Antonio Navalón
One needs to dig into the stormy summer months of 1939 to discover and recover one of the great sayings of the 20th century, emanating from the mind and experiences of Winston Churchill. When Chamberlain returned from Munich with a paper he had signed with Adolf Hitler saying, “Here is peace for our time,” Churchill told him: “You were given a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war”. “Britain had the choice between war and shame. She chose shame. She will get the war too”. This phrase, expressing disbelief that no pact or goodwill with the German dictator would guarantee peace, was reused and pronounced by Emmanuel Macron from the Elysee Palace this week. Macron thus, under the terrible reality, explained and communicated to his people and the whole world his decision not to allow the fall of Ukraine nor a victory of Vladimir Putin, and even reiterated the possibility of sending French troops to help Ukraine keep the battle with Putin and Russia going.
The last few months have been frantic in Europe. We would have to return to 1939 to find an era similar to the current one. While Macron declared in prime time that to allow the fall of Ukraine would be to enable the fall of Europe in the face of Vladimir Putin, in Germany, it was reiterated that the principal German investment and policy would be aimed at reconstituting the German army destroyed since the end of World War II. In addition, the primary investment would be in industrial development. When looking at airplane leisure, tourism, and spending, the world tends to forget this era. A comparison with the so-called “belle époque” is inevitable. Between the 19th and 20th centuries, there was a bubble of happiness called “belle époque,” which ended the morning when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, which gave way to the first of the great world wars. At that time, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were in an unsustainable crisis and decline. In the face of that, the Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm II, had managed to establish a hegemony of control over the military technology of those days and had superimposed his boundless ambition on replacing the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire with the Empire of Imperial Prussia.
It has always struck me that when one reconstructs in memory those days, one can emphasize that no one wanted war except the Kaiser. Nevertheless, there was war. At this time, Germany is once again the leading country in Europe, with the largest army and the most competent. A large part of its budget has been allocated not to assimilate or welcome immigrants or create channels of fiscal discipline and control but to perfect and create Germany as a power in Europe’s new military and armament design. At the same time that Sweden was incorporated last week into NATO, causing significant discomfort in the Kremlin and bringing it one step closer to war, in Denmark, it was announced that compulsory military service would be reinstated and that it would be changed from a four-month social service to an eleven-month military service with preparation and training.
The winds of war are settling in a curious escalation with someone in front of it who seems to be the grandfather of the European political class: Vladimir Putin. Right now, Putin is the leader who speaks with the most extraordinary calm and experience. He tells his young European colleagues that the limits of the defense of his territory, of mother Russia, would allow him to use the great weapon created since the time of Oppenheimer, now that it is so fashionable because of Christopher Nolan’s movie.
The world, as in the belle époque, wants to recover from the trauma of the pandemic and the possibility of dying without being able to breathe. Faced with this phenomenon, which has made us all suffer and has gagged us with the masks and tongs of vaccines, we discover that, in reality, everything can end in a moment. Hence, we can explain this way of living in a world where everything boils down to making radical decisions without thinking about the consequences they may cause, all on the premise that you save only when you are confident there will be a tomorrow. The problem is that, as things stand, there is not supposed to be a tomorrow.
The big answer to this whole situation again lies beyond the Atlantic. What will the United States, the only country that could compete with Russia in the use of nuclear weaponry, do? The likely new president, Donald Trump, says his idea is to defend no one and practically give the North Atlantic Treaty the coup de grace. He does not believe in a mutual defense treaty but that each country should scratch with its own fingernails. The problem is that this means the recomposition of a world structure that is clearly no longer bipolar or unipolar but multipolar. However, despite his intentions, the reality is that if Trump is elected president, he will not be able to break NATO because the so-called deep state in the United States will not allow him to do so.
What is clear is that the change of model from a few references to authority and fear, such as the bipolar approach between the Soviet Union and the United States for almost 50 years, is dead. At the moment, the world is multipolar. One should not be mistaken with Putin, who has survived all circumstances without worrying about having a formal democracy and living in permanent confrontation.
Russia is better off than it has been in many years, despite the impositions, penalties, and moral condemnations as a consequence of its invasion of Ukraine. Apart from the permanent internal problems faced by Putin’s autocracy, the Russians have experienced economic development that they had not experienced for a long time. Putin has survived all circumstances without worrying about having a formal democracy and living in permanent confrontation, with Europe as his great yearning. Now, with the United States, we must consider what a multipolar world will be like, where we will have to get used to living in areas of influence with the United States in decline, a Russia that has not disappeared despite all the conditions for it to do so, and a China that has managed to become the world’s second economic power, waiting for its opportunity to have an impact and define its role. And amid this recomposition, a new player has emerged with increasing power and influence on the global chessboard: India.
Although it is not the same India inherited after the English Empire, with its government structure based on English, the post office, and elections, it is an India in the hands of Modi that has begun by changing the name of the country and has continued to break any possibility of balance between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority. India’s role in the coming years will be critical. The problem lies in finding out whether there will be a tomorrow and time to see who the winner will be in this world where everyone craves nuclear toys.
In 1939, it was said, “God knows when there will be another autumn.” Today, months away from another autumn, the coin is in the air, and the rope is getting tighter and tighter.
Further Reading: