A Stronger Europe, not a Stronger NATO
With the very existence of the European project at stake, the continent is in desperate need of a new approach to security.
If the events of the past year are an indication of the disastrous nature of our current dependency on American foreign policy—that is, the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a war in Ukraine, the likely failure to secure a new Iranian nuclear agreement, and an energy crisis undermining the European green deal—we must admit that Europe can no longer afford to keep the current structure of its security alliance with the United States.
This is not necessarily an anti-militant position—though I will advocate strongly for that here as well—one could make the same argument whether you believe in a militant Europe or not. The point is that Europe’s goals are being undermined by this relationship, and it increasingly seems destined for war and its own consequent destruction if it does not step away from an American-led NATO.
Last month, the Slovenian leftist philosopher Slavoj Žižek made claims for a stronger NATO that was not fairly dealt with in my opinion—the Twitter Leftists widely panned his critique ‘Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine’ as war mongering without engaging with the content of his article. He most certainly was advocating for unwavering military support for Ukraine so as to directly confront Putin’s colonial and imperial ambitions. But he also spoke to the contradictions in our own support for American imperialism, making no ambiguity about the similarity between Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Bush’s invasion of Iraq. His claim then that ‘the European legacy will be lost, and Europe will be de facto divided between an American and a Russian sphere of influence’ should Europe not support Ukraine unequivocally must be re-examined as regards the US role in NATO and Europe’s peace-making institutions. The union has clearly become the theatre for both Russian and American ambitions, a fact which Europe should not allow, for, as Žižek goes on to state about this divisive future, ‘Europe itself will become the place of a war that seems to have no end …’
In the past few weeks, two more events have taken place that seem to prove this point. NATO has now invited a potential expansion to the Asian theatre by including the Asian Pacific Four (New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and Japan) at its last meeting in Madrid, shifting its target to the containment of China. And, at the same time, President Biden made waves by proposing an alternative, NATO-like Middle East alliance with despotic and apartheid governments that would see Iran further isolated and guarantee US military involvement should Iran continue to pursue its nuclear weapons programme.
Exactly what does Europe have to gain from this military expansionism? Another world war? Surely, it is not peace—we have a very good example of that in our east. This is not liberal peace-making as Europe itself promotes as its foreign policy, but a very tired US military‑industrial colonial project which is now threatening Europe’s security directly.
The situation as it currently stands is untenable. In two years’ time we could very easily have Trump or a Trumpist in power that would undermine the current security pact anyway. Worse, we could have a neoconservative hawk from either party that wishes to use American hegemonic military power further. Meanwhile, all that ignores the almost propagandist levels of discourse surrounding the disunity in that country and its near-constant civil strife. One need only to recall the January 6th insurrection of last year to remind oneself of how fragile the American project is at the moment. All bets are off as to what kind of partner we will have in the near future.
To make matters worse, the US is no longer capable of guarding the current global shipping network that has sustained the continent for so long. While they have spent billions preparing incredible ships capable of launching war from anywhere, they have not invested in the necessary equipment to maintain protection over the global supply routes. So, while they may get us into wars, they will not be able to provide us peacetime security for much longer.
And, finally, the real existential challenge posed by climate change goes unaddressed and undermined in what can only be seen as a flagrant attempt to pay the bills for an extraction industry that was literally dying two years ago and on the verge of bankruptcy—fun fact, Joe Biden has approved more drilling permits than Trump. Now, while cutting off part of our own continent, we are being pushed to revive a dying industry that is leading our planet to ruin. Moreover, our own initiatives to reduce the impacts of climate change were dealt a significant and perhaps lethal blow when the US Supreme Court last month ruled to restrict its own institutions from creating emissions mandates, essentially giving fossil fuel companies carte blanche to destroy the planet’s climate.
Faced with the climate crisis and a deglobalizing world, one in which the contest of great powers is again coming to ahead, Europe has a choice to either lead the world out of this abyss or be overwhelmed by it. At present, despite its contradictions and problems, Europe enjoys an unprecedented albeit fragile state of unification. Its commitment to liberal democracy and the delicate balance between the demos and universal human rights has allowed peace to reign for almost eighty years. This has allowed its people to have more freedoms than anyone else on the planet. Its multilateralism and cooperative efforts have become one of the few sustainable supranational governing models in the world, delivering not only economic prosperity but also a framework that has put it at the forefront of addressing climate change. No one believes the continent is perfect, but these are institutions that must be protected specifically in order to avoid war.
The union is the lasting legacy of the horrors of the world wars, and it is a legacy that should be projected outwards as a symbol that confronts military might. If that light is to be lost, then the world will surely be a darker place.
