Can Europe's Small Leaders Make Big Strategy?

George Washington wrote, “A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man that actions, not words, are the true criterion of the attachment of friends”.

As Leon Panetta takes over at the Pentagon the US military faces cuts unknown for a generation. A defence budget of $700 billion is unsustainable given the intensive care nature of America’s economy. But here’s the strategic crunch; America like Europe must balance strategy with austerity at what is arguably the biggest moment in global strategy since 1945. The world is no longer Euro-centric, it is world-centric, but only now as the mist that is Al Qaeda begins to dissipate can strategic futures begin to be glimpsed with any clarity.

Balances of power and spheres of influence are slowly re-forming and with them the progressive marginalisation of the grand institutions that were the stamped hallmarks of the Western liberal age. Beijing sees power and strategy in essentially and traditionally classical terms.  So to a degree does Washington.  Neither have as yet ‘benefitted’ from Europe’s post-modern view of itself and the world beyond. Europeans are too busy seeking the world they would like to deal effectively with the world that exists.  And, like it or not it is America and China who will establish the rules of the twenty-first century power game, not Europe.

Thus, as Panetta takes high office China’s 2010 White Paper on China’s National Defence (CND10), published earlier this year, offers essentially more essential reading than the increasingly irrelevant and misnomered European Security Strategy and, dare I say it, the 2010 NATO Strategic Concept. Whilst China is unabashedly nationalist and strategic, both the European Onion and the Atlantic Alliance have become unashamedly astrategic.  A gap between words and deeds now yawns. In that context how one organises the transatlantic relationship or indeed the Onion is beside the point – the re-organisation of the irrelevant by the incapable in pursuit of the unattainable.

The China Paper pulls no punches. The US is bracketed alongside terrorists and extremists as a ‘destabilising force’ in Asia. Particular concern is expressed about the reinforcement by the US of its military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region. China’s aim: an Asian strategic order that is China-led.

The crux of the strategic matters is thus; the nature and pace of China’s relative rise and America’s relative decline, allied to the political-strategic philosophies of both, means that on current trajectories a clash at some point in this century is probably almost inevitable. Europeans thus face the most profound of big choices – seek the continued protection of the United States and the price that will go with it, or cut free from America and thus re-define its relationship with the coming China.

If European leaders want to understand the relevance of the transatlantic relationship to Americans they too might read CND10. Indeed, the relationship between America and China will shape not only Europe’s place in the world, but the shape and the nature of its defence. And, the strategic choices Europeans will make over the coming decade and the structures that emerge from such choices will tip those very emergent balances now apparent. Let us at the very least hope said choices are indeed strategic in both scope and reach, for they will need to be.

The facts of strategic power are indeed stark. China’s White Paper under-estimates its defence spending by a factor of at least two, China claims a defence budget of $81.8 billion, which is probably closer to $200 billion and growing at around 4% per annum. At present US defence expenditure represents some 4.7% of gross domestic product, China’s defence expenditure some 2.2%, but is more likely nearer 3.5%. US defence expenditure is politically unsustainable, whilst China’s defence expenditure is sustainable and from Beijing’s perspective desirable.

The nature of the strategic choice open to Europeans is thus simple - balance China with America or balance China and America. Certainly, Europeans will not be afforded a strategic bolt-hole in which to hide. But there is a glimmer of an opportunity if European leaders are big enough to see it. Europeans can and must work tirelessly with America, China and others to mitigate the dangers of said balances of power, not least because of the damage done to Europe's own history.  And Europeans could clearly be in a position to play such a role if it has the strategic vision and leadership so to do. 

However, such a role is dependent on a European grand strategy worthy of the name, either through a concert of European powers, or rather more implausibly through the increasingly unworldly European Onion. However, such a vision would also require big leaders, not least to overcome the self-defeating tension that exists between the Onion and the leading member-states on issues of strategy, the most fundamental of issues. Indeed, what the current crop of Euro-leaders clearly do not as yet realise is that the next decade is as big in strategic terms as that faced by Europe’s greats in the 1940s – Churchill, Monnet, Schuman, Spaak et al.

