This is a strange, strange summer. The war in Ukraine continues, 60% of Europe is threatened by drought, and C19 is still here and could flare up again in the autumn. At the same time, everyone is desperately longing for normality.
People are going on summer holidays as if it were 2019 again, desperately trying to move on from the last couple of years.
We are now experiencing a number of crises, and looking back, it seems that the C19 outbreak in early 2020 was the start of a period of catastrophe on the European continent, if not the whole world. How are democratic countries dealing with this situation?
Support for Ukraine remains strong across Europe
There is a sense that the war is dragging us back into times we thought had long since passed. In a continent ravaged by wars for centuries, war no longer seemed like the most serious problem.
Other issues seemed more pressing: C19, climate change, global inequality, racism, migration, and extreme political polarisation. But then Vladimir Putin brought the old problem of war back to the fore.
We should not have been surprised. For more than 20 years, his rule has been marked by brutal events and threats to the rules-based international order. In his worldview, only raw power matters. He believed that his greatest strength lay in the military, so he was happy to initiate military conflicts.
Many Europeans are finding it difficult to come to terms with this "new, old" reality of war. They hope it will disappear as soon as possible.
While this reaction is understandable, in reality, we are grateful to the Ukrainian army for shattering the Kremlin's vision of a "tripartite state" of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (a vision which, although less talked about, was set out in an article published by Ria-Novosti on 26 February).
A successful "blitzkrieg" and the de facto incorporation of Belarus and Ukraine into Russia would have created a colossal, reactionary state on the EU's border, whose intent would be to destroy democracy, the EU and everything it stands for. If Putin had succeeded, our problems would be much greater.
An earlier and more decisive response to Putin's aggression, at the latest when he annexed Crimea and sparked the conflict in Donbas in 2014, could have prevented the current catastrophe. But most political leaders looked away.
We should not lose focus again due to war fatigue. The path forward for Europe and its allies is to support Ukraine's war efforts more resolutely. Russia will only sit down at the negotiating table if its military situation deteriorates further. Half-hearted support for the Ukrainian army will only prolong the conflict.
Climate in times of crisis
Lack of foresight and indecision have also affected our response to climate change. The problem has been known for decades, its consequences have been visible for many years, and they are exactly as scientists predicted.
Every year that passes without a significant reduction in CO2 emissions is a wasted year, and yet our society and political leaders have mostly continued to act as if extreme and imminent dangers could be averted with incremental measures.
For example, there is great doubt whether the EU will be able to deliver on its "Green Deal", i.e. to become climate neutral by 2050. It is also questionable whether that would be enough to stop the most severe consequences of global warming, even if it were implemented.
The greatest hope at the moment is that attitudes will change rapidly thanks to people's direct experience, including in this wild and strange summer.
The assertion that democratic countries should be more forward-looking and decisive does not mean that authoritarian regimes are doing better.
Contrary to popular belief, authoritarian leaders are often also motivated by short-term interests. China's Xi Ping is continuing his unsustainable "zero-C19" policy because he cannot admit a mistake before the next party congress in the autumn, where he wants to be confirmed for a (norm-breaking) third term as party leader.
It is true that authoritarian leaders can sometimes be better at implementing long-term plans because they do not have to persuade voters to grant them new terms.
China is one such example. It has managed to implement impressive long-term plans that have transformed the country.
These have included significant investment in renewable energy and the implementation of many CO2 emission reduction commitments (although it needs to be much more ambitious regarding its targets, as stated in the Climate Action Tracker provided by climate analysis groups).
But long-term plans can also contain dangerous things, such as China's plan to invade Taiwan.
Putin had a long-term plan to restore Russia as a military superpower and rebuild it as an empire. It was a terrifying plan that caused immense suffering and provided no benefit even to ordinary Russians.
There is no reason to hope that autocracy will save us from the impending catastrophes. But after this summer of war, heat and drought, we may have learned one lesson: democracies must be better at dealing with emergencies. They must learn to use foresight and act decisively.