This text belongs to ‘Penínsulas’, the newsletter that Enric Juliana sends to the readers of ‘La Vanguardia’ every Tuesday. If you want to receive it, sign up here.
Two years ago, a few days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I saw again the two installments of Ivan the Terrible, a famous diptych by Sergei Eisenstein about the first prince of Moscow who was crowned tsar of all the Russias. I have to admit that when I was young I was a little bored with expressionist cinema. That sounds sacrilege. I also confess that I have redeemed myself. I rediscovered Ivan the Terrible with real enthusiasm. A masterpiece. Three hours that summarize all the deep keys to power in Russia. The new tsar’s obsessive struggle to create a strong central power capable of keeping the boyars (nobility) in check, stopping the powerful Orthodox Church and expanding the borders to the east and west, against the Tatars of Kazan and Astrakhan, against Poles, Livonians and Swedes in the Baltic. The internal enemy and the external enemies. The authority of the tsar above all things, the unification of the Russian lands as a sacred objective and cruelty as a weapon of deterrence. The first embryo of political police in Russia: the Oprichniks, a fearsome group of men dressed in black who spread terror wherever the tsar orders. And finally, paranoia. The final delirium of an absolute power that feels in danger day and night, due to internal conspiracies and the need to defend thousands and thousands of kilometers of border.
Ivan the Terrible is a truly exceptional work, even more so if we consider the historical circumstances in which it was created. The first part, filmed between 1942 and 1944, in the middle of the world war, is a hymn to the strong nation, which Stalin liked very much. The second part, subtitled The Boyars’ Conspiracy, was filmed between 1944 and 1946 and shows the self-absorption and tyranny of the Tsar, captured by a terrible paranoia. Stalin did not like it at all and banned its exhibition. They tried to film a third part, which was never completed because its footage was confiscated and much of it destroyed. In addition to being a master of montage, Eisenstein proved to be a brave man. Ivan the Terrible explains how building strong, centralized, and stable power in the greatest country on earth can lead to tyranny and madness.
Eisenstein’s biography also shows us the rich cultural complexity of the Russian world in the first part of the 20th century. The great filmmaker was born in Latvia (the former Livonia), to a Jewish father and an Orthodox Russian mother. His father was a famous modernist architect from Riga. Educated in a middle-class family with high artistic sensitivity, he became the most efficient narrator of the revolutionary movement, but he was also the filmmaker who, at the peak of his stardom, dared to explain the paranoia of power. I don’t think Vladimir Putin really likes the second part of Ivan the Terrible. He and his FSB oprichniks also appear reflected in the film. He, too, wanted to keep the boyars (oligarchs) at bay and widen the borders (Ukraine). He also does not hesitate to order the murder of his enemies. Unlike Tsar Ivan, Tsar Putin gets along well with the Russian Orthodox Church.
I feel like watching that film again due to the sudden appearance of expressionism in European discourse. We see again these days close-ups that announce a possible and inevitable tragedy. As you may have observed, an opinion campaign is being launched that tries to convince us of the imminence of a war between Europe and Russia. Prominent political leaders, such as the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, or the president of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, have explicitly referred to this possibility in recent days. Macron is the one who has gone the furthest, hinting at sending European troops to the war in Ukraine to prevent the military collapse of the Kiyv government.
Some objective facts frame that campaign. The failure of the Ukrainian military counteroffensive – presented a year ago with overly triumphalist tones – and the position of strength acquired by Russia, due to its capacity for resistance on the battlefield, due to the emergence of the Gaza conflict, and due to the possibilities of that Donald Trump reconquers the presidency of the United States with an isolationist program. The international scenario has changed in a few months. Let us remember that less than a year ago, when the Wagner brigade revolt occurred in June 2023, the Russian regime seemed to be on the ropes. Question: What should Europe do if Trump wins and ignores Ukraine?
