Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

The EU Misread Biden and Misjudged Johnson, a Bad Combination

In the Wake of Aukus

The dunderheads at the EU still have not figured out what went wrong with the Aukus deal in which Australia suddenly dumped the French “deal of the century” to buy submarines from the US instead. 

Aukus Background and Triumph of the British

US Needs France? What For?

Wall Street Journal writer Walter Russell Mead says America Should Be Frank With France.

The two nations need each other, despite French anger over the Aussie defense deal.

It is, to begin with, a massive public humiliation for Emmanuel Macron just as the next French electoral campaign begins to heat up. President Macron and his government were blindsided by a development of vital importance to French interests and international standing. The French Foreign Ministry has accused the Aukus powers of “backstabbing” and even treachery, but it’s the business of a country’s diplomatic, military and intelligence establishments to prevent such surprises. The French don’t elect their presidents to be hapless patsies hornswoggled by stupid Americans, provincial Australians and unspeakable Brits.

But this is bigger than Mr. Macron. The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.

Not once did the article make a case for why the US needs France. 

And who out maneuvered whom? 

Biden Deals Europe a Tough Lesson in Realpolitik

A second WSJ Op-Ed gets the story correct 

Please consider Biden Deals Europe a Tough Lesson in Realpolitik

European Union governments and their media followers couldn’t contain their glee when Joe Biden was elected president. “The Grown Ups are Back in Charge in Washington,” proclaimed a jubilant late-November headline in the Financial Times, the house organ of the European establishment, channeling as usual the Paris-Brussels-Berlin worldview.

A special bonus for the European elites was that the Brits were finally going to get their comeuppance. After all those years of talk about “the special relationship” between London and Washington, Boris Johnson, widely viewed by Democrats and Europeans alike as a more comical version of Mr. Trump, was going to get frozen out by the new president.

Flanked by video screens in the White House East Room beaming images of Mr. Johnson in London and Scott Morrison (or “that fellow down under” as Mr. Biden called the Australian prime minister) in Canberra, the president announced the formation of a new strategic alliance: Aukus—a tripartite security, technology and intelligence-sharing arrangement among the three countries.

The deal was an astonishing coup de main against the nation both sides like to describe as America’s oldest ally. Only five years ago Paris had signed a $70 billion deal with Canberra for a fleet of French nonnuclear-powered submarines, a deal that is now canceled.

But the French like to consider themselves foreign-policy realists, and they should understand that, in the famous diplomatic phrase, nations have “no friends, only interests.”

We see the rise of an Indo-Pacific strategy launched by the United States that is militarily confrontational. That is not our position.”

That’s because the EU continues to decline to take any serious responsibility for global peace and security, preferring to see the economic and commercial opportunities in the relationship with China, rather than the threat the Chinese Communist Party represents.

Germany, the economic behemoth in the EU, is the main driver behind this. It recently led the bloc’s effort to sign an investment deal with China. It has resisted U.S. attempts to restrict the Chinese telecom giant Huawei from developing its 5G network. German exports to China continue to be the source of millions of German jobs and in an uncertain international economic climate German politicians have no intention of jeopardizing them, as they have made clear in the election campaign to succeed Angela Merkel, which ends this weekend.

This is the existential problem for the EU exposed by Mr. Biden’s undiplomatic coup.

Snookered by Anglo-Saxons

Eurointelligence provides the best political analysis of what precisely went wrong.

 Please consider Snookered by Anglo-Saxons

The withdrawal of an ambassador is the attempt to react to a 21st century strategic shift with 19th century diplomacy. Nato won’t be disbanded, but it will play a more peripheral role in the future. From the second world war until the last decade US foreign and security policy was focused on Europe and the Middle East. Under presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden it shifted to the Indo Pacific.

This begs the question: why is the UK part of this shift, and not France? The US considers France and the EU unreliable with respect to China because of their special relationships. Germany and France have pushed the EU-China comprehensive agreement on investment just before Biden’s inauguration. Germany runs massive export surpluses with China that it wants to protect. Armin Laschet and Olaf Scholz are both in favour of extending the bilateral relationship. Europe has also left a door open to Huawei for its 5G networks. It was only the UK that really cut the links. The Chinese ambassador in the UK reacted with unbridled fury. His colleagues in Paris and Berlin, by contrast, stayed quiet. I assume that they have received reassurances through back-channels.

The UK is clearly the junior partner in Aukus. But it is the only European country the US can trust in the pursuit of its strategic interests in the Indo Pacific. For the French, the UK is not the central issue here, but its participation constitutes the added insult to the injury. They have been, as they say in England, snookered.

