Difficult to keep countries together

It is time to define the priority sectors that would require reform, innovation, and fresh resources. That is what some European governments are doing. Unfortunately, not all of them have engaged in such a planning exercise. They will remain further behind in terms of access to the new funding facility the European Commission is putting in place. That means more economic divergence in a project that was put together to bring equal prosperity to every member State. Development gaps, as they wide, they create the roots for dissension and destruction.   

Libya, Turkey and us

After Syria, Libya has become the new confrontation ground between Russia and Turkey. In both cases, confrontation means bullets, military deployments, and death. In Libya, Russia supports the Benghazi-based Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his forces, whilst Turkey has come into the country to fight side by side with the Tripoli-based Unitary provisional government, led by Fayez al-Sarraj. For the time being, the Turkish side of the conflict has gained more ground than the men Moscow has bet on.

 All this has a strategic impact on Europe and should be seen with great concern. Any decision and any critical move by these two countries might become a serious threat to Europe’s stability and security. Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan are no friends of Europe. I say so, and at the same time, I do not forget that the latter is the leader of a country that is a member of the NATO Alliance. Erdogan is the peril within.

First, the confrontation between both can bring Europe into a clash with Russia if Turkey invokes its membership of NATO and calls for assistance. However, I am not particularly worried by such possibility as I expect the key leaders of the Alliance to find a way of saying no to a Turkish request for assistance against Russia. Therefore, this prospect is rather remote.

The real problem is that President Erdogan is now in control of the two main migratory routes that bring illegal immigrants into the European Union. The Eastern one runs through his own country and he knows how to make use of it to put pressure on the European politicians. And now, being heavily present in Tripoli and the surrounded areas, his men and their Libyan allies are in command of the Central Mediterranean migratory lane. That gives President Erdogan enormous leverage when dealing with European countries. Mass migration remains a major issue that can seriously undermine the unity and the continuation of the EU. The Turkish President knows it and will keep playing that destabilising card to his own advantage.

Here, like in other areas, the EU foreign policy is being outsmarted by our adversaries.

A busy summer ahead of us

People in Europe are rapidly moving past the pandemic and looking forward to a normal summer. There are still a number of restrictions in place, in most of the countries, but everyone seems convinced that by the end of the month they will be lifted. Optimism is a good thing, particularly after a difficult and long period of deep constraints, not to mention death, sorrow and anxiety. It might be somehow unjustified, but as I think of it, I get convinced we need a good dose of hopefulness. It helps us to move forward.

Beyond the health dimensions, it is true that for a good number of people the prolonged crisis has meant a serious loss of income. For others, it dramatically means either unemployment or job insecurity. It also threatens the survival of many companies, with a serious impact on national wealth and public revenue, well beyond the employment dimensions. We must be aware of all this and promote the right social and economic policies that we believe are most appropriate to respond to the many forthcoming challenges. And as we write or speak about these things, we must find a way of mixing realism with optimism.

The decision the European Central Bank has just announced, adding another 600 billion euros to the pandemic-related bond purchasing mechanism, is at the same time very encouraging and a clear indication of the crisis we are in. Money in substantial amounts is critically important. But we must be very judicious about the priorities and wise, in terms of change. The money must be an instrument of recovery, I agree, but also, a powerful tool to promote change.

One of key priorities must be the reestablishment of the education system. I have seen how the primary and secondary school pupils are being affected by the closure of the schools. Their current virtual studies are little more than a lie or a joke. It is crucial to create all the conditions to re-open the next school year, in September, effectively. Not much is being talked about that, less still is happening in terms of action. Teachers and academic authorities must be assisted from now on to create the conditions for a rentrée that makes sense and brings everybody back to the reorganised classrooms.

In the end, as we approach the summer period, we realise that this should be a very intense period of work. We must recuperate what has been lost and look forward to a better horizon.

The European recovery

Today, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron stated they will advocate for the establishment of a €500 billion recovery fund. In their view, the money should be raised in the international capital markets by the European Commission, as a common pot aimed at helping the Member States seriously affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The disbursements would be approved by the Commission, following the criteria that are yet to be established. It would also be the Commission that would have the responsibility to pay the markets back, meaning, the principal and the interests or dividends.