Thus, the strategic challenge for Americans and Europeans alike will not simply be to do more with less, but again to meet the challenge of greatness that is thrust upon us at a time when all the austerity–driven, post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan instincts are to retreat behind walls of rhetoric. To obsess over petty issues that divide and which providence will soon prove dangerously irrelevant.

The sad fact of our age is that neither the European Onion, nor NATO nor indeed the United Nations and its many diaspora are fit for the coming age. It is strategic midedle-aged spread shared by many of America’s great institutions of state which are still too focussed, too often on fighting each other. The failure of the West is thus a very real prospect. 

The ancient Chinese military writer Sun Tzu once said that the quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon. There is little in the uncertain way that Europe’s leaders have dealt with the debt crisis that suggests they are capable of either decision or timing, let alone strategy. It is not much more encouraging on the other side of the Atlantic. 

Can Europe’s small leaders make big strategy? 

Julian Lindley-French

Britain is Coming Off the Rails

London, 5 July. Can you believe it? The British Government is about to given £3 billion, some €3.5bn, of British taxpayers money to a German company to build one thousand rail carriages. As a result some fifteen hundred jobs will be lost in the north of England at a time of acute economic stress. The Government says that its hands are tied by European Onion procurement rules. Would the German or French governments have permitted such a deal? Answer? Never!

Apparently, the French and German governments take a more ‘liberal’ interpretation of Onion rules. But it is not the fault of Berlin or Paris. Indeed, this whole sorry saga typifies the mix of incompetence and arrogance that has marked the approach of successive British governments (both politicians and bureaucrats) who seem to forget that their first duty is to look after the interests of the people who put them in power – the British citizen.

It is incompetence in that British governments are eternally obsessed with playing by the rules that everyone else breaks. The result? Britain and its taxpayers are routinely shafted. It is arrogant in that British governments routinely convince themselves that leading by example will somehow convince others to do the same. This morning Berlin and Paris will be laughing at London’s stupidity – again.

Ironically, I have just watched a BBC TV programme on the future of the United Kingdom. A poll came out yesterday that suggested that some 50% of the English would not mind if Scotland gained independence. I am a passionate believer in the Union between England and Scotland that has been so effective since it was created back in 1707, when the English taxpayer had to bail out the Scottish state after Edinburgh’s disastrous expedition to colonise Panama brought Scotland close to bankruptcy. Just like the English taxpayer had to bail out the Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland after another ill-advised venture in more recent times.

Indeed, in a world getting bigger and more dangerous by the day the ‘United Kingdom’ is still a brand that offers something to a stable world. That said, as a democrat I would reluctantly accept the will of the Scottish people if they did indeed decide the forge their own path, so long as we English did not have to pay for it - again.

Interestingly, a sub-current of dissent ran through the TV debate; given that British institutions of state no longer look after the interests of British people then each of Britain’s constituent parts – England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – might be better served if they looked after their own parochial interests. It is a mark of how far London has become disconnected from its primary responsibility (and one is tempted to say ‘reality’) that such a debate should even be taking place.

Do not get me wrong. Rules matter – but if only all governments uphold both the spirit and the letter of said rules, and avoid routinely defecting as and when suits. Nor am I calling for nationalism or protectionism, simply pragmatism. At the very least London should stop trying to occupy a moral high ground that does not exist. If the French and German take a ‘liberal’ view of Onion procurement rules than so must the British.

The implications are clear. Unless the ‘British’ people can see that London is indeed fighting for their interests both in the Onion and beyond and stops its obsession with playing by rules everyone else breaks then I fear for the future of the United Kingdom. And, unless the great institutions of the British state can escape from the political correctness that has infected it to the heart and which do so much harm to ordinary Britons then in time the United Kingdom will fail. Why? Because ordinary Britons will rightly no longer support institutions that clearly do not support them.

