out to be true. However, Europeans cannot back down, because what is at stake in Ukraine is what remains of the post-World War II liberal order – the rule of law, democracy, human rights – which, with all its weaknesses, has no credible substitute.
Europe’s security depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. So much so that Europeans have contributed 132 billion euros until 31 December 2024 – whether in financial, logistical, humanitarian or military support – compared to 114 billion euros from the United States.[12] In addition to military support, Ukraine’s public administration and economy need to be kept afloat – and it’s mostly the Europeans who have been doing this. That is why there can be no solutions for peace in Ukraine that do not involve Europeans – not least because Europeans will be paying for Ukrainian reconstruction with their EU accession.
It is therefore important to focus on precisely this existential question: how are Europeans to ensure their defence?
The war that Putin wanted to win in three days has now lasted three years – and it did so because the Ukrainians resisted. The EU is grateful to the Ukrainians for having granted it strategic time, i.e. the time Europeans needed to guard against further Putin attacks on former Soviet territories – a hypothesis of a “full-scale war” in Europe that the secret services of some European states are considering in the near future.[13]
For this reason, President Zelensky said at the Munich Security Conference that the European armed forces must be brought together so that the future of Europe depends only on Europeans and so that decisions about Europe are taken in Europe.[14] And here the Ukrainian President has a lot to boast about, because no other army in Europe has the accumulated experience of the Ukrainian army – and it would be unwise to waste this added value.
In order for EU member states to be able to increase their defence spending, there has been a call for a suspension of the Stability and Growth Pact; in other words, a loosening of European budget rules so that Member States can spend on defence without breaking EU rules and being subject to an excessive deficit procedure. Currently, Member States are obliged to keep the public deficit below 3 per cent of GDP (i.e. the difference between what they generate and what they spend in a year), as well as keeping public debt below 60 per cent of GDP. If they fail to do so, they could be subject to sanctions, because this impacts on the stability of the single currency. There has already been a precedent set during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the European Commission suspended the Stability and Growth Pact to allow governments to help companies and citizens in difficulty.
In March 2025, the European Commission will present its White Paper on Defence, which will set out the priorities for defence investment and the best ways to finance them. Some of the options that seem to have already reached a consensus among the Member States are changing the rules for granting loans from the European Investment Bank and European private banks. In addition, European household savings amount to almost 1.4 trillion euros, well above the 800 billion euros in the US, but little of this money is invested in defence, as the sector is not considered sustainable according to EU rules. This is why the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Maria Luís Albuquerque has stated that the problem is not a lack of money in the EU; it is there but it is poorly invested in an excessively fragmented investment market.[15]
Several member states such as France, Spain, Portugal and Italy are also calling for the issuing of common debt to finance the strengthening of the defence industrial base – in other words, for the European Commission to once again finance itself on the financial markets on behalf of everyone. The instrument was first launched to boost the European economy in the wake of the pandemic – but this solution has so far been strongly opposed by some of the more frugal countries, such as the Netherlands or Germany.
Regardless of the financing solution adopted, and the difficulties imposed on the daily lives of Europeans, they are finally required to rise to the challenge of their own defence. This is so that the world of Europeans is not once again left to the will to power – in other words, to terror and violence, suffocating us all in its midst. Or, as Albert Camus said, so that no other Hitler can decide what is true and what is not; or that his truth is good enough to be imposed on others. Because if nothing is either true or false, if nothing is either good or bad, then the rule ends up being that of the strongest, where there is only room for masters and slaves. The freedom that Camus urged Europeans to conquer consisted precisely in the right to refrain from lying – because only then would they know the reasons for living and dying.[16]
[1] See Richard Berstein, Why read Hannah Arendt now? (Polity Press, 2018).
[2] See Hannah Arendt, Sobre a violência, trans. Miguel Serras Pereira (Lisbon: Relógio d’água, 2014).
[3] See Hannah Arendt, Las orígenes del totalitatismo, trans. Guillermo Solana Alonso (Madrid: Taurus, 1998).
[4] See Edgar Morin, Cultura e barbárie europeias, trans. Ana Paula de Viveiros (Lisbon: Instituto Piaget, 2007), 13.
[5] For the identification of the essential elements of European civilisation – and how they have been reconfigured over time, see John Hirst, Breve história da Europa (Alfragide: Dom Quixote, 2020).
[6] See Edgar Morin, Cultura e barbárie europeias, 28-37.
[7] Morin, Cultura e barbárie europeias, 40. On this topic, see Alessandra Silveira and Maria Inês Costa, “Os direitos humanos numa Europa à procura de antídotos culturais contra a barbárie”, in Liber Amicorum Benedita MacCrorie, vol. I, ed. Sofia Pinto Oliveira and Patrícia Jerónimo (Braga: UMinho Editora, 2022).
[8] See Albert Camus, Conferências e discursos (1937-1958), trans. Maria Etelvina Santos (Porto: Livros do Brasil, 2022).
[9] On this topic see António José Telo, “Janela Global”, RTP Play, season 6, episode 8, 21 February 2025, https://www.rtp.pt/play/p14327/e831809/janela-global.
[10] Euronews with AP, “Trump signs order imposing sanctions on International Criminal Court over investigations of Israel”, Euronews, 6 February 2025, https://www.euronews.com/2025/02/06/trump-signs-order-imposing-sanctions-on-international-criminal-court-over-investigations-o.
[11] António Assis Teixeira, «União Europeia “tem sido uma bênção para os Estados Unidos” mas “reagirá com firmeza e de imediato” contra as tarifas anunciadas por Trump», CNN Portugal, 26 February 2025, https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/uniao-europeia/donald-trump/uniao-europeia-tem-sido-uma-bencao-para-os-estados-unidos-mas-reagira-com-firmeza-e-de-imediato-contra-as-tarifas-anunciadas-por-trump/20250226/67bf8ba6d34ef72ee442cf45.
[12] Kiel Institute for the World Economy, “Ukraine support after 3 years of war: Aid flows remain low but steady – Shift towards weapons procurement”, News, 14 February 2025, https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-after-3-years-of-war-aid-flows-remain-low-but-steady-shift-towards-weapons-procurement/. See, in particular, Ukraine Support Tracker.
[13] Pedro Zagacho Gonçalves, “Dinamarca alerta que Rússia pode iniciar grande guerra na Europa dentro de cinco anos”, Executive Digest, 11 February 2025, https://executivedigest.sapo.pt/noticias/dinamarca-alerta-que-russia-pode-iniciar-grande-guerra-na-europa-dentro-de-cinco-anos/.
[14] Sasha Vakulina, “Zelenskyy calls for creation of ‘armed forces of Europe’ at Munich conference”, Euronews, 15 February 2025, https://www.euronews.com/2025/02/15/amid-uncertainy-over-us-policy-on-ukraine-zelenskyy-says-its-time-for-an-armed-forces-of-e.
[15] Peggy Corlin & Robert Hodgson, Cynthia Kroet, Paula Soler, Gregoire Lory, “EU Commission aims to simplify its way to future growth”, Euronews, 29 January 2025, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/01/29/eu-commission-aims-to-simplify-its-way-to-future-growth.
[16] Albert Camus, Conferências e discursos (1937-1958).
Picture credit: by Dušan Cvetanović on pexels.com.