I am not sure this will work. Austria’s leader, Sebastian Kurz, has already voiced strong objections to such an idea. He does not want to see a recovery mechanism that is dispensing grants to the States. He is for loans. Loans make the leaders a bit wiser than just getting free money, he seems to believe. We can expect that other voices will join his own.

In view of this, my position is that most of the money should be channelled to fund joint multinational projects that would reinforce the European system and would have an impact on the EU’s strategic self-sufficiency in matters of public health, bioresearch and other critical emergency response mechanisms. The pandemic has taught us that the health sector is vital, not only for medical reasons but also because of its impact on the functioning of the economy. We cannot no longer talk about strategy without including the strengthening of our common capacity to deal with epidemics, critical hospital equipment needs and essential medicines. Money should also be spent on common logistics and rapid deployment networks.

It is also clear that the recovery fund must be operational soonest. There is urgency. We are not yet at the end of the crisis. The intensity of the pandemic can have a new surge at any moment. We must be better prepared this time. In addition, the economy of the most affected countries needs resources that would encourage new investments, in greener areas, and in matters that address the issues of income and social security. The priority should go for those projects that are fundamental for a stronger Europe and that are not too much dependent on resources and means of transportation we do not control.

This is a time to think differently. The fund, if it is thoughtfully planned and wisely administered, can become a tool for transformation and progress. The alternative is for it to become a reason for further divisions within the European space. Nobody wants that to happen.

Russia, China and the EU: what's next?

In the medium term, sometime towards the middle of the forthcoming decade, Russia could opt for China, in terms of economic and trade relations. Basically, that would mean China would replace the EU as a market for the natural resources Russia produces and would become a supplier of finished goods that are today imported from the West. That could be an alternative for Russia, particularly if the political tensions with the EU and the sanctions that go along those tensions have not been resolved.

In that case, the leaders in the Kremlin could adopt a more adversarial approach towards the EU. I think we cannot exclude such a scenario as we look ahead.

But, for now, the Russian population are more prepared for a love-hate relationship with the rest of Europe. Russians do not feel particularly connected to the Chinese culture and way of life. There are old mental barriers that are not easy to overcome. Russians see themselves as fundamentally Europeans – the Christian background dimension has gained a lot of ground in Putin’s Russia. History has told us that it is easier to entertain a conflict with those who are our cultural and geographical neighbours. The real fights are between those who are very much alike to us. The others, especially if they are far away in terms of geography and culture, we tend to ignore them. At least until they come knocking at our gates.

The delicate EU approach towards Russia

We quite often forget that politics is about the control of power. Consequently, we also lose sight of a very fundamental question: what is, in each given situation, the key source of power?

Political leaders know they must pay special attention to this question.  And that the answer is found in the domestic arena, not in the field of international affairs. Power is based on the way domestic politics are played. The domestic voter must be persuaded. The effective political narrative takes that into account.

Vladimir Putin knows it. And we should keep it in mind when dealing with him. That is my message to President Macron, to the politicians in Italy and all those in the EU who are now advocating a new type of dialogue with President Putin.

Russia’s relations with the EU will always be a mix of tension and commerce. The Russian leaders want to keep a certain level of friction. They will picture the EU as a devilish power, a rival that wants to create chaos in Russia. They must create an external menace, the EU, as a way of justifying their strong hold on power. Therefore, they bet on old feelings about Germany – and more recently, on a new wave of negative feelings about Poland. All this helps them to fuel Russian nationalism, as well as gain voters’ support. It gives them an excuse for a strong hand against their internal opponents, presented as foreign agents, and a justification to spend an extraordinary amount of resources on the Russian Armed Forces and on the internal security structures. In exchange, the Armed Forces and the different Police organisations become key pillars of Putin’s power edifice.

But President Putin cannot ignore the economy. It must turn and generate enough resources, including those resources required to sustain a certain standard of living for the population. That means he needs to maintain open the access to the EU markets. Particularly, for Russia’s gas and oil exports, on one side, and, on the other, to import food and other goods and services from Europe. The Russian dependency on European markets, as suppliers and buyers, cannot be ignored.

