Categoria: English version

Two facts have come to the forefront in the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian population of Gaza. These are two significant facts that global public opinion should take due account of and seek appropriate responses toward Tel Aviv. The first is the official United Nations declaration of famine in the Gaza Strip, the first in the Middle East, despite its severe history of military disasters. According to the United Nations, as many as 514,000 people, a quarter of the population, are facing food shortages, with the figure projected to reach as many as 641,000 by the end of September. The unique feature of the Gaza famine is that it is not due to meteorological or health factors, but entirely man-made, namely, the actions of the Israeli army. This humanitarian disaster could have been avoided if Tel Aviv had not systematically obstructed aid sent to Gaza’s borders. The Israeli action is even more serious because it is part of a precise plan to weaken civilians, as the Palestinian population must be eradicated by any means from the Strip. The ultra-Orthodox Jewish government’s desire to annex Gaza is, unfortunately, shared by much of the Israeli public. Despite the presence of massive food shipments at the border, Israel’s behavior remains unchanged. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights holds the Israeli government directly responsible, classifying starvation deaths as war crimes of voluntary manslaughter. This consideration introduces the second relevant fact, which concerns the issue. According to a secret report by the Israeli military, the number of civilian victims of the Gaza war is 83% of the total. As can be seen from this data, the low number of combatant casualties suggests a deliberate planning of the Palestinian genocide, so much so that it can be compared to the massacres in Rwanda and the Mariupol massacre. The combination of enforced starvation and deaths from military activity clearly defines the intentions of Netanyahu and his government regarding the Palestinians: to annihilate as many of them as possible in order to create the conditions for their deportation from the Strip. Moreover, a recent survey revealed that a full 79% of the Israeli population supports the indiscriminate repression of the Palestinian population, whom they consider an abusive occupier unworthy of human dignity. Netanyahu, of course, denies these data, or at most justifies them by citing Hamas’s actions against his own citizens. However, the Israeli prime minister’s mindset remains the same: to lie shamelessly and buy time to achieve his goals, constantly accusing anyone who contradicts him of being anti-Semitic and rejecting any interpretation different from his own and that of his government. Regardless of political views and obvious Israeli motivations, the lack of response to these crimes perpetrated against innocent civilians of all ages will remain an indelible stain on every country in the world, but even more so on Western democracies, which have revealed themselves as empty and absent when it comes to defending international law and defenseless populations from the most abhorrent violence, from whatever side it comes. Only recently have condemnations arrived, for their own sake, and even the recognition of the Palestinian state, which is expected to be in large numbers at the next United Nations General Assembly, is an exercise devoid of practical consequences. Israel must be increasingly isolated, its violence must be contained by all means, and the start is heavy sanctions that must affect an economy lacking its own resources. Europe must do at least this, trying to trigger a reaction in other countries as well, especially Arab ones. Certainly, this will require a reaction from Trump, but a consistent blockade capable of isolating Tel Aviv could be a belated but effective deterrent.

