In the twentieth century, people died for their country or their freedom. Or at least, that's what they thought.
In World War I, millions of young men marched to their deaths believing they were defending national honor. In reality, many didn't even know why they were fighting. But the rhetoric sustained them: homeland, family, civilization.
In World War II, ideals became clearer: freedom versus totalitarianism, civilization versus barbarism. Even fascists and Nazis (absolutely not to be confused) fought – in their own way – for the same aspirations. They were visions of the world capable of mobilizing, of making sense and creating belonging.
Today, in an increasingly heterogeneous West, we fill our mouths with terms such as "democracy" or "national interest" but citizens (often considered subjects) the question arises spontaneously: What should I sacrifice my life for?
Values often seem like a smokescreen. Freedom, deterrence and security cover up economic interests (others), access to resources (others), geopolitical control (others).
But no one today enlists for "the expansion of European GDP" or "the strategic autonomy of the Union". Who is willing to die for a gas pipeline? For a trade treaty? For a common defense budget?
The crux of the matter is this: if there is a lack of recognized and shared ideals, if everything is translated into financial or productive terms, what is left as the basis of individual motivation to sacrifice?
(Personal) interests may explain the decisions of the elite, but they will not move – beyond a certain threshold – the hearts of soldiers, nor of a people.
A young American, French, German may choose to serve, but he will not be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for something that he does not feel is his own, sufficient, and sincere. Our soldiers have already had experience of what it means to kill and die for false justifications. Sometimes they already knew it upon boarding, often they understood it late.
In Europe “parasite and freeloader” Will a popular response make the difference? In Ukraine the vast majority of people didn't give a damn about their government, the areas disputed by autonomists or the Russians, yet the clumsy move of the "big brothers" provided determination and the will to fight.
Today Europe talks about "Readiness 2030", about intelligent rearmament, about strategic autonomy. Before even buying weapons, it is better to find a reason to use them.
If Europe (and the West) really wants to prepare to defend itself, it must answer a brutal but essential question: what are we willing to die for?
The current number of uniformed personnel will not be enough to face the wars on the horizon.
Il 20 September 1792 poorly armed and dressed French volunteers stopped a powerful and well-organized army. It was the victory of the spirit over metal, of the free people against blind force. At Valmy was born not only a Republic, but an immortal principle.
So the "Valmy ragamuffins" will be needed to have a European deterrent. But what are we telling them today? That we defend values? That we defend a civilization? That we defend freedom?
We need a true, credible, shared narrative. Without clear answers, we cannot build a defense, we only build a arsenal.
With money, when you are dead, you can’t buy anything. Without ideals, no one is willing to die. If you are motivated, you pay the highest price even “for free”.
Ideals can be false, toxic, manipulative. But their absence is worse: it leaves the field to disillusionment, cynicism, disinterest or pipers who – behind a hypocritically pacifist flag – expose our jugular to their principals.
If the West really wants to defend itself, it cannot be satisfied with budgets and slogans: must return to believing in something that is worth more than life itself. Only then, perhaps, will the “rags of Valmy” return. And this time, from Finland to Cyprus or Greenland, they will speak all the languages of Europe... but with one voice!
