Tanks firing during the NATO Enhanced Presence in Latvia Battle Group-led military exercise “Iron Spear 2023 © eFP Battle Group Latvia

They’ve been described as the “knee jerk” elections. People haven’t simply sat down and really thought about things seriously, as you might expect ahead of an election. Some have voted in the way their parents and grandparents had voted (it requires little or no thought), some have listened to the siren calls of extremists of right or left (mainly of the right, in fact). Some even read the abundant promotion leaflets for the various candidates, although I doubt if they believed them; I certainly didn’t. The confusion of the voters would seem to have been replicated in the results, at least so far. Don’t look for clear winners, nor clear anything, in fact. If there is a biggest loser from these elections, it’s clarity. Of course, that means that the future is almost impossible to predict with much confidence.

Take the case of France, for instance. Five years ago, only two EU countries were run by right-wing populists. Today, such parties are involved in no fewer than eight countries, with further gains coming in the recent European elections. At the eleventh hour, France seems to have turned away from what looked like an outright victory for the far right. There had been fear in some quarters that Marine Le Pen would occupy the Palais de l’Élysée and her far-right party would form the next French government with the party’s President Jordan Bardella as Prime Minister, following President Macron’s arguably unwise decision to go to the country. Now it is the left-leaning Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) that is celebrating following the second round of voting, after what looks like a little “buyer remorse” on the part of voters who chose the far-right Rassemblement National, (National Rally, originally known as the Front National) in the first round. Le Pen has told the media she plans to “professionalise her party” before any further elections. Once upon a time voters tended to stick to their first choice on their next visit to a polling station, but no longer, it seems. It’s more like a roulette game: round and round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. Even so, moderate voters are heaving a sigh of relief, afraid that a Le Pen government might have taken France out of the EU. But there again, as the English playwright Tom Stoppard wrote in his 1972 play Jumpers: “It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting.” How terribly true! But will the elected members vote in accordance with their parties’ wishes? Those brilliant writers of music comedies Flanders and Swan doubted even that, according to this line from “HMS Pinafore”: “I always voted at my party’s call, And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.” Many a political party leader must wish that was still true, as do the Chinese leadership. They have issued a warning to NATO “not to bring chaos to Asia”, which presumably means that everyone should do what President Xi Jinping wants without querying it. China, you should recall, has never questioned the motives behind Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, nor ever referred to it as “an act of aggression.”

So, what about the UK? There were fears there, too, that Nigel Farage’s far-right Reform Party, which emerged from the former Brexit Party (its relevance had faded somewhat since Britain left the EU) would gain some ground. It did, but not enough to spoil Labour’s overwhelming victory for the party and its supporters. But in the mainly coastal towns that fear a big influx of migrants from across the channel, Farage himself still seems to hold charm, albeit mainly with the sorts of people who always favoured rightwing politics.

There are still plenty of them in the UK, despite authorities in Scotland arguing that more migrants would boost their country’s economy. A recent headline I saw on the cover of one particularly right-wing newspaper that is opposed to the Labour Party and its leader (and now Prime Minister) Sir Keir Starmer claimed that he had just hung a notice saying “open” at Dover, facing towards the Channel.

It was an extremely racist message from a newspaper that used to be more moderate in its views, back in the days when my parents used to buy it, long, long ago. Britain’s Financial Times newspaper (FT) has reported that tactical voting is on the rise, replacing what might be called: “tribal loyalties”. It does, at least, give voters the chance to rethink their first choice, utilise their “buyer regret” and choose an alternative candidate, as France seems to have done. Meanwhile, one-time prime minister Boris Johnson is still proclaiming “We got it done!” about Brexit, without, presumably, referring to those people in Britain (and I have met a few) whose businesses went bust because of that ‘proud achievement’. I think he sees the world in monochrome. There is only one point of view: his.