One of the foreign policy side effects of Trump’s tariffs is that they have brought traditionally distant nations closer together. The most striking example is the new relationship being established between India and China, traditionally adversaries. The two great Asian nations share thousands of kilometers of border, along which tensions have recurred over time; the Tibetan issue has also contributed to these frictions, and the proximity between India and the US has fueled China’s mistrust of India. In reality, the greatest point of contention has been the two countries’ struggle for dominance of the Asian continent, which China’s significant progress has tilted in its favor. That was until Trump emerged on the scene. Although relations with New Delhi were completely different during the White House’s first term, in his second term India asserted greater neutrality on international issues compared to the US position. It was displeased that Trump took credit for the end of the conflict between India and Pakistan, and finally, the Indian government was displeased that its citizens were displayed in handcuffs, like veritable trophies in the fight against illegal immigrants, a cornerstone of the US president’s policy. While these issues had already strained relations between the two countries, the decision to impose a 50% tariff on Indian goods exported to the US, due to India’s purchase of Russian oil, completely froze relations. This has resulted in an effect that is certainly undesirable, but highly predictable, for American foreign policy: a rapprochement, unthinkable until recently, between New Delhi and Beijing. Now, reversing this process will prove extremely difficult for White House strategists. The renewed relations between the two countries’ foreign ministers promise to be only the starting point for new ties. The first step will be to reopen trade at three Himalayan passes and the resumption of direct flights between the two countries, which have not been available since 2020, as well as the issuance of visas for tourism, business, and information. These initial developments represent only a small portion of the trade potential the two countries can undertake, at least partially offsetting the effects of US tariffs. Even within the BRICS organization, Beijing has already expressed support for India’s hosting of next year’s summit between Brazil, China, India, and South Africa, aimed at increasing trade relations between these countries. A closer form of cooperation between these countries, in trade and finance, leading to an agreement on a common currency alternative to the dollar, could seriously jeopardize the American economy, which is alienating formerly friendly countries for ideological reasons or relative expediency, thus strengthening China’s position as the world’s leading industrial power. It must be noted that India’s closeness to Russia is almost a given, but American action is strengthening it. Its rapprochement with China is a different matter, representing a truly novel development on the global stage and also strategically threatening to create an Asian bloc highly hostile to the US. Since Obama’s presidency, Washington has placed Asia at the center of its political and economic interests to the detriment of Europe. The goal was to isolate China, a doctrine Trump also embraces. However, his actions are favoring an outcome far different from the original intentions. At this point, China has Russia on its side, and India’s rapprochement means depriving the United States of an ally, albeit a not-so-close one, which can only count on Japan and South Korea in that part of the world. The incompetence of Trump and those he has surrounded himself with is causing significant damage to American foreign policy, which is not yet fully understood within the American centers of power, now firmly in the hands of the president’s Republican allies. With isolation, the program of making America great again will fail, and the resulting wreckage will be difficult to repair, not only politically but also economically.

As part of the reactions to Trump’s disastrous tariff policies, India and Brazil are moving closer to boosting trade between the two countries, aiming to exceed €17 billion by 2030. These developments are believed to be the result of telephone conversations between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Lula, thus involving contacts between the two countries’ highest officials. It’s worth noting that the US intends to impose a 50% tax on incoming Indian goods due to purchases of Russian oil, while the 30% tax the White House intends to impose on Brazil stems from the indictment of former President Bolsonaro. The concrete means to reach the €17 billion trade target is to have agreed to expand the Mercosur-India agreement, following the agreement between the two countries at the recent BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro. The challenge for Brazil and India is to overcome the current and upcoming economic phases, which promise to be challenging for all global economies, through the revitalization of multilateralism and greater integration, not only between the two countries, but also as a model to be extended as widely as possible in opposition to Trump’s isolationism. This approach must represent the alternative to be pursued as a global example to those who wish to oppose what Trump seeks to impose: a populist hegemony, which governs on deliberately distorted and often false data, to indoctrinate a public opinion lacking the tools to properly discern counterfeit news. To challenge Trump’s model, action must be pursued simultaneously in two ways: from the grassroots, raising awareness among citizens through the action of social bodies, and from the top down, with concrete actions by governments and institutions. In this context, strengthening democracy is crucial, because instances of centralized power do not favor the role of the opposition and respect for minorities. Unfortunately, the idea that a majority legitimized by the popular vote can impose its views unconditionally, regardless of those who voted differently, is increasingly gaining traction. The next step is to seek to reduce inequality, as a means of combating the ignorance that fosters people’s manipulation. Naturally, without regulation of technological resources and new technologies, achieving these goals appears extremely difficult, as these resources are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, often too close to the powers that be. Trump’s distorted will has imposed tariffs on over ninety countries, distorting free trade and compromising the development of global economies. Creating a coalition of all the countries targeted by Trump seems impossible, as many of them are deeply conflicted. For others, the problem is servility toward the United States, mistaken for an opportunity for privileged relations. However, broad agreements, such as the one between Brazil and India, capable of creating alternative markets to US dominance, seem possible. It should also be considered that, for now, the effects of these tariffs have not yet been felt in the US, but authoritative estimates predict an average increase in prices for US citizens due to the tariffs of over 18%, creating a situation not seen since 1934. This threatens to cause negative surprises for the American president, as the one affected will be precisely a segment of his own electorate, a segment of which will be impossible to fool with false propaganda. This will be a test that threatens to be very severe in terms of approval and appreciation for the White House’s current policies and could represent a destabilizing factor that should not be underestimated. This will facilitate the success of any policies aimed at uniting several countries against the tariffs and Trump’s entire way of understanding the world. Conversely, without unity of purpose at the state level, Trump’s path will be more difficult to navigate.

