P’tit Tôlier "Essayist & popularizer. I analyze the world through accessible philosophical essays. Complex ideas, explained simply—to help us reflect on our times."
Is the European Union redefining itself, or is it simply getting lost in an arms race beyond its control?
We are at a turning point: Europe is shifting toward a more military, more strategic political project… yet paradoxically, it remains just as dependent as before. €800 billion has been allocated to rearmament without real democratic debate, and a significant portion of this budget will go directly to American industries.
Few media outlets address this head-on: is this massive militarization pushing Europe toward a security-driven identity at the expense of its democratic and social principles?
- The Paradox of Sovereignty
Europe wants to protect itself, but how can we talk about sovereignty when our weapons come from across the Atlantic? As JĂĽrgen Habermas pointed out, the EU was built on technocratic governance, often disconnected from democratic debate. This decision is a clear illustration of that: European citizens had no say in it.
- War as a Political Project?
Carl Schmitt reminds us that states define themselves by designating an enemy. Today, Russia plays that role for the EU, justifying massive militarization. But can a political entity define itself solely through opposition to an external threat?
History shows that great powers emerge through inclusive strategic choices, not just through fear and military escalation. By reinforcing an opaque security model, Europe risks drifting away from its founding ideals.
- Europe in a Permanent State of Exception?
In State of Exception, Giorgio Agamben explains how crises are used to extend emergency policies. One might think that Europe is building an independent defense force, but in reality, it is institutionalizing fear as a development strategy.
Does this militarization truly protect us, or does it lock us into an escalating cycle of tensions?
Far from being a step toward independence, this massive arms buildup rests on three illusions:
- The illusion of sovereignty → By funding our dependence on the U.S., we are not gaining autonomy.
- The illusion of democratic legitimacy → No public consultation, no meaningful debate.
- The illusion of peace through strength → More weapons have never guaranteed long-term stability.
So, does Europe genuinely aspire to be an independent power, or is it content to serve as NATO’s strategic outpost on the continent?
I explore this transformation in my latest article on Medium:
The Illusion of Security: Is Europe Investing in the Wrong Priorities?
The European Union is entering a new phase
With €800 billion allocated to military spending, we are witnessing one of the most significant shifts in security policy in decades. The justification? Geopolitical threats—Russia, China, and the uncertainty of U.S. commitments.
But is this truly the best way to ensure Europe’s long-term security?
For centuries, the dominant belief has been that military strength guarantees stability. From Hobbes to Clausewitz, security has been framed as a question of power—who has the largest arsenal, the strongest deterrence, the most advanced defense systems. This thinking has shaped modern nation-states, leading to massive defense investments at the expense of other critical priorities.
Yet history tells a different story. Militarization has often led to arms races, heightened tensions, and prolonged instability, rather than genuine safety. Michel Foucault analyzed how states use the rhetoric of constant threats to justify increased control, surveillance, and military budgets. Judith Butler warned that a society obsessed with its own protection often creates vulnerabilities by ignoring deeper systemic risks.
And today, those risks are clearer than ever.
Are We Addressing the Right Threats?
Look at the crises that have actually disrupted societies in the last two decades:
The 2008 financial collapse
The COVID-19 pandemic
Climate disasters leading to mass displacement
Energy crises and food insecurity
None of these were military conflicts, yet they destabilized economies, eroded public trust, and triggered social unrest.
Meanwhile, Europe continues to spend 15 times more on defense than on climate resilience, healthcare, or economic stability. Philosopher Bruno Latour argued that climate change is the biggest security crisis of the 21st century. And yet, it remains a secondary concern in EU spending priorities.
Security should not be about reacting to threats with force but about building resilience before crises unfold.
Rethinking Security for the 21st Century
Military investments are necessary—but are they the solution to every threat?
Security should mean food stability, access to healthcare, sustainable energy, and economic opportunities. It should mean a strong social contract, democratic participation, and long-term resilience.
As Slavoj Žižek puts it: “Real courage today is not preparing for war, but imagining an alternative.”
With €800 billion at stake, we are making a choice about Europe’s future.
The question is: Are we investing in the right kind of security?
Commission of an €800 billion rearmament plan, dubbed "ReArm Europe," has sparked intense debates within our community. This plan, unveiled by President Ursula von der Leyen on March 4, 2025, aims to strengthen the European Union's defence capabilities in response to growing geopolitical threats, particularly due to the situation in Ukraine and uncertainties regarding U.S. military support.
