What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
There are signals coming out from the members of the West; signals that indicate that there is a realization of the cost of the ongoing conflict.
The conflict in Ukraine is about to complete a year this February. With all signs indicating a prolonged war of attrition, it looks like a few members from within the Western block have begun recalibrating their priorities, albeit subtly. The regional powers outside the direct influence of the US – like India, Iran, or China, made clear their stance since the beginning of the conflict, about not bending to the US agenda. However, there was a uniform silence among members of the EU; none presented even a semblance of opposition to the US diktats. The first year of the Ukraine conflict, apart from the back and forth of the battle lines along east Ukraine, remained significant for the remarkable reticence among the European leadership to speak up on behalf of their population – people at the receiving end of the mindless sanctions against Russia.
That baffled a lot of us. I even wrote an article about why it would be difficult for the emergent regional influence-based world order to create a counter-block against the West. My argument was that none of the regional powers would – at least in the near future – manage to swallow their identities and mutate themselves into a malleable blob for the benefit of China, as the EU has allowed itself to become, for the USA.
However, recent activities suggest that perhaps complete shapelessness is not something that the EU is aiming at. Admittedly, it is too early to clutch on these events to deduce a coming of change of something as complex as the US-EU alliance core, let us check the few developments that are making rounds nonetheless.
EUROPE
Though a founding member of NATO, France dropped out of the Military Command Structure of the alliance in 1966. It was during the time of Charles de Gaulle, who was visibly against the US his whole life. He was a passionate supporter of the idea of Europe as a continent of sovereign nations and not as a supranational consumer market; his ‘dirigiste’ economic policy ensured adequate state control over the capitalist economy. Normally, one would have expected France to revert to the US fold immediately after him. However, it took France a long time; it was under Sarkozy in 2009, that France finally went back to being a military member of NATO.
France has always had the ‘independent’ gene and glimpses of that flash now and then, whether through their voiced reservations against the rapid Islamisation of Europe, or their collective angst against the wave of US-wokeism that plagues the EU these days. Therefore, when Emmanuel Macron tables his ideas about Russia as a potential partner, it comes as no surprise.
One of Macron’s key ideas is to integrate Russia into the European economy. A graphic representation of the plan is a series of concentric rings of nations; the outer ring of which includes Ukraine, Russia, or Belarus etc. The idea is to integrate Russia’s natural resources and hard power into Europe to enable the continent to decouple from the USA, in order to engage with emergent powers like China or India under its own terms. This kind of concept, if executed properly, also might incentivize Russia to slow down its complete integration as a Eurasian bloc.
The Ukraine conflict has demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that Europe will be dragged into conflicts that the US takes an interest in – directly or otherwise. And if a conflict with Russia – which is not considered to be the prime adversary anymore – can damage Europe in the way it has in 2022, then it would be far worse when the Sino-American duel hits the road. So while Macron’s plans have been shelved for now owing to the ongoing conflict, France has definite plans to be the nerve centre of an autonomous, military Europe – one that is finally free to take its own strategic decisions. Incidentally, Macron’s remarks about France’s nuclear non-retaliation even if a Russian ballistic missile hit Europe during the heat of the present crisis, is nothing short of remarkable (read the complete report here). Another interesting piece of addition – one that the US is watching very closely – is Macron’s European Political Community. Launched towards the end of 2022, the EPC aims to add one more pillar to the European integration plan. And even though the first EPC meeting did not include Russia and Belarus, the indication that they too will be a part the moment the conflict ends is quite clear.
ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST
Israel remains the only name in my Middle East list for a few reasons: One, Israel has deep links with Russia, given the number of Russian Jews in both these countries (Russian Jews in Israel are a good 15% today). Resumption – across any level – would be easy. Two, considering the ascent of Russian primacy in the Middle East since Putin decided to intervene in Syria, it makes more practical sense to assign them the kind of importance they deserve. Israel might have larger global ambitions along the US lines, but as long as they are a part of the Middle Eastern landscape, the neighbourhood would continue to matter. And Israel would not want parts of Syria to be the nesting ground for Iranian militia like it is in Gaza or Lebanon. Three, Israel’s relations with Russia had nosedived during the time the Lapid government was in office. Without getting into the debate of whether it was under American pressure, ideological preference, or just optics – this chill in relations coincided with the time when rapid strides marked a consolidation of the Russo-Iranian partnership. Finally, the fourth reason why Israel is the only Middle Eastern in consideration for now: most of us are aware of how Saudi Arabia or UAE – OPEC members in general – have upgraded their relations with Russia during the last year. Apparently, Israel is the only one that has some catching up to do.
So Netanyahu is now quickly trying to undo the damage done by the previous government. His team has made multiple contacts with key Russian ministers like FM Sergey Lavrov. The Israeli government has also promised to maintain public silence on the ongoing conflict (the Lapid government was quite vocal in condemning Russia). Last week, Israel’s Foreign Minister Eli Cohen publicly announced that he would draft a “responsible” new policy on the war, and brief his security office about it, just as soon as his communication with FM Lavrov got over.
A RESET ON THE CARDS?
A reset as complex as this does not happen overnight. It takes years, if not more. However, there are signals coming out from the members of the West; signals that indicate that there is, after all, a realization of the cost of the ongoing conflict. And signals are only consequences. The logic that precedes it could be anything. For instance, nothing prevents France from viewing this continuation of US support to Ukraine, as a ploy to off-road the French Grand Strategy for European autonomy. That America would do everything to prevent a French-led European autonomy is anyone’s guess. Similarly, Germany – no matter what they publicize – is acutely aware of the ongoing energy crisis and the resultant economic drain, entirely to the benefit of America.
Saudi Arabia, Germany, or Israel – nation-states have their regional and global interests to look after. The USA – in the course of last year – has amply demonstrated its indifference to the issues of its partners. No matter how slow or silent (or both), there is probably going to be a response to that.
[Arindam Mukherjee is a geopolitical analyst and the author of JourneyDog Tales, The Puppeteer, and A Matter of Greed.]
[Disclaimer: Views expressed above are the author’s own.]