If the UK had still been a member of the EU, this could still have happened theoretically, but not practically. From the UK’s perspective, Brexit allows strategic options that had hitherto been unthinkable. The UK is also part of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing group that comprises them, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The UK’s strategic realignment was not inevitable. It is to a large extent the result of how the EU conducted the Brexit talks. The EU leadership never missed an opportunity to criticise Brexit. Donald Tusk, former president of the European Council, aligned himself to the second referendum campaign in the UK. The EU could have, but did not, support MPs in the UK who sought compromise, like Kenneth Clarke or Stephen Kinnock.

The second mistake, even worse than the first, was the intent to force the EU’s regulatory system on the UK as a price for a free trade deal. At no point did the EU even consider what kind of strategic relationship it wanted with the UK after Brexit. The EU let anger over Brexit get in the way over rational decision-making.

The enormous cost of this stupidity is slowly becoming apparent. The UK will not flood the EU with cheap goods, as France had feared. The UK’s strategy is more subtle. It will gradually cut off from European security policy. It will also cut off from the GDPR data protection regime and financial regulation. The UK has invested more into artificial intelligence than any EU member states. It is a permanent member of the UN security council and the G7. What on earth was the EU thinking?

And no, Biden is not going intervene on the EU’s behalf in the current standoff over Northern Ireland. EU leaders have always underestimated Boris Johnson. And they always overestimated Joe Biden. A bad combination.

The EU’s diplomacy is driven by emotion and a superficial understanding of US politics, and UK politics for that matter. Why did the EU place so much hope, so publicly, into regime change in Washington last year? Donald Trump was loud and crass, but all he ever did to the EU, other than insult them, was impose tariffs. Europe never experienced anything nearly as hostile as Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan or the Aukus deal. But all of this was perfectly foreseeable.

The next foreseeable accident with Washington will be over nuclear sharing. The Greens and the Left Party, possible members of the next German coalition, want to get out of the US nuclear umbrella. The SPD still pays lip service to Nato, but the party is opposed to Nato 2% defence spending target.

Over time, I would expect Nato to wither, and the transatlantic link to weaken. The EU talks about strategic autonomy, but underestimates the size and, more importantly, the nature of the task. That would require a federal political union, with a federal foreign policy and European defence force, both independent of member states. To fund it, such a federal union would require tax raising and debt issuing powers. The UK’s inevitable strategic realignment is making that task even harder because the UK used to play a critical part in European security, one that Germany will not fill.

Biden Again Delivers a Trump Pledge

EC President Ursula von der Leyen told CNN that there could not be “business as usual” after the EU was blindsided by Aukus.

And France wants the EU to back out of scheduled trade talks with the US,.

Once again we have the irony of Biden delivering exactly what Trump wanted: A reduced importance of NATO, better alignment with the UK, and a shunning of Germany and France for not fulfilling NATO funding promises.

Biden, albeit very sloppily, also delivered the Afghanistan exit. 

Thanks for Tuning In

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

30 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Jackula
Jackula
4 years ago
I think General Patton had it correct when he said “I’d rather have the Germans in front of me than the French behind me.” And another thought: Americans put too much stock into brands and cult’s of personality when the quaility of the ingredients and policy is much more important. It’s good to see Biden not being Xi’s b$tch.
prumbly
prumbly
4 years ago
Taliban Joe is Trump’s bitch
RonJ
RonJ
4 years ago
“Over time, I would expect Nato to wither, and the transatlantic link to weaken.”
Decline of the Roman Empire.
Jackula
Jackula
4 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
It’s the oceans that matter bro for trade. Previous to America’s navy patrolling the oceans after WW2 it was difficult to get an oil tanker from the middle esat to China without multiple pirate attacks and having to pay a ransome or two.
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
“Once again we have the irony of Biden delivering exactly what Trump wanted”
Trump had good ideas but couldn’t put them in practice because of political pushback. Biden seeing that Trump’s ideas were good put them into action since there is now no political pushback. Is that what you are saying?
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
So, has our government finally figured out that our real threat is China? Not Russia or bald white guys with swastika tattoos on their neck?
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Yes
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago

The French government screwed this up from the beginning and
now is trying to make up for it by sprouting “bride left at the alter
“nonsense. They put in a full-court press on the media and diplomatically
saying they were betrayed, stabbed in the back and many other ridiculous things
when what happened is just they lost a big contract that would have made them a
lot of money and helped their Pacific strategy by locking in a key ally in the
area. France pulled in a lot of favors in their opinion blitz but I fear it
will backfire on them. Some countries in the EU have backed France somewhat but
these countries are also asking France the details of the contract to see if
France was effectively screwed or had they changed the conditions as Australia
has claimed. Many will put it down to French histrionics. Virtually all see it
as a French attempt gain influence in the EU to the detriment of Germany.

