Današnji Politico prinaša (po svoje) zabaven članek o stopnjujoči se geopolitični irelevantnosti in impotentnosti EU (ne pozabite sicer, da je evropski Politico preslikana izpostava ameriškega Politica, ki je izrazito provladni, če se milo izrazim). Če se je visokim predstavnikom ameriških obveščevalnih služb jeseni 2021, nekaj mesecev pred ruskim napadom na Ukrajino, še zdelo vredno na poti iz Kijeva ali Moskve ustaviti v Bruslju, da s predstavniki Evropske komisije uskladijo bodoče sankcije proti Rusiji, se ob eskalaciji  napetosti na Kosovu, v Nagornem Karabahu ali ob izbruhu vojne med Hamasom in Izraelom, nikomur ni več zdelo vredno, da bi poklical bodisi predsednico Evropske komisije ali predsednika Evropskega sveta ali zunanjepolitičnega predstavnika EU ali francoskega predsednika ali nemškega kanclerja.

Le zakaj bi? Prvič, evropsko mnenje ne šteje nič, ker zunanjo politiko EU (kot je lani spomladi lepo izrazil profesor Anton Bebler) določajo v Washingtonu. Ameriška neocon “podsekretarka za posebne operacije” Victoria Nuland je leta 2014 ob Majdanskem puču v Kijevu ta podrejen odnos EU malce nediplomatsko označila s krilatico “Fuck the EU“, vendar to izraža realnost pomena EU v ameriških očeh. In drugič, tudi če bi komu zdelo vredno poklicati koga v EU in kaj vprašati, bi dobil v odgovor tipično evropsko kakofonijo, kot v primeru internih nesoglasjih med komisarjema Várhelyijem in Lenarčičem ter zunanjepolitičnim “šefom” Borrellom glede humanitarne pomoči Palestini (glejte spodaj, če vam je do zabave).

V Politicu so EU označili kot dobronamerno nevladno organizacijo, ki jo pokličejo le še, da zagotovi humanitarno pomoč.

EU je pač vojaško in politično absolutno podrejena Washingtonu. Vojna v Ukrajini je bila priložnost, da se EU nekoliko osamosvoji. Da jasno opredeli svoje strateške interese, to pa je mir v regiji in dolgoročno gospodarsko sodelovanje z vsemi v regiji. EU je imela priložnost, da ne sledi ameriškemu predvojnemu zaostrovanju v Ukrajini (ko ZDA niso želele sprejeti predloga sporazuma o neširjenju Nata v Ukrajino), da se zavzame za nevtralnost Ukrajine in za njen sprejem v EU. S teritorialno celovito Ukrajino bi si EU zagotovila tako strateško avtonomnost glede prehrane in v veliki meri tudi glede kritičnih materialov za evropsko industrijo. Hkrati bi si s to rešitvijo glede Ukrajine, ki jo je tedaj sprejemala tudi Rusija, EU zagotovila dolgoročni dostop do poceni ruskih energentov in dostop na velik, 120 milijonski ruski trg. Namesto tega se je EU podredila ameriškim strateškim igricam in izgubila vse – zaradi napačne odločitve glede Ukrajine so članice EU danes v recesiji ali stagnirajo in bodo tudi dolgoročno plačevale višje cene energije, izgubile so ruski trg in dostop do ukrajinske hrane in surovin.

Podobna zgodba se odvija glede odnosa do Kitajske. Ker EU sledi agresivni ameriški protekcionistični politiki, bo Evropa še naprej izgubljala svojo industrijsko bazo. To je bil temelj evropske geopolitične relevantnosti v drugi polovici 20. stoletja. Z izgubo industrije EU ne bo več dobra niti za humanitarno pomoč.

Sedanje garniture evropskih politikov so seveda absolutno nesposobne kakršnekoli vizije in strategije. Toda stare generacije politikov se še spomnijo strateških evropskih interesov, mlajše generacije pa se bodo morale politično osamosvojiti od Washingtona. Kar seveda prvenstveno pomeni vojaško osamosvojitev – torej novo evropsko varnostno arhitekturo brez Nata, skupno evropsko vojsko in lastne baze z jedrskimim konicami. Kot je naredil De Gaulle leta 1967 z Natom.