After a dismal performance in negotiations with Trump on tariffs, which were not yet formally concluded and even prompted renewed threats from the US president, the European Union has again suffered a negative performance in international public opinion. Not even the most unbridled arrogance on the part of Netanyahu, who declared his intention to occupy and then annex the Gaza Strip, has elicited even a small reaction from Brussels. We have witnessed weakness pitted against strength, the choice not to react to such brazenness. Yet international pressure, with the desire to recognize Palestine as a state, could have represented an opportunity to demonstrate some vitality, especially since, at this level, Palestinian recognition is little more than a demonstration of the desire to put pressure on Israel, with no immediate practical effect other than media attention. Yet silence reigns within the EU institutions, and even the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Policy, Kaja Kallas, has not commented. Her last message on the social network X condemns Hamas and calls for the release of the hostages. Amid the general silence of the European Union’s governing bodies, what shines through is a desire not to interfere with an Israeli government that represents the furthest thing from European values. The carnage and genocide perpetrated by Tel Aviv, through weapons and hunger used as weapons, should automatically scandalize every democracy and trigger isolation and economic and political sanctions against Israel, at least as much as those rightly applied to Russia. What are the differences in the suffering imposed on the civilian population? It is not enough that one is a recognized state and the other a territory without unanimous recognition; the suffering of people imposed by invading regimes should arouse the same sentiments. Conversely, while this is happening in increasingly large segments of the population, the same is not true for governments and institutions, especially those of the European Union. This attitude can only result in the delegitimization of their roles and a perception of the uselessness of collegial bodies and, ultimately, of the Union itself. It is necessary to understand the reasons holding Brussels hostage even in the face of such a monstrosity. While one can understand the natural reluctance of states like Germany, which, moreover, has shown openness to recognizing Palestine and condemning Israel (and for this has been accused of Nazism), to criticize the Jewish state, the attitude of a supranational organization like the Union is less comprehensible; especially since condemning the current Israeli government would certainly not be subject to anti-Semitic criticism, but would invoke international law, which should be universally recognized. One reason could lie in Brussels’s completely subservient attitude to Washington, a sort of concern not to antagonize Trump, who fully supports Tel Aviv’s actions, so as not to spark conflict with the US and thus preserve a sort of preferential channel in relations with the White House. However, as has now been established, this appears to be merely an illusion, believed only by Europe. There is a fear of compromising economic relations, those that imposed the tariffs, or perhaps military relations, where the Atlantic Alliance is increasingly challenged by the US president. These reasons already appear shaky if these relations were truly strong, but in the current state of affairs they prove to be mere unreliable excuses. The problem is that within the Union there are no clear political rules, nor even unequivocal directions capable of deriving from the founding principles of a united Europe, which, in fact, is not united. Brussels’s excessively limited sovereignty, the absence of a unified foreign policy, and the lack of a common armed force represent insurmountable obstacles to becoming a significant global player. Furthermore, the failure to abolish absolute majority voting, rather than the principle of relative majority voting, allows parasitic states to excessively influence the life of the Union, which remains a union based solely on economics but incapable of producing internal progress in the political sphere and therefore condemned to irrelevance.

