French President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge in Europe to set out a new strategy with Russia. His goal is to end Russia’s sense of isolation and alienation, as he explained during the 2020 Munich Security Conference, which took place on February 14–16.
Macron believes Russia is essential for Europe’s security. Without engaging its big neighbor, Europe will not be safe. This is why Europe must create some kind of security architecture that includes Russia.
This is something the Kremlin—and Germany—has long advocated only to be rebuffed by most EU and NATO countries. They simply perceive those calls as attempts by Moscow to create such a construction at the expense of the transatlantic alliance. Seeking to divide NATO and weaken Europe’s ties with the United States has been the Kremlin’s consistent policy.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, in which the EU is repeatedly criticized by Washington for its trade and competition practices, could be exploited by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Under the Trump administration, Macron believes Europe can no longer take for granted that the United States will continue to defend Europe. That actually doesn’t seem to hold water given how much the Pentagon is investing in terms of personnel and spending in the security and defense of the Baltic states.
And despite Macron’s criticism of NATO as a military and political organization—its “brain-death,” in Macroniste shorthand—publics have a different view about the alliance.
According to a recent Pew Research Center report on attitudes toward NATO, publics in member states are convinced that the United States would use military force to defend a NATO ally from Russia. An average of 60 percent believe the United States would defend an ally, while just 29 percent believe it would not.
So the United States continues to be seen as a reliable ally.
But just consider how European allies would react if one of its NATO allies was attacked by Russia. A median of 50 percent across sixteen NATO member states say their country should not defend an ally against a Russian attack, compared with only 38 percent who say their country should defend an ally, according to the survey. The vast majority of publics against defending an ally are European.
In other words, European publics are more likely to believe the United States would defend a NATO ally from a Russian attack than to think their own country should do the same. What does the Kremlin think about that then?
Despite those findings, Macron believes Europe must be prepared to become sovereign, more autonomous, and more capable of taking care of its own security and defense. Reaching out to Russia would enhance Europe’s security.
Macron’s overtures to Russia, however, are a one-way street for several reasons.
First, he has never spelled out the conditions for such a strategic partnership between Russia and Europe. The EU is supposed to place much emphasis on values, but human rights, media freedom, intimidation of investigative journalists, attacks on the rule of law, and the territorial integrity of countries are not part of Macron’s “conversation” about Russia.
Furthermore, if values were that important to Macron’s policies, he could openly criticize how Russia, apart from continuing to prop up the brutal regime of President Bashar al-Assad, has been bombing civilians, hospitals, and schools in Syria—more recently in the northwestern city of Idlib. The suffering is appalling. In a statement on Monday, the head of the UN’s humanitarian affairs office, Mark Lowcock, called it “the biggest humanitarian horror story of the 21st Century.”
And if security is so important for Macron, he knows full well how the war in Syria has created a political and security problem for Europe. The flow of refugees has fueled the rise of far-right, populist parties—not to mention the terrorist threats and attacks. It’s as if European leaders and publics have become inured to the war in Syria.
Second, his support of the principle of sovereignty, which he advocates for Europe, seems to be selectively used. Macron only has to look toward Ukraine, which Russia invaded in 2014 before illegally annexing the Crimean Peninsula. Since then, over 10,000 civilians have been killed in the war and over 1.5 million people have been internally displaced.
Sovereignty, it seems, is an exclusive right or aspiration for Europe. And given the competing players in Syria, it’s hard to see how that country’s sovereignty can be regained—an issue Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov blithely dismissed when asked about at the Munich Security Conference.
This suggests that Macron’s overtures to Russia are based not on values but on interests. But even the latter doesn’t add up. What Russia is doing in Ukraine and Syria is against Europe’s interests. And even if his overtures are based on realpolitik, Macron can only win support from other Europeans if Moscow were to give something in return. And so far, it won’t.
Macron’s way is a cul-de-sac.
Comments(33)
Which begs the question what has Putin paid Macron to pursue such a foreign policy? Or, alternatively and equally valid, what kompromat does Putin have on Macron?
I think so too. My guess is that The Yellow Jackets riots were organized/inspired and coordinated by Kremlin
After the fall of the Wall the NATO did not stop moving forward to the Russian border. And the NATO was not dismanteld. In the contrary. Earlier countries that were part of the Warsaw pact are now part of NATO. Europe needs a new safety pact without NATO but with Russia. It will not be easy to achieve an agreement with Russia as long as America dictates what happens in the world.