This ambitious plan comprises several components:
1. Suspension of EU budgetary rules to allow member states to increase their defence spending without breaching budget deficit constraints.
2. Provision of €150 billion in loans to accelerate joint procurement of European defence equipment.
3. Reallocation of existing funds towards defence investments.
4. Involvement of the European Investment Bank in financing defence-related projects.
5. Mobilisation of private capital to support the defence sector.
However, a fundamental question arises: Is this colossal investment the best possible use of the European Union's resources? Would it not be more prudent to reinvest a substantial portion of these funds in strengthening the European social contract?
Reinvesting in a European Social Contract
The social contract, a central concept in political philosophy, refers to the implicit agreement among members of a society concerning each individual's rights and duties, as well as the principles of justice that govern their coexistence. In the European context, this social contract is based on values such as solidarity, equality, and social justice. In recent decades, these values have been severely tested by austerity policies, growing inequalities, and an erosion of citizens' trust in European institutions.
Contemporary philosopher JĂĽrgen Habermas has significantly contributed to the reflection on deliberative democracy and the European public sphere. He emphasizes the importance of active citizen participation in decision-making processes and the need to strengthen democratic structures to ensure the legitimacy of institutions. From this perspective, investing in the European social contract means not only improving citizens' material conditions but also promoting their civic engagement and sense of belonging to a common political community.
Allocating a portion of the €800 billion to initiatives aimed at strengthening the European social contract could take several forms:
Strengthening social protection systems:
Social and economic inequalities have intensified within the European Union, exacerbated by successive crises. Investing in robust social protection systems would ensure economic security for citizens, reduce disparities, and strengthen social cohesion. As sociologist Wolfgang Streeck points out, the legitimacy of democratic institutions largely depends on their ability to ensure the well-being of their citizens.
Promoting education and training:
In a globalized and constantly evolving economy, education is an essential lever for individual empowerment and collective development. Funding inclusive and accessible educational programs would equip citizens with the skills necessary to adapt to contemporary challenges. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum emphasizes the importance of education for the development of human capabilities and the achievement of social justice.
Enhancing democratic participation:
The perceived distance between European institutions and citizens is a recurring problem. Investing in mechanisms that promote active citizen participation in decision-making processes, such as citizens' assemblies or public consultations, would strengthen the European Union's democratic legitimacy. Habermas underscores that deliberative democracy requires public spaces where citizens can debate and influence political decisions.
Promoting environmental justice:
Current ecological challenges require a collective and solidarity-based response. Investing in equitable environmental policies would ensure that the ecological transition benefits all citizens, especially the most vulnerable. Philosopher Bruno Latour advocates for considering environmental issues in redefining the social contract, integrating nature as a full-fledged actor.
By redirecting a portion of the funds intended for rearmament towards these areas, the European Union could strengthen its social contract, restore citizens' trust, and promote a more just and solidarity-based society. This does not mean neglecting security issues but rather adopting a holistic approach that recognizes that human security also encompasses social, economic, and environmental well-being.
Philosopher Amartya Sen, with his "capabilities" theory, reminds us that human development is not only measured by economic indicators but by individuals' ability to realize their potential and lead the lives they desire. Thus, investing in the European social contract would be an investment in each citizen's capabilities, thereby strengthening the Union's resilience and cohesion.
The decision to invest €800 billion in Europe's rearmament raises fundamental questions about the European Union's priorities. While security is undeniably a legitimate concern, it is essential to ask whether an approach focused on military strengthening is the most appropriate response to current challenges. By reinvesting a portion of these funds in the European social contract, the Union could not only improve its citizens' well-being but also strengthen its democratic legitimacy and social cohesion. As philosopher Nancy Fraser points out, social justice requires a redistribution of resources, recognition of identities, and equitable participation in decision-making processes. It is therefore crucial to engage in a collective reflection on how these €800 billion can be used to build a more just, solidarity-based, and resilient Europe.
In the upcoming parts of this series, we will explore how proactive diplomacy and economic recovery focused on investment in infrastructure and the green transition can contribute to Europe's security and prosperity.
Six Articles on Europe's Future: Between Peace, Power, and Strategy
Europe stands at a crossroads. Between strategic dependence and a quest for autonomy, between military escalation and diplomatic resilience. What choices are truly available?
