It was to be expected that from the meeting in Geneva of those responsible for US and Russian diplomacy, Anthony Blinken and Sergei Lavrov, there was no tangible outcome, an agreement in principle or a drop in temperature in the theater of operations. It was also foreseeable that the role of the European Union in the management of the crisis continued to be less – not that of France and especially Germany – and that the European conglomerate adhered to the general strategy of the NATO, dictated by the United States and seconded by the United Kingdom in its long-standing effort to maintain a specific link with the other side of the Atlantic. It was less imaginable, on the other hand, that voices began to multiply, including that of Javier Solana, who call for an active role of the Twenty-seven to channel the crisis away from the battlefield.
Given the situation and the propensity to raise the voice of the White House and the Kremlin, the tendency of the European Union to behave like a soft power seems to give it a plus of efficiency. It is obvious that Russia has not the slightest interest in the Europeans interfering in its confrontation with the United States -seen from Moscow, the dispute is between two superpowers and does not admit intermediaries-, but the fact is that the bulk of the Union’s partners Europe are at the same time members of NATO, their security is closely related to the decisions of the Atlantic Alliance and their interests are seriously compromised by what happens on their eastern border. From which it is easy to deduce that a greater presence of the European touch in the development of a conflict affecting Europe and that will influence in one way or another the politics, economy and security of the continent. It is more than likely that, in the end, whatever the outcome of the Ukrainian crisis, the voice of Europe will have less influence, but it is desirable that no one give facilities to those who work so that things are always like this. Because it is necessary that sooner rather than later, from the European Union, a viable, balanced and lasting alternative can be offered to defuse the Ukrainian crisis.
From this approach to the facts, the reaction of United We Can seems more opportunistic than heartfelt as soon as it has been known that Spain will dispatch a frigate and a minesweeper to the Black Sea. NATO partners are not for the benefit of inventory and the reproaches of Irene Montero and other leaders of his training, who have presented the mobilization of troops as something contrary to the achievement of peace, lacks logical foundation: without springs to guarantee security and achieve peace, the idea itself is no more than a pipe dream. The umpteenth friction between the two universes of the ruling coalition is manifestly unnecessary and can only be explained by the need, desire or obligation of the junior partner to distinguish himself from the senior whenever the opportunity arises. You may not allege any breach of the agreements and rules of the game of the coalition government. In accordance with the Constitution, Defense policy is the responsibility of the President of the Government, and the PSOE and Podemos investiture agreements clearly attributed to the Socialists the political leadership of the Defense and Foreign Ministries. In the face of this diplomatic crisis, it is essential to persevere in the unity of action of the member states of the Union and, within them, of the most influential political forces.