Seveda sem glede tega, na žalost, pretirano optimističen…

__________

At least Europe no longer has to endure that hackneyed Henry Kissinger quip about whom to call if you want “to call Europe.” 

No one’s calling anyway.

Of the myriad geostrategic illusions that have been destroyed in recent days, the most sobering realization for anyone residing on the Continent should be this: No one cares what Europe thinks. Across an array of global flashpoints, from Nagorno-Karabakh to Kosovo to Israel, Europe has been relegated to the role of a well-meaning NGO, whose humanitarian contributions are welcomed, but is otherwise ignored.

The 27-member bloc has always struggled to articulate a coherent foreign policy, given the diverse national interests at play. Even so, it still mattered, mainly due to the size of its market. The EU’s global influence is waning, however, amid the secular decline of its economy and its inability to project military might at a time of growing global instability.

Instead of the “geopolitical” powerhouse Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised when she took office in 2019, the EU has devolved into a pan-European minnow, offering a degree of bemusement to the real players at the top table, while mostly just embarrassing itself amid its cacophony of contradictions.

If that sounds harsh, consider the past 72 hours: In the wake of Hamas’ massacre of hundreds of Israeli civilians over the weekend, European Enlargement Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi announced on Monday that the bloc would “immediately” suspend €691 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority. A few hours later, Slovenian Commissioner Janez Lenarčič contradicted his Hungarian colleague, insisting the aid “will continue as long as needed.”

The Commission’s press operation followed up with a statement that the EU would conduct an “urgent review” of some aid programs to ensure that funds not be funneled into terrorism, implying such safeguards were not already in place.

As far as the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was concerned, the outcome of any review of assistance for the Palestinians was a foregone conclusion: “We will have to support more, not less,” he said on Tuesday.

To sum up: Over the course of just 24 hours, the Commission went from announcing it would suspend all aid to the Palestinians to signaling it would increase the flow of funds.

…

Another glaring example of Europe’s geopolitical impotence is Nagorno-Karabakh, the disputed, predominantly Armenian, region in Azerbaijan.

The long-simmering conflict there was all but forgotten by most of the world, but not by European Council President Charles Michel, who mounted an ambitious diplomatic effort earlier this year amid a resurgence in tensions. 

In July, Michel hosted leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Brussels, the sixth such meeting. He described the discussions as “frank, honest and substantive.” He even invited the leaders to a special summit in October for a “pentalateral meeting” with Germany and France in Granada.

It wasn’t meant to be. By then, Azerbaijan had seized the region, sending more than 100,000 refugees fleeing to Armenia. Europe, in dire need of natural gas from Azerbaijan, was powerless to do anything but watch.

Earlier this month, Michel blamed Russia, traditionally Armenia’s protector in the region, for the fiasco.

“It is clear for everyone to see that Russia has betrayed the Armenian people,” Michel told Euronews.

A similar pattern has played out in Kosovo, where the Europeans have been trying for years to broker a lasting peace between its Albanian and Serbian populations. The main sticking point there is the status of the northern part of Kosovo, bordering Serbia, where Serbs comprise a majority of the roughly 40,000 residents.

Borrell even appointed a “Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue and other Western Balkan Regional Issues.”

The incumbent in the post, Miroslav Lajčák, Slovakia’s former foreign minister, hasn’t had much luck. Though Lajčák was awarded the grandiose title more than three years ago, the parties are, if anything, further apart today than ever.

The EU has spent untold millions trying to stabilize the region, funding civil society organizations, schools and even a police force. 

When tensions threatened to devolve into all-out combat following an incursion into northern Kosovo by Serbian militiamen last month, however, the EU was forced to resort to its tried-and-true crisis resolution mechanism: Uncle Sam. 

”We get criticized for too little leadership in Europe and then for too much,” U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke said in 1998, after Washington dragged its reluctant European allies into an effort to halt the “ethnic cleansing” campaign unleashed by Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milošević in Kosovo.

”The fact is the Europeans are not going to have a common security policy for the foreseeable future,” Holbrooke added. “We have done our best to keep them involved. But you can imagine how far I would have got with Mr. Milošević if I’d said, ‘Excuse me, Mr. President, I’ll be back in 24 hours after I’ve talked to the Europeans.”’

Vir: Politico