For the umpteenth time some in the EU call for Europe to
have their own army and foreign policy and this it is no different. Hardly
anyone in Europe is worried about China invading them. The only countries
worried about Russia are those bordering it and the others don’t care a bit.
This is not a context for widespread support to change the status quo even if
the French government is claiming now is the time and it is necessary. Of
course with the largest military in the EU they see themselves heading it and
that in itself puts many countries off. European NATO countries rather like it
because it has worked for them over a long period. Since NATO Europe has not
been invaded or had war among its members and for a military alliance that is
what counts. Sure they love to bitch about it but the members have no illusion
as to the feasibility of going it alone. NATO is an alliance of democracies and
is a protection against those countries who are not of which there are many.

The Five Eyes alliance members have the same language, similar
institutions and outlooks, a population of 432 million, and a GDP of $28
trillion. The EU has 23 different languages, a population of 448 million with a
recent history of war between them and a GDP of $16 trillion. Which group would
the UK feel most comfortable with in economic and defense matters?

FromBrussels
FromBrussels
4 years ago
I don’tgive a sh$t about chauvinistic France losing a profitable military contract whatsoever….If the EU hadn t been a fn hopelessly divided motley bunch though, it would ve teamed up with Russia a long long time ago showing the final middlefinger to the anachronistic, megalomaniac, regime changing, self serving  ‘ally’ at the other side of the fn pond for once and fn all !  Anointing and bending over for the US should ve stopped decades ago !!
Dutoit
Dutoit
4 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
We should find the old spirit of De Gaulle, who wanted Europe “from the Atlantic to Urals”.
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
It’s much better to bend over for the French and the Germans I guess? France annexed, not just occupied, Belgium twice under the Revolutionary government and then under Napoleon. Germany took it over twice also. How many times have the British occupied Belgium and your beloved Flanders? 
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Yeah you re right, the Brits ain t warmongers, they never were !   There were of course endless wars with France, Spain, Portugal, once upon a time, and the Brits merely stimulated a couple of WWs under trigger happy Churchill.  WW1 could ve been avoided and WW2 was a consequence of the unfair ‘punishment’ of Germany post ww1, leading to the rising of a crazy dictator with a immense gift for playing and brainwashing the stupid german herd….pfff its all a long time ago,  fascism would not have lasted, Hitler would ve been killed by his own people …..Anyway, we are all syphilized now are we not? I don’ t think a war among european countries is still possible these days, all it takes now is cross border business and commerce among all parties involved in order to avoid the necessity of ‘conquering’ neighbouring countries…. So in my humble opinion(because it s you 😉 , our yankee brother  should no longer impose unilateral conditions on our relationship with other nations, I think…  
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
Why distrust a country that has never invaded but you do trust countries that have done it several times? It’s illogical but very European in that they never miss an opportunity to foul their own nest. Anyway Belgium screwed the French last year when they bought American F-35s.
caradoc-again
caradoc-again
4 years ago
Is Germany a reliable defence partner?
Very, very, doubtful.
Not to be relied upon.
Couple that with the French attitude of entitlement and you get the picture.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Those articles also failed to mention one other obvious thing. This is also a not so subtle payback for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline deal with Russia that the US has long opposed.
Consider that message delivered.
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
Looks like Europe dodged another bullet.
What are they missing out on by not following the Empire of Chaos in new frontiers in the ‘Indo-Pacific’?
How great would it have been if Europe had never joined the war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan?
Why have American weapons system lying about which the Russians have clearly stated marks you for nuclear elimination?
The future of Europe lies in Eurasian integration and multilateral development, not in confrontation & hegemony as practised by the Anglosphere, of which the financial system only threatens to engulf everybody as it swirls the drain.
caradoc-again
caradoc-again
4 years ago
Reply to  Webej
And turning a blind eye to activities that are abhorrent.
Like the good old days?
Doug78
Doug78
4 years ago
Reply to  Webej
Napoleon tried to unify Europe. Hitler tried it too. Should we give the French or the Germans another try? This time it might work if they combine their armies. Charlemagne reincarnated.
tbergerson
tbergerson
4 years ago
Well someone delivered a lesson in RealPolitick to the EU and France on behalf of the US, probably not actually Biden.  He did look perky at the UN today though.  His handlers must have given him a lot of puppy uppers.  He will be out for days recovering from the drugs they had to give him to make him look sharp.
But I am with others below.  Oh well France.  That is the way things go.  That said, Biden has the signal achievement to be the first US President to EVER have France recall its ambassador since they helped us win the Revolution 240 years ago, or so I heard
purple squish
purple squish
4 years ago
