Roberta Metsola said the EU must spend more money on defence to “prepare for any eventuality”. Her remarks came after US presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested he would “encourage” Russia to attack NATO members that don’t meet their financial obligations.
As President of European Parliament, she feels that Europe cannot waver, when we see what could happen across the Atlantic. Europe needs to stand strong. Russia was found engaging in cyberattacks and hybrid warfare tactics against NATO countries, yet different political factions within the European Parliament may have divergent views on the appropriate approach to addressing security challenges. In my opinion, Metsola did not warmonger – nor suggest an army separate from that of NATO but told Politico that prospective MEPs would push for the joint procurement and development of weapons to be “financed by the Union through a dedicated budget under parliamentary co-decision and scrutiny”.
The essence of her credo is that a European “defence union” should complement, not contradict, NATO. This did not sound right for the ears of a left-wing MEP candidate in Malta. He strongly opposed the rationale for higher defence budgets. Here is an example how left-wing individuals bolstered with a robust majority in Parliament, hold this perspective.
“The way EU leaders are positioning themselves, is exactly how Germans positioned themselves in the 1930s”.
A young economist Clint Azzopardi Flores; recently nominated as an MEP candidate for the Labour Party, wrote intriguing comments in BusinessWeekly on this security peccadillo. Quoting, he was over emotional in his remarks about Ursula von der Leyen. He said, just like her peers, she went seriously loopy. In his opinion, her place is not in the EU anymore.
The way EU leaders are positioning themselves, is exactly how Germans positioned themselves in the 1930s. The EU lost its diplomatic leverage since Ursula von der Leyen’s appointment. Indeed, he concludes that Metsola, the President of the EU Commission, and the rest of them must be booted out of the EU as quickly as possible.
The damage that they inflicted on the EU will take decades to repair….. unquote. Criticizing the EU Parliamentary President and Ursula von der Leyen, for promoting policies related to defence spending undermines a broader debate about the EU’s role in shaping security and its foreign policy. During the ongoing MEP election campaigns in Malta, political candidates often use strong rhetoric to differentiate themselves and muscle their platforms.
“The barbarous conflict in Ukraine has raised concerns among European countries and NATO members about the potential for Russian aggression reaching beyond Ukraine’s borders”.
Criticising incumbent EU officials and advocating for specific policy positions are common strategies to rally support among voters in a strategy to distinguish one’s platform from others. But to be fair, one must examine what is the perception about Trump being re-elected as president and his declared policy of stopping NATO helping any member against Russian aggression, should they fail to pay the annual contribution.
So, it comes as a no-brainer that the popular discernment that Russia could pose a long-term threat to NATO countries. This is influenced by several factors, including historical context, recent actions, and statements made by Russian leadership. The barbarous conflict in Ukraine has raised concerns among European countries and NATO members about the potential for Russian aggression reaching beyond Ukraine’s borders.
These concerns are based partly on how in 2014, Russia ruthlessly annexed Crimea. Occasional military posturing by Russia in regions close to NATO borders, such as the Baltic states and Poland, have been perceived as provocative and have raised deep concerns about security among those countries. Recent statements from the Russian leader and official documents have sometimes suggested a view of NATO expansion as a threat to Russia’s own security. This has led to speculation about whether Russia’s ambitions could extend to challenging NATO directly, despite the significant risks involved.
Occasional references to its nuclear capabilities in the context of the conflict with Ukraine have heightened concerns about its willingness to use threats to achieve its objectives. One cannot dismiss the strong push by Sweden, hitherto a neutral country and Finland to join NATO. This move indicates that even traditionally non-aligned countries feel the need for stronger security guarantees that NATO membership provides. The obvious reason for Sweden’s shift from its long-standing policy of neutrality to seeking NATO membership is the changed security environment in Europe, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Its move towards NATO is also seen as a step towards greater regional stability in the Baltic Sea area. Together with Finland’s move towards securing NATO membership, this would strengthen the defensive arm of the entire Nordic region.
“As Malta, itself is a neutral country and not a NATO member, most in the left-wing political spectrum advocate that it is better to indulge in diplomatic efforts and international cooperation rather than in a military buildup”.
To balance the score card with left wing adherents about the global security spectrum, one cannot ignore opinions of individuals protesting against increased defence spending, once they label it as an exaggerated response to perceived threats. They may argue that such calls are not based on genuine security needs but rather on nuanced political or economic interests.
As Malta, itself is a neutral country and not a NATO member, most in the left-wing political spectrum advocate that it is better to indulge in diplomatic efforts and international cooperation rather than in a military buildup. In conclusion, Malta cannot take an ostrich view about its long-term conflict resolution.
The issues at hand, include the arms race, conflict resolution, sovereign policy, and neutrality are complex and multifaceted, and generate passionate debates and divergent perspectives among political leaders and the polis. Upon reflection, current left-wing MEP candidates in Malta, oppose the allegedly nuanced concerns related to defence spending and in particular the role of the European Union in defending itself from any hardcore aggression and cyber attacks.
It’s heartening to observe that these perspectives in Malta are not uniform across all strata of population, since we meet varying opinions within the left, liberal and right-wing political spectrum. Ultimately, the debate among MEP candidates vying for the June elections hovers around a complex interplay of commerce, power ideology and political posturing.
Triumphantly on the 8th of June, the dice will be cast and the result shall reveal six elected representatives who we hope, shall lovingly labour in Malta’s best interests down the pervasive corridors of Brussels.
George M. Mangion
Senior Partner