I always appreciate articles by Aris Roussinos because they offer interesting perspectives, but what is sometimes lacking – as in this article – is a sense of what the events he writes about mean in practice.
OK, so France and Greece have signed this pact, representing a bilateral (nothing to do with the EU, apart from the fact that both parties are member states) security alliance intended to work in parallel (and without presenting an immediate threat to) NATO. This prevents the usual suspects along the EU’s eastern flank and Germany** from freaking out. It’s kind of a stealth move, as Macron has probably understood that the European public is not disposed to an EU under his leadership, so he has to build up power gradually and on the sly until it can no longer be denied and there’s no going back.
The pact also seems to have the tacit approval of the Biden administration. That might seem momentous but I think if you’re an American voter, you’re probably thinking “about time you lot got your entitled backsides into gear, we’ve been hinting at this for more than a decade”.
So anyway, returning to France and Greece and this new pact. In practice, this will not go much further than symbolism. Imagine is Turkey did start to behave aggressively towards Greece and France stepped in to throw its weight around a bit (as it did some time ago by sending warships to the Mediterranean). Erdogan will simply open the borders to refugees. France will then come under severe pressure from other EU members (above all Germany, I would imagine) to tone it down, as another wave of uncontrolled migration could very well push the EU past the point of no return. Greece would be the fall guy and end up hosting many thousands more refugees which no other country in Europe wants to accept.
Check mate.
Also, a question popped into my head when reading this: how exactly is Greece financing this new naval hardware?
** ” the perennially supine German security establishment” – great use of words, touché!
Turkey has already tried that tactic of opening the borders to refugees. It failed as Greece’s massively strengthened border defences and pushbacks at sea largely nullifed the tactic.
Agree it will be more difficult this time through conventional means, but Erdogan I am sure will be quite inventive in his options, and his choice of allies to help him get his way.
There is also the matter of a few million Turks in Germany not averse to the odd show of force when he chooses to stir them up.
Greece will finance with government bonds which the European Central Bank will purchase with funding provided by Germany. Possibly the only way German taxpayers will ever end up paying for the defence of a fellow EU member.
Sub-editor (?) has done Aris no favours there. Another very good read from Aris, although I’m still in the “talk is cheap” camp on this one.
However I do find Macron consistently the most interesting leader in the EU at the moment on a range of issues, particularly defence.
Much of what he says and does is largely unreported by our pro-EU media. Paradoxically they seem uninterested in what EU countries do and say, preferring instead to stay onside with Brussels and worship at the altar of Merkel.
That’s why I enjoy Aris’s articles. Katharine Eyre’s comments below are a good supplement to it as well.
Thanks Dustin. I also agree that British media also come up short on reporting what goes on in Europe. Although European media are just as bad with reporting on the UK, so it’s swings and roundabouts.
Macron fascinates and appalls me. On the one hand, he’s one of the only leaders who has truly seen and understood the big picture for Europe and is doing his darndest to drive his agenda forward with a highly sclerotic EU where nation states cling to a status quo that’s no longer sustainable. For that, he deserves respect.
On the other hand, Macron is so abrasive and so hyper and his government sometimes so downright nuts (the threat to cut off Jersey’s electricity supply when there was a disagreement about the interpretation of the WA…France – this is a proportionate reaction. Have you two met?) that he shoots himself in the foot with his leadership ambitions, as that’s about winning people over, not issuing bald commands in high-flown language. He’s sometimes so impossibly arrogant, I can’t listen to him. I also rather suspect he’s willing to go to some extreme and undemocratic lengths to turn the EU into a vehicle of French power.
Perhaps UnHerd should abandon the practice of letting editors write the headlines and let the authors do it themselves. This is the second piece I’ve read here today with a headline (well in the other case it was the subhead) which didn’t match the article.
The greatest threat to peace in Europe in the long term is not Russia – it is a fanatical war-mongering Tory led government in Westminster spurred on by the perennial warmongering, hatred spewing British media.
But first, of course, the Tory right-wingers are raring to have a go at invading China. It’ll be described as a war of liberation of course. If that doesn’t go swimmingly well (and it may not!), then they’ll turn to smaller fry to show those nasty Europeans what’s ‘wot’.
Global Britain – that’s where! Don’t forget fantasy-land and grand delusion prevails in Westminster – like sending an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.
I tried to give your comment an uptick, and it just increased the downticks from 3 to 4. This has happened before, and more than once.
I think there’s something seriously wrong with this idiosyncratic scoring system. Why it cannot show the pluses and minuses separately, like other publications do, I do not understand.
You are right about Russia not being Europe’s main enemy in the long term. In fact, slow changes in the EU–Russia relationship will be the next thing to watch for.
You also have it right about the long-term, serious threat of destabilisation that the UK will continue to represent.
The real reasons behind this major global strategic realignment are occult: certain occult groups embedded in the anglo English-speaking world are after power and world domination, and the appearance of terms such as “world-beating” in recent Johnsonian discourse is no accident. The current English government are puppets pulled on strings manipulated by these unsavoury groups operating behind the scenes.
The leading edge in terms of true advances in human culture and civilisation—in human evolution, will continue to be centred in Europe, which must at all costs be protected. Ultimately, that leading edge will shift eastward to Russia and the Slavic peoples, but that’s a long way off still.
Macron is astute and on the ball. His relative youth is on his side, and it is entirely appropriate that the French pick up their traditional political baton again. The pact with Greece came as a lovely surprise, but it is immediately understandable as a brilliant move, once you know the real game that is being played.