What is happening with Trump’s political blackmail—the imposition of tariffs, not only for economic reasons but also for political retaliation—should give pause to the international community and foster the isolation the United States seems proudly seeking. After several postponed deadlines, for personal gain and that of his family, to allow him the most reckless financial operations, Trump’s plan appears increasingly clear: to impose a new world order through US financial might. This plan applies to both its most traditional allies and those states commonly considered hostile to Washington. The recent threats of high tariffs against Brazil for impeaching former President Bolsonaro, and the similar blackmail against Canada for expressing its desire to recognize Palestine, are quite eloquent examples of Trump’s goals, which clearly encroach on the sovereignty of other states. Moreover, those who could have generated strong opposition, such as the European Union, immediately adopted an overly accommodating stance, which only fueled the American president’s bravado. Quite the opposite is true for China, which has taken a tougher stance toward American threats, thanks in part to its historical lack of subservience. It must also be said that President von der Leyen has proven to be a less than effective actor and too prone to Trump’s bullying. Europe’s fault has been its inability to attract new, strong members and find alternative markets, while attempting to maintain its position in the US market, which was already known to be compromised. The perception is that it lacks a courageous economic and political project. The first step for Europe is to lower internal tariffs and standardize their respective taxation, to present itself on the international stage as a cohesive bloc. Then it is necessary to expand the markets in which it can sell its goods, and the most likely destinations are those to which the US intends to apply the highest tariffs. Finally, it is necessary to expand internal markets with income-boosting policies. If these are the economic starting points, it is even more important to develop a political project capable of allowing Europe to transcend its geographical borders. There is a potential natural ally, one that identifies strongly with European values, unlike countries that are members solely out of pure economic interest, and which is geographically located outside Europe’s borders, allowing for an unparalleled common space. This is Canada, which Trump has repeatedly threatened to annex as the fifty-first state of the United States. Planning for Canada’s accession to the European Union would mean breaking American hegemony on both sides of the ocean and creating the richest market in the world. It would certainly be an act of war against Washington, but it would add enormous diplomatic weight and greater international relevance to Brussels. Given its cultural affinities and shared democratic values on which the European Union is founded, Canada would be the ideal partner with which to forge a deeper alliance. A bloc configured in this way would be an ideal adversary to bring Trump to heel and also to gain greater autonomy in diplomacy and defense, remaining within the Atlantic Alliance but progressively more independent from Washington. This would certainly be a lengthy process, requiring greater independence of judgment from some of the Union’s most important states, compared to the United States, accompanied by a shared process of relinquishing even substantial portions of sovereignty. However, a Europe capable of attracting and reincorporating Canada into its fold would be an even more modern and attractive Union for investment and negotiating clout. The idea of bringing Canada into the world’s richest trading zone would increase its value at the expense of the United States, satisfying its isolationist ambitions.

The Gaza famine is increasingly revealing itself for what it is: a variant of the weapons of mass destruction used by Israel, with clear US support, against the Palestinians of Gaza. Bombing the population from the air and from the ground, destroying their homes, and subjecting them to significant sanitation was deemed insufficient: the weapon of hunger serves to complete the goal of genocide, whose sole purpose is to steal Palestinian territory, an even more violent variant of what is already happening in the settlements. Palestinian survivors are victims of brutal torture: forced by food shortages, they are forced to travel to remote areas where the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US organization, is supposed to distribute aid. Palestinians, standing in forced lines, often with forced passages inside actual cages, are shot by Israeli soldiers. According to some of the soldiers themselves, the shooting was the result of direct orders from Israeli officers, while other versions speak of platoons made up of soldiers from the settlements, or those who at least share their goals, who disobeyed official directives to target Palestinians. These military formations, moreover, are held responsible for acts against civilians, such as the recent bombing of the Catholic church in Gaza. In any case, given the unfortunately increasingly frequent incidents targeting the population in search of food, it is reasonable to assume that both possibilities are true and that this corresponds to a strategy by the Israeli government, no longer even very hidden, to evict the Palestinian population from Gaza and bring the strip back under Tel Aviv’s direct administrative control, as already hypothesized by Trump and by a recent video created with artificial intelligence by a serving minister. In Gaza, therefore, civilians continue to die, killed both by the Israeli army and by the tactic of starvation. While the military response remains tepid, going no further than predictable and ineffective declarations, the issue of the food shortage has prompted a strong statement signed by 109 non-governmental organizations, which have formally requested the dispatch of humanitarian aid. What Israel has caused is a veritable mass famine, which has led to severe malnutrition among all age groups, but with particularly severe consequences for children and the elderly, often the fatal victims of this horrific deprivation. The request is to open all border crossings to allow supplies of food, drinking water, and medicine to reach the people, but under procedures regulated by the United Nations, not by American contractors. Supplies are already arriving outside the Gaza Strip, but Israel continues to block them with a variety of excuses. The blame is being placed on Hamas, but it’s unclear how the terrorist organization, severely decimated, still has such vast power to influence such a large supply chain. It’s clear we’re dealing with an excuse to perpetuate famine against civilians. The NGOs’ denunciation follows the joint statement of 25 countries, which called for an end to the war and condemned the food distribution methods. These statements, however, are not followed by retaliatory measures, such as sanctions, capable of damaging the Israeli economy, as is the case with Russia. Without effective positions, any statement has no effect on Tel Aviv, which can continue to increase the toll of the massacre it has carried out so far, which, according to figures provided by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health, amounts to approximately 60,000 deaths. while for the living it is estimated that 87.8% of Gaza’s inhabitants have been or are subjected to evacuation orders under Israeli military control, a situation that exposes an unjustified military occupation of civilians, except for the motive of deliberately causing suffering and with the aim of annexing the Palestinian territory of the Strip to the Jewish state.