| SECURITY FOR SALE – AT A PRICE

As to Europe’s defence, just how effective it will be must depend on how much is spent on it. Security Minister Dan Jarvis has described Sir Keir Starmer’s commitment to a target of spending 2.5% of budget as “absolutely cast iron”, but no date has been put on when spending will rise to this level. It still has some way to go. There are also those in the upper levels of the armed forces who doubt if it will ever happen. Among the press corps covering Westminster there are rumours that Starmer can be “economical with the truth” at times, but he has promised a “road map” towards that target figure of 2.5% of GDP. Sir Keir has also urged the UK’s NATO allies to do more to increase their own defence spending, saying it would be needed to protect the alliance’s values in “a new and dangerous era”. UK Defence Secretary John Healey has said that the West faces a decade or more of “growing Russian Aggression” and has urged allies to increase their own spending on defence, while also saying, during a visit with Starmer to Washington, that the UK would do more to support the EU defence alliance, Pesco (Permanent Structure for Co-operation), beyond its current role of providing military transport. However, Starmer took the opportunity to criticise the EU’s ponderous decision-making procedures again, if somewhat unfairly. He has made clear his dislike of the EU and has said there will be no attempt for Britain to rejoin it “in his lifetime”. He should recall that many of the previous delays were caused by Britain before it left the organisation. US President Biden has said he wants to see Britain having a closer relationship with the EU, despite Starmer’s scepticism about it.

| MUSCLING IN ON MUSSOLINI

Italy, of course, has also seen a huge political upheaval, electing not only its first female prime minister in Giorgia Meloni, who leads the Brothers of Italy (surely its sisters, too?) but also its most radically right wing since Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism. She has promised, however, to “govern for all Italians”, as new leaders tend to do, but it would seem to represent the writing on the wall in European politics. That writing seems to say: “turn right”. Still, Meloni has not started wearing rather odd quasi-military clothes with furry hats nor awarding herself medals. Oddly enough, the European countries that showed the highest turn-out by voters were Belgium and Luxembourg, neither of them known for radicalism or revolution. In Belgium, it was 89.01%, while 89.29% of Luxembourg’s voters went to the polls. In third place but quite a long way behind came Malta, with a 73% turn-out, then Germany with 64.74%. Are people losing interest in who rules them? Or do they perhaps believe that in their daily lives it doesn’t really make much difference?

In Spain, centre parties managed to stave off a far-right victory, leaving Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as one of the European centre-left’s leading figures. Although far from being a dispiriting defeat, Spain’s far-right anti-immigration Vox party still took 9.6% of the vote, up from just 6.2% in 2019. What they see as an over-generous migration policy, however, has led to Vox members pulling out of power-sharing agreements in some places. Only founded in 2013, Vox is now Spain’s third-largest political party and if its members withdraw their support, it may not be possible to agree a budget for next year. Once again, as in other European countries, it’s the frequent disagreements over immigration that are driving events. Without Vox’s support, some regions may not be able to approve a budget for 2025. Founded in 2013, Vox has become the third-largest party in Spain and the views of its supporters matter a great deal. The European Union’s great achievement of free movement between states – the issue that was mainly exploited by the right wing in Britain to secure a vote for Brexit – is still troubling to some, and that is being used by right-wing publications and politicians.

| LEARNING FROM THE PAST

Of course, cross-border tensions between neighbouring states are nothing new. Look back at the Middle Ages, for instance, a period now being re-examined by political neorealists keen to see parallels with today’s political realities and how problems back then were resolved in the days prior to the Internet. It wasn’t always with halberds and swords, after all, even if they did tend to predominate. It all came down (as it does today) to who exactly was in charge in the various medieval units of authority. People travelled less, so local politics tended to be very local indeed by our standards, albeit with competition between various lordships over land and labour. International relations were not as international as in today’s world, but that didn’t prevent tensions arising that could turn to bloodshed. One of the world’s earliest and most startling works of literature, Homer’s Iliad, is all about a war between Greece and Troy, begun because one side (Greece) seized two beautiful women, Chrysēís and Brīsēís, from the other and refused to give them back. A lot of people on both sides died because of it, according to Homer. Chrysēís was seized first but her father’s offer of generous ransom fell on deaf ears, it seems.

