Hypocritical and self-defeating neo-pacifism and the weapons of just peace

Peace is too important a value for it to be subject to casual, superficial, instrumental and often bad faith use.

The worst warmongering dictators rarely claim to be in love with war but always proclaim themselves to be in favor of peace, their peace, based on the imposition of their rule by force, prevarication and all kinds of abuses. The construction and defense of peace cannot be limited to more or less sincere rants. 

Don't underestimate the risks

They require a careful assessment of the risks posed by doctrines and practices that are based on violating the international rules on which the modern conception of peaceful coexistence was built.

Underestimating the risk that some may want to abuse their military power by taking advantage of the pacifist orientation of others is the worst way to promote the value of peace. A world without weapons is desirable, provided everyone agrees to give them up.

The balance of military powers

There can be no peace if everyone disarms except a few. That is why there is no contradiction between having weapons and being in favor of peace. On the contrary, the balance between the military endowments of opposing camps is the best guarantee that neither side will be tempted to want to attack the other.

The balance of terror, based on the threat of certain mutual destruction of the two superpowers, the USSR and the U.S., ensured a long period of peace violated by wars that took place in other chessboards but brushed against Europe. With the ongoing two-year aggression against Ukraine, everything has changed. 

Tolerance toward Putin has not paid off

The change had already begun with Putin's aggressions in Abkhazia, Ossetia, Chechnya, then with the annexation of Crimea. It was these acts that were not followed by any proportionate and deterrent reaction from the West that convinced the Russian dictator that he could dare more. And he did so by aiming to conquer all of Ukraine. A project that, despite its obvious military failure, remains one of the main objectives of the "reconquest" that the Kremlin dreams of operating to the detriment of the countries that have freed themselves for 30 years from the yoke of Soviet imperialist communism.

Military spending and guarantees for peace

So let us talk about peace, but in a serious way. And the only right way to do so is to show those who have made an attempt on peace and those who would like to imitate them that this criminal design is doomed to failure. That is why the debate on the increase of military spending in the countries of the Old Continent must be purged of the dross of a self-styled hypocritical and self-defeating pacifism and must be brought back to its concrete terms.

The question is one: with these levels and quality of military spending, can Europe say it is safe from further upheavals that are already theorized by Putin, without having to ask for the unlikely opening of the U.S. nuclear umbrella?

*Published on the Discussion