



Part 1: Europe and Russia, a commercial and political competition that escalated out of control









Russia relation with the countries member of Nato is deteriorating quickly, with proxy wars, fueled by the former, emerging between the former Soviet Union central piece and the Western bloc, who encroaches on territory considered by Russia to be its backwaters.





Russia relations with the European Union are more complex than with the United States, with a dependency for Russian gas and conflicting interests between allies of Russia and neutrals like Serbia or Greece, and adversaries like Poland and the Netherlands, all having those positions for very varying reasons.





The first characteristic of the current relations is that there is a competition for influence in the former Eastern bloc, with a competition between the EU around Germany and the new EAEU (Eurasian Union) around Russia. The EU is winning but it is worsening diplomatic possibilities, as Russia won't let key neighbors go into another sphere of influence. This was the basis for the now more bellicose Russian attitude, and the two wars waged in the name of Russia, the Georgian war and the Ukrainian civil war. This change of attitude is understandable as there had been guarantees made that Eastern Europe would be kept neutral, which didn't happen. That said, the forced competition was first triggered by the exploitative relationship between Russia and the the soviet satellite states, that forbade any union post Soviet Union, and the memory of the multiple events illustrating this (like in Hungary and Czechoslovakia) is what made Europe the only viable partner for many former members of the pact of Warsaw. There is now escalation, as Russia tries to keep a composed defense, impossible if bordered by countries supporting a perceived enemy (NATO). This is the doctrine behind Russian hybrid warfare, keeping strategic defensive locations, as Crimea, and increasing buffer zone, which has always been part of Russian military strategy to gain time in case of superior enemy (used from the napoleonic wars to ww2). It is not only the reason behind the "support and command" scheme in Eastern Ukraine, but is also known to not be limited to actions where rebel support would be deniable (i.e. in countries with Russian minorities). Not only the baltic states would be perfect targets for those "support and command" schemes with high Russian minorities, which explains their nervosity, but, as said before, Russia's army is ready, in case of extreme scenarios, to extend this to non traditional rebels that could be directly linked to them. This means special forces maquisards in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia (as partially speculated in eastern Ukraine), and to support and instrumentalize far right and far left terrorism in Western Europe.

In case of actual full blown out war, the Georgian lessons will be added: a country can be hacked into submission. This makes the competition we are seeing very dangerous, if Russia feels its vital areas are threatened, it will lash out with well oiled strategies that NATO doesn't know how to counter, and, given how poorly it already fares on counterinsurgency, frozen conflicts will be the rule throughout the former eastern bloc and possibly even in some Western Europe pockets (Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Corsica). So, if it threatens Europe, why is Europe playing this dangerous game?





This competition is not only for influence as in formal relations, but also between two ideologies and how influential they are in the disputed countries (i.e. are they the ruling ideologies). Liberalism and social democracy versus protectionism and authoritarian states. Europe used the warm period with Russia to propagate its ideas (democracy, liberalization of the economy, multipartism) everywhere in former communist nations. The results were that those new ideas won elections, after an initial support by younger generations, and put all those places closer to the EU, which they often end up joining. This is not only Central Europe, revolutions of colour brought social democracies even at the doors of Russia, and, now, with EuroMaidan, even Ukraine is permanently separated from Russia's sphere of influence, despite a heavy dependency (forced to quickly diminish) towards Russia, especially for gas. This political current even had a foot in Russia especially during the years Eltsine and the first presidential term of Putin. However, the slaughter that was the economic liberalization of Russia, with the massive schemes that bought all the industrial capabilities for pennies, and the following economic crisis, achieved more than what Soviets managed to through propaganda, making liberalism and social democracy impossible in Russia. The aim of this political game wasn't just to have more allies and to destroy Russian power on its neighbours, it was mostly to gain new markets for trade and ideological. It makes sense to spread liberalism to increase your trade.

Europe took the massive market that Russian collapse left free, and proceeded to take Russia's former position as the providers of several goods. The European expansion that followed wasn't just because ideology became compatible, but because the European ideology was increasingly to have a massive union that would then transform into a united states of Europe. Russia is now hostile to Europe, and has gotten back the means to influence its neighbours back, thanks to the economic boom provided by oil. It is fighting back this ideology of globalization by supporting nationalism, and, more largely, every significant parties that would be against the current consensus of centrism, liberalism (as liberalization of exchanges) and social democracy in the European commission and in the European Assembly. This seemed like an impossible task to fight Europe, especially when the monetary union was yielding fruits to every member, but the financial crisis, the debt crisis, the immigration problems, and the rise of nationalism have divided the formerly united union.





Russia and Europe are now both competing for countries that are close to the vital interests of the other, and more and more countries are being neutral or in a third position. Poland doesn't view social democracy the same way as the European Union, Hungary doesn't see the same meaning to freedom of movement, and the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union (provisionally). Russia is also fully taking advantage of its monopoly on gas exports to Europe, and will make Germany totally dependent on this if North Stream extension pipeline actually happen. Europe is not able to profit from its privileged access to central and eastern European markets as it is too divided, and workers immigration from those regions to Western Europe as only a mixed record on trade, with development in the newest countries of the EU being slow despite heavy subsidies partly because of this brain and body drain.

