Europe... or better say the EU... is getting increasingly militarised. This is happening on the NATO front and directly via own programmes by the Union. In the NATO framework, the commitment for members of the Organization to dedicate at least 2 percent of their GNP to defence expenditures is at last being taken “seriously”. In the EU, measures being adopted across a range of policy areas are promoting investment commitments in armaments, procurement of day to day military equipment and research catering for military needs.
A major plank in the action programme presented last July by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen features the strengthening of defence policy as an integral part of the project for European unity. This orientation will make a fundamental impact on the character of the EU and will bring nearer a deeper form of federalism that not so long ago was considered utopic.
Caught as we are in the press of parochial controversies which determine political activity in this country, these developments are not being given attention or considered important by our society. Or maybe we are not even aware of them?
***
HISTORICAL NOVEL
What is it that defines a historical novel as such, compared say to one that is “psychological”, “comic” or a novel “of manners”?
It is clear that there should be no problem to label as historical novels works written today about stories that deal with the times of the Romen Empire or the Middle Ages. Nor is there any problem in giving the same recognition to the novels of Walter Scott, Harrison Ainsworth or Ġuże Galea. But could a similar label apply to novels that feature say the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s? – when a definitive history of their “true” story... apart from the imagined stories that are set in those years... still needs to be written.
Have the ongoing rapid changes – among which social change – now picked up such a speed that a story about yesterday, could immediately as of today be labelled “historical”?
***
THE LOGIC OF WAR
There is a lot to say about what led to the war in the Ukraine. The unnecessary expansion of NATO towards the east of Europe was a major factor that “everybody” tries to fudge. The illegal invasion by Russia of the Ukraine by way of reaction lost for that country all legitimacy.
At present, NATO is participating in the war against Russia by letting the Ukraine run it while helping with the supply of ammunition and military equiprment, but without itself appearing to be at war with Russia. So, while supplying military material that the Kiev government needs to defend its country, at the same time it does not allow the use of such equipment on Russian territory.
Yet, many of the air attacks Russia carries out on the Ukraine are launched from deep inside Russian territory. Air strike against air strike, the Ukrainians have every reason to consider that they should have the right to mount their attacks on the sites from where they’re being attacked.