The EU relationship with Russia must take such equation present. It’s a combination of power and economic factors. Interests, yes, but not about shared values, or common political objectives. As such, it would be naïve to think we can have a healthy cooperation with Russia, now and in the medium term. It will continue to be a question of balance between conflict and opportunity.

On the anniversary of NATO

All along, I have listened to a good number of dinner speakers. And I have noticed that, in general, they believe that a successful speech is the one that confirms the views of the attendees. They end up by seeing themselves as “comfort speakers”, as I would call them, invited to reinforce the prevailing ideas that have already gained a seat around the table.

That has been the case, for instance, on matters related to NATO. I mention the Alliance as its leaders get together in London to celebrate its 70^th anniversary. And I recall that I have repeated at a few occasions the Organisation needs an independent view of its relevance and role. They should even listen to some “positive contrarians” – another expression I use –, people that are ready to raise some fundamental questions instead of just re-stating dogmatic or diplomatic views.

I would also like to recall another of my frequent messages to senior officers: we can only succeed if we consult, de-conflict and harmonise our respective strategic and operational interests.  

To talk to a political bully?

In politics, we tend to forget that to be principled is different from being dogmatic.

A principled leader knows the goal posts, keeps in mind the values that must be respected, and, because of that, he or she can engage in a negotiation. The dogmatic one is just a bully, a political ruffian. He can only operate from what he sees as a position of force, even when such position is no more than an illusion. The bully lives in a fantasy world and sees himself at the centre of it. To engage in a dialogue with such a person is a lost of time, unless it is just a tactical move to regain the initiative.

Boris and his master play hard ball

Dominic Cummings, who is Boris Johnson’s high priest for strategy – officially, his title is Senior Advisor to the PM – knows very well that in war it is vital to regain the initiative. To win one must master the plan and the action.

Yesterday, the opposition and all those who are against a No Deal Brexit had reached an accord that could threaten the PM’s political future. They got the ball and the agenda. That was a major menace to Boris’s power. Today, that same group lost it, thanks to Cummings and his pupil. The suspension of parliamentary work decided by Boris Johnson surprised his opponents and destabilised their game plan. That’s how strategy is played by the big people.

But the game is not over. Today’s move has infuriated many Tory MPs that were sitting on the fence. They might find the courage to pay back. That must happen in the next few days and before the end of coming week. If it does, Cummings’ canny advice to Boris might end up by backfiring. The stakes are higher than ever.

We will see.

EU foreign policy

The new European Commission will have to think afresh the EU’s foreign policy, including its strategic alliances. The last few years have shown that world is changing fast. The new trends are clear enough for scenario designing. It should not be too difficult to agree on possible world scenarios in five- or ten-years’ time. The Europeans must decide about the kind of role they want to play in international affairs by the end of the incoming Commission’s mandate. And what are the bridges they want to consolidate.

Juncker's major shortcoming

On this European Day, I wrote in my Portuguese language blog “Vistas Largas” that a lot has been achieved in terms of our common future and joint response to many challenges. But I also added that the European Commission has been mediocre in matters of strategic communications. There is no Commissioner with that kind of portfolio – this should be corrected when the new team takes power in November. And the Commission seems to believe that press conferences, press releases and a crowd of spokespersons are enough to cover the information needs of the European citizens. That’s not a strategic approach. And the experience has shown that it is not enough to keep the citizens aware and get their active involvement in European matters.

If people do not know, they do not support. And they become vulnerable to those who lie and disseminate anti-EU propaganda. That’s where many of us find ourselves today, a few weeks before the next European parliamentary election.

This is a major failure of the outgoing Juncker team. A far-reaching one.

China and the waters

Global geostrategic changes go very fast these days, thanks to the Chinese leadership.

Look at this, for instance.

Back in 2010 – just yesterday, one could say – the Chinese corporations had invested in about 10 of the 50 largest deep-water ports of the world. Now, in 2019, Chinese money is invested in over 30 of those ports. In addition, the Chinese merchant marine is currently the world’s second largest.

