By Andrew
Stuttaford
Monday, January
31, 2022
I don’t agree with everything that Aris
Roussinos, writing in Unherd, has to say in his latest
article, not least when it comes to his view that
“with every day, it becomes more likely that a great hammer
blow is about to descend on Ukraine.” Cold comfort it may be, but I still think that a “minor incursion” (in President Biden’s unfortunate phrase)
is more probable, but what do I know? Roussinos is also careful to say that
“no-one can predict with certainty what will happen next,” adding (and it
wouldn’t surprise me if the second half of his sentence tells the true story)
that “what happens
next will be Putin’s choice, and perhaps
he has not yet decided.” Click on the link that Roussinos provides, which is to
Michael Kofman’s take on Russia’s next move. It is not reassuring reading.
Note this from Kofman:
If Putin
backs down with nothing, the domestic and international perception will be that
he was either bluffing or, even worse, was successfully deterred. Putin will
end up with the worst of both worlds, seen as simultaneously aggressive and
resistible. Also, while an authoritarian state may care less about domestic
audience perceptions, the elites, or the so-called “selectorate,” are another
matter. Authoritarian
leaders like Putin can find their ability to manage
political coalitions diminished if elites perceive them as reckless,
incompetent, and increasingly unfit to rule. Putin certainly has options, but
this is not a contest in which he can afford to back down cost-free.
Both Kofman and Roussinos emphasize the
inability of Europe to deter Putin by itself, but it is worth noting, in
particular, Roussinos’s focus on the paradox at the heart of Europe’s defense
strategy — such as it is:
Europe has
had since at least 2014 to wean itself off its dependence on Russia, and chose
not to, with Germany instead deepening its energy dependency by shuttering its
nuclear power plants and constructing the Nordstream 2 pipeline despite
American pressure to cancel it.
Instead,
it is France, energy secure through its network of nuclear power stations, that
is playing the greatest EU role in defending Nato’s eastern borders, pushing
for a forward presence in Romania and sending warships to the Black Sea. There
is a great irony here: the scepticism of Poland and the Baltic states over
French proposals for greater European capacity to defend itself from external
threats was used by the German security establishment to dampen any enthusiasm
for strategic autonomy, with German politicians and analysts making great
rhetorical play of the sacred Nato bond. But now that Nato’s integrity is
threatened by Russia’s
demands that the alliance “pull back” from
Romania and Bulgaria, which joined in 1997, Germany recuses itself from
involvement. Through its dependency on Putin’s goodwill, it is ironically
Germany that has distanced itself from Nato, a negative form of strategic
autonomy from the US, if not from Russia. That great weakness at the heart of
Europe, Merkel’s parting shot, now threatens the security of the continent’s
eastern fringes.
One way or
another, Nato’s newer Eastern members will now learn the value of America’s
security guarantee compared to that of a strong Europe capable of defending
itself.
But the idea of a “strong Europe capable
of defending itself” was, as the Balts and the Poles realized, a dangerous
illusion so long as the vehicle for that defense was, to a greater or lesser
extent, to be the EU. Even if it could be structured in a way that avoided the
difficulty that some EU members are ‘neutrals,’ there’s also the certainty
that, in the event of crisis, the EU’s military decision-making would advance
at the pace of the slowest, Germany, say or Italy, not
exactly what is needed if it seemed as if tanks were about to roll. And NATO
states on the Eastern frontline were also well aware that if the EU were to
establish, militarily speaking, ‘strategic
autonomy,’ that could easily gut NATO. Moreover,
it’s not difficult to see how such an arrangement could easily accelerate
American disengagement from a continent seemingly intent on going its own way,
a development that would be reviewed as profoundly alarming in Warsaw, Vilnius,
Riga, and Tallinn, and with good reason.
If Europe is serious about doing more
about its defense, the best answer (apart from, in many countries, boosting
defense spending to the NATO target of 2 percent) is to involve a patchwork of
coalitions of the willing (including the U.K. and, from outside NATO, countries
such as Sweden and Finland: something like this already happens, alongside U.S.
forces, in the Baltic region) aimed at dealing with the challenges in a
particular geographic region and, if necessary, beyond.
No comments:
Post a Comment