It is said that asking is a lawful activity and that answering is only a matter of courtesy, especially when the question is uncomfortable in terms of interests in the field. If so, we could say that this "war", formerly a Russian-Ukrainian "special military operation", has helped to reveal, in relations between the United States and the European Union, and despite the institutionalized alignment of the summit represented by Mario Draghi, a necessary as well as different vision on the future of the international order which, for the former, would focus on their undisputed power while, for the latter, it would crystallize on the sharing of international power between several powers on the basis of a "democratic" concept political management of relations?

On the geostrategic level, and tracing the question back to the articulations of the “democratic” dynamics, does it make sense for us Europeans to continue to support the American strategic “whim” aimed at carrying on, almost exasperating it, the tactic of containing Soviet power? Undeniably, any reflection on the specific aspects mentioned hardly seems to be able to disregard the existence of a principle of institutional pluralism common to both and which represents, on several occasions, and on several levels, the true and only obstacle (and fortunately we would say) to the affirmation of univocal and standardized decisions both internally and in mutual relations. And the circumstance can only translate into a different management of democratic power and autonomously considered "democracy" which, evidently and despite the attempts of our President of the Council of Ministers, does not lend itself (or rather, not theoretically, it should lend itself to “external” conditioning if not to the extent useful to allow its controlled and functional evolution to the interest of the team from which it originates.

Translated into a nutshell: what convenience, nowadays, in the frame of this hateful armed conflict, could the European Union portray from following "prone" and "reverent" the stars and stripes input? Evidently none. In the meantime, because the forthcoming and potential enlargement of the Union to the east, as well as the accession to NATO of Finland and Sweden, if on the one hand they serve to question the Franco-German axis, on the other hand they will help to strengthen, with good verisimilitude, the less critical positions towards American unilateralism, forcing us to survive "mutilated" on a democratic level in a friendly "deadly embrace". Therefore, because, unlike what many (and Mario Draghi himself first) seem to want to believe, the European Union, as an ontologically multilateral system, is by its very nature prudent with respect to the perverse mechanisms of the use of force, however surprisingly chosen and advocated in the specific case of the current conflict. Finally, because this geostrategic cultural diversity, unlikely to expand to the risk of cleavage, far from being taken to the extreme, represents the main element of interlocutory relational weakness which, in turn, contributes to making us succubus to an "external" war setting ”Which we are unable to resist due to a lack of autonomous and pluralist leadership. All the more so when this condition is functional to configure the European Union in terms of a pseudo-power with "planned obsolescence", as it is unable to find the liberal inspiration pursued by its founders in the democratic principles that should govern it.