I agree with Macron on Islam but describing him as having his finger on the pulse is delusional. The guy is a tantrum-throwing lunatic. The UK gets accused of imperialist delusion but if anyone is trying to rattle its sabres and reassert its authority it’s France.
…describing him as having his finger on the pulse is delusional
These are strong words. You need to say why, to support your assertion. You need to argue your case. It is misguided to attack me as delusional without saying why. That is just personal abuse and is not acceptable. The guy is a tantrum-throwing lunatic. Again, strong words, without any supporting facts or argument. So, again a case of abusive character assassination, this time directed at M. Macron. And again, not acceptable. Have you considered the fact that the English and the French might have different national temperaments? That the English might appear emotionally aborted relative to the French, who appear to express themselves in overly dramatic terms? The UK gets accused of imperialist delusion but if anyone is trying to rattle its sabres and reassert its authority it’s France. True, France is sort of “rattling its sabre” in an attempt to fill what it perceives to be a power vacuum. But this is purely in the context of EU politics: Merkel is gone, Germany’s new role is yet to unfold, and France has traditionally played the part of the political/foreign affairs/diplomatic face, as balanced with Germany’s economic role. The political field is France’s traditional strength. So it is attempting to assert, or rather, reassert, its traditional role in the EU context. Just in case. The UK, by contrast, is strutting the world stage. Or attempting to. World domination is its goal. It wants to be “world-beating”. Those of us who think the UK’s stance is unrealistic, and its goal unattainable and positively dangerous to world peace in the 21st century, tend to ascribe this posture to a nostalgic desire for glories of past empire. We view the UK or, more properly, the English people, as trapped in the past, unable to develop a positive new place in the world for themselves—in short, as going through a national trauma, a sort of national nervous breakdown. This is a very dangerous state of affairs for the rest of us who wish to coexist with England in equality and peace..
And just who are these three puppet masters manipulating the Anglo world, as you claim? Do please reveal your hand, sources, evidence….please tell us ‘Penny Lane’.
Okay, sorry to disabuse you of your conspiracy theory, but there is nothing to see here.
First, “Penny Lane” is my abbreviated, informal name. Fact. I don’t have to explain it to you, and given your attitude, I don’t feel inclined to.
Second, the source for all my assertions is the work of Dr Rudolf Steiner. There is nothing to hide; quite the reverse, my efforts are dedicated to getting knowledge of Steiner’s work out to the general public.
Steiner lived through the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries (he died in 1925). He was a high Initiate in the Western spiritual tradition who brought a renewal of Christian teachings suited to the modern West. He said himself that the spiritual path he introduced was especially tailored to modern secular society and those brought up in atheistic beliefs. As a person raised in strict atheism, who has been lucky enough to discover Steiner’s teachings, I can personally vouch for their suitability and efficacy.
Steiner was a polymath, and applications of his teachings are to be found everywhere today, from Waldorf education, to biodynamic agriculture, to forms in architecture, eurhythmy, and many other specialties. Steiner’s work was voluminous, as might be expected of an initiate.
One of the characteristics of initiation is the abilities it brings to see into both past and future. This is simply the result of opening higher faculties, spiritual faculties which are normally dormant in ordinary human beings. There is nothing mysterious here: do the work and you get the results.
So Steiner could see into the future, and there are thousands of pages of his lectures devoted to addressing the challenges facing humanity if it is to evolve in a positive direction henceforth.
The things I cite form themes of some lectures he gave shortly after the end of WWI. The brotherhoods he describes are not identified by name; he simply places them within the English-speaking world, which means in practice Britain and North America.
In other lectures, Steiner pointed to the US rather than Britain as the home of these “egotistical” “grey” brotherhoods, although that situation may have changed in the last 100 years. I personally formed the impression these brotherhoods were some part of the Freemasonic world, but I stress this is purely my opinion, and I could be wrong. Steiner went to some lengths to distinguish between uncorrupted Freemasonry (Britain and Europe at the time he was speaking) and some of the more dubious American lodges.
In one set of lectures, however, Steiner gave a detailed exposition of the way Britain deliberately bypassed an opportunity to prevent the First World War. His description of the way some incompetent English politicians, such as Lord Grey, were manipulated by these forces behind the scenes is terrifyingly similar to what we are seeing played out with the present English puppet government headed by Johnson.
The takeaway point here is that the real stakes lie far deeper than mere sausage wars or other forms of EU-bashing. The stakes are world domination by the anglosphere, and whatever wars may be necessary to achieve that. So the only question worth asking is, Who is really running the English government???
Most of the important parts of Steiner’s work can be found online at RSArchive.org. There is an excellent search engine, which will take you to whatever aspect you may wish to research.
Specifically, two links to the source of my current comment are: https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ChaTim_index.html https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19171118p02.html
Much as I agree with you (and I do), I want to quibble on one point: evil always has two poles; just think of the forked tongue.
The US/UK anglosphere is undoubtedly one pole. The other pole, however, must be China.
Countries such as Canada, New Zealand must be excepted from the anglosphere axis of evil, but Australia and South Africa must be included.
China’s pole includes North Korea, but excludes South Korea, Tibet, Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and the rest of Southeast Asia. Where Burma and Mongolia end up is yet to be seen. As also the central-Asian Stans, which may well end up in China’s camp. And of course, we distinguish between the present Chinese government and the Chinese people. The Chinese diaspora contains elements of both pro-Beijing and opposition parties.
It is in this context of bipolar, diseased competition for world hegemony between the US/UK and China, that Europe emerges as the third-party Middle Way, representing a path towards world peace and a positive human future.
