The Demands of Strategic Leadership: Quo vadis Europe? Professor dr. philos Janne Haaland Matlary, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo and the Norwegian Command and Staff College Strategy Conference, FSTS, 13th June 2017
«A little virtue does not hurt you, but vice is nice» Irish Catholic saying «Leadership consists of character and competence» - Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf at Westpoint (added that competence can be acquired, hardly character) Cardinal virtues from antiquity: Fortitude, temperance, justice and wisdom The list of vices is long: narcissism, greed, envy, pride, lust Trump s character: Few virtues a major problem for policy Turbulent and populist president leads to conflict with European leaders climate, trade, and also defence? Values no longer key, only interests
What about competence? Trump not the first politician to be ignorant of foreign policy Will his ministers be able to teach and lead him? Mattis brilliant in terms of both character and competence, so is Pompeo, Macmaster, Kelly At stake is the very life-line for European security, art 5 US policy may henceforth be determined by interest (much like Realpolitik) and be based on bilateral relations UN will be side-lined (possibly not UNSC), EU likewise, but for Europe it is art 5 that matters
Clausewitz it s about political effect Divide et impera - at least divide: A weakened and disunited EU, and also in time, NATO rational Russian interests Beyond Europe can Europe have political effect with use of force (policing in Middle East, Maghreb only the French seem to have a strategy there)
Russians read Clausewitz and achieve political goals Success in Georgia, 2008, in Crimea 2014, and in Ukraine now (sphere of influence is de facto and de jure established) Syria Russia has established itself as the main actor in the diplomatic process, will ensure a geopolitical basis there (the US is demandeur) global actor ambition, parity with US? Europe: Strategic interest in weakening Europe (EU, NATO) and establishing great power concert; - Europe divides and weakens itself --- Russia a unitary actor with surprise element, using military tool of statecraft Europe does neither?
Strategic Options Deterrence (and Detente): necessary in order to counter serious use of force. Military. Escalation dominance needed. Deterrence by «trip-wire», denial, and punishment Influence the calculus of adversary Test question: «Vart du skræmt no?»
Deterring Russia? Baltic deployment «trip-wire», political deterrence? Relies on art 5 US reaction Ukraine little Western engagement, Minsk reflects military power on the ground Little increase in defence budgets in Europe, German critical of deterrence
Coercion Pressure on actor to stop doing something, must be clear about timeline, conditions, and consequences, offer incentives High risk, rare successes, sanctions in this category US main actor, also for EU sanctions, which are not well specified, yet have bite
Containment Cold War strategy, premised on deterrence Exclusion from G-8 one example, yet lack of detente and diplomatic contact is dangerous Containment presupposes clear criteria for normalisation of relations
Apeasement the opposite of strategy Give in to pressure Let fear decide policy Being in denial of reality Re. Russia it is the US that has acted both in terms of deterrence and coercion, and demanded that Europeans follow suit. Absent the US, what would have happened?
Europe «Home Alone» in rough neighborhood NATO budgets shrink in many states, buying power problem and critical mass problem Migration absorbs funds, take precedence No economic growth in Europe, massive (youth) unemployment The EU cannot deal with the multiple crises at hand of which Brexit is latest
The EU Must control Schengen border, but outsources problem to Turkey Merkel s leadership weakened, Juncker a problem EU sanctions renewed because US demanded it EU greatly weakened by UK loss, no longer speaks for Europe
NATO A platform of coalitions of the willing and able Russia is a Northern Europe problem Can NATO deter Russia in Baltics? Sweden and Finland? Finlandisation redividus?
Worst case Continued US turbulence, conflict with Germany/EU EU undermines NATO with latest plan for defence union Axis DC-London-Norway (Northern Europe) vs Continent Emboldened Russia testing art 5? There are two nuclear states in Europe and the combined defence budget of the Uk, France, and Germany is bigger than that of Russia, but deterrence depends on the answer to the pivotal question: «Vart du skræmt no?»
In all events European states must rely on their own ability to greater extent than before Must enter into integrated groups and realise that what is likely to happen is below art 5, hybrid and/or conventional Deterrence of Russia is a necessary but not sufficient condition for strategic action. Division in Europe must be avoided. The EU cannot be counted on as a foreign policy actor beyond soft power (vide the handling of migration, popular protest agaist supranationality) Great powers must lead in concert (Britain, France, Germany)