Beyond the unspeakable behavior of the new US President and his vice president, Europe’s surprise at the new situation cannot be justified at all. The feeling of disorientation and urgency at being excluded from negotiations between the White House and the Kremlin, precisely because of Trump’s will, over the Ukrainian issue is a significant blow to Brussels’ authority and the reasons and requests to sit at the negotiating table seem to be of little value, despite the possibility of raising defense spending and, to a lesser extent, sending a peacekeeping contingent made up of European soldiers. The European Union had the experience of Trump’s first presidency, where the uselessness of the Atlantic Alliance had already been declared and with it the end of the Western system, as it had always been known, and of the subsequent period: the four years of Biden’s presidency, where it was possible to arrive at an advanced, if not definitive, point of a common European military force, capable of guaranteeing the autonomous defense of Europe; on the contrary, it was preferred to postpone the problem, hoping for the election of a democratic exponent, who could carry forward Western politics, as it has been since after the Second World War. A defense of Europe fundamentally delegated to the American presence, capable of making up for European shortcomings. Now this is no longer the case and the military defense policy is only the most immediate problem, which is intimately linked to the lack of a common foreign policy and to unitary intentions also in terms of the economy, which makes the Union weak in the face of the threats of American duties. A series of problems capable of uniting the entire European Union with Great Britain, which has awakened further away from the traditional alliance with Washington and much closer to the fears of Brussels. Europe is trying to start again with the proposal of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, not to count the share of money destined for military spending in the budget restrictions. Although this is a very delicate matter, due to the various sensitivities of the nations that make up the Union, this solution appears to be a starting point, albeit late, for a strengthened defense policy, which will have to be followed by effective integration policies of the individual armed forces towards a common army, capable of defending the territory of the Union even without the support of the USA. This is an ambitious but more necessary objective: Washington, since the time of Obama, has directed its gaze towards its needs to protect the Pacific Ocean, in the context of competition with China and now Trump has decided to accelerate in this direction and this explains his commitment to the immediate involvement of Russia in the definition of the Ukrainian question; however, a negotiation where one party in the war is excluded is a negotiation that starts badly and Europe has done well to claim the presence of Kiev at the table of any negotiation and also of its own presence, precisely as a guarantee of Ukraine and of itself. A defeated Ukraine would only precede a possible Russian advance certainly towards the Baltic countries, Poland and Romania, which is Putin’s real project to restore the status of a great power to Russia. Trump has a vision contrary to Western democracies, considering their values ​​outdated, but it is a very short-term vision towards what is still the richest market. Brussels must be able to move with this awareness, even re-establishing ties, which could go beyond commercial ones, with other very important subjects on the international scene, certainly China, but also India and Brazil up to the Central Asian republics, often eager to distance themselves from Russia. The first step, however, must be a total involvement of the members of the Union, without holding restricted meetings that leave out countries directly involved in contingent situations, such as the Baltic countries in the meeting called by Macron. To do this, in addition to what has already been said above, the Union must equip itself with faster regulations capable of overcoming the absurd criterion of the totality of votes for the approval of community laws and decisions and the ability to expel countries opposed to the unitary direction of European politics, such as Hungary. Ukraine’s accession to the Union is a necessary fact and an insurance against Putin’s policies, but it must be supported by an armed force capable of breaking away from the USA, an Atlantic Alliance less dependent on Washington, also in its ability to produce the armaments it could use.

