The war drums are beating. Rob Bauer, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, stated that “we must realize that living in peace is not a given. And that is why we (NATO) are preparing for a conflict with Russia.” In the United Kingdom, the Defense Minister and the Chief of the Armed Forces speak of the current generation as the “pre-war” generation because “the era of peace dividends is over.” The rhetoric mounting is grave and seamlessly entering everyday narrative. When I read comments supporting the notion of “if you want peace, prepare for war,” I am reminded of the famous poem by Trilussa, “L’eroe ar caffè,” the one who “flattens mountains, breaks, shoots, kills, ‘for me – he mutters – there’s a road’ alone and dips his biscuits in the cup.” If these pathetic characters are popping up like mushrooms in public discourse, it’s not by chance: the militarization of society proceeds at the hands of an elite with no legitimacy to do so, but knows it’s the only way to maintain a power increasingly delegitimized every day.

The war in Ukraine has highlighted NATO’s weakness, which is likely entering an irreversible crisis. Behind the rhetoric of a potential Russian attack on a NATO country like the Baltics or Poland lies the symptom of the uselessness of an alliance that has definitively lost, in the eyes of any observer from the “Global South,” the sense of its existence and seeks in the “external enemy” the reason to conceal its military and political defeat. Russia has no interest, or even possibility, of attacking a NATO country. On one hand, it is in a demographic decline phase when conquest wars presuppose a strong internal expansion, and on the other hand, the invasion of a country like Poland requires an army of millions of well-armed men, which is not currently on the horizon.

The war has once again highlighted the fundamental lack of democracy in political institutions, both in individual countries that have shown themselves to be completely subservient to Brussels’ decisions and in the European Commission and NATO: while the former has vague democratic legitimacy as it is designated by the governments of the member countries, the latter has nothing to do with democracy, and it’s unclear on what grounds Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg can dictate key political choices. For example, there is no obligation to reach a defense spending of 2% of GDP.

While it’s difficult to imagine European citizens following this senseless policy and accepting measures like the reintroduction of compulsory military service, mobilizing younger generations, or a significant increase in military spending (which is the true and only purpose of this barrage), it’s also possible that what looms on the horizon, war, could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and when there is widespread public awareness of the absurdity of the situation, it will be too late. The feeling is that, as always in the three-decade US-led unipolar era, calculations are made without the host, as a regional crisis could uncontrollably escalate into a broader war.

The real problem, in fact, is the so-called “security dilemma,” whereby in a confrontation between two competing countries, if one of the contenders misinterprets the defensive actions of the other side as offensive, a spiral of mutual insecurity can inevitably lead to conflict. The security dilemma in international relations is often invoked when a country’s actions to protect its security, such as the installation of military bases for defensive purposes, arms procurement, or even just verbal provocation, are perceived as threats by a neighboring country. The continuous statements of politicians and military leaders at the top of European countries and NATO itself, echoed uncritically by the press and television, can only be interpreted provocatively by Russia, especially in light of events in the long-standing Ukrainian issue.

European governments seem to be proceeding as they did in 1914: “Those who held the levers of power were like sleepwalkers, apparently awake but unable to see, tormented by nightmares but blind to the horror they were about to bring into the world.” That’s why it’s important, indeed crucial, to reflect on the changes of the present era, their reasons, and the possible, if not probable, developments, and, in one’s own small way, try to stop the advancing tide.

(Published on Il Fatto Quotidiano)