The words mutuality and
cooperation have positive connotations politically, whereas divisive and
exclusive do not. To be sure, mutual cooperation has the drawback of
relegating competitiveness, which can foster greater efficiency and effectiveness.
In the policy domain of defense, however, wherein nuclear weapons live,
competition between weaponized polities can be dangerous and thus not worth any
improvements from competing. The Cold War in the twentieth century attests to
the superiority of mutuality and cooperation at the international
theatre wherein polities act as sovereign militarized entities. Within a
federal Union, however, relying on the mutual cooperation between states is, I
contend, woefully deficient and inadequate. In fact, relying on states to assume
the burden of defense can lead to the violent break up of a Union, as was
dramatically demonstrated in what some Americans have called the War between
the States (1861-1865), but is more accurately called the war between the
U.S.A. and the C.S.A.(the Confederate States of America). Two political unions
of very different balances of power between the respective federal and state
levels of governance. It is precisely with this historical example in mind that
the comments made by E.U. (Commission) President Von der Leyen at the Munich
Security Conference in February, 2026 should be analyzed. Relying in going
forward from that time on the E.U. states to build up their respective military
forces, or militias in American-speak, under the assumption that those states
would mutually cooperate military is a very risky strategy for the E.U. at a
time in which its cousin across the Atlantic Ocean was pulling back from Europe
in terms of military protection.
The full essay is at "Mutual Cooperation as Insufficient as E.U. Defense Policy."