By comparison with today’s politics, all the leading protagonists would probably be classed as “far right”. Nowadays, the far right tends to do best in regions where there are already lots of immigrants, and as concern grows about an influx people can neither understand nor prevent, so votes for extremists grow in strength. It’s not only immigration that provokes such apparent anger. We have to accept that a lot of people rather like being angry; just look at the crowds watching a football match. Other matters that can upset them include regulations introduced to tackle climate change (but inconveniently for some), the religion of Islam, which still seems alien to many raised in Christian households (whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or many of the faith’s various offshoots), and – as the UK showed somewhat alarmingly – the power of the EU over its member states, as well as gay and trans-gender rights and other such things.

You only have to look at Hungary, where Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party won power in 2010, taking over the courts and the media, which seems to go way beyond conventional politics. Fidezs’s moves have since been copied by Poland’s Law and Justice party. The possible unity of far-right parties was wrecked by Orban’s support for Russia and for President Putin over his invasion of Ukraine. Germany’s home-grown far right Alternative für Deutschland opposed the arrival of migrants, aid for Greece over its debts and also support for Ukraine. It would appear that Putin has quite a lot of support among Europe’s far-right voters.

| SECONDS OUT!

Could Europe defend itself if Putin were to turn his attention here instead of (or in addition to) Ukraine. Not very well, it seems. Europe has very little of the sorts of air defences it would need to turn away a Russian assault. According to NATO, it has just 5% of the air power it may need. Is it enough? As my teachers would occasionally scrawl on my examination papers, “could do better”. After all, as NATO itself proclaims on its own website: “Deterrence and defence is one of NATO’s core tasks” also saying: “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine poses the gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades, shattering peace in Europe and reinforcing the need for NATO to ensure that its deterrence and defence posture remains credible and effective.” A nice idea in theory, but the practice doesn’t really live up to it. Nevertheless, as agreed at a NATO summit in 2022, the Alliance is committed: “to deploying additional robust, in-place, combat-ready forces to NATO’s eastern flank, to be scaled up from the existing battalion-sized battlegroups to brigade-size units, where and when required.” I ought to feel reassured, but with Putin being such a loose cannon (and inclined to be rather loose with all of his cannons), I’m still nervous.

As The Economist recalls, when the boxer Mike Tyson was asked if he was worried about whatever plan his opponent might have for their coming fight, he replied: “Everybody has a plan ‘til they get punched in the mouth.” Are those boxing glovers that Putin is wearing? Probably not. According to some people I’ve talked to who have met him, he’d be more likely to utilise a blackjack you hadn’t noticed, possibly with a switchblade to follow. NATO admits that it’s Putin’s territorial ambitions that give the organisation its greatest concerns. In 2022, NATO leaders agreed to deploy four battalions in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in addition to those already deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. At that year’s Madrid summit, they agreed that Russia poses the biggest and most direct threat to peace and security across Europe.

NATO leaders have discussed modernising their deployable forces for several years. It was in Vilnius in 2023 that they agreed to continue implementing the NATO Force Model in order to provide a bigger pool of combat-ready troops, ready to action. They also approved a new “rotational” model of up-to-date air defence systems and capabilities, based on the Euro-Atlantic area, or Europe and the United States working together. The Concept for Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area focuses on force employment to deter and defend today, while the NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept offers a vision to guide the Alliance’s long-term warfare development to remain militarily strong now and into the future, looking at potential threats from both Russia and China, as well as from their various allies and friends. Twenty-three NATO allies have agreed to a target of 2% of GDP spending on defence, compared with just three allies in 2014. Putin (and Xi) make them nervous.

