beyondukraine.euandrussiainsearchofanewrelation

Recommendations

Info

100 Beyond Ukraine. EU and Russia in Search of a New Relation Nevertheless, in late 2013, it was the European Union, via a trade negotiation with Ukraine, which was at the heart of the crisis. America clearly felt that the EU was not taking a sufficiently strategic view towards Ukraine by pushing too hard a line over its deep economic liabilities. “F*** the EU”, was the rather undiplomatic language used by American Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland 19 . When the existing pro-Russian government in Kiev opted instead to turn towards Moscow in late 2013, rather than towards the European Union, the Maidan protests and revolution accelerated. The U.S. and Europe: a new burdensharing This dismissive attitude towards the European Union was a legacy of America’s sense of primacy and its strong preference that, after the Cold War, NATO should remain the primary European security institution. The idea of building a European-only military capacity was resisted strongly by the United States. This was, however, a paradox because the United States also wanted more burdensharing contributions from its allies. American policy, beginning in the 1990s, was to encourage the European members of NATO to develop “separable, but not separate” capabilities. The unintended result, however, was a steep decline in European defense investment, while deepening the dependence on U.S.-led architectures for military operations. As political scientist Barry Posen observes, while the United States was (by 2013) spending about 4.6 per cent of its gross domestic product on defense, the Europeans were spending collectively 1.6 per cent. Posen writes: “With their high per capita GDPs, these allies can afford to devote more money to their militaries, and yet they have no incentive to do so. And while the U.S. government considers draconian cuts in social spending to restore the United States’ fiscal health, it continues to subsidize the security of Germany […] This is 19 “F*** the EU”, The Guardian, 7 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/ world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-diplomat-victoria-nuland-phonecall-leaked-video.
The Logic of U.S. Engagement 101 welfare for the rich” 20 . Nevertheless, the United States has, at the same time, been unwilling to change the incentive basis for European investment in defense and broader strategic engagement. When taken together, the European members of NATO have two nuclear powers and over 2 million people collectively in uniform. Still, while the U.S. was spending 31 per cent of its defense budget on capability investments, the European allies spent a combined 22 per cent. Most European defense spending was national and not coordinated to allow for specialization and thus lower costs 21 . In 2013, for example, France sent 2,400 ground troops in an intervention into the African country Mali to combat radical Islamic militias with links to al-Qaeda. The French force was small – but the remaining total collective European contribution was just 450 troops – and limited to a post-crisis training mission. France could not sustain the operation alone and had to turn to Washington to provide enabling forces. The absence of European capability underscored growing costs to the United States even when an ally tried to lead. For example, the C-17 cargo plane, which the U.S. contributed to move French troops and equipment cost about $225 million per plane to procure. This cost the U.S. about $4.5 billion in terms of new planes and existing maintenance of procurements and about $12,000 per hour to fly. Personnel costs run about $385,000 per service member associated with each plane – which grow higher with training costs for pilots and do not account for retirement and other associated long-term benefits 22 . Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, had warned in 2011 that NATO faced a “dim, if not dismal future” and that “there will be a dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are 20 B. Posen, “Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 92, no. 1, January/February 2013, p. 121. 21 J. Dempsey, “How Much Are Americans Willing to Spend to Defend Europe”, International Herald Tribune, 7 January 2013. 22 This data is compiled by P. Carter, “The French Connection”, Foreign Policy, 23 January 2013.
Page 3 and 4:
Beyond Ukraine. EU and Russia in Se
Page 5:
The Italian Institute for Internati
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction During the last 15 yea
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction 9 ‘battleground’ w
Page 13:
Introduction 11 engagement, and sym
Page 16 and 17:
14 Beyond Ukraine. EU and Russia in
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 47 and 48:
3. After Maidan: Re-Starting NATO-R
Page 49 and 50:
After Maidan: Re-Starting NATO-Russ
Page 51 and 52: After Maidan: Re-Starting NATO-Russ
Page 65: After Maidan: Re-Starting NATO-Russ
Page 68 and 69: 66 Beyond Ukraine. EU and Russia in
Page 104 and 105: 102 Beyond Ukraine. EU and Russia i
Page 113 and 114: Conclusions. What Policy Actions fo
Page 115 and 116: Conclusions. What Policy Actions fo
Page 117: Conclusions. What Policy Actions fo
show all

beyondukraine.euandrussiainsearchofanewrelation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?