Speaking after his meeting
with U.S. President Trump in Alaska during the summer of 2025, Russia’s
President Putin said that if no agreement is reached with Ukraine, the force of
arms would decide the matter. In other words, might makes right, or at least
military incursion is a legitimate way to decide political disputes between
countries. I would have hoped that such a primitive mentality would be
antiquated in the twentieth century, but, alas, human nature evolves only at a
glacial pace undetected within the lifespan of a human being. In September,
2025, the United Nations was under attack from within the General Assembly because
of the continuance of the veto held by five countries in the Security Council;
the U.S. had just vetoed a resolution for an immediate cession of Israeli
destruction in Gaza. As a former deputy secretary of the UN had admitted to me
during the fall of 2024, the veto itself renders the UN unreformable; a new
international organization would have to be established sans vetoes for
efficacy to be possible. Even so, absent a real enforcement mechanism, such as
a military force, a resolution even of a vetoless organization would merely be
parchment. The impotence of the UN is one reason why NATO, a defensive military
transatlantic alliance, has been valuable in the face of military threats by
Russia. Yet in September 2025, after Russian drones had flown into four E.U.
states, E.U. President Von der Leyen felt the need to take the lead by again stressing
her proposal for a drone wall along the E.U.’s eastern border; she was not
deferring to any international alliance, much less to the United Nations. I
submit that Von der Leyen’s initiative is yet another means by which the E.U.
can be distinguished from international “blocs,” alliances, and organizations. Unlike
the latter three, the E.U. has exclusive competencies and is thus
semi-sovereign (and the same goes for the state governments).
The full essay is at "A Drone Wall for the E.U."
