<![CDATA[ Parte para a guerra com os olhos na paz ]]>

"It's Tuesday and from the ashes, perhaps, tomorrow, which is Wednesday, there will be fire again. The heart is incapable of saying it doesn't matter. It goes to war with its eyes on peace." It is, curiously, in Sérgio Godinho's song that we find a compass for the current times.

If there were any doubts about the seriousness of the international realignment we are witnessing, the last 24 hours have been especially revealing. In a stunning about-face, the United States voted against a UN resolution defending the territorial unity of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the winner of the German election, Friedrich Merz, declared Europe's "independence" from the United States as a political priority, and expressed doubts as to whether, at the NATO summit in June, we will still be talking about the Atlantic alliance as we know it or about an independent European defence capability.

In truth, both of Merz’s scenarios seem out of touch with reality. Although they are not exactly the same thing, NATO will continue to exist in its current form for many years. You cannot dissolve 76 years of military alliance overnight, especially considering the cooperation between the armed forces of the various countries and the US military presence on European soil. Europe, on the other hand, at the mercy of Macron’s egomaniacal impulses, seems to have difficulty in getting together, let alone deciding together what to do. Even if permanent structured cooperation is strengthened, arms orders will take years to be produced and any eventual deployment of these defensive capabilities on Europe’s eastern flank will be strategically restrained, not least so as not to relieve the United States of the role it still plays there.

The immediate issue is therefore not the new institutional design of European defence and security policy. It is focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was celebrated three years ago yesterday. Meeting in Kyiv, European leaders demanded, in the words of António Costa , a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace”, negotiated with both Ukraine and Europe at the table. Unfortunately, the meeting between the heads of American and Russian diplomacy in Saudi Arabia last week, as well as Trump’s public acceptance of Putin’s terms, do not help any negotiations to have a balanced outcome.

History teaches us that the horrors of war lead us to seek imperfect compromises. This was the case with the Munich Treaty of 1938, which was also negotiated without the presence of the country whose territorial integrity was being disputed. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain negotiated to allow Hitler to invade the Sudetenland in exchange for preserving the rest of Czechoslovakia. It was of little use when, within a year, German troops marched on Prague and shortly afterwards invaded Poland, starting the Second World War. There is no need to go that far. In 2015, a similar agreement in Minsk allowed Russia to consolidate its occupation of Crimea. It turned out as it did. If we give in now, we do not know whether Putin’s next war will be fought again from Kyiv or rather from Tbilisi, Riga or Tallinn.

Only a victory for Ukraine will put an end to Putin’s revenge and ensure lasting security conditions not only for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe. The biggest challenge is to be consistent with this conclusion. The response cannot be solely military or limited to Ukraine’s territory. Today, threats are hybrid, with new theatres of operations emerging in the commercial, technological, informational and even demographic spheres . Take the case of the Romanian presidential election, which was annulled due to suspicions of Russian interference. In addition to increasing defense budgets, we must sound the alarm to defend its democracy and prosperity firmly and urgently.

On the other hand, Europe cannot turn in on itself while it deals with its own problems. On the diplomatic front, the American realignment could both increase China’s influence in the Global South and, by separating the waters, open up new opportunities for strategic rapprochement with these countries. In contrast to Trump’s threats regarding Panama, Canada or Greenland, a truly European foreign policy will reap greater political and economic benefits the less it is based on the law of the strongest and more on respect between peoples and international law.

Evoking Sérgio Godinho, Europe must go to war with its sights set on peace. In the world order that emerges from this crisis, we will only know peace if Europe is a protagonist in its own right and master of its own future.