The most fascinating aspect of this current series of strategic global realignments is Russia. I guess its final realignment towards Europe will have to wait out Putin’s regime, but Merkel’s stance on the gas pipeline (Nordstrom) is nevertheless understandable as an interim measure in this context.
Peter LR
2 years ago
I imagine Ben Wallace is correct in asserting that even if the EU had its own ‘army’ it would not be able to reach consensus over whether or not to take military action. Previous NATO engagements have been US led with add-ons: America took the decision to mobilise and act.
Douglas McNeish
2 years ago
Long over due and very welcome – or should be – to all of Europe. It is an absurd notion that the US, a nation on the other side of the globe, should be held responsible for the defence of the prosperous nations of Europe 76 years after the end of WWII.
The excuse that the US insisted on it in the context of NATO, as an excuse for not meeting defence spending commitments especially by Germany, has lost credibility everywhere in the globe, and most importantly in the US.
France is the only EU country with a credible military capable of intervention beyond its borders, and so is the candidate best suited to assume a leadership role within the context of Europe. Turkey’s openly aggressive attitude and actions in the eastern Med make it imperative that Europe show its readiness to defend its eastern flank while the US deals with aggression in the Pacific as it should.
Finally, it is a calamitous failing on the part of the Biden regime that $80 billion worth of military equipment has been gifted to Islamist terrorists when it could have been used to reinforce Greece’s defences.
That the US, a nation ‘on the other side of the globe’, should be held responsible for the defence of the prosperous nations of Europe was absurd in 1941, but it was forced to become so, and the world has shrunk since then.
Indeed. There isn’t an ‘other side of the globe’ anymore.
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago
French history tells me that if they try to go to war to protect Greece the French farmers will block all the roads with their tractors and the fishermen will block the ports with their boats.
Turkey is visibly seeking a rapprochement with Russia Germany’s relationship with Russia is closer than most of us recognise – and Nord Stream 2 is a pretty obvious indicator of this. In lining up with Greece against, Turkey Macron may weaken the Franco-German axis and hence the EU.
Finally with Debt/GDP now at 210% how is Greece going to aford the French weapons? By recycling EU funds through Greece to France?
John Riordan
2 years ago
“As he observed, “for just over 10 years now, the United States of America has been focusing a lot on itself and has strategic interests that are being redirected towards China and the Pacific”, and “it would also be naïve of us – or rather, we’d be making a terrible mistake – if we didn’t seek to learn lessons from it and act accordingly. And so it’s with the same pragmatism, the same clear-sightedness about our independence, that we must, as Europeans, play our part in our own protection.” ”
Actually, for the past 10 years successive US administrations, under Obama, then Trump and now Biden have all consistently been telling European nations one thing: stump up your 2% military spending commitment as NATO members and stop expecting American taxpayers to pay it for you.
To treat Macron’s words now as evidence of some strategic initiative having no relevance to the foregoing is really quite daft. France clearly intends to lead the EU’s growing military resources and to enrich itself by being the EU’s primary arms supplier. This ambitious strategy has one glaring flaw, and it’s that German taxpayers are not going to bankroll it, which they’ll be required to do if it’s to work.
Rob Britton
2 years ago
European strategic autonomy? That’s a laugh. This is wishful thinking and naivety on the part of the writer. As soon as the EU gets its teeth into “strategic autonomy” it will become mired in bureaucracy and pointless virtue signalling.
John Hicks
2 years ago
The author omits to record the number of FDI ships involved. 3 apparently. The French intend building 5 of them for themselves but will now sell 2 of these 5 to Greece. Perhaps this is more to do with funding construction and exquisite French contractual smooth talk than any pact reflecting “how France conquered Europe.” The Chinese, on the other hand, have a 350 ship navy, with 50 of these Frigate types to be completed over the same time period that France plans to launch 5 Frigates (now to be shared with Greece) of her own. These contrasts do provide, however, a context for AUKUS and some understanding of American, Australian and UK concerns in the Pacific.
Colin Elliott
2 years ago
An interesting read, but I interpret this differently.
This ‘alliance’ is opportunism on the part of Macron, following his perceived rebuff from AUKUS, as this contract was surely being negotiated for many months. If France were in competition with the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the United States, then France’ success was probably a reward for its recent support for Greece in the recent past. I hadn’t realised that a contract for €5bn was in the balance, with more to come, or am I too cynical? (By the way, I thought Greece was short of money. Its comparatively large annual defence budget is currently €5bn, so I’m puzzled.)
I understand Greece’ concerns. It has long been an anomaly that both Greece and Turkey were members of NATO, and yet remained antagonistic, and Turkey’s aggression over Cyprus complicated its relations with all other nations. The trend under Erdogan is of course very worrying. ‘Strongmen’ often wish to drum up external threats to avoid trouble at home.
The article goes on to imply that an EU military power would release the USA to concentrate on the Pacific, but in my opinion, one of the reasons that the USA has remained the dominant military power in the world is because it acts globally, but also maintains strong partnerships where it can. One of these is through NATO, and whatever the current POTUS may think at the moment, I can’t see the Joint Chiefs of Staff allowing an impotent EU military power to undermine the effective NATO.
Last edited 2 years ago by Colin Elliott
GA Woolley
2 years ago
An interesting set of ideas, but I think it misses the most likely outcome, Turkey leaving NATO. Turkey’s status within the Alliance has become increasingly questionable, and if, as seems likely, the US no longer needs Turkish bases, NATO no longer needs Turkey. It would be extremely difficult to remove Turkey, but engineering Erdogan’s decision to leave should be possible. This would set NATO’s, and Europe’s, SE border in Greece, removing the difficult Greece/Turkey relationship from the equation, and establishing a firm military demarcation line between Europe and the Islamic world. France has never been an enthusiastic member of NATO, but there’s no realistic prospect of a French-led EU defence force other than as a token gesture. That may satisfy French ambitions for ‘glory’, but without the participation of the UK, and the backstop guarantor of the US, it would be recognised for what it was.
