President Emmanuel Macron recently issued a warning that “Europe is mortal” during his speech at the Sorbonne on April 25th. This warning against the disintegration of the European Union had a nearly Central European tone. In Central and Eastern Europe, no one needs to be convinced of the mortality of states or inter-state unions. The fear of losing sovereignty is the “political DNA” of countries like the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and, in its own way, Finland. Since at least 2014 and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, legitimate fears of “state mortality” have been fully integrated into the policies of Ukraine and Moldova. Over the past three hundred years, Central and Eastern Europe has been a region of “mortal gods,” as Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan. Anyone who has visited Ukraine knows that since 2014, the creation of new cemeteries painfully reminds them of this reality.
While the issue of providing aid to Ukraine may be marginal in the election campaigns of Western Europe, in neighboring countries to Russia, political debates are filled with warnings against Russian aggression. From Tallinn to Warsaw, questions of disinformation and espionage make headlines. In Poland, Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a pro-European, adopts the most alarmist tones to mobilize voters. He is trying to convince citizens that the outcome of the elections to the European Parliament will determine the future of the war. This strategy echoes the content of Emmanuel Macron’s second speech at the Sorbonne, as well as the campaign slogans of Raphaël Glucksmann, the lead candidate for the European elections for the PS and Place publique. It is all the more remarkable that the elections to the European Parliament highlight an important process unfolding throughout Europe. Part of the political class in Western countries has adopted the geopolitical perspective of Russia’s neighboring countries as a European perspective.
This brings us back to fundamental differences in the interpretation of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The war in Ukraine unites and divides Europe. Different historical analogies are indeed used to interpret this pan-European conflict. The first “lenses” through which the war in Ukraine is seen date back to 1914. In 2013, Christopher Clark published “The Sleepwalkers”. This respected historian from Cambridge describes the complex puzzle of international politics at the time of the Sarajevo assassination. How could the shots fired by a young assassin in June 1914 lead to a world conflict? Clark’s book puts forward a dramatic thesis: the world war was not a necessity. There is still much debate and analysis surrounding the conflict, and the varying historical analogies used to understand it highlight the complexity and importance of the situation.
As European leaders grapple with the challenges and threats facing the continent, the issue of Russian aggression and its implications on European security and sovereignty remains a key focus. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of the European project and the need for unity and cooperation. The divergent interpretations of the conflict among European countries reflect the broader geopolitical tensions within the region. With political leaders adopting varying strategies to address these challenges, the future of Europe and its ability to withstand external pressures remains uncertain. However, the warnings issued by leaders like Macron and Tusk serve as a call to action for greater European solidarity and resilience in the face of external threats.