Britain is fast coming off the rails. Time to back on the tracks and stand up for Britain, Mr Cameron.

Julian Lindley-French

What Has the Onion Ever Done for Us?

There is nothing as strategic as money. Reg, leader of the People’s Front of Judea in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, asks his followers, “…apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" With the battle now under way over the European Onion’s 2014-2020 budget a similar question is now being asked by western European taxpayers. What has the Onion ever done for us?

For western Europeans it is indeed a hard question to answer. Of course, trite politicians in the main net payers Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Finland (yes, Finland) trot out the same trite answers – free movement of trade and peoples is in everyone’s interest, as is the transfer of billions of western Europe’s money to invest in central, eastern and southern European economies.

Certainly, western European leaders never give straight answers to the questions that really matter to their respective electorates – be it the cost of underpinning central, eastern and southern European economies or, indeed, immigration and its impact on our societies – both good and bad. Indeed, it is a mark of the loss of national sovereignty over both money and borders that said politicos have become so evasive and so economical with the truth.

And, during the boom years of largesse prior to 2008 there was an argument to be had that there was sufficient to go round. But not any more. The inability of Onion leaders to properly address the Greek debt crisis almost certainly means a) more western European taxpayer's money will vanish down the Athenian black hole; and b) Europe will become even more in hock to the Chinese, who at some point when Europeans are suitably hooked will demand a price – a big strategic price.

So, a divide is emerging between the ‘have not but must give’ western European taxpayer and the ‘increasingly have and want more’ central, eastern and southern European beneficiaries. It is no surprise that the spendthrift European Parliament, dominated as it is by central, eastern and southern European politicians, is demanding a 5% increase in the Onion's budget as a share of European states (i.e. western European states) national income. At a time of acute austerity across the Onion such demands border on the obscence and simply help to further undermine the credibility of an already out-of-touch European Parliament.

The depth of this divide has been brought home to me by two very different but linked experiences. My recent visits to Krakow and Wroclaw in Poland and Tallinn in Estonia left me deeply impressed by the progress being made in life quality therein. The fabric of all three cities had hugely improved according to the locals. Everywhere I went there were big signs with the Onion’s flag proudly displaying ‘its’ largesse. Or, to be more accurate, my largesse, being a British citizen paying tax in the Netherlands. Naturally, I pointed this out, as is my Yorkshire way, and whilst thanks were offered there was much mumbling by my hosts about ‘historic duty’ and all that. It is an historic duty that has long been paid by our fighting and winning both World War Two and the Cold War. Shortly thereafter I went back to my own home city, Sheffield, in the north of England, which was tired and shabby by comparison.

Being a freelancing professor I am often approached by young researchers keen to have me supervise their PhDs. The divide is ever apparent. The western Europeans almost invariably have a question as a sub-text – is the Onion a good thing? The central, eastern and southern Europeans, on the other hand, invariably take it as read that the Onion is a good thing, and simply want to know how to get more of it. There are of course variations, but that is by and large the message.

Now, what western European leaders are not telling ‘we’ the taxpayer is that the very purpose of the Onion is to transfer money from ‘us’ to ‘them’. What they are particularly keen to avoid telling us is that the Greek debt crisis was caused primarily because Greeks took it as their right to have western European taxpayers subsidise them, and indeed still expect it. As do millions of their fellow Europeans.

As a western European taxpayer let me make this clear to our frankly appalling political leaders; I am prepared to do my bit for ‘Europe’, but I am not prepared to be fleeced indefinitely to fund countries and societies that simply refuse to reform or modernise. In the past it may well have been the case that transfers of wealth from we few western Europeans to everyone else acted as ‘structural’ investment in the European economy for the benefit of all. Today, I am seeing with my own eyes that the propping up by the west of the rest is leading directly to the impoverishment of western Europeans, together with their countries and societies. As austerity bites deep both our life quality and security are being profoundly undermined.