Russia doesn't do much better, the oil price crash severely affected its budget, and started a recession. It is only just leaving years with high inflation, in addition to the recession, and its regions have very high debt. Some of its financial institutions didn't resist, and it is up, in many cases, to the state to keep banks afloat. Finally there is a consolidation of power and money in the highest spheres, with no more oligarchs falling out of favors with the Kremlin. This means that there will be problems with money circulation, especially between different layers of the Russian society, which, with already little credit available and high inflation, only promess more financial problems for Russian households.

The escalation isn't beneficial to anyone anymore, as the Eastern Ukraine adventure and the downing of the plane made the EU embargo Russia, and this as well as the counter embargo that followed only further hurt both participants. The competition is destroying trade instead of liberalizing it, it shows a failure of the EU ideology, it also destroys Russia opportunities of influence instead of widening them, it's a failure of Russia's ideology. They are now both in a vicious cycle, that they can't leave. Despite cooperation being in everyone's best interest, competition being not anymore a help winning more market share, they are shackled by previous positions and ideological differences. A super union would be a net positive, at least increased relations and a collaboration would be the most logical choice. Instead they chose to export their competition in more exotic places.





Russia is extending its western sphere of influence by pushing arctic exploration with, in the end, the objective of commercial and military use, aided by global warming. It is increasing its icebreaker fleet to compete with the Suez Canal on the shortest sea route to Asia by commercially exploiting the Northeast passage. It's still often iced, but, with the current rate of climate change, it would be totally safe in Summer in a decade or so. It also claims a huge part of the arctic, which is full of hydrocarbures, and will be extremely useful when the easier sources have dried after surexploitation following competition for oil market shares between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and American producers. It is aggressively defending those claims with an increased presence there, including military, opening bases that were closed in the soviet area. It would also be a way to overrun Europe defenses from the north, which is less defended, and one of the objective of the Russian submarines probing in Scandinavia might be to find weaknesses there.

Russia is also trying to get closer to Turkey, a key player in the region, and the country commanding the Bosphorus strait, therefore deciding whether most of the Russian fleet can deploy. There has been many problems between the two, all emanating from backing opposed groups in the Syrian civil war. But Erdogan's authoritarian tendencies and the resulting European disapproval followed by the break of some of the ties between the two, especially with Germany, and the suspension of Turkey's adhesion to the EU, is bringing them together. Erdogan already tried to stretch what it could leverage from the EU, but it now seems that there is a divorce between the two, and it likely needs another backing to keep its regional influence. This where Russia's trade strategy was shown to work flawlessly, as opposed to Ukraine. The dependency of Turkey to Russia, from gas to tourism revenue, made them try to do everything to amend the previous problems, and they are now close partners with similar ideologies. That said Russia is not the only one to try to get influence expanding in other areas.

Europe ended Gaddafi's reign, and is trying to do the same with Assad. This is not only an attack on a Russian ally, but also, perhaps more importantly, on the ideology that Russia supports, whilst keeping regimes that have interests that aligned with them, despite the same lack of democracy, like Sissi in Egypt. The Arab Spring created a realignment in the Arab world, after the fall of so many strongmen, and if it wasn't necessarily towards the EU, it showed that the ideology that supports Russia is flawed, and that the leaders can be removed by the will of the people. It also crippled The Iranian Shia axis (Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, Syrian army) for a while with the Syrian civil war, diminishing two allies of Russia with one revolt.

It also keeps interventions in former colonies, mostly from France, which are safeguarding special links between French companies and African nations. this keeps a big market, the Maghreb, from getting any Russian influence, though there were some inroads in Egypt thanks to Russian nuclear expertise and the fact that Sissi shares Putin ideology, including on radical Islam.

They are finally having increased trade with the Gulf. Although it is ethically questionnable, and, importantly, involves economies that are far from fully diversified, it gives much needed additional trade for countries with a stagnating growth. The investment from the Arabian Peninsula into the Old Continent is another bonus. The European countries often do not have the money to maintain all their luxury industries and services, this flux helps keeping them stable or even helping them boom, and it restores wide areas of the luxe industry with those funds. That said, the opposition with several goals of the EU (end of terrorism, end of dictatorships) of this relationship makes political opposition to this stronger every day, partially fueled by Russia.

They are both extending in new places, but it is either fragile, or uncertain, and it is marginal compared to their main market or diametrally opposed to their ideology. This can't go on forever as they will go into areas already influenced by other superpowers, and have another potentially escalating competition. They have to have the reality of the current situation their relationship is in, and that it is unsustainable that way;





This competition between the EU and Russia has multiple faces, two ideology confronting each other, a competition for market shares, and, more and more, a militaristic aspect, mostly by Russia that feels its defense capabilities threatened. It could evolve into a war, or widespread guerrilla based proxy wars if it keeps escalating, and it is negative for both participants. It should be solved by a frank discussion and a close relationship, which is the solution that would yield the best outcome, but the past and differing ideologies prevent them from doing so. Instead they evade the intense confrontation by trying to find other area they could expand into but it is often short lived and fall short of their aims. They also try to find weaknesses in the other and use that to permanently have the upper hand in this competition, but they're both interdependent so it only hurts them both.

The relations between the EU and Russia are currently bad, and certainly close to Cold War levels, but they are still better than the relation between Russia and the United States, and, with their interdependency, the future might be brighter when they finally realize they are better together. On the other hand, the US has almost no trade with Russia, how far could it go between the two superpowers that already have a troubled common past and a war of words?



The second part of the series will be available soon

You can support us by donating to our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TheNewRealityinForeignPolicy

You can get the latest updates by subscribing to our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/The-new-reality-in-foreign-policy-492287754467588/



