The intentions of the new president of the European Commission

The new President of the European Commission has made known her idea of ​​the Union and the nature of the relations that the institutions of Brussels must have about the major issues that have influenced European life and that will be central in the near future. In terms of foreign policy there are two central issues: the exit of the United Kingdom and relations with Russia; while on the first topic Brussels, even with the new leadership, does not seem willing to retreat from the concessions made to the English, on the problem of relations with Russia, the attitude starts from a general availability, as it is recognized as Moscow is a neighboring country , with which it is impossible not to have relationships, but, at the same time, it is considered fundamental, for Europe to present itself in the most cohesive manner possible, that is precisely the opposite of what is desired by Russia. For Moscow, but also for Washington, a divided Europe is preferable, which allows to deal with the single states, that is, weaker subjects than a Union that presents itself as a single subject. The Kremlin's policy was to divide the Union also with unlawful means, towards which the most efficient response could be represented by European freedoms understood as press freedom as a means to publicly denounce the wrong actions of other states. This interpretation seems, however, only a starting point, beyond which concrete structures can exist, such as the common European defense, capable of providing faster reactions even to unconventional attacks. Russia seems to be represented as a real danger, precisely because its objectives are in open contrast with the European ones. The caution of the new president in her relations with Moscow favors a diplomatic approach, but from a strength, which consists, in addition to the unity of European intent, in its economic strength, which should allow a relationship from a position of strength. This approach seems to be typically German, with an exaggerated view of economic importance in the context of international relations. Certainly economic power is increasingly an important factor, in the globalized scenario, but other characteristics are needed to take on a role of primary importance in diplomatic theater. The idea of ​​a common European force is an ambitious goal, which is within reach, but we also need a common foreign policy, which can only be achieved with the ability to convince sovereign states of a progressive cession of sovereignty in policy choices foreign and on this level the Union is still behind. The other issue capable of tearing the European political fabric is represented by immigration and its flows, which have provoked the resentment of the peoples of southern Europe towards the Brussels institutions. The general assurances of a protection of the Schengen treaty cannot surely be enough, which must take place through the respect of the Dublin treaty, which is precisely the cause that allows the northern and eastern European states to refuse refugee quotas. To emphasize that it is necessary to save people at sea is to pronounce an obviousness, it is different to propose solutions such as that of undertaking an aid program directly in African countries, but this intention is feasible only in the long term, while for the short-term contingent solutions are needed, which they make it possible to alleviate migratory pressure and, at the same time, restore confidence in Brussels. The will, which seems to emerge, not to sanction those who do not adhere to the quota of refugees, in contravention of European directives, seems to be functional to German interests, rather than to European ones: if this were the case the contradiction would reveal a Berlin maneuver to use once again the Union for your purposes. In this regard it will be interesting to see what the new president's real attitude to financial and budgetary rigidity will be in Germany, which has forced all other members into the past European legislature.