I have spent much of my adult life believing in ‘Europe’, and deep down I still believe in an ideal. But I do not believe in this corrupted Europe, with leaders all too willing to give my hard-earned money away and yet give me nothing in return but meaningless and costly platitudes.

Therefore, as the Onion’s budget negotiations get underway those charged with leading the Onion, together with their weasel-worded fellow travellers in national chancelleries, must remember that we, the eternally ignored peoples of western Europe, will only up put with so much.

What has the Onion ever done for us? Certainly not sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health...we pay for all of that on top!

Julian Lindley-French

American Independence: Time to End the Experiment

Dear Yanks,

We are prepared to forgive and forget. On 4th July you will commemorate the 235th anniversary of your expulsion from the British Empire for bad behaviour. You are a perverse people, celebrating such a dark day in your history, but there you have it. I can only hope the truly titanic (good word that) quantities of burgers you will doubtless consume and beer you will quaff will ease the pain. I would like to post this blog on the day to help ease your pain, but sadly I will be doing something important.  And, for the rest of this week I will be in London dealing with matters imperial.

Now, let me give you a brief history lesson as you have not got much. Being a generous people back in 1776 we British agreed to a period of probationary independence. The kind of thing one does with less mature teenagers.  But, frankly, recent events make one wonder if one is in a position to extend said probation, let alone confirm independence. I do not use these words lightly but you should be aware that there are senior people in London (your betters) who are fast becoming more than a little, dare I say, miffed.  Having sub-contracted out bits of the Empire to you to run, your record has been a tad patchy, to say the very least. You clearly have a lot to learn about leadership, but we are patient.

Now, of course, whilst 1776 is a painful date for you, sooner or later you must confront it. Naturally, it had little impact on the Mother Country, as Trafalgar and Waterloo only proved to demonstrate. I bet you wished you had been part of those two bashes, as we did give the French such a sound thrashing. You never quite mastered that art, did you.  Having failed to think through your ‘Revolution’ (you do have a tendency to exaggerate) your little bout of petulance only led to tears. We cannot say we did not warn you, but you ended up paying for your own security after all, and in time our own.

There is good news. In a spirit of penitence you recently created the Tea Party to consider how you might reimburse us for that minor riot in Boston during which some very good Earl Grey was given a shaking. Poor show that. Given the state of your coffee though this is hardly surprising. Moreover, rumour has it that secret classes have been established to learn the rules of cricket. That should keep you out of mischief for at least a century.

We also recognize your failed but worthy attempts to re-create the monarchy through their Royal Highnesses the Bushnesses. But let’s face it ‘president’ does not have the same ring as Her Imperial Britannic Majesty.  One not only needs the right family to be royal, but ideally they should not come from Texas. Germany will do. 

So, in principle we would be willing to re-admit ‘yooz all’ (I believe that to be the correct vernacular) to the Empire, although this does create somewhat of a poser; how?

We could of course offer you a period of pretend independence in the European Onion. I was in Brussels yesterday at the heart of said Onion and floated the idea. The broad consensus was that whilst you have proven to be a tad unruly the price tag for membership is imposing and probably beyond you right now, and in any case the Onion is only for the truly self-deluded – such as the Greeks.

The other option is of course NATO – No Action, Talk Only. However, the widespread sense in London was that if you joined the Alliance it would have a membership of one within a week - No Talk, Americans Only. Your greatest thinker, Groucho Marx, was indeed correct when he suggested that his membership of any club rendered the reputation of said club questionable, which makes me concerned for the Empire. Certainly, your recent efforts at ‘going it alone’ leadership have not met with overwhelming success, but the Empire is probably big enough to cope.

Thankfully, after a considerable rummage around in dusty cupboards and strange brown boxes with fading labels, I came across a thing called the Commonbroke. From reading the paperwork it seems to refer to a motley collection of broke colonies playing at independence but which are still on our payroll, together with our few remaining dependent volcanoes, such as Montserrat, and of course Scotland, which we can never get rid of. Clearly, you qualify on both counts and to be fair you are so much more reasonable than our lunatic Celtic fringe.