The article does point to the eventuality of Turkey no longer being part of NATO. This is implicit in the references to Greece’s role in “containing Erdogan”.
And while the role of the US as backstop guarantor is essential, it should not be assumed that the same is true of the UK. It would be helpful if the English could refrain from petulant references to French “glory” and face up to the fact that the UK is no longer an integral part of Europe.
patrick macaskie
2 years ago
seems like a nice and well articulated move by macron. perhaps a sign Brexit is forcing Europe to grow up. I think this is one thing the German taxpayer will pay for and they need to. they must know the single currency is a gravy train for core Europe, which will be derailed if they don’t find a respectable way to recycle their surpluses. also, in defence and foreign affairs, Germany is both conflicted and encumbered by its past, which means contracting this out to France and the periphery may be the only way to go. next up they need to build French nuclear power stations all over Germany and move Brussels to Athens, the natural capital of Europe.
Why does President Macron remind me more each passing week of President Xi?
Zorro Tomorrow
2 years ago
Surely as EU and NATO fellow members the two countries are already committed? What about Cyprus, a bone of Greek Turkish contention for 50-60 years? France will rip off the Greeks or Greece will default. It’ll end in tears.
France will “rip off” the Germans, who will end up buying the bonds issued by Greece to pay for the weaponry.
Christopher Barclay
2 years ago
It’s difficult to see France benefitting from Greek support were France to be attacked. The commitments are therefore all being made by the French, who should be preparing to fight a war with Turkey.
Then there is the suggestion of calling Germany’s bluff. The country that has willingly become dependent on Russia for its energy supply is quite capable of leaving itself militarily vulnerable to blackmail by Russia.
George Knight
2 years ago
This all sounds very jolly. What, though, happens if France finds itself being drawn into an escalating conflict involving Greece. Will France then try to drag NATO in to the conflict or will it do whatever it takes to sort out the issue? My fear is that whilst France is a great producer of arms – third biggest arms exporter globally – and that might help Greece re-arm, I am not convinced that France will want to fight alongside the Greeks for too long. NATO….help!
Andrew Martin
2 years ago
No mention of the UK’s bid which was considerably smaller than that of France. Even when France resubmitted it was still above the UK’s original bid. I wonder if Margarethe Vestager should look into this……
Ian Stewart
2 years ago
Replace NATO? Yeah send in the inexperienced Belgian navy and the German army with broomsticks. France might put off Erdogan, but it won’t scare Putin.
Geoffrey Wilson
2 years ago
Interesting article, and as usual interesting comments. I think the author exaggerates both the threat to NATO and the claimed progress towards the vague concept of European defence autonomy. I see it as a response to the Turkish government and its several threats to western interests by doing something impossible within NATO, since Turkey is a member (until pushed out, soon I hope). France supporting Greece, with US cooperation, is a practical response. This mythical European defence autonomy will stay mythical until Germany decides to spend money and stiffen its military discipline.
Things are shifting. Merkel did what was absolutely necessary for the times and place in which she held power. Her achievements are outstanding. We have yet to see what the new Germany will look like.
vecchidf
2 years ago
Greece should put a call into Poland and South Vietnam to get some history.
David McDowell
2 years ago
Macron is more Pluto or Uranus than Jupiter.
Matt B
2 years ago
The threat to NATO is not from self-organizing sub-sets and variable geometry which rather bolsters its aims, but from major fall-outs between members such as Greece and Turkey, and the drift towards strategic competitors of others. This is an arms deal, and relevant/helpful to E Med trends, but Macron has not “conquered Europe (all.of it, or EU?). Be wary of articles peppered with ‘indeed and ‘The fact is…” to support assertions. What next: an arc of history?
1 is Macron riding on the spur of Xi’s comment that there should be but one representative of Europe at the world’s top table – and that should be ‘Europe’?
2 post both empire and brexit do you feel relieved that UK is not anywhere in this discussion?
3 has PR China been sniffing around Greece / Turkey for port facilities?
Ted Ditchburn
2 years ago
It’s an odd sort of strategic autonomy that seeks approval before the fact of a treaty being signed for it TO be signed? Or the Americans getting Greek bases signals the Americans leaving. As the article says it’s basically outsourcing and in another sense basically an arms sale with servicing agreements tacked on it.
Martin Smith
2 years ago
An EU army acting in French interests is a non-starter. The only European nation that could conceivably present a serious military prescence on the world stage is Germany. If it ever shakes off its current lazy pacifism, history suggests that the first move will be westward. So be careful France in what you wish for.
Many couldn’t see beyond the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 30s. You seem to think things will just chug on as now with the good old USA footing the bill for defending an increasingly fractious and unreliable Europe. This seems unlikely. Once the US pulls back, Germany will have no choice but to remilitarise. Then it will become clear that there is no common defense interest vis a vis France which will, once again, have to be put in its place.
I always appreciate articles by Aris Roussinos because they offer interesting perspectives, but what is sometimes lacking – as in this article – is a sense of what the events he writes about mean in practice.
OK, so France and Greece have signed this pact, representing a bilateral (nothing to do with the EU, apart from the fact that both parties are member states) security alliance intended to work in parallel (and without presenting an immediate threat to) NATO. This prevents the usual suspects along the EU’s eastern flank and Germany** from freaking out. It’s kind of a stealth move, as Macron has probably understood that the European public is not disposed to an EU under his leadership, so he has to build up power gradually and on the sly until it can no longer be denied and there’s no going back.
