We live in a world in which we are constantly bombarded with information of all kinds, often contradictory. Our brains are so overloaded that it is increasingly difficult for us to sort out the wheat from the chaff, separate truth from lies and generally discern what is best for us, our communities, our alliances, our country, our Europe. All this leaves us perplexed over issues such as:
“How old is the captain”? The media of the world’s leading economic and military power are currently obsessed with the age of the next President. Oddly, they have chosen to focus on one of the two candidates, despite the fact that his rival, barely any younger, seems to do nothing but spout infantile rubbish and behave like an overgrown child. Is the captain’s age of any real significance? Is youth, albeit well educated and physically fit, more likely to be synonymous with competency and efficiency? Surely we should be more concerned with the candidates’ characters, personalities, policies and programmes and with the quality of their teams. After all, it is the crew that makes the ship.
War in the public narrative. While it is only normal for more and more political leaders to raise the issue of war in their narratives, given current events and the nature of their responsibilities, when the media and the opportunistic micro-groups they foster engage in proxy warmongering, it is time to sit up and take notice. What exactly are the existential threats they have in mind? How can such issues be discussed calmly, unemotionally, without using aggressive language or making contentious accusations? Basically, how can we explain war, its aims and consequences without causing panic?
Believing in victory and willing to compromise. When war breaks out, both sides fondly believe they will emerge victorious. But what constitutes ‘victory’?If we subscribe to the views of Clausewitz, the purpose of any war is to achieve specific political goals, if only in part. Surely, therefore, if one party has the upper hand, it should begin negotiations, directly or indirectly, to put an end to the conflict? Stubbornly refusing to negotiate will only make matters worse and give the other party the chance to turn the tables. But, as things stand today, is it possible to suggest that there would be ‘no shame in negotiating to stop further escalation’ without prompting disbelief or creating a polemic? Yet, it is vital that warring parties should take the measure of developments in the situation, think in terms of a realistic outcome and make plans to achieve this outcome.
Ares versus Hephaestus. When Mars goes off to war, he is armed with weapons forged for him by Vulcan. And if Vulcan fails to deliver or delivers the wrong equipment, Mars is in trouble. During WWII, the United States were able to combine the roles of both Mars and Vulcan. During the Cold War, Vulcan was at the helm and the overwhelming technological and economic superiority of one camp was enough to undermine the morale of the other and force it to back down. To cash in on the ‘dividends of peace’, defence spending was slashed and whole sections of the arms industry not catering to the new operational needs were sacrificed. The war between Russia and Ukraine has, however, flagged up the parlous state of our spare part supplies and shown how hard it is for the arms industry to ramp up production again virtually overnight. The expression ‘wartime economy’ has crept back into our vocabulary but what exactly does this mean when only 2% of French GDP is earmarked for defence (in 1947, the figure was over 20%)? How can we bring the rest of Europe on side in this effort at a time when defence issues, so long sidelined, are now one of the pillars of the re-election campaign of the outgoing Commission President? Perhaps analysis of the recently published first-ever EU defence industrial strategy will provide us with some insights.
And you, what are your thoughts on the subject?
Translation by ISIT students – Edited by C. Cross.