There would even be some benefits of, let's call it reintegration, to both the Mother Country and yourselves. For example, the Royal Navy would become marginally bigger and you would no longer have to drink that coloured water you call beer. We would certainly be willing to scrap all your politicians and lawyers thus eradicating your budget deficit in a trice.  And, finally, Hollywood would be able to make proper films that gave an accurate account of our glorious role in your history. We did indeed win World Wars One and Two and it is about time the true story was told.

Now, we would of course demand something for all of this largesse and good grace.  You would be expected to turn up on time for our wars – for once. And, we would insist that you meet all expenses in full incurred by the British Army when burning down the White House in 1812, during a previous bout of intolerable bad behaviour (note the spelling). Otherwise we might have to do it again.

It must also be understood that an apology is needed for the Declaration of Independence – it was just so tedious and quite upset Buckingham Palace, interfering gratuitously with the horse racing at Royal Ascot. Clearly, the Special Relationship, which clearly matters so much more to you than to us, will depend to a significant degree on the revoking of this so-called Declaration of Independence. And, by the way, you should read the small print - it was after all written by 'American' lawyers. 

So, next steps? 2012 is the sixtieth anniversary of Her Imperial Britannic Majesty’s accession to power. What a wonderful gesture it would be if you voluntarily changed the name of your regional capital from George the Unmentionable to Elizabeth.

And one final thing, you will of course need to learn to spell. Happy 4 July!

Yours sincerely,

Julian Lindley-French

At the Going Down of the Afghan Sun

Baden, Austria.  Here in this beautiful spa town that adorns the southern rim of Vienna azaleas, petunias and rose cascade and tumble down manicured hills of bloom onto green swards that guard deep and soulful pools of reflective water.  My friend and colleague Dr Franco Algieri of the Austrian Institute for European and Security Studies has a knack for the catchphrases of insecurity and uncertainty that pepper security wonkery here at the heart of the European Onion.

Baden, Franco suggests, is a metaphor for Europe – the Austrianisation of Europe – comfortable to the point of self-delusion.  Europe, like Austria, is a shrinking pool of western peace surrounded by the encroaching weeds of eastern disorder.  This is how the Romans of the fourth century must have perceived their own peace, their own space.  In the far distance lies Hungary, visible to the naked eye and offering the first frissons of an alluring but threatening East.  The road beyond leads to Afghanistan; but it is still a world or two away.    

Which way to go?  President Obama clearly does not know.  Last week’s one foot forward, two feet back decision to withdraw ten thousand American troops by year’s end, and another  twenty thousand six months hence is worthy of Lewis Carroll.  “One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. Which road do I take? She asked. “Where do you want to go?” was his response. “I don't know”, Alice answered. “Then”, said the cat, “it doesn't matter.”

The Afghan sun is dipping and another night of chaos beckons.  The West’s attempts to ‘civilianise’ Afghanistan now seem doomed; to be judged by history as simply another failed detour by the greatest of powers into the weakest.  Once the inevitable spin has lost its dark magic the Americans, and their recalcitrant partners, will be deemed by historians yet to be conceived as no more successful than their Soviet, British or Mogul forebears.  The only difference being that the ‘defeat’ will have been as much self-inflicted as Afghan inflicted.

So, Afghanistan is doomed to remain a space, rather than a place and will now never make the journey to anything other than the most pitiful of states; reminiscent of another age here when picturesque castles were the homes of rapacious bandits menacing and protecting in equal measure. .

I have visited that challenged Afghan space.  I have toured Kabul protected by my Movement Protection Squad.  I have walked the dust of Kandahar.  I have looked up at an old British fort near Qalat.  I have spoken with elders in Mordakhan Kalay deep in the Pashtu heartlands.  I have seen the beauty and the beast that is Afghanistan.