The pact also seems to have the tacit approval of the Biden administration. That might seem momentous but I think if you’re an American voter, you’re probably thinking “about time you lot got your entitled backsides into gear, we’ve been hinting at this for more than a decade”.
So anyway, returning to France and Greece and this new pact. In practice, this will not go much further than symbolism. Imagine is Turkey did start to behave aggressively towards Greece and France stepped in to throw its weight around a bit (as it did some time ago by sending warships to the Mediterranean). Erdogan will simply open the borders to refugees. France will then come under severe pressure from other EU members (above all Germany, I would imagine) to tone it down, as another wave of uncontrolled migration could very well push the EU past the point of no return. Greece would be the fall guy and end up hosting many thousands more refugees which no other country in Europe wants to accept.
Check mate.
Also, a question popped into my head when reading this: how exactly is Greece financing this new naval hardware?
** ” the perennially supine German security establishment” – great use of words, touché!
Turkey has already tried that tactic of opening the borders to refugees. It failed as Greece’s massively strengthened border defences and pushbacks at sea largely nullifed the tactic.
Agree it will be more difficult this time through conventional means, but Erdogan I am sure will be quite inventive in his options, and his choice of allies to help him get his way.
There is also the matter of a few million Turks in Germany not averse to the odd show of force when he chooses to stir them up.
Yes. That Turkish fifth column in Germany is Erdogan’s insurance policy against German support for any action to counter his aggressions.
Yes, thank you Angela. Your name will be cursed as the decades unfold.
Ah yes, the guest workers who won’t go away!
Very accurate
Greece will finance with government bonds which the European Central Bank will purchase with funding provided by Germany. Possibly the only way German taxpayers will ever end up paying for the defence of a fellow EU member.
I too wondered where Greece finding the finance, thought EU actions had left it very weak?
The French will deliver the ships late ( strikes, technical problems, two hour lunch breaks).
the Greeks will pay even later.
“How France conquered Europe” What a misleading title.
Sub-editor (?) has done Aris no favours there. Another very good read from Aris, although I’m still in the “talk is cheap” camp on this one.
However I do find Macron consistently the most interesting leader in the EU at the moment on a range of issues, particularly defence.
Much of what he says and does is largely unreported by our pro-EU media. Paradoxically they seem uninterested in what EU countries do and say, preferring instead to stay onside with Brussels and worship at the altar of Merkel.
That’s why I enjoy Aris’s articles. Katharine Eyre’s comments below are a good supplement to it as well.
Thanks Dustin. I also agree that British media also come up short on reporting what goes on in Europe. Although European media are just as bad with reporting on the UK, so it’s swings and roundabouts.
Macron fascinates and appalls me. On the one hand, he’s one of the only leaders who has truly seen and understood the big picture for Europe and is doing his darndest to drive his agenda forward with a highly sclerotic EU where nation states cling to a status quo that’s no longer sustainable. For that, he deserves respect.
On the other hand, Macron is so abrasive and so hyper and his government sometimes so downright nuts (the threat to cut off Jersey’s electricity supply when there was a disagreement about the interpretation of the WA…France – this is a proportionate reaction. Have you two met?) that he shoots himself in the foot with his leadership ambitions, as that’s about winning people over, not issuing bald commands in high-flown language. He’s sometimes so impossibly arrogant, I can’t listen to him. I also rather suspect he’s willing to go to some extreme and undemocratic lengths to turn the EU into a vehicle of French power.
Well said. I do not trust the French (under Macron) in the least. But Greece is a Christian country unlike Turkey so more power to him!
Perhaps UnHerd should abandon the practice of letting editors write the headlines and let the authors do it themselves. This is the second piece I’ve read here today with a headline (well in the other case it was the subhead) which didn’t match the article.
Blame the sub-editor who wrote the headline.
So a French alliance with Greece means Europe no longer needs the American military, courtesy of NATO? Is this a joke?
More a case of delusional thinking. Imagining to be true what you want to be true.
…because it’s what you said was true a week ago.
The greatest threat to peace in Europe in the long term is not Russia – it is a fanatical war-mongering Tory led government in Westminster spurred on by the perennial warmongering, hatred spewing British media.
But first, of course, the Tory right-wingers are raring to have a go at invading China. It’ll be described as a war of liberation of course. If that doesn’t go swimmingly well (and it may not!), then they’ll turn to smaller fry to show those nasty Europeans what’s ‘wot’.
Invading China? From where?
Global Britain – that’s where! Don’t forget fantasy-land and grand delusion prevails in Westminster – like sending an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.
I tried to give your comment an uptick, and it just increased the downticks from 3 to 4. This has happened before, and more than once.
I think there’s something seriously wrong with this idiosyncratic scoring system. Why it cannot show the pluses and minuses separately, like other publications do, I do not understand.
You are right about Russia not being Europe’s main enemy in the long term. In fact, slow changes in the EU–Russia relationship will be the next thing to watch for.
You also have it right about the long-term, serious threat of destabilisation that the UK will continue to represent.
The real reasons behind this major global strategic realignment are occult: certain occult groups embedded in the anglo English-speaking world are after power and world domination, and the appearance of terms such as “world-beating” in recent Johnsonian discourse is no accident. The current English government are puppets pulled on strings manipulated by these unsavoury groups operating behind the scenes.
The leading edge in terms of true advances in human culture and civilisation—in human evolution, will continue to be centred in Europe, which must at all costs be protected. Ultimately, that leading edge will shift eastward to Russia and the Slavic peoples, but that’s a long way off still.
