Last week, I accepted a number of TV invitations. Recently, I was not in the mood to reiterate what I have been explaining for the past three years. However, I accepted the invitation, as nobody seems to be understanding the complexities of the topic. When it comes to EU affairs, especially when dealing with the EU budget, as well as the Common and Foreign Security of the EU, it is not easy to simplify the topic and explain it to an audience. Unless, you had the opportunity to work within both committees, and grasped the technicalities of the budget, as well as what goes on and off-balance sheet, it is not easy to comprehend. And this is the problem we are currently encountering, including with the mainstream media.
The topic that we had to discuss on TVM was primarily on neutrality, and its relevance, today. As I arrived for the TV debate, I noticed a line-up of men just before the doorstep. At first, I thought that they were invited for different and separate TV programmes. However, it occurred to me that they were all invited for the same programme. At that point I realised that the best way to handle such a programme was to sit on the side and allow the majority to speak. Indeed, the programme dealt with Malta’s neutrality and the funds being allocated at EU level to finance defence and armaments. During the TV programme, the host asked pertinent and relevant questions to the invitees. He was quite knowledgeable and convinced me that he prepared for the programme way in advance. When my turn arrived, I tried to explain how the EU’s proposal is intended to function from a budgetary point of view. I gave a technical explanation about the funds allocated within the EU Budget, as well as outside.
However, one of the invitees kept interrupting to the point of silliness. Someone texted me stating that he was behaving like a disturbed kid at school in the 1990s. Honestly, I burst out laughing. Each time he jumped off his seat to say something, and even interrupting the host, I was resisting to not laugh on national TV. It looked like a scene of two troubled schoolboys rather than two men discussing civilly on national TV. At some point, one of the invitees was mixing the Minsk II agreements with the Budapest Memorandum, at which point I asked the host to stop him, as it was degenerating to the point of ridicule. I told him that if people at home try to google something to verify what he was saying, they won’t find it. It certainly looked like a messy juicing competition blending foie gras, strawberries and avocados into a juicer, only for no one to dare taste it afterward. This is the problem when having non-technical people discussing complex EU topics.
Yes, everyone has a right for an opinion, but due attention must be given when you are delivering an opinion on national TV. We need people that provide an informed opinion, backed by facts not assertions. At the very least, the basics and principles must be known. This might also be the problem with mainstream media. The technical people are few, and rare in today’s day and age. And not many had the opportunity to work on the files of the EU budget, as well as the political and security committee of the EU. Both committees require a great deal of technicalities, with constant reading and continuous updates. Otherwise, those who do not follow what is being said, will lose all the institutional memory, including the technicalities.
Let’s leave the TV programme aside and explain to the ‘Popolin’ what happened during Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council. Among other topics, the war in Ukraine was discussed. However, just right after the meeting, the High Representative Kaja Kallas told the media that what Russia is demanding is not a ceasefire and peace but end goals that suit Vladimir Putin. The High Representative explained that the pre-conditions being set by Russia to the United States show that the former does not want peace and cannot be trusted. Well, in all honesty I don’t know whether I hit my head against the sharpest wall or classify High Representative Kallas to the equivalent ineptness of her boss. The High Representative had every opportunity to set the narrative, counter diplomatically what her boss has been uttering in the past years, and position herself as the diplomatic face. Truly, I do not know what is wrong with these people.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has met with Putin over a possible ceasefire. The goal of the President of the United States is to end the war. And, by hook or by crook, he will certainly end it. However, France and Britian are trying to create a coalition of the willing to send boots on the ground in Ukraine, with Emmanuel Macron stating that it is entirely up to Ukraine to decide. Not sure what they are thinking, but by the looks of it, Russia will never accept troops on its borders. Russia already asked for security guarantees, which guarantees were the basis to avoid a war in 2022. However, by the time of writing this article Trump and Putin would have spoken, and today the EU leaders are meeting in Brussels for the European Council.
Among other things, the EU leaders will be discussing competitiveness, the security guarantees for Ukraine, as a follow-up to the preceding special European Council, the MFF 2028-2034, as well as European defence. The latter sounds more like an offence, rather than defence, because the assets that were identified are of priority areas for both NATO and theEU, which includes, inter alia, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, air and missile defence, drones and anti-drone systems, strategic enablers and military mobility. On military mobility I have second thoughts. This is quite important, as it would be creating an upgrade for the EU’s infrastructure. Surely, I will report on this in the ensuing article.
Meanwhile, foreign media is reporting that the Chinese President Xi Jinping turned down an invitation to attend a summit in Brussels. The summit will be marking the 50th anniversary of EU-China relations. In Mach 2023, the president of the European Commission travelled to Washington to meet with the former president of the USA. At that time, the discussion revolved around possible sanctions on China for potentially supplying weapons to Russia. However, it was Macron, who in April 2023, saved the relations with China. Macron went on a state visit and carried with him the President of the European Commission to try to mend political affairs. He even said that the EU must not be a vassal of the USA.
Honestly, I do not know why they cannot get the diplomatic message. Since the appointment of the sitting president of the European Commission, diplomatic ties went ballistic with every big nation. The USA are snubbing the EU, China just snubbed the EU, and perhaps other countries might follow. It is pitiful.
The EU was known for its diplomatic leverage and narrative. Look where we are today. This is why I always said to not lose the EU’s soft power, because once lost, it would be hard to rebuild!