Today, those Afghans who had hoped that the West could make a difference will be thinking of escape.  Those who sat on the fence between order and disorder will slide off towards the latter. Warlords will be considering their next move in the forecourt of future civil war.  And, the Taliban will talk to their British negotiators firm in the belief that with the West packing up its watches they have the time.

In reality, most Western political leaders tuned mentally out of Afghanistan a long time ago, if they ever tuned in.  With honourable exceptions (well, one honourable exception) European Onion countries and the European Onion itself, were never serious. Even those claiming to have tuned in left it to their hard-pressed militaries to ‘resolve’ Afghanistan.  And, soldiers being soldiers they tried.  Oh, how they tried.  But the seeds of failure were also sown at the outset by an America that confused values with interests, just when Washington was at its self-eulogising worst with little understanding of the very real limits of its power and influence.  One has only to read Rudyard Kipling to realize the power of Afghnistan to humble the mightiest of powers.   

So, the drugs will still flow from the feudal fields of poppy, the nuclear-armed neighbours will go back to using Afghanistan as their proxy punch bag and Al Qaeda, shorn of its Sheikh, will slowly move back into the Ruds of southern and eastern Afghanistan.  Leaders in Kabul who bear much responsibility for this failure, will be considering which Geneva bank offers the best return for their ill-gotten gains.

In keeping with other great retreats President Obama will host a conference next May in Washington at which blame will be spread and responsibilities apportioned.  The mythical ‘international community’ will be invited to create new futures for Afghans.  But as the champagne is quaffed it is old futures rather that will busy the minds of Afghans.

Ten years on from 911 and now unwelcome guests the least we the West can do before we close the door behind us is to give the people some little hope.  At least one final attempt must be made to bridge macro and micro-Afghanistan – we owe it them, we owe it to ourselves.  Specifically, that means bringing together the National Stability Programme and the village-level Community Development Councils.  That means making a concerted effort to create an Afghan National Army and Afghan national and local police worthy of the name.  That means focusing all efforts on the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan, and forgetting the weak EU Police Mission which is the talk-talk Onion at its worst. The very fate of millions of Afghans could depend upon the extent to which structure eclipses the chaos that the warlords we accommodated now seek and expect.  The most they and we can hope for now is Afghanistan-lite.

Above all, we owe it to our soldiers who have been sacrificed in their thousands.  The ordinary Grunts, Tommies, Canucks and Aussies (only the Anglosphere was really serious – Onionistas beware), the soldiers who have borne much the worst of this struggle – far from home and far from societies detached from their and any reality.  Kipling offers a stark warning of the consequences of failure from the same space at another time.  “When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier”.  Surely, this struggle must be for more than that.

At the going down of the Afghan sun, shall we remember them?  Not here in Baden.  But, remember the road to Afghanistan leads both ways and it is not that far away.

Julian Lindley-French

What Does Russia Want?

22 June, 2011. At 0315 hours seventy years ago to the day Axis powers attacked the Soviet Union. Some 4.5 million Axis soldiers attacked the Red Army on a 2900km (1800 miles) long front. Adolf Hitler said, “we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down’. Less than four years later Hitler was dead and the Soviet flag flew atop the Reichstag in Berlin. Twenty-three million Russians had paid the price for Hitler’s aggression, and Stalin’s defence.

Not surprisingly, Russia and Russians still live daily the tragedy of 1941-1945. Those in the West who forget that are guilty of an injustice to the Russian people. The past can never truly be the past for Russians. But time is passing, Europe and the world are changing, and yet so much of Russian foreign and security policy still seems to be defined by a view of the West that is patently misplaced and outdated. Seventy years on from that terrible day, what does Russia want?