I don’t see what the big deal is. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia!
Curious-Cat
Curious-Cat
4 years ago
This blog is a lot more interesting when it discusses economics and finance where occasionally there is information that can be useful to readers’ financial decisions. Arguing politics may be interesting, but it is seldom useful.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
4 years ago
The real unspoken thing in all this is….without the US and the UK and a strong NATO, just exactly how long can the EU keep their current alliance even going, given the problems that have been smoldering since 2008…having to do with the very different interests of Germany in the north and Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece in the south.
George Friedman, whose opinion I respect, has been predicting war in Europe at some unknown and unforeseeable future date….for a good long while now.  Years.
The world is changing. The US’s strategic interests are no longer aligned with Europe.
Corvinus
Corvinus
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
People in the West (particularly the “educated”) seem to have this view of reality where tomorrow is always more or less like today except with faster smart phones. The result is that they are surprised when large scale shifts happen with anything.
I think war in Europe is inevitable – the only question is when. Keep in mind that people still hold resentments and grievances for things that happened hundreds of years ago.
Beneath the facade of their “enlightened educated attitudes”,  Europeans still hold less than friendly opinions about each other (not to speak of the now fully divorced Anglophone countries). For example, the enmity between the Northern and Southern European countries should not be underestimated as a current that might gain strength in the future.
As global power blocs and countries realign, we’ll be in for a few more surprises over the next 30 years and beyond.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  Corvinus
Europe doesn’t have the fertility required to raise an army. Much less to fight a proper war.
They failed at the first rule of any club which aspires to any real fighting chance: Go forth and multiply. Leaving them with only the alternative: Going backwards until they are extinct.
Ditto the Anglo has-beens and once-weres.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
Sure, in another 1000 years Europe might de-populate. LOL.
Even if Europe de-populates by 50% (an incredible amount) it would still have 380 million people (more than the US) in roughly the same land area. Then if they decide they need more people just a 3% increase in birth rate would double the population back to it’s current amount in ~25 years (exponential growth doubles in size using rule of 70/rate so 70/3=23).
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
4 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Octogenarians don’t fight wars. Nor only children inheriting their parents.
“Disposable,” footloose young men do. Before throwing bodies at a perceived problem starts appearing to be a viable solution, you need a sizeable overweight of willing and able disposable ones.
Which starts with having lots of kids a generation ago. Which required a broad segment of the population finding lots of kids to be financially feasible. That train was missed. Fat chance of that changing on the ECB’s watch.
Westerners are “peace” obsessed because all those who wouldn’t be, weren’t born. For that to change: First things first.
KidHorn
KidHorn
4 years ago
Reply to  Corvinus
Europe is not going to have a war. It would produce too much CO2 and most of their population would probably refuse to hold a gun. Instead they’ll be over run with Muslims and it will look like modern day Afghanistan in a couple of decades.
Webej
Webej
4 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
A war is unthinkable. Violent confrontation will inevitably morph into nuclear confrontation and Armageddon.
Everybody seems to think that MAD was a temporary constraint?!
All this BS about Thucydides coming from war college bureaucrats is pure baloney.
The condition of humankind is not a perpetual cycle of similar developments: Some things are objectively different.
China and the US nor EU countries, nor any set of countries capable of being struck with nuclear weapons will engage in violent confrontation.
Not even if led by a madman: All the psycho’s I’ve ever confronted seemed to have rather capable survival instincts when actually threatened with lethal violence.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
4 years ago
Reply to  Webej
Europe has actually had quite a few wars in the last 30 or so years (since fall of USSR) as many countries have split into smaller parts over tribal issues or are fighting for independence. Yugoslavia (several times during it’s breakup), Ukraine,  Armenia, Kosovo and so on. Then there were peaceful breakups like Slovakia/Czech Republic.  Europe is fracturing into smaller and smaller pieces over time.
Not all wars become nuclear and most countries in Europe don’t possess Nuclear weapons anyway.
On other hand I would not be surprised in the least to be in a tactical nuclear war with China over Taiwan in the near future (next 10-15 years). Such nukes (which are relatively tiny blast wise) would be used on each others military forces.
Corvinus
Corvinus
4 years ago
Reply to  Webej
Really? If anything I think internecine conflicts will become more common over time – both within the EU and even the member countries themselves. But I think my point was that it’s the very fact that it’s considered by some to be ‘unthinkable’ that can be considered a problem; better to think through these seemingly impossible scenarios because they have a habit of actually coming to pass in one way or another. 

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.