Why should Russia have any right to decide how Estonia or Poland or Croatia define their security arrangements. What you [and delusional Macron] are advocating is nothing but old fashioned appeasment towards bellicose Russia, who should dictate what happens in the half of Europe they occupied post-WW2.
There will never be an agreement with Russia, that is ridiculous and not even the Kremlin contemplates it. That is why the ignorant politicians like Macron, or like Angela Merkel, do not even know what they are talking about. What you propose, jos van golde, is the impossible dream of anti-Americans and anti-Jews in Europe: disintegrating the N.A.T.O. so that Russia and China dominate the planet and end the hegemony of the United States. It is a thought of "slaves" who only want another master ... You have to be more creative and describe the real world: the United States is already facing Russia and China, any other emerging power can join them ... The Pentagon will face everything that has to come ... The idiots' dream always turns into a nightmare.
Let Germany be very careful with what it does .... The faint-hearted idiot who plays "funny politics" is manipulated not only by the French elite but by a Germany that has hundreds of billions of euros invested in Russia. The American intelligence community knows that anti-Semites and anti-Americans have been subtly "indoctrinated" in Paris and Berlin. It is time to stop the quackery of those who want to disintegrate the European Union. The problem was never Eastern Europe, the traitors are in Germany and in France; destroy NATO and fall into the arms of Moscow, is to fall into the dictatorial orbit of China and Russia. It is time to stop these people who act as agents of the Kremlin and the Chinese Communist Party. They saw each other coming and no one has signaled them ... What are they waiting for in Washington?
Que tenga mucho cuidado Alemania con lo que hace.... El idiota pusilánime que juega a la "política divertida" está manipulado no solo por la élite francesa sino por una Alemania que tiene cientos de miles de millones de euros invertidos en Rusia. La comunidad de inteligencia estadounidense sabe que los antisemitas y antiamericanos han sido "adoctrinados" sutilmente en París y Berlín. Ya es la hora de que se detenga la charlatanería de los que quieren desintegrar la Unión Europea. El problema nunca fue Europa del Este, los traidores están en Alemania y en Francia; destruir la NATO y caer en brazos de Moscú, es caer en la órbita dictatorial de China y Rusia. Es hora de detener a esta gente que actúa como agentes del Kremlin y del Partido Comunista Chino. Se veían venir y nadie los ha señalado... ¿A qué esperan en Washington?
There are many issues that Judy Dempsey takes for granted, and which might be considered with a grain of salt. Her views are therefore stimulating. 1) She tends to assume that Macron is naive, stupid, and possibly arrogant given the military weakness of France compared to the US. The french defense spending is indeed 15 times smaller than in the USA. So there is no hope to be a substitute, even at the european scale. The issue is whether we need the kind of protection a pimp or a mafioso provides? What are the strategic goals of Russia in Europe, are they threatening? '2) 'Macron should criticize how Russia has been bombing civilians in Syria...'. Yes, in its fight to support Assad, Russia has killed too many civilians. Is Judy Dempsey aware of the number of civilians killed in Mossul or even Raqqah? Did she blame the perpetrators? 3) '10000' civilians have been killed in Ukraine. This (debatable ) number provided by UN, mixes civilian and military deaths , is now 12000 to 13000, with 3300 civilians. It is however in contradiction with the figures provided by the separatist (wikipedia.org /wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainan_crisis): 9832 deaths (civilians + military) in the East. If we substract the military in the East (from UN) this leaves 4232 civilan deaths in the East alone. By whom? 4) Indeed, more than 1.5 million people have been displaced, but Ms Judy Dempsey should be more accurate as to the regions where it occured, as 15 million people have left Ukraine since the independence... inhabitants froùm the Eadst complain they are bombed away. 5) Concerning the 'interests' of Europe, a gaz pipeline from Russia seems much safer than a long line of LNG ships bringing it from the US. European banks and industrial firms (in France and Germany) have been taxed several 20 of billions $ by the USA for trading, for instance, with Cuba, just before the Obama administration made it legal. They have lost billions due to the sanctions against Iran, and Europe has not been able to circumvent them. There would be a clear european interest in being less dependent on the USA ''protection'.
If the West puts the future of NATO on the table -- in exchange for major Russian concessions in Eastern Europe, including an extreme defensive posture west of the Urals -- Europe's near-permanent security cul-de-sac will finally end. The West's vaunted value system is nothing more than a veiled power play offered up, post-Holocaust, to support a corrupt system of nuclear geopolitics. Neo-liberal globalization, as well as neo-imperialism and direct economic support for Islamic Iran, have all proven that Western European values are hollow at best. After Auschwitz, nothing England, France or Germany can proclaim about themselves -- other than a plan for global peace, starting with Europe first -- has any real meaning.