| DON’T BELIEVE ALL YOU READ

In fact, they have agreed amongst themselves that NATO is now facing its most difficult and challenging security environment since the end of the Cold War. In part, this is the result of the COVID pandemic, during which Putin spent months working on a 7,000-word historical essay, explaining why he wanted – or even needed – a World War. He wrote that Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are, in reality, just parts of the same historical, or even spiritual, space. He saw it as “historical destiny”, basing many of his conclusions on the works of 19^th century Russian historians. Their views, he believed, justified his invasion. In his eyes, it’s necessary, inevitable and must ultimately be won by Russia for historical reasons. According to the historian Owen Matthews, Putin sees his war not as an assault on the Ukrainian peoples’ freedoms but to protect the rights pf people he viewed as essentially Russian. Matthews quotes an essay Putin wrote in 2021, in which he claimed that the citizens of the three countries “have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine (I’m not sure the Ukrainians would agree with that claim), in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.” I have taken that quote from Matthews’ book “Overreach”. I recommend most strongly that you read it because it will help to explain Putin’s peculiar mindset and opinions. It also demonstrates that he really doesn’t understand history, nor ever will, whatever he thinks. As previous historians could testify, the idea is to study the facts, understand them and interpret them. You really can’t – as Putin has done – decide your chosen outcome and conclusions and bend the known facts incorrectly so that they fit. That’s not history, it’s propaganda. He seems to have overlooked the fact that other countries lived through the same incidents and crises as did the people of Russia, and that Putin alone drew the conclusions upon which he has justified so much bloodshed and destruction. He must – surely? – know that he will not be remembered with affection, at least not among Ukrainians.

Ironically, although Putin’s views are a very long way from Communism or the thinking of Karl Marx, the world will make the same mistakes in recalling Putin’s character and historical legacy as it did with Marx. Marx was viewed as “a forbidding bearded patriarch and lawgiver, a thinker of merciless consistency with a commanding vision of the future.” That alone would set him apart from Putin. But in his book “Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion”, the historian Gareth Stedman Jones points out that this view was not correct. Writing in 1939, Isaiah Berlin wrote that “Marx’s faith in his own synoptic vision was ‘of that boundless, absolute kind which puts an end to all questions and dissolves all difficulties’; his intellectual system was a closed one, everything that entered was made to conform to a pre-established pattern, but it was grounded in observation and experience.” Putin’s vision is very different, rooted in the words of 19^th century historians whose works Putin had read as an escape route from the lockdown we all suffered. And he misinterpreted it anyway.

| WHAT MORE MAY BE NEEDED?

The belief of military experts on both sides of the Atlantic is that Europe cannot defend itself effectively without the United States. If that is true, then Europe is indeed in a dangerous predicament. It would mean that an American president less committed to Europe and perhaps admiring Putin could just sit back and let invasion happen. After all, Donald Trump has opposed aid for Ukraine and seems to admire Putin. Additionally, Europe has more to lose than Russia: it has a population of some 500-million, compared with just 145-million in Russia. According to NATO experts, Europe’s combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is around $15-trillion (€13.74-trillion), compared with Russia’s measly $1.7-trillion (€1.56-trillion).

Europeans live longer, too, with an average maximum age of 82 years, compared with Russia’s 72. The US is said to have pledged €25-billion to support Ukraine, although a Trump presidency may not sustain that, while the UK has pledged €4-billion. According to Eurobarometer, some 93% of Europe’s citizens believe its nations should cooperate to defend their territory. No prizes for guessing from whom.

Since the war in Ukraine began in 2022, EU member states have spent $108-billion (almost €99-billion) on buying defence equipment, but the Vice President of the European Commission, Margarethe Vestager, told the media that almost 80% of that was spent outside the EU, with the US scooping more than 60% of it. She admitted that such a situation is not sustainable. EU countries have pledged to spend more than €230-billion to modernize their arsenals, but that’s not fast enough to match Russia’s determined militarism. Putin, it seems, lives for war, while Europeans can only live if they match his aggression.  Jiří Šedivý, head of the European Defence Agency (EDA), has warned European leaders that the time could come – and quite soon – when the US is engaged in conflict elsewhere in the world, leaving Europe to defend itself. The commitments to Europe’s defence uttered by European politician, including those who are newly-elected, begin to sound somewhat hollow. Putin and Xi may well be laughing. Or plotting. Europe’s current security challenge is not unfamiliar in the EU: success hinges on bringing into line the self-interests of 27 member states. Otherwise, disaster could await us. It was Winston Churchill who called for “Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.” The trouble is that Vladimir Putin knows that, too.

Jim.Gibbons@europe-diplomatic.eu