Macron is astute and on the ball. His relative youth is on his side, and it is entirely appropriate that the French pick up their traditional political baton again. The pact with Greece came as a lovely surprise, but it is immediately understandable as a brilliant move, once you know the real game that is being played.
I agree with Macron on Islam but describing him as having his finger on the pulse is delusional. The guy is a tantrum-throwing lunatic. The UK gets accused of imperialist delusion but if anyone is trying to rattle its sabres and reassert its authority it’s France.
…describing him as having his finger on the pulse is delusional
These are strong words. You need to say why, to support your assertion. You need to argue your case. It is misguided to attack me as delusional without saying why. That is just personal abuse and is not acceptable.
The guy is a tantrum-throwing lunatic.
Again, strong words, without any supporting facts or argument. So, again a case of abusive character assassination, this time directed at M. Macron. And again, not acceptable.
Have you considered the fact that the English and the French might have different national temperaments? That the English might appear emotionally aborted relative to the French, who appear to express themselves in overly dramatic terms?
The UK gets accused of imperialist delusion but if anyone is trying to rattle its sabres and reassert its authority it’s France.
True, France is sort of “rattling its sabre” in an attempt to fill what it perceives to be a power vacuum. But this is purely in the context of EU politics: Merkel is gone, Germany’s new role is yet to unfold, and France has traditionally played the part of the political/foreign affairs/diplomatic face, as balanced with Germany’s economic role. The political field is France’s traditional strength. So it is attempting to assert, or rather, reassert, its traditional role in the EU context. Just in case.
The UK, by contrast, is strutting the world stage. Or attempting to. World domination is its goal. It wants to be “world-beating”. Those of us who think the UK’s stance is unrealistic, and its goal unattainable and positively dangerous to world peace in the 21st century, tend to ascribe this posture to a nostalgic desire for glories of past empire. We view the UK or, more properly, the English people, as trapped in the past, unable to develop a positive new place in the world for themselves—in short, as going through a national trauma, a sort of national nervous breakdown. This is a very dangerous state of affairs for the rest of us who wish to coexist with England in equality and peace..
And just who are these three puppet masters manipulating the Anglo world, as you claim? Do please reveal your hand, sources, evidence….please tell us ‘Penny Lane’.
Ever hear of the industrial-military complex around Washington DC and Virginia?
Okay, sorry to disabuse you of your conspiracy theory, but there is nothing to see here.
First, “Penny Lane” is my abbreviated, informal name. Fact. I don’t have to explain it to you, and given your attitude, I don’t feel inclined to.
Second, the source for all my assertions is the work of Dr Rudolf Steiner. There is nothing to hide; quite the reverse, my efforts are dedicated to getting knowledge of Steiner’s work out to the general public.
Steiner lived through the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries (he died in 1925). He was a high Initiate in the Western spiritual tradition who brought a renewal of Christian teachings suited to the modern West. He said himself that the spiritual path he introduced was especially tailored to modern secular society and those brought up in atheistic beliefs. As a person raised in strict atheism, who has been lucky enough to discover Steiner’s teachings, I can personally vouch for their suitability and efficacy.
Steiner was a polymath, and applications of his teachings are to be found everywhere today, from Waldorf education, to biodynamic agriculture, to forms in architecture, eurhythmy, and many other specialties. Steiner’s work was voluminous, as might be expected of an initiate.
One of the characteristics of initiation is the abilities it brings to see into both past and future. This is simply the result of opening higher faculties, spiritual faculties which are normally dormant in ordinary human beings. There is nothing mysterious here: do the work and you get the results.
So Steiner could see into the future, and there are thousands of pages of his lectures devoted to addressing the challenges facing humanity if it is to evolve in a positive direction henceforth.
The things I cite form themes of some lectures he gave shortly after the end of WWI. The brotherhoods he describes are not identified by name; he simply places them within the English-speaking world, which means in practice Britain and North America.
In other lectures, Steiner pointed to the US rather than Britain as the home of these “egotistical” “grey” brotherhoods, although that situation may have changed in the last 100 years. I personally formed the impression these brotherhoods were some part of the Freemasonic world, but I stress this is purely my opinion, and I could be wrong. Steiner went to some lengths to distinguish between uncorrupted Freemasonry (Britain and Europe at the time he was speaking) and some of the more dubious American lodges.
In one set of lectures, however, Steiner gave a detailed exposition of the way Britain deliberately bypassed an opportunity to prevent the First World War. His description of the way some incompetent English politicians, such as Lord Grey, were manipulated by these forces behind the scenes is terrifyingly similar to what we are seeing played out with the present English puppet government headed by Johnson.
The takeaway point here is that the real stakes lie far deeper than mere sausage wars or other forms of EU-bashing. The stakes are world domination by the anglosphere, and whatever wars may be necessary to achieve that. So the only question worth asking is, Who is really running the English government???
Most of the important parts of Steiner’s work can be found online at RSArchive.org. There is an excellent search engine, which will take you to whatever aspect you may wish to research.
Specifically, two links to the source of my current comment are:
https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/ChaTim_index.html
https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19171118p02.html
Maybe it’s time to bring back stern closing hours.
Really?
Read the article more closely, then have your drink.
Is that the best you’ve got? Some pathetic personal insult? Grow up.
Don’t forget Russia is no longer the enemy of Europeans – the enemy is the fanatical, deranged, Brexhadi government in Westminster.
BTW that same government is also the enemy of the Chinese people – in fact it’s the enemy of the vast majority of humanity.
