Ukraine: Americans in the European Mess

Faced with Europe’s inability to handle its own crises, once again, Washington has been led to get involved in the affairs of the Old World.

“If I want to call Europe, who do I call?” Kissinger once asked. Dear Henry can rest assured. Today, Europe has an area code, and even a real telephone switchboard. First, there is the voluble president of the commission, José Manuel Barroso. Next, there is Herman Van Rompuy, great lover of Flemish haikus, permanent president of the European Council. And then, there is also the rotating presidency of the European Union — changing every six months — currently held by Greece.

Finally, there is the European External Action Service, represented by the transparent Catherine Ashton. Despite the talent of her secretary-general, the excellent and placid Pierre Vimont, who has gone down in history thanks to the film “Quai d’Orsay” — where he is played by Niels Arestrup — this organization is not known for efficiency. This is not surprising, given that it created a diplomatic service before even trying to establish a coherent foreign policy for the Union….

In short, even the most uninformed reader will have understood in 30 seconds that this European kludge is completely ineffective while there is a fire at the neighbor’s house, as in Ukraine. There remains, of course, the Council of the Heads of State and Government, the true decision-making organ. But at 28, the dominant principle is that of the lowest common denominator.

Europe Is Trailing Behind

If the EU can sign checks, it is incapable of the slightest large-scale policy initiatives. These can only come from member countries, and for Ukraine, from Germany, France and Poland. Unfortunately, the process of this troika — baptized “the Weimar triangle” — has come to a sudden end. The Kiev riots brushed aside the agreement, which had been approved with the Russians’ blessing, before the ink was even dry.

Faced with the inability of the Europeans to handle the Ukrainian crisis, the U.S. was obliged to become involved. It’s an old story: Twice during the course of the 20th century — in 1917 and 1941 — the U.S. came to put out the devastating fires that ravaged the Old World. In 1945, it concluded that it was better to remain in Europe, ready to get down to work and materialize the trans-Atlantic link through a formal alliance: NATO. Besides, the Europeans were the ones in need, faced with the Soviet threat. This was repeated in the 1990s with the former Yugoslavia. Europe had to call on the Americans to come to the rescue in order to put an end to the chaos in the Balkans.

It is therefore between Washington and Moscow that the serious issues will be dealt with anew. Barack Obama, during his visit to Brussels, sent a small signal to the Kremlin on Wednesday, March 26, aiming to calm the Russian bear, “Neither Ukraine or Georgia are currently on a path to NATO membership,” he said. He made the most of this by delivering an appeal in favor of shale gas, which ensures greater energy independence. The next day, Vladimir Putin picked up his telephone to call Barack Obama directly. In fact, the Ukrainian crisis cannot be isolated: It lies in a global strategic game between the Iranian and Syrian cases. Europe is well and truly trailing behind….