Scroll forward sixty nine years to two events last year that for me seem to typify the contradiction that Russia remains. The first was the November meeting in Lisbon between President Medvedev and Secretary-General Rasmussen on the occasion of the launch of the 2010 NATO Strategic Concept. The talk was of renewing the strategic partnership and possibly even a shared missile defence system. The joint fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, piracy-related issues, nuclear proliferation, and weapons of mass destruction was also re-affirmed. All well and good.

A couple of months prior I had been standing in Hangar 4 of Royal Air Force Kinloss in Scotland listening to the announcement by Assistant Commander-in-Chief Air Operations that Britain’s brand new anti-submarine/maritime patrol aircraft was to be scrapped and the base closed. As he spoke one of the RAF aircrew told me an ancient US P-3 Orion aircraft that happened to be at Kinloss because it had broken down was taking off to look for two Russian nuclear hunter-killer aircraft that were trying to penetrate British water space.

It was like being back in a Cold War John Le Carre novel and I was struck by the utterly contradictory nature of Russia’s attitude and behaviour towards the West. But this is not the only example of such behaviour. Russia regularly sends equally ancient Tu-95 bombers (‘Bears’ in NATO –speak) to test Britain’s twenty-first century air defences.

Now, I am not for a minute going to suggest the West (such as it is these days) is perfect. Big mistakes have been made in the past, especially over the past ten years. It has been a difficult time. But Russia seems to regard so much the West does that is either legitimate or simply incompetent as anti-Russian. Why?

Winston Churchill once described Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. With the best will in the world nothing over the intervening years has done much to dispel that notion. Indeed, if anything Russia’s interests today would appear to be ever more at variance with Russian policy, even taking into account the ‘Russian-ness’ of Moscow’s strategic perspective.

The West offers Russia the one stable border it has across six time zones. The West is by far Russia’s most important trading partner. Russia is completely plugged into Europe’s energy supply chain (dependence works two ways) and yet Russia is still playing Cold War games.

Furthermore, it is not the West that is putting pressure on Russia’s Far East. And yet, too often Moscow seems to define its ‘greatness’ by defying the West. Surely Russia is too great a power to define its power by simply being an irritant to others. Russia’s distinctive voice will always be heard but how can true trust and partnership be established if Moscow behaves in a capricious and unpredictable manner. Much of the future relationship will of course depend on the degree of co-operation (or not) that is established in the High North. Few in the West are confident over the medium-term.

Right now the issue is NATO. Critically, if Russia tries to prevent the legitimate modernization of NATO’s Article 5 collective defence architecture then trouble will be inevitable. And that will include a limited missile defence shield which Russia is welcome to be a part of, but has no right to veto.

Given that it is also worth recalling another important anniversary. Twenty years ago this month the Alliance issued “NATO’s Core Security Functions in the New Europe”. The communiqué stated that “… equal security amongst the members of the Alliance, regardless of differences in their circumstances or in their national military capabilities relative to each other, contributes to overall stability within Europe and thus to the creation of conditions conducive to increased cooperation both among Alliance members and with others”. That, “…and with others” meant something. Russia has not been an enemy for a very long time, but nor has Russia been a partner, and entirely of its own volition. The Russian myth is that the West lost Russia in the 1990s. Rubbish – Russia lost Russia in the 1990s!

However, scoring points is not the point of this blog. I want to pay tribute to Russia and the millions of Russians who gave their life fighting the Great Patriotic War. It is also to assure Russians that those of who think about these things and who can separate Russia from the many extremes of the Soviets have neither forgotten Russia’s sacrifice, nor lost our respect for Russia and Russians. Indeed, my respect for Russia is genuine and heartfelt.

It is time for Russians to move beyond a world-view defined by a war that came from the West, even as those that fought and died in that war are honoured and remembered. The West was Russia’s ally in that war and logic would suggest that the West should again be an ally today. However, deeply felt we must all limit the power of the violent past to damage the present and possibly corrupt the future. Even we British are beginning to get that.

And please, one more thing, stop sending ageing submarines and aircraft against Britain. It does not intimidate us, it simply annoys us. And, there is always the possibility something will go horribly wrong.