Much as I agree with you (and I do), I want to quibble on one point: evil always has two poles; just think of the forked tongue.
The US/UK anglosphere is undoubtedly one pole. The other pole, however, must be China.
Countries such as Canada, New Zealand must be excepted from the anglosphere axis of evil, but Australia and South Africa must be included.
China’s pole includes North Korea, but excludes South Korea, Tibet, Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and the rest of Southeast Asia. Where Burma and Mongolia end up is yet to be seen. As also the central-Asian Stans, which may well end up in China’s camp. And of course, we distinguish between the present Chinese government and the Chinese people. The Chinese diaspora contains elements of both pro-Beijing and opposition parties.
It is in this context of bipolar, diseased competition for world hegemony between the US/UK and China, that Europe emerges as the third-party Middle Way, representing a path towards world peace and a positive human future.
The most fascinating aspect of this current series of strategic global realignments is Russia. I guess its final realignment towards Europe will have to wait out Putin’s regime, but Merkel’s stance on the gas pipeline (Nordstrom) is nevertheless understandable as an interim measure in this context.
I imagine Ben Wallace is correct in asserting that even if the EU had its own ‘army’ it would not be able to reach consensus over whether or not to take military action. Previous NATO engagements have been US led with add-ons: America took the decision to mobilise and act.
Long over due and very welcome – or should be – to all of Europe. It is an absurd notion that the US, a nation on the other side of the globe, should be held responsible for the defence of the prosperous nations of Europe 76 years after the end of WWII.
The excuse that the US insisted on it in the context of NATO, as an excuse for not meeting defence spending commitments especially by Germany, has lost credibility everywhere in the globe, and most importantly in the US.
France is the only EU country with a credible military capable of intervention beyond its borders, and so is the candidate best suited to assume a leadership role within the context of Europe. Turkey’s openly aggressive attitude and actions in the eastern Med make it imperative that Europe show its readiness to defend its eastern flank while the US deals with aggression in the Pacific as it should.
Finally, it is a calamitous failing on the part of the Biden regime that $80 billion worth of military equipment has been gifted to Islamist terrorists when it could have been used to reinforce Greece’s defences.
That the US, a nation ‘on the other side of the globe’, should be held responsible for the defence of the prosperous nations of Europe was absurd in 1941, but it was forced to become so, and the world has shrunk since then.
Indeed. There isn’t an ‘other side of the globe’ anymore.
French history tells me that if they try to go to war to protect Greece the French farmers will block all the roads with their tractors and the fishermen will block the ports with their boats.
Whose ports?
Turkey is visibly seeking a rapprochement with Russia Germany’s relationship with Russia is closer than most of us recognise – and Nord Stream 2 is a pretty obvious indicator of this. In lining up with Greece against, Turkey Macron may weaken the Franco-German axis and hence the EU.
Finally with Debt/GDP now at 210% how is Greece going to aford the French weapons? By recycling EU funds through Greece to France?
“As he observed, “for just over 10 years now, the United States of America has been focusing a lot on itself and has strategic interests that are being redirected towards China and the Pacific”, and “it would also be naïve of us – or rather, we’d be making a terrible mistake – if we didn’t seek to learn lessons from it and act accordingly. And so it’s with the same pragmatism, the same clear-sightedness about our independence, that we must, as Europeans, play our part in our own protection.” ”
Actually, for the past 10 years successive US administrations, under Obama, then Trump and now Biden have all consistently been telling European nations one thing: stump up your 2% military spending commitment as NATO members and stop expecting American taxpayers to pay it for you.
To treat Macron’s words now as evidence of some strategic initiative having no relevance to the foregoing is really quite daft. France clearly intends to lead the EU’s growing military resources and to enrich itself by being the EU’s primary arms supplier. This ambitious strategy has one glaring flaw, and it’s that German taxpayers are not going to bankroll it, which they’ll be required to do if it’s to work.
European strategic autonomy? That’s a laugh. This is wishful thinking and naivety on the part of the writer. As soon as the EU gets its teeth into “strategic autonomy” it will become mired in bureaucracy and pointless virtue signalling.
The author omits to record the number of FDI ships involved. 3 apparently. The French intend building 5 of them for themselves but will now sell 2 of these 5 to Greece. Perhaps this is more to do with funding construction and exquisite French contractual smooth talk than any pact reflecting “how France conquered Europe.” The Chinese, on the other hand, have a 350 ship navy, with 50 of these Frigate types to be completed over the same time period that France plans to launch 5 Frigates (now to be shared with Greece) of her own. These contrasts do provide, however, a context for AUKUS and some understanding of American, Australian and UK concerns in the Pacific.
An interesting read, but I interpret this differently.
This ‘alliance’ is opportunism on the part of Macron, following his perceived rebuff from AUKUS, as this contract was surely being negotiated for many months. If France were in competition with the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the United States, then France’ success was probably a reward for its recent support for Greece in the recent past. I hadn’t realised that a contract for €5bn was in the balance, with more to come, or am I too cynical? (By the way, I thought Greece was short of money. Its comparatively large annual defence budget is currently €5bn, so I’m puzzled.)
I understand Greece’ concerns. It has long been an anomaly that both Greece and Turkey were members of NATO, and yet remained antagonistic, and Turkey’s aggression over Cyprus complicated its relations with all other nations. The trend under Erdogan is of course very worrying. ‘Strongmen’ often wish to drum up external threats to avoid trouble at home.