Trump’s protectionist policy, the cornerstone of his electoral program, is taking shape, for now only with announcements and proclamations. After the duties against China last week, the new threat, which has also been announced, is to impose 25% tariffs on incoming goods consisting of steel and aluminum, without any exceptions or exemptions. For Europe, it is a question of seeing whether the existing duties, precisely 25%, will only be confirmed or will even reach 50%. The declared aim is to increase American wealth. In addition to Europe, the main targets are Canada and Mexico: the duties towards these two countries are in clear violation of the free trade agreement between the three states. This violation represents a very bad signal of the direction of the policy of the new US administration, in relation to the approach with existing international treaties. For Canada, the duties will weigh heavily on a sector that earns 11.2 billion dollars from the supply of steel to the USA; However, the prediction is that this measure will backfire on US manufacturers, from the automotive industry to producers of carbonated beverage containers. On the contrary, the White House predicts a favorable trade balance, thanks to the greater benefits that the duties will bring to local steel and aluminum industries, compared to the losses of other industrial sectors. In Washington’s vision, heavy industry is considered strategic to stimulate other sectors as well, acting as a driving force for the US economy. Trump has declared that the duties will affect a rather wide range of products, a factor that could trigger a trade war, with unpredictable consequences at a global level. With regard to Mexico, however, the tariff measure has been suspended for a month, in exchange for greater border controls to prevent migrants from entering the US. This suspension could mean that the duty measures could be a threat to obtain something else, for example for Europe greater military spending and greater commitment and involvement in operations, such as to allow a different deployment of US troops on the world stage. Even for Canada, the threat has been suspended with the commitment to stop migrant trafficking and the export of fentanyl-based drugs to the USA. The commitment requested from Canada seems mild, perhaps because Ottawa had drawn up a list of products to hit with customs duties, mainly from Republican states, which supported Trump the most. In any case, hitting Mexico hard, which has replaced China as the main supplier of the USA, with goods for 505.851 billion dollars and with a trade imbalance, in favor of Mexico City, of 171.189 billion dollars, will represent an intrinsic problem for the American manufacturing industry, presumably struggling with increases in supply costs. The trade war with Beijing has already started and both countries have already applied duties respectively. Even more interesting will be the evolution of relations with Europe, publicly called out by the vice president for the excessive trade constraints present on its territory, which do not facilitate easy reciprocal relations. Implementing a trade policy that is too rigid on the richest area in the world can have seriously harmful effects for US industry, especially since Brussels is looking for concrete alternative outlets for its products, thinking about new trade agreements with China; if we were to go in this direction, after Biden’s policy had managed to reverse the trend, the effects of the duties would have the double negative consequence of losing market shares of American products in Europe and that these shares could be replaced by Chinese products; and the extemporaneous declarations of the new American president, about the creation of a riviera in Gaza, but without Palestinians, and of a Ukraine that will once again be Russian, do not help the dialogue with the Europeans, allergic to certain attitudes, despite the growing presence of Trump’s supporters, even in the governments of some countries. If the military issue can be a lever that Trump will not hesitate to use, the White House must take into account that these provocations could push Brussels to slowly but progressively detach itself from its American ally.

