As Russian troops gathered force,The French President Emmanuel Macron made a case for de- escalation, but at stake was not only peace, but a distinctly French vision for a new global order. For years, Paris has sought to integrate Russia into the European fold, allowing the continent to achieve strategic autonomy. Leveraging Russia's natural resources and hard power would allow Europe to decouple from American influence. In turn, this would forestall a Russian Chinese block from taking shape in Eurasia. Macron wants Europeans to think of the European Union as an entity that covers security as much as economy. He wants to give the EU a military face, gather the continents resources and reform it into a global power in its own right. And he wants France to be the agency of that power. And though the hostilities in Ukraine have set back France as bid for hegemony, sometimes one does not need to see the whole staircase just to take the first step.
Since the end of World War Two, France has sought to secure in place for itself in the global order of things during the Cold War, the country integrated into American led institutions including NATO and economic organizations that would later turn into the European Union. The science of these policies was clear nuclear deterrence would ward off external threats while interdependence would prevent fighting within Europe, but being the junior partner was not to France's liking. So it withdrew its forces from NATO command between 1966 and 2009. It then developed its own nuclear deterrent, and still later, it refused to endorse the American invasion of Iraq a decision since vindicated by History. In recent years, however, the need for independent European decision making has picked up steam as an emerging global power. China is on a collision course with the United States Europe will be dragged into this conflict whether it likes it or not. France's response has been to push for strategic autonomy, which would keep France and by extension Europe allied with Washington, but avoid a showdown with China unless absolutely necessary. Strategic autonomy would allow Europe to expand its economic interdependence into Russia, and by drawing Moscow into a third pole, Europe would also prevent a Russian Chinese Alliance. As far as grand strategies go this one is not shy of ambition. Macrons plan consists of concentric circles, Germany and France are at the core. Next is the Euro zone, then the wider EU then outlying states like Britain, Turkey, Norway and the Baltics and finally, the Balkans, the caucuses, Ukraine and possibly Belarus and Russia. This interlocking system would draw Europe into a cohesive bloc, allowing it to pull out the Chinese American rivalry. While it made sense on paper, The French plan hit a wall.
COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and then the conflict in Ukraine have discredited macrons strategic autonomy, the creation of the European political community, EPC for short was a slight vindication. Set up in May 2022, The EPC is a biannual forum for Strategic Dialogue consisting of 44 states, and though invitations were withheld for Russia and Belarus, the implication is that they can join once the war in Ukraine is resolved. Seen from this angle, the EPC offers Russia a way to save face and stop the war in Ukraine with the promise of access to lucrative European markets. So in theory, becoming part of the strategically autonomous Europe could change Russia's behavior and make it more willing to compromise. Yet the French plan is full of holes even within Europe itself. Berlin's decision to subsidize domestic energy consumption to the tune of $200 billion has stirred the pot, Though energy subsidies lower German living costs and prevent manufacturers from offshoring their operations, They also permit German consumers to outbid their European counterparts suing division within the single market. Moreover, Berlin cannot afford to decouple from Russia and China simultaneously, which is why Chancellor Schultz broke ranks and permitted the Chinese shipping firm Cosco to buy a stake in Hamburg port, despite national security concerns. This deal, however, strategic was just a precursor for Schultz's visit to Beijing in November 2022, accompanied by business leaders from Bayer, biotech and Siemens Schultz made the case for strengthening economic ties. Naturally, these unilateral moves earned a rebuke from Macron who accused Schultz of undermining European unity. Besides Germany, Eastern Europe is another area of contention
Having joined NATO to balance against Moscow's influence Few states on the periphery are keen on the French plan to welcome back Russia. Britain has latched on to this sentiment, and due to its military aid, London has gained substantial influence in Eastern Europe, all at the expense of the French. But even so, the single biggest obstacle to European strategic autonomy is the United States. For years Washington has pushed its NATO allies to find their own defense, but this does not mean it wants Europe to develop an independent defense policy, let alone form a partnership with Moscow. America's objective is to bleed Russia as much as possible. To this end, it has provided Ukraine with 10s of billions of dollars in military aid, imposing tremendous costs on the Russians, but military aid always comes with strings attached.Selling weapons is the same as selling influence in politics. In addition to subsidizing the Ukrainian military, Ukraine has also become interoperable and thus dependent on American systems. In turn, this prevents Europe from becoming self sufficient in defense.
Naturally, this collides with Macron strategic autonomy, which assigns France the role of Europe's arsenal. Paris has had some recent success in expanding its military industry. 2021 was a particularly good year for French armaments, with sales, surpassing $11 billion. These exports are needed to support the French military industry, which is the world's third largest and employs about Two Hundred Thousand people. Yet the demand generated by rising geopolitical tensions has mostly benefited American firms like Lockheed Martin and Boeing over their French competitors. In particular, Berlin's recent purchase of dozens of F 35 Jets over French alternatives was seen as a blow to European Defence autonomy.
But beyond weapons, Europe is also becoming increasingly dependent on American energy exports, though nothing conclusive, can currently be said about the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.,The most immediate beneficiary has been the United States. America has shot past Qatar and Australia to become the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. This is largely off the back of surging European demand generated by the war in Ukraine. There is thus no strategic or economic rationale in Washington to let Europe carve an independent path under their French leadership. From American perspective, NATO is crucial in balancing against China and Russia. So America has no qualms about exploiting internal divisions to keep Europe within its orbit and away from Russia's.
The only exception is Turkey, which has achieved a degree of autonomy and Power Broker status France can only dream of. By exempting itself from sanctions Turkey is setting up a gas hub with Russia cheaply purchasing energy resources that would otherwise be flowing through Nord Stream. At the same time, it has sold military vehicles and drones to Ukraine, bolstering its weapons industry. Ankara has even used its leverage to pressure Moscow to unblock Ukrainian grain exports, establishing itself as a respectable regional power. In substance, Turkey is filling the niche that France wants for itself.
Taken together. The desire for autonomy is entrenched into French policy and alliances with Washington serves Paris's immediate interests, but in the long term, it threatens to drag Europe into an unwanted showdown with Russia and China. Though there is agreement on the need for autonomy, the conflicting interests of the individual states undermine European cohesion. Above all, any expanding of European autonomy equals to a loss of American influence, something Washington would not accept. Without doubt. Macron plan and intention is grounded in legitimate policymaking. But while in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is practically no similarity between the two.
Comments