Whither Russia And The EU?

I’ve decided to reformat a long twitter thread that attempts to peer into the future of Russia - European relations. Or, at least, tries to suggest what could be a solution to the centuries old conflict. The author begins by suggesting a Grand Solution—Russia joining the EU. I think his conclusion—that a combination of geopolitical problems (US opposition) and cultural differences—preclude such an outcome. Therefore he suggests what he believes is a more modest and workable solution—the establishment of a Russo-European Energy Community. That, of course, is exactly what has fueled US opposition to Russian - EU integration: Remember Nordstream.

On the other hand, the geopolitical landscape may be such that the US will not be in a position to nix such a deal. The question then becomes, will the US become a global backwater, or second tier player, as the author suggests? Or is this what Trump is seeking to address with his grand schemes of North American unification—and perhaps more?

---

Collingwood @admcollingwood

With the Ukraine war all but lost, and the US set to withdraw its forces, Europe finds itself in its weakest strategic position since 1948--and maybe the 16th century. This thread suggests a bold (and left field) solution. But can we find an Adenauer, de Gaulle, Walesa or Churchill?

This proposal points to a way out of Europe's strategic, and long-term economic, problems. Emotions don't come into it. I'll start with two quotes from the great historian A.J.P. Taylor, from his The Course of German History (1945), to show how quickly feelings can change.

On Germany Taylor wrote:

"Their method has always been the same--extermination. Many of the peoples of Europe have, at one time or another, been exterminators. The French ... The Spaniards ... The English ... But no other people had pursued extermination as a permanent policy from generation to generation for a thousand years."

Hitlerism, Taylor seemed to be contending, was in the very nature of Germany:

"It was no more a mistake for the German people to end up with Hitler than it is an accident when a river flows into the sea"

Feelings, of course, were running hot in 1945, but this wasn't a bloke in the pub or rabble-rousing Daily Express columnist: it was one of Britain's greatest historians, and a German speaker, offering his considered and learned opinion.

Just six years later France, West Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy signed the Treaty of Paris, which brought into effect the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which eventually became the EU.

Now with that said, here's my solution to Europe's problems now: Russia should be invited to join the EU.

To understand why, we need to go back to the ECSC and strategic underpinnings of the integration that eventually became the EU. Of course there had always been dreamers who saw the potential economic power of a unified Europe. As far back as Dante in the early 14th Century, great men had thought that a unified Europe might end wars and create a sort of superpower. Really, though, the final impetus for the ECSC was that it provided an elegant and civilised solution to the problem of Germany [the Holy Roman Empire at that time].

As soon as Germany was created in 1871, it was simply too powerful for Europe to contain. It also produced more than it could consume itself, so needed markets for its excess production, and feared being trapped between Russia and France. The European Union gave Germany what it wanted by means other than arms: open markets for its goods, dominion over Europe, and especially Central and Eastern Europe, and protection from ever fighting a war on two fronts--all while allowing France to maintain its honour and seat at the highest tables.

The EU also created a large, seamless market that would in theory lift all boats, and the economic heft that statesmen like de Gaulle thought might afford each member country protection in dealings with the two superpowers, maybe even as a third pole in a multipolar world.

Now let's look at Europe's problems today. It has been economically stagnant since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. It has lost almost unbelievable ground to the US in terms of GDP and GDP/capita, because while the US discovered shale and pumped tsunamis of stimulus into its economy, Europe went for renewables and pursued pro-cyclical austerity. Since cutting itself off from Russian gas in 2022/3, deindustrialision has gone into overdrive, as Europe pays three times more for energy than the US and much more than China.

Europe is also militarily weak. Somehow, it spends €400 billion and yet would struggle to cobble together a corps sized infantry force. The situation since 2022 has gradually become desperate, having sent much of its arms to be destroyed in Ukraine. Worse, it seems politically unlikely that the large sums needed to re-arm will be forthcoming: many European nations face debt problems that could easily reach crisis point; pubic services are a mess; and the establishment is in a life and death struggle to survive a populist tempest.

In this environment, how, exactly, are European politicians going to tell their electorates they need to slash education, healthcare or social security budgets to re-arm after 15yrs of catastrophic foreign policy led to losing a war on their continent? Answer: they won't.

But they have lost a war. And of course the victor does not view them kindly. Europe tried to crush Russia economically--to make life so miserable for Russians that they'd overthrow their government. They sent arms to kill Russian soldiers. They even tied to shut down efforts to start negotiations--like last year's fact finding mission @PM_ViktorOrban went on--quite late in the day. This is not a good position for Europe to find itself in when it is economically weakened, militarily enfeebled, and its political economy is unstable.

Worse, the US, hitherto the guarantor of Europe's security, and around whose martial and diplomatic systems Europe built its defences, is leaving. Yes, leaving. A few bases might stay, but most troops and attention will go.

Russia integrating into Europe solves all this.