"a plan for global peace, starting with Europe first" doesn't seem like an awful place to start. What else do you expect from Europe - confrontation with an expansionist China that is literally half a world away? Or perhaps another doomed attempt to create peace in the Middle East, which can't happen because the one side with a super power guarantor is already a regional hegemon? If, on the other hand you're just moaning about burden sharing, your point is entirely fair, although your grouping of the guilty parties rather suggests that the European approach to Iran is your real complaint. With regards to what I believe your central complaint to be, namely Europe not towing the line on Iran, the US position is the one that has variedwildly, not the European one. In any event, on this subject I agree with your current president, the Iran deal was very poor, and seemed to rely on a decade of easy living to foment unrest in Iran's civil population - all in all, not a serious plan.
USA will protect Europe against an invasion from the East. The US will do it on neccessity of protecting itself from adversaries. This has long been the policy of decision makers in USA Best regards
Macron is correct that a reset with Russia is needed. Not easily accomplished, of course, but worth considerable effort. Just don't make the mistake of centering a reset on a "promise," such as those previously made by North Korea, North Vietnam, or the US re expansion of NATO. A reset must be based upon essential national interests. But it is meaningless, or worse, to use public opinion polls to determine foreign policy. Polls can be manipulated and, more to the point, public opinion is both malleable and fickle. Let's get real and make a start. Russia has MUCH more in common with Europe than with Central Asia or China.
The issue is whether Russia is the real threat to Europe today, or a potential ally against the real threat. Germany, and now Macron, are not thinking of Russia as if it might attack like the Soviets of old. They are thinking of Russia as an ally against China, and potentially against an overbearing US as with the Iran Deal. It isn't that Russia is harmless, and certainly not that is is wonderful and nice. But then, Macron does not think that of Eastern Europe either, and nor does Merkel even of some of the right wing Germans. It is a matter of defining sides, and who can help against whom.
One has to wonder if M Macron has the same Commander In Chief as D Trump.
When the main threat to Europe is from Putin's Russia, then it does make sense to take your enemy into your bosom. But only when your arms and chest are strong enough to crush him, and your brain to to lead them. It seems that the West suffers from dearth of intelligence in its leaders, who do not seem to be able to analyze hard facts and lack the ability to make appropriate properly interpret their significance.
Macron' s views are strategically right in the long term if one adds China's (and generally far East's) threat into the equation. Russia is not West and doesn't share most values but he is right to say that it is a conservative Christian orthodox project. Neutralising some post cold-war disputes between Russia and the West can free up valuable resources to deal with the real Problems of the far East. EU + UK could take up on this role. If the threat of the World is "Westlessness", then it has definitely started from Japan and subsequently China (with their "ancient regime") spreading into Iran and Turkey (imperial + Muslim). Macron is here politically correct, if west values are to survive, Russia needs to be on the "right" side of history and not pushed away (not to forget it's a multiethnic nation in the east)
What people feel and think is one Thing. Another is Facts. Never mind whose idea it is. Europe must build ist own relationship with Russia.
What "facts" do you mean? The sad fact that France has ZERO credibility since 1938 when it comes to anything defense or security related? France was a terrible bilateral ally and even worse as a member-nonmember of NATO. There is a huge deficit of trust towards France in many parts of today's EU.
Macron is doing the same in Libya, he driven by self interest, hell with human lifes, history proves that Russia has no credibility whatsoever, any time Putin could be changes or pass away, imagine what will happen, if we go back in history before Putin Russia was struggling, they are not mature enough to build trust or change the way they think. France with Macron is a cause of many human being killed and people displaced, very nice article it indicates more of Macron bad behaviour and judgement.
So many different opinions vented here to this article, this basically sums up the EU they do not know which way to go. Macron may be right or wrong but the EU countries are not sure, in the east the countries closest to Russia know by experience that there safety and security lies with the US and Nato, those in the centre have a buffer of countries but Russia is still close and has to be contained by policy and strength. But France is far from Russia and is willing to trade and drop some security as they see the threat as distant my view is always display strength and control as best as you can. The US, UK know this being pragmatic to Russia and letting it slowly creep up on our security is stupid. Sooner or later dictators will fall and be swept aside Putin's reign will end in the next 10 years sometime. This will be the time to reset the relationship as the current regime has form and cannot be trusted.