In my latest six articles, I explore:
- The growing tensions shaping Europe's global role
- The impossible dilemmas of security vs. sovereignty
- Why peace is a choice, not a utopia
- How Europe is caught between major power struggles
- The myths that paralyze its ability to act
- Vivalism: A geopolitical strategy beyond war or submission
This is not just about theory—it's about real choices that will shape Europe's future.
For decades, Europe has been oscillating between dependency and disillusionment, caught in a cycle where the only perceived choices are militarization or resignation. The dominant discourse pushes a binary narrative: either align with major powers or accept irrelevance. But what if there were another way?
Too often, we assume that:
- Europe can no longer build alliances due to its colonial past.
- Its industry is permanently lost after decades of relocation.
- Its social model is doomed under ideological pressure.
These beliefs paralyze action. They fuel a sense of powerlessness, reinforcing either submission to external forces or aggressive nationalism. But what if they were myths rather than irreversible truths?
Strategic resilience—a "vivalism" applied to geopolitics—proposes an alternative. Not passive isolation, not blind militarization, but a third path:
- Rebuilding alliances with a fresh perspective, instead of dwelling on historical guilt.
- Rethinking industry, not by recreating outdated models but by leveraging innovation and localization.
- Defending social values as an evolving framework rather than a relic of the past.
Europe’s future shouldn’t be dictated by fear. It’s time to shape history, not just endure it.
Defamation isn’t just about lies—it’s about power. Throughout history, words have been weaponized to discredit opponents, shape public perception, and manipulate the truth. Whether through political smear campaigns, corporate rivalries, or viral social media scandals, defamation operates at the intersection of influence and deception.
In today’s digital age, false narratives spread faster than ever. A single rumor can destroy reputations, polarize societies, and erode trust in institutions before the truth even has a chance to surface. But where do we draw the line between criticism and defamation? Is it just an inevitable side effect of free speech, or a deliberate tool of manipulation?
This article explores:
- The historical roots of defamation as a tool of power
- The strategies behind character attacks and misinformation
- The philosophical dilemma between truth, freedom, and ethics
- How defamation thrives in the digital age—and what it means for democracy
Is defamation simply part of politics and public discourse, or does it reveal a deeper crisis in how we consume and trust information?
I have a deep appreciation for independent media, especially outlets like Fumaça and Gerador, which shed light on stories that often go unnoticed. Recently, Fumaça highlighted a powerful article from Gerador:
The article reveals a silent crisis: local media archives are disappearing due to chronic underfunding, lack of digitization, and institutional neglect. These archives—often the only record of small-town history—are being lost forever.
But does that really matter? Absolutely.
When archives vanish, so do decades of political history, community struggles, and cultural evolution. The press is not just a source of daily news—it is a long-term record of society. If we erase the past, we erase accountability, public memory, and historical truth.
- What happens when we can no longer trace political promises?
- What happens when local corruption leaves no trace?
- What happens when community victories are forgotten?
The answer is simple: history is rewritten to serve those in power.
I have written a detailed breakdown of the article, summarizing its key points to make the topic more accessible. If you care about press freedom, knowledge preservation, and historical accountability, this is a conversation worth having.
Read my full article on Medium
Photography by Donald wu, Resplash
And if you’re interested in going even deeper, stay tuned for my next piece, where I explore the philosophical and democratic implications of lost media archives.
Defamation isn’t just about lies—it’s about power. Throughout history, words have been weaponized to discredit opponents, shape public perception, and manipulate the truth. Whether through political smear campaigns, corporate rivalries, or viral social media scandals, defamation operates at the intersection of influence and deception.
In today’s digital age, false narratives spread faster than ever. A single rumor can destroy reputations, polarize societies, and erode trust in institutions before the truth even has a chance to surface. But where do we draw the line between criticism and defamation? Is it just an inevitable side effect of free speech, or a deliberate tool of manipulation?
This article explores:
- The historical roots of defamation as a tool of power
- The strategies behind character attacks and misinformation
- The philosophical dilemma between truth, freedom, and ethics
- How defamation thrives in the digital age—and what it means for democracy
Is defamation simply part of politics and public discourse, or does it reveal a deeper crisis in how we consume and trust information?
The data, which disappeared from Agriculture Department sites in recent weeks, was useful to farmers for business planning, the lawsuit said
Excerpt from this New York Times story:
Organic farmers and environmental groups sued the Agriculture Department on Monday over its scrubbing of references to climate change from its website.
The department had ordered staff to take down pages focused on climate change on Jan. 30, according to the suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Within hours, it said, information started disappearing.