Becoming a great maritime power might be a Chinese dream, in the leaders’ minds and political agenda. It is also a major strategic move, to be added to other ambitious, huge initiatives China is implementing, at sea and over land. The overall goal is to be number one by 2049, the centennial year of their revolution. That’s the way the Chinese leadership, and above all, President Xi, see the world of tomorrow: China as the pivot, the centre of the international order.

Adversaries and enemies

Always blame your adversary but concentrate your fighting power on your enemy. 

Our neighbour, Vladimir Putin

Again, on defence, it’s clear to us in the EU that one of the key military objectives of Russia is to look stronger than they really are. That’s why they spend so much human and capital resources on mixing facts and fiction. Part of their strength is indeed a fact. On the other side, a good deal of it is just a story that is being told to scare us. It is the Potemkin Village approach. It has a long history in Russia. But it produces results.

The Russian armed forces are ten years ahead of us, in the EU, in terms of cyber warfare. That’s for sure a reality. The rest, it is yes and no. But the truth is that they keep compelling us to increase our spending in military matters. In this kind of game, we cannot take risks. We better be prepared.

Fake, constructed or true, the fact of the matter is that the threats coming from Vladimir Putin must be taken seriously. And he knows that. Smart fellow, he is. And we, in many ways, look like amateurs. Just kicking the ball when it comes in  our direction.

The leader simplifies and proposes a direction

We should not confuse simplification with populism and dogmatism. Simplification is a leadership task that helps to decode and elucidate complex issues. It’s also about giving direction to the necessary action.  

On matters of War

War without a concomitant, serious, persistent search for a political solution to the conflict is not morally justified. It´s unacceptable state terror. It´s a crime against the people. 

When the generals write open letters

Over 120 US flag officers – generals and admirals – wrote an open letter yesterday to remind the key leaders of Congress and the top people in the Trump administration in charge of foreign affairs, defence and security that national security is a complex issue. It calls for a comprehensive approach that goes well beyond the military means and the armed response.

In today´s world, national security and the protection of key strategic interests are above all done through means of healthy diplomatic relations, efficient development cooperation and other external programmes that combat poverty, exclusion, disease and bad governance.

As such, these top commanders urge the Administration and the representatives of the American people to keep the investment of public resources on those programmes that fall under the State Department and have been designed and improved over time in order to more effectively prevent conflict in other parts of the globe.

This is a position that calls for wide support. It is the modern way of looking at international relations and of promoting peace and stability. Its relevance is even greater because it is stated by people that know about matters of war and peace. They understand the limitations of the use of armed forces. They are also people who have seen the world. They know what they are talking about.

The link to the letter is the following: 

http://www.usglc.org/2017/02/27/over-120-retired-generals-admirals-on-state-and-usaid-budget-now-is-not-the-time-to-retreat/

Gullibility

The more I listen to the noises made by the incoming US President on matters of international affairs, the more I get convinced that when it comes to his views about Russia and China he is a naïve. It´s all unsophisticated inspiration and no experience or wise listening to those who know about those countries ´political leaders. And that is certainly not good news, it can´t augur well for the US and their allies, especially when you have on the other side of the table foxy fellows like Putin and Xi. These two are no joke. They do not tweet. They plan. 

The NATO Summit

The NATO Summit in Warsaw, which is about to start, will endorse a major policy shift. It will squarely move the organisation into an all-out deterrence mode. And it will do it based on credible operational capabilities.

Russia might be tempted to respond by accelerating the investments in the modernisation of its armed forces. That´s the most obvious option for them. The one that will satisfy the hard core nationalist part of the Russian public opinion as well as the powerful military establishment.

But I am also convinced that the Kremlin leadership will understand, sooner than later, that re-opening the dialogue with the West is a much better -- and by far, much more affordable -- option than betting on the arms race.

Putin´s resourcefulness

Russian President understands that one of the most important points in competitive geostrategic action is about confusing the adversary. The principle is clear: do not let the adversary understand how you plan and think. He managed to do it again this week, when he decided to withdraw most of his military operational forces from Syria. And on top of it, Vladimir Putin left everybody trying to guess the reasons for his decision. That´s the icing on the cake.

There are several readings for Putin´s move. To them, one should add more, meaning that we cannot underestimate this leader. It would be a serious mistake.