The ultimate reset was the fall of communism, and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. The US botched the opportunity in order to pursue dominance. Meanwhile, it is indeed bold to assume Putin will be replaced by a liberal, westward-leaning regime. It amazes me how many serious analysts are unable to see how the world looks from Russian eyes.
1. "in the east the countries closest to Russia know by experience that there safety and security lies with the US and Nato" This part of their internal political games - like anti-japanese rhetorics (related to WW-2 era) in South-Korean or Chinese politics. Anti-Russian hysteria is easy to sell there. 2." but Russia is still close and has to be contained by policy and strength. " You forget that it is West who creeps into Russian neighborhood (possibly preparing for miliary invasion) staging coups, buying governments and not the other way around - Russia just started to fight back since 2008. 3."But France is far from Russia and is willing to trade and drop some security as they see the threat as distant my view is always display strength and control as best as you can." Macron most likely just wants to score some points internally, as a great diplomat. It is unlikely that the EU and their masters in Washington can offer anything worthwhile to Russia, which will make Putin try finding a compromise. They want total capitulation of Russia, which will not happen. 4"The US, UK know this being pragmatic to Russia and letting it slowly creep up on our security is stupid. " The USA and its puppet states, just want to build a worldwide empire, that's why they creeping into Chinese or Russian regions, that's the real reason of current conflict. It's not pragmatic, it is pretty much the way all empires went before them. 5." Sooner or later dictators will fall and be swept aside Putin's reign will end in the next 10 years sometime. " It is unlikely that the government, which will come after Putin will be more pro-Western. If anything, it will most likely turn even more to the East, firmly putting Russia into the Chinese camp.
Dear Ms Dempsey, you are so terribly right. E,g : If Macron wants to play with Russia, why does he not encourage Moscow to make a deal in de UN SC to end the regime of Assad? One stroke of the pen from Putin and Assad is out. Russia can have its little port in the Levant in exchange. And the indescribable suffering of the Syrian people can - theoretically - come to and end. Nowhere can proof be found Russia wants peace. Everywhere is evidence it wants chaos and destruction. To cover up internal problems; a classic scenario that still works.
I'm not sure you are correct that 'everywhere it wants chaos and destruction..' Putin's objective in Syria is seemingly to stabilise the country under Assad's leadership after the U.S.'s attempt to destabilise the country with its covert Timber Sycamore operations that led to ISIS' takeover of the region. In fact the 'Putin doctrine' in regards to foreign policy in the Middle east seems to be (wherever possible) never again allow the destabilisation of Middle eastern countries through US interference as happened in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan that led to the devastation of these countries. 'One stroke of the pen from Putin and Assad is out..' you say, and what then..? If history is a good guide then Syria will go the path of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc as failed states directly initiated by US actions.
1." If Macron wants to play with Russia, why does he not encourage Moscow to make a deal in de UN SC to end the regime of Assad?" EU can hardly offer such a deal, which can we worth reputational loss in case of abandoning one of the few allies it has. 2. "Russia can have its little port in the Levant in exchange." As shown many times in history, deals with the West doesn't worth the paper they were signed. Most recent example - Iran deal. 3." And the indescribable suffering of the Syrian people can - theoretically - come to and end" Nope, it will turn into 2nd Lybia, where various tribes and warlords will fight for local dominance. It already pretty fractured and playing into "democratic" games will cause total disintegration of the state. 4."Nowhere can proof be found Russia wants peace." Russia want the Syrian state to win over foreign-supported insurgents, which will lead to the stabilization of the country. 5."Everywhere is evidence it wants chaos and destruction. To cover up internal problems; a classic scenario that still works." You don't understand the vector Russian propaganda takes at all. And all internal problems can be blamed on Western interference and sanctions, which they kindly put on Russia. Generally, Russian people are pretty patriotic and because of that interferences, they see the West as the main enemy for at around 10 years, according to polls.
Exact; the American Intelligence Community considers the Kremlin the greatest geopolitical danger of this 21st century; and Mr. Putin a dangerous dictator who wants revenge and full of hatred of the United States ... It has even been said that he is a thousand times more dangerous than Xi Jinping ... Isn't that funny?
