Europe is already spending more money on arms and military (about 300 billion)* than Russia (about 110 billion)* and still we hear of the Russian threat to the European Union. We hear about Russia going to conquer Europe all the way to Portugal and kill everybody and do other abominable things to those who is doesn’t kill. And we hear about one village to the east which resists and fights for the freedom of us all.*
There are those who hail the freedom fighters to the east and support their struggle which maims and ends the lives of many, young, men, destroys endless swaths of vital infrastructure and thus lays the foundation for generations of resentment. A fact we tend to forget.
Those voices come from comfortable armchairs in places where the destruction and killing is only present through the media, and where, after having written another comment of encouragement to the fighters in the east, they leave the quiet house and garden, get into their quiet electrical car with a good climatic conscience and a “I stand with ….” on their minds and social media profiles, and drive off into the sunset for a margarita on the rocks or on the beach.
Out of whose scrap book did this vision escape and become reality? The ghosts of our great grandfathers and mothers? The trigger happy writers of crime and punishment books? The composers of tragedies? The self-righteous cliques of all colours? The producers and vendors of arms? I do not know, although the latter group is quite a promising candidate to invent and support scenarios which promote their sales.
Paired with a total absence of historical knowledge and understanding, of rational, logical and critical thought, it leads to an overwhelming number of war-mongering statements of European political leaders, lesser leaders and followers, void of sense and just good to stoke the fire.
“800 billion euros more over the next 4 years for a rearmament plan of Europe” (Van der Leyen, 5 March 2025)*
There used to be a peace movement, strong before the two world wars of the 20th century with Bertha von Sutter receiving the peace Nobel Prize in 1905; and strong again after the wars, in the 60s and 70s. Somehow something was lost on the way, how else can you explain that parts of the former peace movement are passionately speaking out for the war efforts to continue.
We can note a certain tendency to forget the fundamental fact: actions have consequences, and what happens at a given moment always has roots in the time and in the actions of various players leading up to the present moment. Acts happened and they had consequences and lead to other acts, which again have consequences.
No, history did not start on 24 February 2022. If you want to understand what is going on you need to look at the actions and their consequences in the years or decades leading up to that moment. No, history did not start on 7 October 2023. Before judging one or the other conflict party you must analyse what happened before, the actions and their consequences.
When I look at the publicised opinion, in the media, statements of politicians, of opinion leaders of all sorts I always hear the unsaid implication that before these two dates everything was just fine, hunky-dory, great, fantastic … and then some bad villains started the violence and now innocent us, we have to defend ourselves.
If you challenge their narrative by asking questions, by pointing out that there were things that happened before and that these might perhaps have to be taken into account before passing judgement, you are quickly relegated to the camp of conspiracy theorist and populists.
Of course I am not saying that this could serve as an excuse for anyone who committed unlawful acts, took part in carrying out atrocities and ignored international and national law. However, it has to be applied to all the involved parties, not just to one side. No-one has the right to ignore the law, no-one is justified to kill and destroy. As I said in earlier posts, there is not just war, there has never been a just war. Attempts to solve problems through the use of ultimate violence is not a solution. It is not ethical and it is not sustainable; it is just the breeding ground for future violence and future wars.
Certainly there is the right to self-defence. Especially on a personal individual level. But on a country level? How far can we extend this right when we know the cost at present and the cost we and the coming generations will have to pay in the future.
2 https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/
3 I apologise to Asterix and Obelix for this misplaced analogy
Education 3 