Partner or Peer Competitor - Russia the choice is yours...and it is an important choice.

Julian Lindley-French

(A full length article exploring these issues will shortly appear in the Russia in Global Affairs Review)

The European Onion and the End of the Euro-Republic?

Rome, 21 June, 2011. Sallust wrote, “Only a few prefer liberty – the majority seek nothing more than fair masters”. What does the Euro crisis say about the state of Europe and the European Onion?

I am back in Rome – the Eternal City, writing your blog from a perch on the Aventine Hill. Rome and the Tiber flow a hundred metres or so below down the Clivo di San Rocco. One of ancient Rome’s seven hills the Aventine is traditionally the place where the masses would protest against the patricians. The Aventine faces the Palatine, the palace of the caesars, which not without reason dominates the Forum and the Senate.

In the second century BC Sulla brought his Army to the Aventine breaking a golden rule established at the birth of the Republic, that no Roman army could enter Rome. Having crossed the Rubicon Caesar did just that a generation later. Caesar pretended to be upholding the honour and virtues of the Roman Republic even as he smashed it. Ancient Rome was much like modern Europe, an instable balance of power between oligarchs, patricians and people. Caesar succeeded not simply because of the Army but because political leaders and the Roman people chose to believe he was the protector of Rome at a time of crisis. European history since has been full of such deceipts. Is it happening again?

The late nightness of this week’s Luxembourg Compromise where Euro-zone political leaders struggled and failed to deal with the second Greek debt crisis seems all too representative of the mixture of incompetence, self-deception and sleight of hand that has characterized the descent. Leaders are for the moment resisting the temptation to pour more money into the black hole that is Greece, but in the many calls for European Onion ‘solidarity’ the ground is being laid for another costly and pointless bail out. It is the economic equivalent of re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Indeed, until the Greeks face up to the sheer scale of their national financial disaster they will either keep coming back to their northern European partners, demanding ever more money, or be condemned to live in perpetual austerity…and maybe the rest of us with them. This latest Greek tragedy could well become Europe’s tragedy.

So, Europe, like its Roman forebears, is sleep-walking into disaster. Sooner or later European governments will be asked to place their trust in a new Dictator (in Roman times a dictator was a leader given absolute power for temporary periods of crisis) charged with ensuring that the financial and fiscal rules upon which the Euro should be established are observed. The threat to European democracy could become pressing as the already dangerous democratic deficit is cast in Roman concrete.

The parallels with ancient Rome are striking. As the distance between the elected and the electees has grown a new European patrician class has emerged, an uber-elite, much of it in Brussels. I have too often seen myself the extent to which whilst comfortable talking to each other, Europe’s oligarchs and patricians talk eternally about the people, only so long as they have little to do with them. This is the true mark of the patrician class.

Given the state of the Euro there are indeed few options; a new financial Dictator could be appointed, Greece could be cut free, Eurozone members could move towards fiscal convergence…or the Euro could fail. What I suspect will happen, given the nature of the Onion, is that a mix of all the above will be sought. Something certainly has to give. The middle ground that Eurozone leaders, rather like the Aventine, is small and getting ever smaller.  Inaction is perpetuating the length and the depth of the contagion beginning to run across Europe like one of those ancient plagues that from time to time ravaged even the most civilised.

Those of us who hold much of our savings in Euros could wake up one morning faced with a fait accompli – the Euro collapsed, a new Euro-lite being hurriedly and disastrously re-established around what is in effect a new German Bundesmark, with the value of savings slashed, whilst much of southern Europe lies in financial ruin. In that event the Onion will be sliced, diced and fried.

What is needed is a Plan B! Prepare the ground now for a soft currency landing and put in place a properly constituted body of national politicians to oversee the process.

Brussels is indeed fiddling whilst Europe burns? Where are the new Ciceros and Catos when you need them?

Europeans, wake up!

Julian Lindley-French