The EU thread

[The Minsky Moment]

I didn't read Zuckerberg's statement as a threat, but as a statement that they can't operate services without the ability to move data back and forth between the US and Europe.

[Tamas]

What Macron is saying makes sense, in practice it would probably only mean putting a fancy title on states with a Norway-like status, but symbolism does matter. It could also be a neat way to put countries into a second tier union (looking at you, UK, Hungary, and Poland).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/09/macron-calls-for-new-european-body-and-warns-ukraine-of-eu-wait

Emmanuel Macron has called for a new political organisation to unite democracies on the European continent, as he warned that Ukraine would probably not join the EU for several decades.

Speaking two days after being sworn in for a second term as French president, Macron called for big thinking on the future of Europe, saying the war in Ukraine showed the need for a "historic process of reflection".

He proposed "a European political community ... a new European organisation [that] would enable democratic European nations who adhere to our values to find a new space for political cooperation", listing security, energy, transport, infrastructure investment and movement across borders, especially for young people, as issues that body would tackle.

Being part of this organisation would not exclude a country from joining the EU, and the organisation could include "those who have left" the bloc, he said.

Macron's intervention comes as EU states clash on how quickly to move forward with Kyiv's membership application. The question is likely to reach a crunch point in June, when EU leaders decide whether to grant Ukraine candidate status, a procedural step that normally takes years to attain.

Macron suggested he favoured a quick decision on candidate status, while dampening Kyiv's hopes of a speedy entry into the EU. The awarding of candidate status is followed by talks on accession and a process of reform so that a country meets the EU's political, economic and legal criteria.

"Even if we were to give it the status of candidate country tomorrow – I hope we move forward towards accession rapidly – even if we were to do that, we all know only too well the process for accession would take several years; in truth, it would probably take several decades. And that is the truth unless we decide to lower the standards for accession and rethink the unity of our Europe, and also partially the principles that we hold," he said.

"The European Union, given its level of integration and ambition, cannot be the only way to structure the European continent in the short term."

Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, is championing a speedy processing of Ukraine's membership application, backed by central and eastern European states. Western European members, however, are wary about allowing Ukraine to proceed quickly, fearing Kyiv would not have time to complete vital political reforms, while the process would stoke tensions with six western Balkan countries that have been stuck in the EU membership queue for years.

Von der Leyen said Ukraine had submitted a 5,000-page document to Brussels answering questions on its suitability to join the bloc, and in remarks aimed at Ukrainians at an event in the European parliament to celebrate Europe Day, she said: "The future of Europe is also your future."

Macron also set out goals for the war, saying Europe had "to do everything to ensure that Ukraine will survive, Russia will never win, preserve peace on the rest of the continent of Europe and avoid any escalation".

Only Ukraine could decide on negotiating conditions with Russia, he said. And he warned against a punitive settlement on Russia when the war is over. "When peace returns to European soil, we will have to build new security balances and together we must never give into the temptation ... or the desire for revenge, because we know how much that has ravished the road to peace in the past."

The two leaders were speaking at a special session of the European parliament in Strasbourg, where they marked the end of an 11-month citizens' juries project, the Conference on the Future of Europe. At the closing ceremony, EU leaders, citizens and MEPs listened to the EU anthem and watched an interpretative dance routine performed in the aisles of the parliament's debating chamber.

Both leaders contrasted the event with the Victory Day commemorations in Moscow. Referring to a woman who appeared with her baby at the Strasbourg ceremony, Von der Leyen said she wanted to celebrate this image on 9 May, "an image far more powerful than any military parade going up and down the streets of Moscow".

[Josquius]

The whole EU needs reorganising from the ground up to stop nations like Hungary holding the rest to ransom. The EU is the league of nations to this new bodies' UN (As it was viewed in the 50s. Sans security council bollocks.)
It could be an approach to do it from the out inwards. Though I do fear that would just lead to a revival in nonsense in the UK were it to happen anytime soon.

The big question I'd have is- why does it need to be just European? Wouldn't it make sense to add the scattered first world democracies of the world into such a body? It would be really great if we could set this up in a way to tackle anti-corruption, democracy, etc... to favourable trade rights. Might help provide a kick for some poorer nations to get their house in order so they can grow.

[Sheilbh]

As ever I think Macron's pretty good at the thinking big bit - that's not his flaw as a politician - and even if he gets 10% of that he'll justifiably see it as progress. But I suspect this will go down like his Sorbonne speech and others as largely unrealised. And, from a UK perspective, it does make you wonder how much a mess could have been avoided if we'd gone for a multi-speed Europe a little while ago.

Thirteen countries have already said they don't support "unconsidered and premature attempts to launch a process towards Treaty change": Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. What is striking to me in the current context is that it includes all the countries on the EU's eastern frontier.

I think Macron's right to be honest with Ukraine. I hope it's quicker - and I'm not massively keen on the "they're already a member of our hearts" line - but I think it's right to be honest that it will take quite a while as I think there's been acrimony from over-promising in this area in the past. Having said that I think there's a fair few rhetorical cheques written early in this war, in the spirit of solidarity, that are probably going to bounce and may also sour things a little.

Not massively keen on the line about not humiliating or excluding Putin and Russia while reiterating the need to help Ukraine now, or the reference to Mitterand's European confederation, which should include Russia, though Macron noted it's probably too early to consider that. There are many countries (including in the EU) who have suffered humiliations by Russia - often worse than what we're talking about here which would be that they don't get to occupy a foreign country. But also I think the talk of needing to allow Putin to save face forgets that actually Zelensky also needs face. As Ulrich Spech put it, we can already see the argument: the West shouldn't humiliate Russia, Russia must be included, there is no security against Russia. I'm not sure setting up for an eventual post-war reset while cautioning realism on Ukraine's European ambitions should necessarily sit in the same speech.