That included websites containing data sets, interactive tools and funding information that farmers and researchers relied on for planning and adaptation projects, according to the lawsuit.
At the same time, the department also froze funding that had been promised to businesses and nonprofits through conservation and climate programs. The purge then “removed critical information about these programs from the public record, denying farmers access to resources they need to advocate for funds they are owed,” it said.
The Agriculture Department referred questions about the lawsuit to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The suit was filed by lawyers from Earthjustice, based in San Francisco, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, on behalf of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, based in Binghamton; the Natural Resources Defense Council, based in New York; and the Environmental Working Group, based in Washington. The latter two groups relied on the department website for their research and advocacy, the lawsuit said.
Peter Lehner, a lawyer for Earthjustice, said the pages being purged were crucial for farmers facing risks linked to climate change, including heat waves, droughts, floods, extreme weather and wildfires. The websites had contained information about how to mitigate dangers and adopt new agricultural techniques and strategies. Long-term weather data and trends are valuable in the agriculture industry for planning, research and business strategy.
“You can purge a website of the words climate change, but that doesn’t mean climate change goes away,” Mr. Lehner said.
The sites under the department’s umbrella include those of the Forest Service, which is responsible for stewardship of forests and grasslands; the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which helps landowners implement conservation practices; and those of other divisions focused on farms and ranches, disaster recovery and rural development.
The directive to delete the pages came by email from Peter Rhee, the department’s director of digital communications, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs allege the actions violated three federal laws and were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” They asked the court to compel the agency to restore the pages and to block it from deleting any others.
Wes Gillingham, president of the board of Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, said that farmers were just heading into planning for the summer growing season. He said taking information down because of a “political agenda about climate change” was senseless.
Europe at a Crossroads: Between Dependence and Strategic Independence
Europe has spent decades relying on soft power, diplomacy, and transatlantic alliances to ensure peace and stability. But today, that balance is cracking.
The recent meeting between Macron and Trump at the White House was more than just a political encounter—it was a wake-up call.
- Trump’s rhetoric on NATO shows that US support is not guaranteed.
- The war in Ukraine has exposed Europe’s military vulnerability.
- Strategic autonomy remains an unfulfilled promise, not a reality.
For decades, Europe played the role of mediator, positioning itself between global superpowers. But can it continue to do so without real strategic influence?
The EU now faces an impossible choice:
- Continue as a diplomatic power, risking irrelevance.
- Invest in a stronger military, without becoming a secondhand replica of the US or Russia.
- OR find a new, third way—a vision where power is built through resilience, stability, and influence, rather than domination.
The problem? Right now, Europe lacks:
- A unified military strategy beyond NATO.
- A coherent foreign policy without internal divisions.
- The economic leverage to compete with the US or China.
So, what’s the path forward? Can the EU shape its own destiny, or is it doomed to remain a strategic satellite?
In my latest analysis, I explore these questions in depth. Read the full breakdown here:
Photography by Ivan Aleksic, Resplash
"Want more in-depth analysis on Europe's strategic challenges? Follow my latest articles on Medium, where I break down current events with a sharp, critical perspective. Join the conversation and explore what the future holds for Europe’s global influence."
Macron challenges Trump on NATO: What does it mean for Europe?
During their latest meeting, Trump exaggerated, Macron corrected him. But behind this diplomatic exchange lies a deeper issue: Europe’s fragile strategic autonomy.
Maria Stenroos’s article on Yle ("Macron keskeytti ja korjasi Trumpia, joka liioitteli tahallaan", Feb 25, 2025) highlights Europe’s struggle to maintain influence between a volatile US and an aggressive Russia.
Ylen uutiset aiheesta ”Kansainvälinen politiikka” nopeasti ja luotettavasti.
Can the EU shape its own future, or will it remain a strategic satellite?
Eugenics is often seen as a dark relic of the past—linked to racist policies and forced sterilization. But what if a new, subtler form of eugenics is quietly taking shape in Silicon Valley?
Not through explicit genetic selection, but through an ideology that glorifies optimization, intelligence, and high performance as the only measures of human worth. Social Darwinism, once discredited, is being repackaged in the language of innovation and progress.
Who gets to shape the future?
Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and other tech leaders present themselves as visionaries, architects of a better tomorrow. But their worldview shares a troubling core belief: only the most capable, the most intelligent, the most "enhanced" deserve to thrive.
