London, United Kingdom.
18 November. Strategy is about choices. Tough choices. The Paris attacks have
clearly acted as a strategic awakening for many Europeans. There is now a
moment of political momentum that must be exploited if there is to be any
chance of a solution to the war in Syria, which is disfiguring not just the
Levant but Europe as well. Indeed, the Paris terror attacks are already generating
new geopolitics as the strategic state realigns to fight strategic terror. What
tough choices must be made and by whom given the new mosaic of strategic
partnerships and ‘realignments’ that are emerging in the wake of Paris?
Tough
choice #1: Russia and Assad. This morning President Putin ordered Russian
forces in the Mediterranean to treat French forces as allies. This will come as
no surprise to Paris who have always been lukewarm about the sanctions imposed
on Russia in the wake of Moscow’s seizure of Crimea, its dismembering of
eastern Ukraine, and clear complicity in the downing of MH 17. Moreover, Russian
grand strategy is clearly working to re-position Moscow as the power that
cannot be ignored. However, can the West in general, and Europe in particular,
forge an effective alliance over Syria with a state that continues to
intimidate NATO allies and EU member-states in central and Eastern Europe? Particularly if this means by extension a de facto alliance with Syria's President Assad. Surely, if any sort of alliance, de facto or otherwise, is to be forged with Russia
it can only happen if Russia stops its snap military exercises in the Baltic
region, stops arming rebels in Ukraine, and enters into meaningful dialogue
over the future status of Crimea. What deal?
Touch
choice #2: Turkey. For too long the Berlin-led obsession with
organising Mitteleuropa via the
Eurozone around Germany has led to the effective marginalisation of Europe’s
three major peripheral powers Britain, Russia and Turkey. All three of these powers have legitimate
interests in the shape of power in Europe. Russia has opted for unilateral intimidation
to exert influence, whilst Britain is simply sulking. However, it is Turkey
which has emerged as the pivotal power that bestrides both Europe and the
Middle East. It is now clear that if Syria is to be resolved Turkey will have a
crucial role to play and that will in turn mean a new political relationship
between the EU and Ankara. No more can Europe pretend to be offering Turkey
membership of the EU. No longer will an emboldened President Erdogan accept such
nonsense. What deal?
Tough
choice #3: Brexit. Yesterday I gave evidence to the House of
Commons Defence Select Committee on Britain’s defence budget and the Cameronesque
scribbles on the back of a fag (cigarette) packet politics dressed up as
strategy that will be next week’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR
2015). However, the real strategic outcome of Paris for both Britain and the EU
is that it is now clear a Brexit would be disaster for Europe’s security and
the cohesion of Europe’s security. Russia, Syria, IS, the migration crisis, and
the fragile state of Europe’s neighbourhood; the world is simply too dangerous
for Europe to be paralysed over internal relationships however important. The
2014 Scottish independence referendum demonstrated all too clearly the
paralysing effect on the effective use of power such division has. This is my tough
choice because there is much I deeply dislike about the elite-led theology that
is ‘Project Europe’, and which I will continue to fight. However, both France
and Germany will need to help find a new political settlement that will keep
Britain in what will need to be a new EU. What settlement?
Tough
choice #4: Credible strategy. Ed Lucas wrote a powerful piece in
The Times this week on the need for
strategy. However, his suggestion that the best way to fight IS was for the EU
to become a superpower simply defied logic. Indeed, if Europe has to wait that
long IS are more likely to die of old-age than be defeated. Yes, in a fantasy
world strategic unity of effort and purpose over time and distance in a fantasy
Europe might see the EU as a superpower. However, the centre of power gravity
in Europe remains its powerful nation-states and it is they who must craft and
drive forward intelligent strategy. The EU clearly has an important role to
play as it possesses a range of instruments which a truly (and necessary) comprehensive
strategy over time and distance will need. However, any strategy that has any chance
of countering the IS super-insurgency, and all the other security and defence risks
and threats now emerging will require a mix of intelligence, engagement and
force. Credible force can only come from powerful conventional militaries such
as those possessed by Britain and France for without their full commitment the
entire strategy will be critically weakened. Whither strategy?
Tough
choice #5: Boots on the ground. Perhaps the toughest choice of
all leaders will face in the aftermath of the Paris attacks is the need to find
boots on the ground to take the fight to IS. Air power alone will not suffice.
Right now there is a search for someone, anyone to provide those boots as long
as they are not Western. The region is brim full of militias and militia’s
masquerading as armies that are simply too weak and unprofessional to defeat
IS. At some point if IS is perceived to be the threat to Europe and the West
that leaders are today proclaiming then professional military boots will need
to be deployed. Who? What? When?
New geopolitics. Touch
choices. Are our leaders up to it? They need to be.
Julian Lindley-French