By now there is no pretending to be indifferent. It is no longer an externalisation before which one could feign indifference. A thoughtful document, the new US “National Security Strategy,” sanctions the divorce of an Atlantic union that lasted, albeit with ups and downs and conspicuous contradictions, 80 years. The Russia, which wants to regain part of the space occupied by the USSR, and Trump‘s US, which wants a free hand to do all-around business, have the same adversary: the European Union, which they see as a nuisance to get rid of as soon as possible.
A Europe in the crosshairs
Within some 20 years, European civilisation may be wiped out, the White House analysis predicts with some complacency. Which does not merely assess, but announces explicit activism to get to the goal: it calls for “cultivating resistance” within individual European countries to the continent’s current trajectory, that is, to destabilise it by supporting nationalistic parties aiming to break up the European Union. And Putin, who has long practised the goal, could only agree, as he has punctually done.
It is possible that a change of guard in the White House three years from now will call this international arrangement into question. Possible but far from certain. Whilst the three years of pressure we face before the US elections are certain and have a very clear sign. At the current rate of pressure from the White House, they will produce a very heavy economic impact if Europe proves incapable of an effective reaction.
The possible answer
This reaction requires two key elements. The first was stressed by all the comments. What is needed is greater political unity, an easing of bureaucracy, more investment, and more consistent support for business. Goals that under the current rules of the game are extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve: the system of cross-vetoes blocks decisions that require unanimity. There is, however, the possibility of a group of European countries creating a more dense core within the Union on the model already successfully tested with the birth of the euro. If this more strongly aggregated Europe moved in a unified way on the international front, it would represent a political entity capable of changing the current scenario.
In terms of defence capability, for example, there would be benefits induced by economies of scale and coordination that would allow military capability to be increased appreciably at the same level of expenditure, that is, without jeopardising resources allocated to two other equally essential forms of defence: social and environmental.
A Europe with forward traction could respond to the blackmail of wild tariff increases with an all-out trade policy, opening up the intensification of trade in goods and services with areas strategic to our supply side. A path that has been only partially set in motion.
However, a second element is also needed that few are talking about. The challenge cannot be only industrial nor only military. Europe (and Italy in particular) certainly does not shine in terms of raw material and energy abundance: it can find solutions that allow it to realign, but this aspect is unlikely to become a strength. And on the armaments side, there is a public opinion interested in improving defence capability to compensate for the loss of the US defence umbrella, but much less willing to muscular scenarios.
The second element is thus a revival. The ability to revive the European dream, which from the point of view of method is based on soft power (as Robert Kagan writes, “European strategic culture privileges negotiation, diplomacy, trade links and international law over force, persuasion over coercion, multilateralism over unilateralism”). And from the point of view of content, it is based on the combination of environmental defence and defence of social cohesion.
The ultranationalist parties, sponsored by Trump and Putin who are also united in their attack on the Green Deal (both are staunch champions of fossil fuels), have this very European model in their sights. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that a good defence in the face of the Trumpian attack is to react with investments on the eco-eco (economic-ecological) pair embedded in a framework of social rebalancing that could offer broad support for these policies. A choice that, from a production and technological point of view, would bring Europe in line with the global mainstream.