This is shoddy analysis. A disappointment for the Carnegie brand. For one, Macron has strategic vision. All other European leaders seem overwhelmingly focused on their domestic situations. (Further, and regrettably, Germany is in the midst of a meltdown by the CDU, with huge implications for German stability). Macron has a sense of where the world is heading, and what Europe needs to do to manage its interests, in a world where the US perspective is 'America first', where US sovereignty is paramount - all others fall in line to await instruction fom the US. The author points to important polling data on NATO and the preferences and perspectives of various national publics. I advise the author to review polling data on page 19 of the Munich Security Report 2020 which makes abundantly clear European national publics' support for neutrality in conflicts between the US and Russia or the US and China. The American approach to international relations is dominance and divide-and-rule. The US has sought to isolate Russia and is now trying to do the same with China. European publics are right to be wary.
Macron is going to throw overboard Eastern European countries to make a deal with greedy Putin. The outcome will be not peace, but even more fights in postsoviet area. And possible exit of some weak EU members, vulnerable to Putin hybrid war. Essentialy France will do the same mistake as did in 1938 signing Munich agreement to dismantle Czechoslovakia and make reset of relationship with Hitler.
Macron and France are paper tigers and so is the EU, there is no political will to adjust national budgets to create a European Army or create a French nuclear deterrent of significance to Russia. Judy Dempsey argues that the US is not under Trump reducing its commitment to Europe based on “how much the Pentagon is investing in terms of personnel and spending in the security and defense of the Baltic states.” Effectively US forces rotating in and out of the Baltic nations are militarily in an impossible situation in terms of conventional forces. The U.S. Army currently deploys 6,000 soldiers throughout seven countries as part of Atlantic Resolve in three separate rotations — armored, aviation and logistical. The US Air Force will spend a little over $31 million on infrastructure and fuel storage at Amari air base in Estonia, just under $4 million on infrastructure upgrades at Lielvarde air base in Latvia, and $3 million on munitions storage at Siauliai air base in Lithuania. This is basically a redeployment strategy that assumes there will be time to send additional forces to the Baltic. As far most knowledgable people can see the USA would deploy in an emergency largely activated Air National Guard units. All of that presumes any Russian invasion would gradually happen and there would be limited clashes. A 2017 RAND study proposed deployments of around 35,000 personnel, with an additional reinforcement capability of up to about 70,000 personnel to the Baltic nations; this is the level of force that might be able to prevent a Russian military fait accompli and force Moscow to fight a bloody and drawn-out conventional war, should Russia attack (See David A. Shlapak Deterring Russian Aggression in the Baltic States) The US and NATO are not prepared to do this and the entire presumption of this defense strategy is based on the idea that a Russian attack on US forces in the Baltics would generate a nuclear response by the USA. I am not sure President Trump agrees with that logic.
Trump and logic in the same sentence don't go. Trump and Putin however...
Nunca jamás habrá un acuerdo con Rusia, eso es ridículo y ni siquiera el Kremlin lo contempla. Es por eso que los ignorantes políticos como Macron, o como Angela Merkel, no saben ni de lo que hablan. Lo que usted propone, jos van golde, es el sueño imposible de los antiamericanos y de los antijudíos en Europa: desintegrar la N.A.T.O. para que Rusia y China dominen el planeta y acaben con la hegemonía de Esatados Unidos. Es un pensamiento de "esclavos" que solo quieren otro amo... Hay que ser más creativo y describir el mundo real: Estados Unidos ya está plantando cara a Rusia y a China, cualquier otra potencia emergente puede unirse a ellos... El Pentágono afrontará todo lo que tenga que venir... El sueño de los idiotas, siempre se convierte en pesadilla.
Exacto, " Maarten de Sitter, late NATO Polad ", la Comunidad de Inteligencia Estadounidense, considera al Kremlin el mayor peligro geopolítivo de este siglo XXI; y al señor Putin un peligroso dictador con ganas de revancha y lleno de odio a los Estados Unidos... Incluso se ha llegado a decir que es mil veces más peligroso que Xi Jinping... ¿No es curioso eso?
Nothing new here. The brutal Assad propped up by evil Putin my my no mention of who supported Iraq's infamous enfant of choice vis a vis evil Iran. Then destroying one of the few secular countries in the region. Going for the other secular state of Syria. Who benefits? Those behind the -new American Century's ideologues still pulling strings in the media. Pushing an ideological agenda the world has seen through. As for Putin attacking Europe - good grief what ancient sabre rattling from the morgue of the 19th century power projection politics like American exceptionalism and the Monroe doctrine. No wonder they Europeans are somewhat sanguine.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.