Europe would suddenly have limitless cheap energy--even cheaper than before, because the previous non-tariff barriers would also disappear. It would also be entirely self-sufficient in petrochemicals, fertilizers, food, steel, cement, nickel, copper, titanium, palladium timber, aluminium, cobalt, zinc, neon, coal and gold. Furthermore, Russia is the largest consumer market in Europe, has much need for infrastructure development and would find great benefit from London's financial services. Russia's integration into Europe would thus provide a large and immediate boost to the flagging European economy. Russia, on the other hand, would have all the value-added, high end manufactured goods it needed, a secure, stable market for its bounty of natural resources, and exactly the sort of financial and engineering expertise it needs to continue to develop. Furthermore, this single, self-sufficient, integrated market would provide huge power in trade and diplomatic negotiations.

Perhaps even more importantly, it would, at a stroke, solve Europe's strategic problems

Remember the backdrop to the ECSB and apply that to today. Russia cannot tolerate a large, hostile force pressed up against its vulnerable West flank on the North European Plain and Pontic Steppe. Meanwhile, its Western neighbours must always seek outside help to balance the Russian behemoth. It's a Gordian Knot that cannot be untied. Yet the intractable simply disappears if they're all part of the same club, excluding outside powers, making trade and security policy together. And sitting around that table would be part of the point:

Since 1990, Russia has understandably chafed against US policy that has excluded Moscow from major security decisions in its own back yard. Now it would be a full member of the club, and perhaps the most powerful at that. Russian integration would also solve Europe's military weakness. It would provide Europe with a large army with recent experience of modern warfare, world class AD/A2 and EW/CEW, and more military manufacturing capacity than the rest of Europe combined. On the other side of the coin, Russia, like Germany before it gets everything it ever wanted: an entirely safe Western flank, a seat at the table, and the heft to better balance China and the United States in places like Central Asia, India and the Northern Pacific.

The economic and strategic benefits are so blindingly obvious that there must be a catch. Is there?

First, Russia's wealth and standard of living is overall higher than Moldova or pre-War Ukraine, both of which were EU candidates. So that objection can be ticked off.

Secondly, "No way, not after what they did in Ukraine!"

As we have already seen with AJP Taylor and the ECSC, national interests and grand strategy don't care about your feelings. So that can be ticked off.

Thirdly, corruption and institutions are an issue in Russia; however, but this would seem like a good way of improving

Anyway, if you think EU candidates like Moldova, Macedonia, Ukraine, and even members like Romania are much better, I know a Nigerian Prince who wants to send you money.

In fact, the two main blocks would be Washington and Brussels. As I wrote on 22 January for the @MultipolarPod Substack, it is likely that Trump will seek to control Europe even as he draws down from it by bypassing the EU and dealing directly with its member nations. Trump also hopes to deal with Russia himself, to peel it away from China, while keeping Europe on

The last thing Trump -- or any US president -- wants is a Euro-Russia alliance powerful enough to slip the US leash and make decisions in its own interest. Not last because Washington knows that the next logical step would be a modus vivendi with China, at which stage the US becomes an island off the World Island and a terms taker. The US would therefore be likely to block any arrangement that would lead to the creation of a single economic power in charge of the European Peninsula and Eurasian Heartland.

The second problem is Brussels.

It would have to bin the LGBTQ+, hooman rights, 'Our Values', stuff. It would also have to recognise that for once, it was inviting a nation to integrate that wasn't orders of magnitude weaker. By PPP GDP, Russia's economy is larger than Germany's, its position as the natural resources superpower, and its military, including one of only two full-spectrum nuclear deterrents in the world mean that Europe would have to treat Russia as a near-peer. It would therefore not have to hand, as it did with Serbia, a score of 200,000 word chapters of rules and regulations to work through to gain membership. The Ever Closer Union wording would also have to go. A European superstate might, just, have been workable with France, Germany and Benelux. It's not with the Mediterranean counties. And it has no chance with Eastern Europe and Scandinavia in there. So the prospects of integrating a country with literally hundreds of languages, Orthodox Christian, Muslim and Buddhist religions, and cultures as different as European Russian, Chechnyan and Yakut, is zero.

All of which is to say that we shouldn't try to integrate Russia into the current EU. In fact, who likes the current EU, anyway? Whose life is it making better? What is it achieving? Europe needs something new anyway.

So here's an idea:

Let's start with the Russo-European Energy Community. Let's arrange a tariff-free, transit fee-free energy market for Europe. Something that provides Russia with stable, long-term destination for its hydrocarbons, and Europe guaranteed cheap energy. Maybe invite Kazakhstan.

Let's also agree to start negotiations on a Russo-European Security Council where the security of Europe and Russia may be guaranteed, any problems discussed, solutions found, and military integration planned.

The benefits of this for both sides are large enough for the technical roadblocks to be addressed with great attack. And what else are we going to do? Sulk that life isn't fair while the US runs roughshod over an increasingly enfeebled continent? Let China, the US, Russia and maybe India do the big boy stuff? The question is can Europe find a leader to get the ball rolling? With the courage to turn swords into ploughshares when emotions are running hot, and the vision to find a path, and illuminate for the rest of us? If we don't, Trump, Vance, Putin and Lavrov will decide for us.

ENDS