And this cannot be done while Europe’s American partners pursue other goals.
This brings us back to Žižek and his assertion that we must take Putin at his word when he compares himself to Peter the Great and states ‘either a country is sovereign, or it is a colony, no matter what the colonies are called’. Somehow or other Europe must deal with the colonial ideology that Russia’s war effort now embodies. How is obviously the question.
Žižek takes aim at pacifism, alluding to John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ in the opening paragraphs of his article. But why should we accept pacifism or war as our only responses? This appears to be rather simplistic, and at least here Europe’s elites seem aware. Rather than pacifist, they have taken steps that draw more directly from a spirit of non-violence: paving the path for Ukrainian membership into the union, placing sanctions on Russia, rapidly reducing gas dependency and committing itself to rebuilding Ukraine—these are all non-cooperative actions that refrain from the use of force.
And Europe could go further still, even if it involves further pain on the continent. Some argue that the sanctions hurt Europe more than Russia, but this is exactly the point of non-violent resistance. When members of social movements risk prison and sometimes death in order to challenge authoritarian government, they do so under the knowledge that this sacrifice is power. The late non-violent theorist Gene Sharp makes the case that even a military force cannot function without the participation of the local population—tragically, we know this to be true from our own Nazi collaborations. Zelensky is right to criticize the European elites for refusing to sacrifice. For it is not just Europe that needs Russia, but Russia too needs Europe—demonstrating that we are willing to sacrifice this relationship further is a major weapon and Russia knows this. This is of course why Putin has not shut off the gas, and it is why we must.
This is what I mean by ‘a stronger Europe’. It is a Europe that rests on its peace-making ideal not by sacrificing its men, its infrastructure, and its environment, but by sacrificing its luxury. Of course we should dim the lights in Germany! If it means enduring a recession, then put in supports to ensure our most vulnerable are secured. Indeed, tax the rich! This is a perfect opportunity to fulfil the empty promise of the single-market for the poor by installing some safeguards and security for local (and rural) populations. There are many ways to win in this battle of wits, and the prize is not just peace, but Russia’s reintegration into Europe.
A stronger NATO on the other hand, including its weapons shipments, perhaps demonstrates a strong military deterrent but it also continues to provoke, almost guaranteeing the continuation of hostilities in Ukraine. Here we should consider Putin’s earlier statements, including his speech on the eve of war:
It is well known that for 30 years we have persistently and patiently tried to reach an agreement with the leading NATO countries on the principles of equal and inviolable security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we constantly faced either cynical deception and lies, or attempts to pressure and blackmail, while NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders.
This is a logic that directly underpins Putin’s desire to defend Russia’s position as a colonial power, which Žižek believes necessitates a stronger NATO—the exact thing that Putin says drove him to this madness! These are not lies either. NATO has been funnelling arms and personnel into Ukraine since Trump came into office—something Obama refused to do even after the annexation of Crimea. Adam Schiff, a Democrat and the current Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence which oversees US intelligence agencies, stated (in 2020!) that ‘the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia over here’. Meanwhile, the United States refuses to participate directly in any peace process. How is that for an ally!
At present NATO is amassing 300,000 troops on its eastern flank—the kind of build-up that has a tendency to lean towards outcomes Europe knows only too well. A strong NATO makes for a strong adversary no doubt, but it also invites conflict. And all our concerns for Ukrainian (and European) human rights and democracy hardly matter if the continent becomes subsumed by war.
The lessons from Europe’s past should guide us to stay on a peace-making path, to renew that obligation, and to stand strong in the face of calls to arms. The world needs not another champion of war but of peace, for, without it, Europe seems destined to become its victim.
It’s for those reasons that I am more inclined to listen to Zizek’s left-wing ally from Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, who spoke early on in the war about our moral duty to find ‘an agreement that leaves everybody slightly dissatisfied’. Russia has sent mixed signals as to its willingness to participate, but at least in his own words, Putin appears still open to peace. And while it might be distasteful to Ukrainians in particular, it would keep more of them alive, and it would allow for the situation to be temporarily defused, giving Europe time to press for a new autonomous security policy.
Were a new European security arrangement possible without the United States as its guarantor, the threat of an expanded NATO would be off the table. It would change the dynamics of Europe and its relationship with Russia for decades to come. Moreover, it could offer such a major concession that the demand for a free Ukraine should be possible. Finally, it would offer the world a new course of diplomacy and cooperation to follow rather than its current antagonistic approach.
This acknowledged somewhat utopian vision is perhaps quaint, but what are the alternatives?