The current situation between the EU and Russia feels like an old-fashioned Cold War atmosphere. Recent military moves in Ukraine – not seeking for more political stability – and Putin’s coldness and early withdraw from G20 in Brisbane spoke volumes of tensions between Western countries and Russian foreign policy. In this context stands one country dealing with a major economic and geopolitical impasse, and as often, this is France.
How did France get bogged down in this Affair?
In June 2011 France and Russia reached a military agreement in which France committed to provide two BPC Mistral ships to Russia by 2015. At a time when former President Nicolas Sarkozy saw Russia as a « natural partner for France », this enhanced partnership up to 1.2 billion € was a vital shot in the arm for French Saint-Nazaire’s naval industry. Both for economic and political reasons, the agreement was almost uncontested at this time. Indeed, it was for the good of French economic health, international confidence, as well as France’s competitiveness on the arms market. On the Russian side, being equipped by French high-technological and polyvalent helicopter-carriers was an efficient way to re-assure its presence and flexible capacity to react on the seas.
However, the geopolitical context radically changed since ‘Euromaidan’, the annexation of Crimea and the settlement of the conflict in which Russia in largely condemned to be implicated. Thus, French Minister of foreign affairs Laurent Fabius announced in March that France would place the selling under conditions of the Ukrainian Crisis’ resolution, putting pressure on Russian policy.
But between the unfortunately expected freeze of the conflict in Ukraine and domestic economic needs of this huge contract, France has reached an impasse between international multilateral pressures and economic issues. The symbolic Vladivostok, first ship supposed to be sold November 14th is still in St-Nazaire’s docks. A chess game is settled in which France would have everything to lose.
Which issues are making this situation so complex to handle?
Let us have a look at the three main conceivable scenarios.
France could deliver the Vladivostok in the next few weeks. This would draw a hail of accusations of betrayal by Western powers, especially the US and the UK, as well as Eastern Countries fearing Russian military expansion policies, such as Finland and Poland. Here, should we consider the delivery as a glaring admission of France’s economic weakness, selling its dignity for money? Former president Sarkozy itself argues that France should sell the Vladivostok, agreeing with one of De Gaulle’s famous political belief, that France should “define its own position, rather than following others’ advices and will”. But would it be a proof of political strength to give in to Russian blackmail? Definitely not. Moreover, more than being ethically hugely contestable, it is never without any risk to sell military forces. Should we remind ourselves when two British ships were sank by Argentinian missiles sold by France, in 1982 during the Falklands war, leading to geopolitical tensions between the two European allies.
France could try to continuously postpone the selling and carry on putting pressure about Ukrainian issues, which is probably the most likely to happen despite the Kremlin’s ultimatum to sell before December. But France is aware of dramatic economic issues: the accumulation of massive penalties, a thousand of jobs at stake and the 1.2 billion Euros contract. And this money – as announced by Russian Minister of Defence – would be allocated to its military budget. It was at a time suggested that NATO could re-buy the ship, but the project was judged impractical. It is above all a threat to the international image of French military industry, almost 10% of French foreign trade, and crucial partnerships with India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil at stake. At the end of the day, it is paradoxically France that endures more pressure than Russia, using the affair as an instrument of pressure, weakening France and dividing Western opinions. And what about the Sebastopol, supposed to be delivered by 2015?
Finally, a third scenario suggesting than France would sell the ships in a few months or years in a politically and socially stabilized Ukraine and EU-Russia diplomatic relationship, could today be seen as utopian. Indeed, the situation in Eastern Ukraine is alike Donetsk, where the deteriorating circumstances are no longer alarming, but disastrous.
What about the EU?
The Mistrals Affair doesn’t seem to tip the balance of power in Europe’s favour. As explained to me Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s College, it will be hard for the EU to agree on new effective economic sanctions, as it also having a negative impact over European countries, notably concerning energy (especially Italy) and investments (the UK). This will make the task for France harder in the Mistrals Affair. The European issue will also be on whether NATO will provide weapons to Ukraine.
Economics or Ethics? What should prevails on the international scene?
Political morality and economics and ineluctably linked in international relations. I recently had the chance to meet Renaud Dehousse, chairman of the Centre for European Studies at Science Po in Paris, who said to me that – concerning arm selling – the ethical dimension was finally almost never taken into account as a major decisional factor. To ethics we should substitute the balance between economics, diplomacy and geopolitics, in which economics is usually the most influential. Here, Anand Menon reminded me of the need for a government to be elected in dealing with domestic economic issues, which usually overwhelm moral issues. Indeed, deals with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Qatar proves him right.
A taste of Cold War
Since the beginning of the Ukrainian Crisis, have European powers been still acting too peacefully, letting Putin dictate its foreign policy? The recent G20 revealed the seriousness of the game. Be it as it may, the suspense remains open about the Vladivostok’s fate. A conclusion “we’ll wait and see” would unfortunately be relevant, as diplomatic tensions are so, that future perspectives and issues remain unpredictable. At the moment, as time passes, the more the penalties accumulate and the more the economic situation sinks at St Nazaire’s docks.
. Guillaume Beaud
Young EUptimistics 