Peter Thiel openly criticizes democracy, arguing that "freedom" thrives only under the rule of an enlightened few. Musk speaks of biological enhancement and space colonization as essential to humanity’s survival. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley startups pour billions into genetic engineering, AI-driven talent selection, and life extension—but who will have access to these advancements?
The Rise of Economic Eugenics
This is not traditional racial eugenics, but an economic form of selection where only the "most productive" individuals matter. Tech moguls advocate for skilled migration policies—not for the sake of inclusion, but to extract the best and discard the rest.
Medical research funding follows the same logic: rare diseases get sidelined because they aren't "profitable," while cognitive enhancement and biohacking attract massive investments. In a world where resources are limited, who gets to decide who is worth saving?
A Dangerous Future
This ideology is no longer confined to Silicon Valley. It has echoes in political movements that prioritize the strong over the vulnerable, cutting social aid and shifting towards a ruthless meritocracy.
If we continue down this path, we risk creating a world where only the optimized, the efficient, and the wealthy are deemed worthy of survival.
How do we resist this shift?
The real challenge isn’t just technological; it’s ethical. Do we accept a society where only the strongest thrive, or do we fight for a future that values all of humanity—including its fragility?
Read “Part 3 – Building Peace: A Choice, Not a Utopia“ by P'tit Tolier on Medium: https://medium.com/@ptit.tolier/part-3-building-peace-a-choice-not-a-utopia-dbc040312259
Read “Capitalism vs. Democracy: A Fundamental Contradiction?“ by P'tit Tolier on Medium: https://medium.com/@ptit.tolier/capitalism-vs-democracy-a-fundamental-contradiction-f8b99f363bc9
"Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to manage it by other means." — Johan Galtung
Europe has long treated peace as an assumed reality, something guaranteed by treaties, diplomacy, and economic interdependence. But in a world where power dynamics shift rapidly, can peace be sustained without a solid strategic foundation?
2025 has already shattered many illusions:
- Trump and Putin are negotiating a peace in Ukraine—without Europe at the table. If the continent is excluded from discussions on its own security, can it still be considered a major geopolitical player?
The U.S. is eyeing Greenland, a move that could create a second front of crisis, forcing NATO to confront an unprecedented dilemma: What happens when its strongest member becomes unpredictable?
- Europe, caught between these forces, faces a choice: remain a passive spectator or take concrete steps to secure its long-term stability.
Building Peace: A Question of Strategy, Not Hope
Peace has never been a natural state of the world. It is not simply the absence of war, but the result of deliberate action. Every lasting peace—Westphalia (1648), Versailles (1919), Yalta (1945)—was achieved not through idealism, but through a balance of power, deterrence, and cooperation.
Yet today, Europe risks confusing pacifism with passivity.
It has neglected its military and energy sovereignty.
It has assumed treaties and institutions alone would maintain stability.
It has relied on alliances that may no longer serve its best interests.
But peace is not something we inherit—it is something we build.
Five Key Actions for a Sustainable Peace
If war is often triggered by imbalance, then peace depends on Europe’s ability to prevent those imbalances. This does not mean militarization, but rather creating conditions where war is no longer in anyone’s interest.
- Strengthening Strategic Autonomy – A unified European defense, standardized infrastructure, and a robust cybersecurity strategy
- Expanding Independent Diplomatic Alliances – Engaging with non-aligned powers (India, Japan, Brazil) and reducing dependency on Washington and Beijing
- Achieving Economic Sovereignty – Securing critical resources, reducing energy dependence, and investing in European defense and technology industries.
- Deploying Proactive Diplomacy – Encouraging early conflict mediation and fostering cultural and scientific cooperation to build long-term stability.
- Strengthening International Law – Reinforcing the credibility of institutions like the UN and the EU in global conflict resolution.
These are not alternatives to military defense but preemptive measures to prevent crises before they escalate into wars.
The Real Question: Can Europe Be a Credible Force for Peace?
"The tightrope walker doesn’t fall because they move, but because they stop."
Europe is at a crossroads. It can take responsibility for its own security—not to wage war, but to prevent it—or it can continue relying on external powers, hoping they will protect its interests.
So, what does peace really mean in the 21st century?
Can a continent that depends on others for defense truly shape its own future?
Is NATO still a safeguard for stability, or is it becoming an outdated framework for European security
Should Europe build a new peace strategy, rooted in strategic sovereignty rather than passive diplomacy?
Full article: How Europe Can Build Peace Without Falling