The article goes on to imply that an EU military power would release the USA to concentrate on the Pacific, but in my opinion, one of the reasons that the USA has remained the dominant military power in the world is because it acts globally, but also maintains strong partnerships where it can. One of these is through NATO, and whatever the current POTUS may think at the moment, I can’t see the Joint Chiefs of Staff allowing an impotent EU military power to undermine the effective NATO.
An interesting set of ideas, but I think it misses the most likely outcome, Turkey leaving NATO. Turkey’s status within the Alliance has become increasingly questionable, and if, as seems likely, the US no longer needs Turkish bases, NATO no longer needs Turkey. It would be extremely difficult to remove Turkey, but engineering Erdogan’s decision to leave should be possible. This would set NATO’s, and Europe’s, SE border in Greece, removing the difficult Greece/Turkey relationship from the equation, and establishing a firm military demarcation line between Europe and the Islamic world. France has never been an enthusiastic member of NATO, but there’s no realistic prospect of a French-led EU defence force other than as a token gesture. That may satisfy French ambitions for ‘glory’, but without the participation of the UK, and the backstop guarantor of the US, it would be recognised for what it was.
The article does point to the eventuality of Turkey no longer being part of NATO. This is implicit in the references to Greece’s role in “containing Erdogan”.
And while the role of the US as backstop guarantor is essential, it should not be assumed that the same is true of the UK. It would be helpful if the English could refrain from petulant references to French “glory” and face up to the fact that the UK is no longer an integral part of Europe.
seems like a nice and well articulated move by macron. perhaps a sign Brexit is forcing Europe to grow up. I think this is one thing the German taxpayer will pay for and they need to. they must know the single currency is a gravy train for core Europe, which will be derailed if they don’t find a respectable way to recycle their surpluses. also, in defence and foreign affairs, Germany is both conflicted and encumbered by its past, which means contracting this out to France and the periphery may be the only way to go. next up they need to build French nuclear power stations all over Germany and move Brussels to Athens, the natural capital of Europe.
Personally it makes me think Macron is a lunatic.
Why does President Macron remind me more each passing week of President Xi?
Surely as EU and NATO fellow members the two countries are already committed? What about Cyprus, a bone of Greek Turkish contention for 50-60 years? France will rip off the Greeks or Greece will default. It’ll end in tears.
France will “rip off” the Germans, who will end up buying the bonds issued by Greece to pay for the weaponry.
It’s difficult to see France benefitting from Greek support were France to be attacked. The commitments are therefore all being made by the French, who should be preparing to fight a war with Turkey.
Then there is the suggestion of calling Germany’s bluff. The country that has willingly become dependent on Russia for its energy supply is quite capable of leaving itself militarily vulnerable to blackmail by Russia.
This all sounds very jolly. What, though, happens if France finds itself being drawn into an escalating conflict involving Greece. Will France then try to drag NATO in to the conflict or will it do whatever it takes to sort out the issue? My fear is that whilst France is a great producer of arms – third biggest arms exporter globally – and that might help Greece re-arm, I am not convinced that France will want to fight alongside the Greeks for too long. NATO….help!
No mention of the UK’s bid which was considerably smaller than that of France. Even when France resubmitted it was still above the UK’s original bid. I wonder if Margarethe Vestager should look into this……
Replace NATO? Yeah send in the inexperienced Belgian navy and the German army with broomsticks. France might put off Erdogan, but it won’t scare Putin.
Interesting article, and as usual interesting comments. I think the author exaggerates both the threat to NATO and the claimed progress towards the vague concept of European defence autonomy. I see it as a response to the Turkish government and its several threats to western interests by doing something impossible within NATO, since Turkey is a member (until pushed out, soon I hope). France supporting Greece, with US cooperation, is a practical response. This mythical European defence autonomy will stay mythical until Germany decides to spend money and stiffen its military discipline.
Things are shifting. Merkel did what was absolutely necessary for the times and place in which she held power. Her achievements are outstanding. We have yet to see what the new Germany will look like.
Greece should put a call into Poland and South Vietnam to get some history.
Macron is more Pluto or Uranus than Jupiter.
The threat to NATO is not from self-organizing sub-sets and variable geometry which rather bolsters its aims, but from major fall-outs between members such as Greece and Turkey, and the drift towards strategic competitors of others. This is an arms deal, and relevant/helpful to E Med trends, but Macron has not “conquered Europe (all.of it, or EU?). Be wary of articles peppered with ‘indeed and ‘The fact is…” to support assertions. What next: an arc of history?
1 is Macron riding on the spur of Xi’s comment that there should be but one representative of Europe at the world’s top table – and that should be ‘Europe’?
2 post both empire and brexit do you feel relieved that UK is not anywhere in this discussion?
3 has PR China been sniffing around Greece / Turkey for port facilities?
It’s an odd sort of strategic autonomy that seeks approval before the fact of a treaty being signed for it TO be signed? Or the Americans getting Greek bases signals the Americans leaving. As the article says it’s basically outsourcing and in another sense basically an arms sale with servicing agreements tacked on it.
An EU army acting in French interests is a non-starter. The only European nation that could conceivably present a serious military prescence on the world stage is Germany. If it ever shakes off its current lazy pacifism, history suggests that the first move will be westward. So be careful France in what you wish for.
France attacked by social democrats and Greens? This is 21C. Macron will be gone next year.
Many couldn’t see beyond the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 30s. You seem to think things will just chug on as now with the good old USA footing the bill for defending an increasingly fractious and unreliable Europe. This seems unlikely. Once the US pulls back, Germany will have no choice but to remilitarise. Then it will become clear that there is no common defense interest vis a vis France which will, once again, have to be put in its place.
Will he, though. And replaced by what? Like him or not, the election outcome is far from clear.