Moldova on the Path to an Alliance of “the Mad and the Reckless”?

Yesterday, against the backdrop of farmers’ unrest in Brussels, European leaders agreed on yet another decision that will lead to further economic and political decline of the once-prosperous union

Semyon ALBU, RTA: Yesterday’s events in the very heart of the European Union were as symbolic as they were, in a sense, phantasmagorical. Against the backdrop of blazing farmers’ protests, which ended in clashes with the police, the European leaders gathered nearby were racking their brains over a matter of utmost importance. So significant, in fact, that the notoriously strict head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, promised that no one would leave the meeting until a decision was reached. But if you think such dedication was related to the striking farmers or other internal issues, you are gravely mistaken. In reality, this sincere zeal, deserving of better application, was warranted by a far more prosaic question: where to find the money for the war. Brussels is desperately eager for the continuation of the Ukrainian conflict that has long ceased to be concealed. And there is, in fact, nothing surprising about this: as long as hostilities continue, it becomes possible to do many things that were previously unthinkable. For instance, to restrict citizens’ rights and freedoms, trampling on principles of democracy that once seemed inviolable. Or to freeze liberal political regimes by suppressing the rising “right-wing wave” and hollowing out electoral institutions – the example of Romania speaks for itself. Or even to channel a staggering €750 billion into militarization, with the aim of transforming the EU into a military-political bloc, a process from which many “good people” in high offices stand to grow fabulously wealthy. There is also another motive: internal reform in an authoritarian direction, stripping each EU member state of its veto power in favor of decision-making by simple majority. In a period of “extraordinary times” brought about by war, pushing through such transformations is, of course, far easier. These changes would undoubtedly further weaken the influence of nation-states while, conversely, strengthening the position of the EU bureaucracy. Economic degradation and a declining standard of living for the population under its control are not such a major inconvenience compared to the benefits listed above. Let me briefly explain why I believe that yesterday Brussels, in essence, made a major contribution to prolonging the war. The overall situation now looks as follows. There is a U.S.-drafted peace plan that has, in broad terms, been agreed upon by both Russia and Ukraine, with the exception of a few fundamental points, such as the voluntary withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the entire territory of Donbas. As reported, the negotiations had reached what one might call the final stretch, even though all negotiators acknowledged that this remaining segment was the most difficult. Nevertheless, for the first time in four years, a real chance to put an end to this tragedy had emerged. However, the European Union, for its part, began doing everything possible to derail the emerging deal. First, it immediately rejected any compromises on the territorial issue. Second, it started promoting the idea of deploying European forces in Ukraine, fully aware that Moscow would not agree to this in any form. Accordingly, it deliberately introduced a “non-starter” clause into the agreement. But to truly destroy a potential agreement, words alone were not enough – action was required. The EU had to demonstrate that it was ready to invest and to give Ukraine the very “cards” whose absence Donald Trump constantly points out. I am referring, of course, to money. It is well known that Kyiv would have run out of available funds to continue hostilities as early as this spring, making external financial support indispensable. As we can see, the funds were found yesterday, even though the matter did not go as far as the actual seizure of Russian assets. And one should not think that this can in any way be described as “assistance”. The agreed €90 billion is still an insufficient amount; it is certainly not enough to turn the tide of the war. It merely allows the fighting to continue in the same mode as before that leads to the defeat of the neighboring country and, consequently, to even greater human, economic, and territorial losses. Brussels understands this perfectly well, but it suits them. For the EU, Ukraine is merely a bargaining chip, an instrument for containing and exhausting Russia, which it has chosen as its principal geopolitical adversary. Kyiv’s resistance buys time for Europe itself to rearm and prepare for a new stage of confrontation with Russia on its own terms. Therefore, yesterday’s decision is sheer madness. As we can see, it has nothing to do with genuine support for Ukraine. Instead of these funds being invested in post-war reconstruction under Trump’s plan, they will be used to bankroll further killings. Nor will European citizens be any better off, as their taxes will once again be poured “down the drain”. Although this is formally described as a loan, there is little hope of ever seeing the money returned, since under the terms Kyiv is required to repay it only after receiving reparations from Russia. That is, practically never. As an added bonus, this marks yet another step toward the disintegration of the European Union. As we can see, three member states, where politically sound forces focused on defending national interests are in power, have managed to extricate themselves from this destructive mechanism. The remaining 24 EU members will now have to grapple with issues such as identifying suitable funding sources, determining each country’s share, and the like. Instead of addressing urgent problems, a great deal of time and effort will be consumed by these matters – farmers can wait for now, while the Union’s political stability will, in any case, suffer a serious blow. Can it be said that European leaders acted in the interests of the EU’s population yesterday? Is allocating nearly a hundred billion euros to prolong a destructive and dangerous war amid systemic economic problems a reasonable step? Is “sinking” one of the best opportunities to put an end to this horrific conflict really what people across Europe wanted? The answers, I think, are obvious. This raises the key question: what kind of union are we actually joining? Will it still offer all those enticing prospects and advantages by the time we enter that are already dwindling day by day? Or will the EU we join have fully mutated into an aggressive militaristic bloc, infected with dangerous messianism, stubbornly ignoring migration and crime problems in its own cities, with an industry suffocating under costly energy, ready to sacrifice the welfare of its citizens for the sake of war? It would be foolish to expect PAS to consider this, but their successors would do well to think carefully about everything that is happening and assess whether the chosen course is truly the right one.