Dear Ferenc,

The EU was not born the way most country are born.  It was born into a trouble and humiliated Europe after a war were all Europeans were loosers and Russia and the US were the winners.  Security was not part of the equation of the founding of the EU.  Nato is an military alliance consecrating the subjugation of western europe to the US economic and military domination.  It is not in the interest of the US master that the EU become a real federation that takes care of its own security.  It is not certain that the europeans really wants a stong EU federation.  There are many ways to conceive a secure Europe but it can only be conceived as part of an European project.  Right now this project is going down the drain and not against a very strong external threat.  ISIS is a very weak ennemy.  The refugees crisis is not an incredible challenge. But these small challenges show how weak is this EU giant and this demonstration is what is killing Europe.

 Dear Louis,

I do not share all your starting points, but share some of your conclusions.

I do not think that all Europe lost WW2, I do think that security was a key issue when the EU was founded. I do not necessarily agree that Europe is doomed to be subjugated to a US mastership. I agrre that a secure Europe needs to be a European project, but I do not think that a united Europe is necessarily better than a cooperative Europe, but on mutual recognition. I do not think the ISIS is very weak, but I agree that the crisis shows how weak Europe is.

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc,

I do see a united Europe as a cooperative Europe.  Another kind of political structure is necessary for getting to a cooperative Europe. Effectively security was not at all a key issue with EU when it was created given that this issue had been taken care by the NATO arrangements which were an americian dominion in the post WWII and its continuation into an east west cold war confrontation. But this context changed dramatically after the fall of the Berlin wall.  Nato expanded on the east side and EU expanded to the east and most importantly it adopted a common money.  That common money requires more economical coordination than the EU political structure can afforded.  The expansion of an american leaded NATO is being seen as a threat by Russia for good reasons and the conflct in Ukraine is a symptom of that.  The Baltic repuplics will have to be more reserved.  I think that Europe would be better off with getting rid of the NATO and of the american military presence and that it should turn with an kind of confederation including Russia federation, Ukraine.  I see the need of a central cooperation on the economic and the security where each state would count in proportion of its GDP.  What is currently more pressing on the security front is a EU secret service with specialized anti-terrorist unit.  Stopping ISIS recruitment using Internet should be easy to do.  Finding who pay and finance ISIS should be done.  The recent terrorist attact in Brussel could have been prevented if those going to the Jihad were properly monitored and put in jailed.  Terrorist recruitment and propaganda has to be made criminal act.  It is impossible to put a policeman at every possible target.  Fighting terrorist has to start by stopping recruitment, tracking the source and fighting the source.  In the long run a strategy of stabilisation of the whole middle east.  If Europe could create a successfull working confederation then why not all the middle east countries, including Turkey and northern african countries.  Ultimatly security can only be provided by order and prosperity for all.

If, as Hegel said, philosophy is the comprehension of what is, involving both theory and praxis, then, definitely, because the otherwise would be incomprehensible for Europe, as well as for other states/groupings. I am sure the philosophy exists, but the theory of it might be misguided (that is, the understanding of cause and effect), for that reason, the practice would be misguided to some degree, as well.

The question above refers to the new security situation in Europe due to what is going on in Syria, Iraq and certain parts of North Africa (and most likely elsewhere). Then what is needed is to dissect Europe's response to the historical development of the Syrian crisis, which is the embodiment of all that is called the Arab Spring.

Europe (EU)'s most stressing problem is that it is not fully sovereign in terms of policy-making in global security matters. Oftentimes, the EU is simply an extension of the US foreign policy within the Transatlantic alliance. This is very much simialr to the situation of the likes in East Asia -- Japan and South Korea. With respect to Syria, European countries lined up to enlist the US "freedom project" in Syria, despite warnings from Russia and China, and endorsed fully the Islamic Brotherhoodization of whatever authoritarian secular governments in the Levant. Never for once a major European leader asked the dialectical question: "Why have not the democratization never take place in the theocratic authoritarian Gulf? And, why in all of the countries hit by the Arab Spring, a derivative of Muslim Brotherhood got the powers?"

Much could be said on this, including Europe's haste to hunt down Gaddafi, whose fall turned the country into an ISIS-AQ recruitment heaven. I would predict that what has happened is simply a tip of what has yet to come. Europe might as well turn to the politics of the 1930s-40s. There is only a thin line between securitization and fascism.

It is unfortunate to say that Europe played a secondary role in creating the problems it faces today, by, first, subscribing to the US policies in the region and, second, as with France and Italy in Libya, suddenly remembering and longing for its colonial past. So, a good philosophy of security for Europe would start by seriously evaluating the defects in the theory which led to misguided policies.

Dear all, since full security is impossible at this point, people must be made to "feel secure". The myth of security must take root in the minds of all citizens. The truth is attacks can come from anywhere and anyone, justified or not, deliberate or capricious, sane or insane. The reasons for terror are not clear, and probably no reason is needed. That is why "terror" is the word that "security" cannot erase. Terror is random while security is a "plan". Can there be a plan to curtail randomness? 

Best regards, Lilliana

The current situation has its underpinnings in the long trail left by history. Nonetheless, what has changed is that globalization, coupled with ease of communication through the Internet has brought closer conflicting ideals that were previously isolated. The problem is exacerbated by political polarization and misunderstanding the background of radical movements. Polarization will only cause the "us against them" phenomena which feeds radical movement. Every misinformed decision will only bring escalation and power to radical thought. It is also necessary to realize that any policy will not satisfy all different points of view.

While complete security is impossible as Lilliana has pointed out (secure the airport and spend a fortune and they will target power plants, etc.), we can do better through proper intelligence gathering (which currently leaves much to be desired).

I think the basics of sound security practices and philosophy are well established, it is in the implementation which we fall short.

My two cents