Article
The Purpose of Europe Is Peace. What About the USA, China, Russia?
The public debate on a united Europe is increasingly drifting into directions I no longer understand.
I am amazed at what we in Europe can seriously talk about, argue over, and let divide us. And I guarantee you, when someone in the future looks back at what we are doing today, they will rightfully call us fools.
Please, let us restart the public debate about Europe. From the ground up.
We understand the world first and foremost in practical terms. What affects us, we first grasp as something good, suitable for something — or, on the other hand, for example, as an obstacle.
So let us remind ourselves: why did we start uniting in Europe? What is the purpose of Europe, and is it fulfilling that purpose?
The purpose of Europe is peace.
The Father of Europe, Robert Schuman, in the opening of his declaration that set European unification in motion, wrote:
“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”
The entire declaration makes it explicitly clear that the purpose of European unification is peace. That the purpose of Europe is peace. And this peace is to be achieved by creating a system that makes armed conflict between its parts senseless:
“The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.”
Has it worked? Is the European Union fit and good for what it was created to achieve?
The answer is that armed conflict between EU member states is nonsensical and has never happened.
In this sense, Europe fulfills its purpose.
That is why we celebrate Europe Day. That is why I have a blue flag with yellow stars at home. I am proud of what we have achieved.
Are the debates that today appear in political struggles and divide Europe more important than this?
If not, why do we let ourselves be divided by them? Are we really so weak that we let ourselves be torn apart by some regulation or directive over absolute nonsense? If something bothers us, let us argue, change it, win elections, and fix what truly needs fixing. But I cannot understand how anyone could even think of destroying the foundation on which Europe stands. That I will never understand.
World peace
When I return to the opening thoughts of the Father of Europe’s declaration, they went even further — toward world peace:
“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”
And even though the official European anthem is purely instrumental — so that no single language is favoured — its most widely sung version in Latin speaks clearly about world peace. The first stanza goes:
Est Europa nunc unita,
et unita maneat.
Una in diversitate,
pacem mundi augeat.
Which means:
Europe is united now,
and may it remain united.
United in diversity,
may it contribute to world peace.
Europe — at its very beginning and still today — was meant not just as a peace project within its own borders, but as a contribution to peace in the world. And in my view, that is something we should remind ourselves of more often — especially today, when we are still very far from that, and world peace seems to be getting further away.
What seems obvious to me is that we cannot achieve it without broader cooperation, at the very least with other world powers. That is the real problem. That is what we should be discussing — that is where we should focus our energy.
Continue reading
Enter your email to unlock this article and join the newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Sources
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
What is the purpose of European unification?
Has the European Union fulfilled its founding purpose?
What is the purpose of the United States according to its founding?
What is China's modern national purpose?
What does the Third Rome mean in the context of Russia?
Is world peace achievable given these different national purposes?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
More articles
For a long time we treated the internet as the main road. The place where work and relationships happen. Yet most of what we see on it today is, or soon will be, AI-generated: text, images, profiles and comments. The internet is turning into an online game full of bots, where you cannot be sure that a human is on the other side of anything. So I ask: was the online world the main road, or only a temporary detour that part of us will return from, back offline?
A few days ago I interviewed a senior marketer. An experienced man, years of practice. I asked him about AI. He said he barely uses it. He had one bad experience with the output and decided he was too senior for it to add value when it is not perfect. I know the other side too — professionals who automate everything that can be automated.
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement — knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing — the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.