The historian and writer Luuk van Middelaar, author of several books on European issues (see EUROPE 12171/22), including the latest ‘Le réveil géopolitique de l’Europe’ (Collège de France), gives EUROPE his thoughts on the repercussions for the European Union of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Interview by Mathieu Bion)
Agence Europe - What seemed unthinkable a week ago is happening. The European Union is reacting to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by supplying military equipment to the Ukrainian army. Germany has completely changed its policy in this area. Is the EU well-founded to act in this way?
Luuk van Middelaar - Europe has always had, in the minds of some, a geopolitical vocation, to be a pole of power among other poles. Mrs von der Leyen did not invent this idea, it has been around since General De Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer.
On the other hand, there is the idea of Europe as a normative power, founded to put an end to a world governed by concepts of national powers, territories and interests. So there is a strong tension between these two vocations.
What is happening today is clearly an impressive acceleration of geopolitical awareness. Germany is the epicentre of this awareness, with Chancellor Scholz’s speech on Sunday 27 February in the Bundestag. Angela Merkel had said that Europe had to take its destiny into its own hands. Today, Mr Scholz completes these words with a German and, therefore, European re-armament, which changes everything.
A line has been crossed with this issue of arms deliveries to Ukraine.
The fact that Germany is going to take its defence seriously changes everything for the country and for the Franco-German relationship, because as long as the impetus only comes from Paris, there is always a suspicion of mistrust towards France.
Are there any safeguards, any criteria to control the announced arming of Ukraine?
We can see that things are happening very, very quickly, at a time of geostrategic, even nuclear danger, and of great emotion, with a lot of suffering.
But a will to frame this geopolitical awareness is missing. This is my concern.
The European institutions do not have a tradition of geostrategic thinking, in terms of nuclear balance, powers and counter-powers. Therefore, there is a need for more holistic thinking that combines economic analysis, energy security with a judgement on the landscape and geopolitical risks.
There is a certain casualness of the moment which is reflected, for example, in the ease with which a highly strategic issue such as Ukraine’s membership of the EU is considered. This does not show great maturity.
Why should we be cautious about Ukraine’s request for accession to the EU?
We are in the middle of a war with a nuclear power, a war in which one of the issues in the mind of the aggressor is precisely the place of Ukraine in the continental order - membership of NATO, membership of the EU.
So let us first avoid the worst, let us avoid making a complex situation even more complex and let us refrain from making very ambiguous promises. Is it conceivable that Ukraine could join the EU without simultaneously or first joining NATO? Would this be conceivable without a major risk of nuclear conflict? Or are we going to defend Ukraine on the basis of Article 42(7), our own ‘solidarity article’?
There are other ways to support Ukraine at this tragic moment, other formulas for approximation to offer the country.
I pass over the fact that this issue is not unanimous among the Member States, so it undermines all too quickly the impressive unity that the Union has shown since the invasion.
With this package of sanctions adopted by the EU and allied countries, is Europe up to the task?
The economic and financial response must be separated from the issue of re-armament. In terms of economic strikes, the EU acted swiftly and in a united front. Even Hungary joined the sanctions package in the name of unity, probably also because its Polish ally asked it to.
Here, Europe acted quickly. The Central and Eastern European countries really weighed in on the decision. Their fears about Russia, which have not always been taken seriously in Western Europe, are now confirmed. This rebalances strategic thinking within the EU. And this contributes to the strategic convergence so desired by France.
Will the Russian invasion at the EU’s doorstep provoke a leap in European integration and lead to the communitarisation of certain policies?
There is a leap in terms of awareness of our vulnerability, of the importance of defending ourselves as a club of democracies, including territorially. But I do not see a ‘communitarisation’ in the true sense of the word of foreign and security policy.
On the very big issues, war and peace, we saw President Macron travelling to Kyiv and Moscow and Chancellor Scholz doing the same the following week.
Nevertheless, Mr Macron speaks in Moscow with the European and French flags, and Mr Scholz behind the European and German flags. They have placed their action in the European framework, and that is very good.
This does not require treaty change. It depends much more on political will, on a shared analysis of the major strategic dangers and challenges.
EU announces it will ‘pull the plug’ on Russia Today & Sputnik, accusing them of being propaganda machines for the Kremlin? Is this compatible with the values that the EU stands for, such as freedom of expression?
We improvise, as in many crises. The next step will be to provide a framework for these initiatives. This reflects a new awareness, which I think is right, that freedom, including freedom of expression, must be defended against its enemies. Once we have said that, the question remains because we can also go too far and deny our freedom.
On Sunday in the Bundestag, Chancellor Scholz spoke of a historic turning point - Zeitenwende. On 24 February, the day of the Russian invasion, we left one era and entered another. We have come out of an era where we thought that our freedom, prosperity and security were almost free, that they were historic achievements in Europe that had no financial, military or political cost.
Today, if this is a historic turning point, we realise that we face real choices, even tragic dilemmas, and that we will have to fight to safeguard security and freedom. And the EU has its place, along with NATO for security, as the appropriate vehicle for doing so.