We should have great respect for the Pope’s masterpiece, often with great intuition, but in this case Pope Francis’ criticism of some European states, including Italy, for using the 2% of GDP for military spending does not convince me. . Especially in the dangerous situations in which we live. Sometimes the decision to arm adequately this may seem paradoxical to you is more a weapon of peace than of war. One of the cornerstones of Roman philosophy, “si vis pacem para bellum”, emphasized in ancient times as well as in modern times, is not only a phrase that sounds good, but also has some truth. After all, the long period of peace that characterized the recent history of the Old Continent, before the war in Ukraine, was precisely the reason for the decision to increase the potential for war.
Just go back to forty years ago, the history of the installation of pershing and cruise missiles in Europe, which NATO carried out to balance Soviet SS20s. Well, this race for rearmament, at its own expense, led to the collapse of the Soviet economy and gave the last impetus to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, creating the conditions for the fall of the Berlin Wall. A policy initiated by Ronald Reagan and which won the approval of such a great pope as Carol Voitilla, who was specially consulted by the President of the United States. In Italy, despite protests from the Communist Party and professional pacifists, the decision was made to welcome U.S. missiles, thanks to the decision of Betino Crax, who split the left (from the moment he began to hate the world) and resolutely sided with the Atlantic Alliance. This is history.
Then this decision to use arms as an instrument of peace enjoyed the Pope’s blessing, today it seems not. Nevertheless, there are many coincidences between the past and the present. There was an aggressive policy of the USSR at that time, which is very similar to Putin’s Russia today. At the time, this operation affected the Soviet economy, which was already in trouble. Today in the wake of the impact of sanctions if Tsar was tempted by the idea of relaunching arms, it would lead to the collapse of his country’s accounts. There can still be many comparisons between these two eras, but the question is essentially the same: weapons can be positioned exactly so that we can never use them. More. What degree of restraint determines Europe, whose military equals the Kremlin’s bullying policy? Definitely effective. Already, Russian military investment is slightly higher than the British one. Imagine investing 2% of GDP in other major European countries: the challenge for Moscow will become unsustainable. And, of course, if this potential were used especially at the diplomatic level, Europe would be more influential in mediating, in favor of peace, in negotiations than it is now in the RussiaUkraine conflict.
I understand that the Pope in his high religious master’s should strongly condemn the increase in military spending, but it is also true that often peace may require an obviously contradictory or even paradoxical choice. After all, the ways of the Lord are infinite. This was known by Pope Voitila.