During Trump’s first presidency, the situation had become very clear: the US no longer had any intention of supporting the majority of military spending to defend the West and this had been a missed opportunity to fill the inconsistency of European defense with a targeted program of military spending, capable of bringing the structure of the European Union to defense autonomy, always within the broader framework of the Atlantic Alliance. Trump, both in his electoral program and in his inauguration speech, reiterated the concept again, because he found himself faced with an unchanged situation, albeit within a profoundly changed international context. These criticisms were also recognized as true by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs of the Union, who stressed that the time has come to invest, because, as Trump states, Brussels and its members do not spend enough. During the annual conference of the Defense Agency, the figure emerged that represents the average expenditure on military spending for the states of the Union, for 1.9% of the gross domestic product, when Russia, the closest danger has invested 9% of its gross domestic product, although in a situation of war conflict. The scarcity of spending is a dangerous signal for potential aggressors. Currently the minimum expenditure established by the Atlantic Alliance provides for 2%, but reasonable estimates foresee an increase to at least 3-3.5% of the gross domestic product. The direction claimed by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Estonian Kalla Kallas, is to make Europe adopt a more decisive position with regard to military spending, in order to be able to assume a greater direct share of responsibility for the Union, with regard to its own security. The appointment of the Estonian politician is a clear and unequivocal signal from the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, because she is a representative belonging to a nation bordering Russia and who fears its actions, in addition to the fact that her country, Estonia, contributes 3.43% of its gross domestic product to NATO spending. Even the Polish President, Donald Tusk, who with his country contributes 4% of the Atlantic Alliance’s military spending, argues that Trump’s provocation should be understood as a sort of positive challenge, because a stronger ally has a more consistent voice in relations with the US and can move towards greater autonomy and security, towards the geopolitical challenges that could potentially arise.

What the Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance did during his speech to the European Parliament seemed like a real appeal for collaboration between the countries of the Union. Almost a request for help, which could not have been more explicit. The imminent arrival of Trump represents a decisive aggravation of an already difficult and complicated state of affairs. The current situation is not one of true peace, even if there is not even a state of war; however, the Ukrainian conflict is at Europe’s doorstep and the situation of the economic commitment of EU members is still far from that two percent of the gross domestic product, which is now considered insufficient to maintain the Atlantic Alliance at an adequate level to respond to the potential critical issues present on the international scene. If Trump’s request to bring the gross domestic product of each individual member of the Alliance to 5% seems like a figure rounded up a lot, a reasonable value could be three percent, that is, one percentage point more than the current one, which is also reached by only a few members. If today the situation is considered more or less safe, after the Trump presidency, it may no longer be so. Even if the president-elect’s threat was to abandon the Atlantic Alliance, this eventuality, especially for economic reasons, is considered remote, but more likely it is considered possible that the US could implement a disengagement, so as to focus on the issues of the protection of the Pacific area, an essential area to fight China. Europe, even in a general framework of presence of the Atlantic Alliance, must make a greater contribution and respond to the agreements signed to bring military spending to 2% of GDP; but too many states are still far from this objective. In addition to the need to reach the established quota, greater rationalization is needed in the way of spending on military purchases, making joint purchases, capable of guaranteeing greater economies of scale and increasingly efficient integration between the various armed forces, in the absence of a supranational military component, which appears increasingly necessary, to have a greater range of maneuver and autonomy, albeit always within the Atlantic Alliance. At the same time, it is necessary to develop those tools to counter hybrid warfare that are necessary to counter the actions of entities such as Russia, but also China, which tend to influence the political and social life of European states. Disinformation is a weakness of Europe, just as the weapon of irregular immigration functions as a factor of internal and external destabilization, to the point of putting European institutions in difficulty in their command centers. The Ukrainian events have interrupted a stalemate, where the reason for the existence of the armed forces, in European countries, had changed towards the use of peacekeeping forces and interposition in critical areas, but still far from European territory. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the defense ministries realized the inadequacy of the approach of their armed forces, which had gone beyond the concepts of war on the field, with the consequence of also changing their respective arsenals. The economic cycles that have been repeated in recent times have never been positive and characterized by axes of growth, a situation that has favored the contraction of military spending, leaving very low defense potential. If, on the one hand, one can understand the reluctance to spend in the military sector, also considering the theses of the pacifists to the bitter end, it remains a fact that the Russian threat represents a concrete fact, which it is impossible not to take into account, also due to Moscow’s dangerous alliances with North Korea and Iran and therefore with areas contiguous to international terror. What must be faced is not only a clear threat, but an opaque universe of indistinct enemies, against which effective strategies must be developed. The French proposal to make military spending towards European companies has a direct value to favor a greater cohesion of European countries, but it could meet resistance from Trump, therefore it will be necessary to find a balance capable of satisfying political requests, but also legitimate European aspirations, because in the long term, also for the USA, a more militarily autonomous Europe, will be an advantage also for Washington and not only for Brussels.