Borrell admitted the powerlessness of Europe in Ukraine: why this should not reassure

“No one can replace the USA”

The head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, went on a visit to the United States and publicly acknowledged Europe’s military impotence there. In the Old World, it is now extremely fashionable to argue that America can no longer be relied upon 100% and therefore Europe must urgently build up its own strength muscles and be ready to take full responsibility for the confrontation with Russia in Ukraine. But, as the chief of European diplomacy admitted, in the foreseeable future this is absolutely impossible: “No one can compete with the army and military potential of the United States. And of course, if you (America -MK) stop doing this, no one else can take your place.”

Well said – but definitely not with the goal of encouraging Russia and increasing its confidence that victory in Ukraine is close. Borrell’s trip to the United States is of a clearly propaganda nature. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Policy is trying to pull Washington out of its state of lethargy and focus on its own internal political squabbles. In achieving this goal, Borrell comes from different sides and rolls out diverse arguments. One line of attack is described above: Josep Borrell plays on the pride of Americans, speaking in the sense of “how cool you are and how weak we are! Please don’t leave us to the mercy of fate! We will be lost without you!”

Borrell’s other line of attack targets what Americans value most—their own interests: “For us Europeans and for you in the United States, in terms of security, the cost of a Russian victory in Ukraine is so great, so vast, so incredible that I I urge everyone to understand that support for Ukraine must continue not only out of generosity towards the people who are defending themselves from invasion, but also in our own interests.”

But where does all this lead? Which of Borrell’s theses is just propaganda, and which has at least some relation to reality? The only possible answer at this point is: no one knows. In the early stages of the Covid epidemic in 2020, the World Health Organization made a statement that still refuses to leave my head four years later: we are in uncharted territory. The same can be said today about the current military-political situation in Europe. What was considered an axiom for decades is crumbling before our eyes.

The special relationship between Moscow and Paris has been a constant in European politics at least since the presidency of Charles de Gaulle in the 60s of the last century. Today, anti-Russian statements are heard from President Macron almost on a daily basis. Here, for example, is their latest sample: “We are doing everything possible to help Ukraine defeat Russia, because I will say very simply: there can be no lasting peace… unless there is a return to the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine, including Crimea.”

“We do our best” or “we say our best”? In the case of Macron, as we know, the second is almost always true. But this does not change the essence: in the memory of living generations, relations between Russia and France have never been so antagonistic. Trying to find at least some analogues to what is happening, every time I find myself in the 19th century – in the times preceding the start of the Crimean War in 1854, when the combined forces of London and Paris attacked Russia on the very peninsula that Macron is now threatening to take away from Moscow.

Another past constant, which today, according to the Cheshire cat method, is dissolving into thin air right before our eyes: the non-aggressive nature of Germany’s military policy. Yes, Chancellor Scholz is still holding out and stubbornly resisting calls to disregard caution and send Taurus missiles to Ukraine. But the Chancellor is opposed from all sides – both his own ministers and the opposition of their CDU/CSU bloc. Political views that were once the preserve of the fringes have now become almost the political mainstream in Berlin.

Germany’s return to relying on military instruments in foreign policy is perhaps not yet a completely realized fact. But this fact is very close to happening. What past period of history was something like this typical for? Due to the extremely politicized nature of the topic, I will not remember the times of Hitler. Let me instead remember the times of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Let me remind you that he ruled before and during the First World War. Not the most reassuring analogy, right?

And Borrell’s rhetoric that the EU is unable to do anything without America should not be reassuring either. The saber-rattling that is now observed throughout Europe can be assessed in two ways. Or it is hysteria, which will be replaced by a more reasonable and balanced position at a time when it will be necessary not just to scratch one’s tongue, but to make a decision on the principle of “to be or not to be.” Or the fatal Rubicon will actually be crossed. The first is still more likely. But the second has long gone beyond the scope of statistical error.