First, there were some very sensible reflections on how Europe should react to a new triumph of isolationism in the United States. “Europe must prepare for Trump.” This is the thesis defended by the former Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Arancha González Laya, current director of the Paris School of International Studies, in an interesting interview published by La Vanguardia a couple of weeks ago. González Laya is co-author of a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine that goes in that same direction. After a few days, the former Minister of Economy and current president of the European Investment Bank, Nadia Calviño, spoke along the same lines: Europe must spend more on weapons.
The Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa also spoke about the defense budget, fifteen days ago in the interview he gave to our newspaper. It was an interview that had a notable impact in Portugal, since Costa has not made many statements to the press since he resigned last November when he learned that he was being investigated by the Attorney General’s Office for an alleged case of corruption, investigation which has not yet resulted in any accusation. I asked the socialist Costa, who could aspire to a high European position in a few months, how the population was going to be made aware of the need for greater military spending in the current situation of social crisis. He was silent for a moment – ??he is usually a politician who is very quick to respond – and he answered me that if investments were directed to the European military industry, this could translate into jobs and social consensus. I suggest you pay attention to the Portuguese legislative elections next Sunday.
Given the avalanche of weapons messages in recent weeks, it is worth asking if another route is not being chosen: alarming the population to gain consensus on greater military spending. It is one thing to reflect on the autonomy of the European Union with respect to the United States in the face of a possible return of Trump and another to scare people with the possibility of a war that could have catastrophic consequences. “Threatening to send European soldiers to Ukraine is barbaric and a violation of the principle of non-belligerency. Breaking that principle would lead us to a conflict that could be classified as World War III.” Words from the Spanish diplomat Jorge Dezcallar, last Sunday in an interview with Diario de Mallorca. Ambassador Dezcallar was director of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) during the mandate of José María Aznar, being marginalized from the investigation of the attacks of March 11, 2004 because they did not trust his independence of judgment. Dezcallar’s reflections on the events of 11M are essential reading when twenty years have passed since the bombs on the trains.
What did the French president mean when he hinted last week at a possible sending of European troops to Ukraine? Macron always likes to appear as the man who sets the tone, compared to the discursive prudence of the Germans. There is no French president without Napoleonic tones, but these statements also contain internal keys. Macron is trying to put the National Rally (formerly the National Front) on the ropes, which for years has received financial aid from Russia. Lluis Uría, deputy director of La Vanguardia, which has just launched the weekly newsletter ‘Europa’, shares this opinion. He recommends that you subscribe to ‘Europe’.
When reading Macron’s statements, I could not help but remember some incisive words from the French ambassador in Madrid in 2009, at the beginning of the last economic crisis, during a meal with a group of journalists: “The coming crisis can bring us serious social and territorial tensions. The best option for Europe would be rapprochement with Russia, a Europe associated with Russia, with a cost that perhaps there would be no choice but to pay: letting the Russians control Ukraine.” France was presided over by Nicolas Sarkozy.
Rearm, rearm. There is a campaign underway that contains various elements: a surely necessary reflection on European policy in the face of a possible Trump victory in the United States, a call for attention about the war in Ukraine, overshadowed by the terrible events in Gaza, the desire to provoke a public discussion about defense spending and a possible strategy to neutralize the most pro-Russian far-right forces.
Rearm, rearm. The European backdrop is changing and may catch the main Spanish political forces at a different pace. The parliamentary majority that inaugurated Pedro Sánchez last November will vote together on the amnesty law, on which an agreement seems imminent, but would not remain united on the arms axis. A budget debate with military spending as a cardinal point could leave the PSOE in a minority. At the same time, since the tragic events of 2004, the Popular Party has been cultivating an obvious allergy to any speech that can be described as warmongering. Aznar’s successors, Mariano Rajoy and Alberto Núñez Feijóo, present at least one trait in common: they do not like international politics. In Spain, expressionism goes in other directions.
I recommend it, dedicate three hours to Ivan the Terrible.
