In financial terms, billions of euros are an expression of the decision to prioritize defensive and offensive capabilities over investments in, for example, health, education or infrastructure. The priority given corresponds to the way of thinking, what hospitals, schools, roads, highways, distribution networks, power plants and the like, when a potential enemy can take all this.
I personally encountered this argument, to my surprise, in circles of the Greek left as well. All this is in the spirit of the Greek Prime Minister’s response to the German media to the question of why his country spends so much on armaments. He said that the reason for this, unlike Germany, was that it does not border Denmark, but Turkey.
Turkey is another cornerstone that fits into the mosaic of international politics, similar to the behavior of the United States.
The French treasury and the president’s reputation came in handy not only with Greek money, but especially with the international political recovery after the error caused by the AUKUS Agreement between Australia, the USA and Great Britain. Not only did the White House not consult in advance, but dryly announce the whole thing, as Paris negotiated behind it.
Allies cannot be forced to intervene
This event was preceded by fluctuations in the withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to which, according to European politicians, Washington did not make any special efforts to consult with the allies.
All this prompted the President of the Elysee Palace to reiterate his call for other EU countries to accelerate their strategic ability to act independently. So when the Greek Prime Minister and the French President announced a multi-billion-euro deal, they also talked about a defensive clause that obliges the two sides to help each other.
In the case of Greece in its region – where the French president does not leave Turkey on a regular basis – In the case of France, this assistance should be in the African Sahel region, for example. At the same time, the senior politicians made clear in their words that this is exactly the path they are taking as an example to others, with an imaginary torch illuminating the current international political darkness surrounding the European Union.
From a purely rhetorical point of view, the rest of the Union also agree, which was just confirmed by the informal summit in Slovenia. The problem is that it is far from action, from decisions and from conscious consent. The rest of the union did not agree on it again. This is partly because some countries, especially in Eastern Europe, do not want to build structures that threaten and bypass NATO.
According to the Greek and French leaders, nothing like this is on the table, on the contrary, their agreement is supposed to strengthen the Euro-Atlantic bond, but in fact, if NATO agreements were in force, then there would be no need for special defense agreements. .
This is evidenced by the fact that the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, also spoke out against the construction of separate structures of the Union. He stated that 80 per cent of the costs of the alliance are borne by non-EU member states. He added that the union must realize that its external borders cover the non-EU buffer zone on almost all sides and that NATO structures should not be built to duplicate or stand outside.
In November, EU members promised to develop a plan to enhance defense and strategic autonomy. The Greco-French Pact is an agreement between two highly armed countries, with their own interests and problems. It’s hard to wait for the entire Federation to quickly follow. There is another problem.
Allies cannot be forced to intervene, they must want to. And he only wants it when it’s in his best interest. As for the alliance with France in particular, she could tell Czechoslovakia about her alliance.
The author is commenting on Czech radio
“Proud twitter enthusiast. Introvert. Hardcore alcohol junkie. Lifelong food specialist. Internet guru.”