The war started on February 28 by the USA and Israel against Iran is not just a focus of instability in the Middle East and a factor of high-risk global disruption. It results from a labyrinthine decision, which raises many questions. For this reason, it has become the most debated topic in various international arenas. The angles of analysis are numerous: the legality of the decision, its objectives, including Iran’s nuclear power and the essence of its regime, the geopolitical, macroeconomic and humanitarian implications, the absolute marginalization of diplomacy and the multilateral political system, as well as issues related to US domestic politics.
For us, it is also the shock that exposed the strategic hesitations of the European Union. While the world wonders about the future, Europe faces an undeniable truth: by allowing itself to be drawn into the Persian Gulf, it runs the risk of forgetting that the future of our continent will be decided, to a large extent, on the plains of Ukraine.
For Europe, support for Ukraine is not just any foreign policy choice, among others – it is an absolute priority. This is about defending our territorial integrity and our values, the security of neighboring countries candidate to join the community and the survival of the European project. Russian aggression is not just aimed at Kiev, but above all at the demolition of the entire architecture of cooperation that has sustained peace on our continent since 1945.
Ukraine’s return to a solid and just peace situation will reinforce the conviction that European borders will remain inviolable. For Europe, losing would herald a future of submission to Moscow or an endless dependence on a Washington now increasingly distant from European philosophy and political options.
Let us leave Russia to add that the EU cannot be subordinated to North American zigzags and interests. Partnership and alliance cannot be synonymous with vassalage. This does not imply giving up criticism and sanctions against autocratic regimes. Sanctions are a way to resolve disputes between states, without resorting to war. Unacceptable are armed conflicts and military actions outside the legal framework of the United Nations.
An alarming dimension of the current conflict in the Middle East is the immediate drain of resources that would be vital for Ukraine’s legitimate defense. The most recent estimates indicate that more than 1000 interceptor missiles Patriot (PAC-3) have already been fired at Iranian attacks since February 28. This is a contrast in which Ukraine loses out, despite the gravity and legitimacy of its situation being incomparably greater. In four years of resistance, Ukraine received less than 600 of these same interceptor missiles.
This disparity suggests that the Trump Administration markedly prioritizes the regional objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, to the detriment of European democracies. Brussels cannot watch in silence as the “shield” that was supposed to protect the Ukrainian sky is consumed in a strange war in the Middle East. Every resource spent in the Middle East represents a new opportunity for Russian missiles that massacre the Ukrainian people day and night.
It is in light of this strategic error that the recent position of the European leadership must be read. Against this backdrop, the message Ursula von der Leyen sent this week to EU ambassadors is deeply ambiguous. The speech left the impression that Von der Leyen came closer to the ideas of Trump and Netanyahu than to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the specific case of the attacks on Iran, Von der Leyen echoed the arguments – the pretexts, it would be more accurate to say – repeatedly mentioned by Washington and Tel Aviv rather than International Law. It left the field of neutrality and mediation, once again weakening Kaja Kallas’s more dialoguing line and leaving a significant part of European observers perplexed, including some important wings of the European Parliament.
Europe must be seen by the rest of the world as a space of values and compliance with International Law, geopolitical balance and defense of the multilateral system. That is where our strength lies, in cooperation with the countries of the South that see in International Law the protection they need. By adopting the rhetoric of “military force”, as if Europe could become an armed superpower overnight, the President of the Commission seemed to ignore that the true authority of our Union is based on the acceptance of universal values and solidarity with the different peoples of the world. As António Costa highlighted after the president’s speech, the EU must defend the rules-based international order. Costa left no room for ambiguity.
I also don’t want to be seen as ambiguous. I am against submission and I do not defend a policy of neutrality, because not choosing is, in itself, an option, and rarely the best. I advocate neither silence nor indifference. Dante already said more than seven centuries ago in Divine Comedyhis monumental work, that “in hell, the most merciless flames are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis”. Respect for International Law and the right to self-defense are not neutral. These are civilized ways of saying no to arbitrary decisions, the use of brute force and attacks on Human Rights. It is this meridian clarity that I expect from European leaders and that the future demands of us.
Leave a Reply