Ultimately you can agree what you want with Germany - but if Germany and France are unable or unwilling to build European security architecture against Russia, then it will be built around them and Europe may acquire two motors - a Franco-German on political/economic integration and one which will definitely include Poland on defence/security. Which is why I think the rejection from the Eastern frontier and the Nordics is really striking. As ever with Macron it's a bit of a parson's egg.

[Zoupa]

I hated that speech. Found it tone-deaf and full of of weird ideas.

I don't think Europe needs yet another supranational body. It's a very French idea, just add a layer of government to deal with an issue.

The EU, EEA, OSCE, OECD or Council of Europe aren't enough to help organize post-war Ukraine?

Ridiculous.

[Sheilbh]

I hated that speech. Found it tone-deaf and full of of weird ideas.

If you didn't like the speech, just wait till you see the interpretive dance before it

[HVC]

Just make it easier to kick the bad apples out. Although I'm not sure how plausible that is.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

A French president speaking out of turn and trying to run Europe/EU as if it was a french colony.
Some things never change.

[Duque de Bragança]

A French president speaking out of turn and trying to run Europe/EU as if it was a french colony.
Some things never change.

Does not work with Macron, sorry. There is not a French culture according to him. 

[Sheilbh]

Macron's made more comments about not humiliating Russia and the need to include Russia in a future European security architecture. I think that combined with this chart demonstrates why there's unlikely to be any meaningful European strategic autonomy any time soon, at least that runs through the EU. 2/3s of the support for Ukraine has come from the US - add in the UK and Canada and it's over 75% of support for Ukraine:


It looks like it's even stronger on the military support front - although I'm still a little dubious of those numbers (Poland, the Baltics and the UK look more accurate - I still think France is far too low based on reporting):


I know I keep saying it but the block to Macron's ambitions in this area (which I think make sense, especially with a new Trump presidency being a possibility) is not a lack of French ideas or German commitment - but a lack of trust in France, Germany and other Western EU partners from countries on Europe's Eastern and Northern frontier, who border Russia who feel (in my view justifiably) that Russia is a serious threat to their security.

I thought Macron would change after the invasion but it seems that he cannot conceive of European security/defence arrangements that are designed to protect against Russia, as opposed to incorporating Russia. From everything I've read I think France is doing better on getting military supplies especially into Ukraine than Germany, but I think the "zeitenwende" in German thinking is more profound and more important - as time goes on it just looks more and more like France's foreign policy elite cannot make that leap. And until they do Poland, the Nordics, the Baltics are always going to prefer security discussions in a format that includes the US and other, more sympathetic allies, like the UK and Canada - because those allies seem to "get" their security fears more.

I am surprised he hasn't made that shift - and I'm not fully sure why it hasn't happened. It's surprisingly timid for Macron.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

That's because the French can't conceive of the EU as anything but a vehicle for french grandeur. They still think there's this god-given right for france to rule and dominate Europe.

[Zanza]

That's because the French can't conceive of the EU as anything but a vehicle for french grandeur. They still think there's this god-given right for france to rule and dominate Europe.

For once, I share a view with Crazy Ivan. Is there any EU country other than France seriously interested in strategic autonomy, especially on the military side? I guess more countries are interested in localization of supply chains and national or European champions. But besides that? Might change if a new Trump is elected...

[Zanza]

Anyway, I wonder if these charts count the same things. The last US package included replenishment of American stock. Or equipment for NATO partners that does not directly go to Ukraine. Is similar spending included in the figures for other countries?

[Sheilbh]

For once, I share a view with Crazy Ivan. Is there any EU country other than France seriously interested in strategic autonomy, especially on the military side? I guess more countries are interested in localization of supply chains and national or European champions. But besides that? Might change if a new Trump is elected...

I agree with both of you on France.

I suppose the point I'm struggling with is that it seems obvious to me that if you want, even a French-led EU, on geostrategic and defence issues - the first necessary step is that all EU partners trust France on those issues. I don't get why there doesn't seem to be any attempt to align France with the Nordics, Baltics and Poland who feel exposed. It reminds me of the sort of old Europe/new Europe attitude and new Europe should just be quiet. It seems like a real lacuna in Macron's vision.

I find it really frustrating too because I basically think Macron's analysis is correct and Europe should probably start working on this before Trump 2024. And frankly if Trump's first term wasn't enough to shock Europe into action, I don't see any reason why his second term would - it seems more likely that Europe would keep going on its current course until there was a crisis and they realised the US wasn't coming to help. That's why I think the "zeitenwende" matters more because even if it's partial that is a realistic step to reducing that risk.

Anyway, I wonder if these charts count the same things. The last US package included replenishment of American stock. Or equipment for NATO partners that does not directly go to Ukraine. Is similar spending included in the figures for other countries?

I think so - there's details on the data and its limitations here. It does cover replacement or ciricle exchange supplies but I think it only includes ones that are new or bespoke to Ukraine. So I think it covers US-Slovakia, Germany-Slovenia and UK-Poland as well as the European Peace Facility in the EU figure (even though it's used to replenish member states), but I think excludes the Baltics replenishing supplies from their pre-existing arrangements with the US (that is: the Baltics are counted; the US isn't).:
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/kiel-working-papers/2022/ukraine-tracker-17204/

I think the big inaccuracy/gap is France because from what I've read they are providing a lot of military support/equipment - but France has kept it very quiet and doesn't make announcements and hasn't provided $ figures at any point so I think their number is far lower than it should be.

[Admiral Yi]

Hey Europe, we're kicking y'all's asses in the Ukraine sweepstakes.  Step it up man.