The Ukraine war and European identity
The Ukraine war and European identity
The a battle for the continent's soul is brewing ahead of next year’s EU parliamentary elections
By Mark Leonard - May 21, 2023
BERLIN – The European Parliament elections are still a year away, but political parties across the European Union have already shifted to campaign mode.
While the election will undoubtedly feature a wide range of views on climate change, immigration and religion, there is one issue that seems to unite politicians of all stripes: the war in Ukraine.
More than a year after Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, all mainstream European parties are still singing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to supporting the Ukrainian cause. But the appearance of unity masks a brewing conflict over the soul of Europe: its conception of freedom. While it is widely acknowledged that Ukraine’s fight represents a fight for democracy and European values, it is also increasingly clear that victory would require Europe to abandon some of the key elements of its own freedom project. This is the paradox of freedom in Europe.
Over the past half-century, European countries have developed a concept of freedom that relies on universalism, the repudiation of military force, economic interdependence, pooled sovereignty and the idea of Europe as a singular entity founded on a set of common institutions. This vision is what distinguishes the EU from other regions and even from its member states. But the war in Ukraine has called into question the bloc’s basic tenets — and opened the way for skeptical national leaders to challenge them.
While Europeans previously viewed their project as post-national, they now acknowledge that the EU model is exceptional rather than universal. Over the past year, European policymakers have become increasingly fixated on fortifying the EU’s borders against other political projects to the East and the South.
Consequently, European integration, originally pursued to ensure peace on the continent, has been transformed — if not quite into a “war” project, then at least into an armed pacification-cum-security project. Europe’s institutions, which once relied on soft power, now provide military equipment to Ukraine and endorse the continent’s rearmament, and the European Commission has weaponized the EU economy through sanctions and accelerated the transition to a war economy, complete with rationing and energy-price controls.
But the most dramatic shift in European political thinking has been the reconsideration of interdependence. European integration was based on the belief that deepening economic ties between countries could transform former adversaries into allies. But, as Putin has demonstrated, interdependence can also be exploited as a tool for extortion.
For decades, the main goal of the European project was to tame nationalism by pooling sovereignty. But now, Europeans recognize that sovereignty must be protected before it can be pooled. The EU’s transnational legal system cannot serve as a universal blueprint for the entire continent, let alone the world.
In the early stages of the war, the tension between the EU’s liberal values and its wartime mobilization was less pronounced. The technocratic European Commission supported the war effort by advocating measures to arm and morally bolster Ukraine in its struggle against Russian aggression. The decision to grant Ukraine candidate status represented an exceptional step for the bloc — a marriage between geopolitical imperatives and the tools of process-oriented bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, both the left and the right have had to adjust their positions to find common ground on Ukraine. European liberals have become less resistant to nationalism and more attuned to the necessity of using force against Russia, and the right has been forced to reassess its stance on the EU’s role as a strategic actor.
The 2008 global financial crisis and the 2015 refugee crisis catapulted the far right to the forefront of the political debate. But the failure of Brexit, together with the COVID-19 pandemic, led to a decline in Euroskepticism, with mainstream parties benefiting from the public’s desire for stability. Polling by the European Council on Foreign Relations has shown that during these crises, many right-leaning voters recognized that sovereignty could be reclaimed only through collective action and many formerly Euroskeptic parties abandoned their pledges to leave the EU or abandon the euro.
Voters across the bloc have undergone a similar shift. ECFR’s latest opinion poll shows a blurring of the traditional left-right divide on geopolitical matters and a growing fusion of nationalism and cosmopolitanism under the European idea of freedom. This change, spurred by the war in Ukraine, goes to the heart of what the European project is really about and in the long run will lead to a struggle over Europe’s identity. In that regard, the upcoming European elections could serve as a bellwether.
Although European parties are currently trying to outdo each other in showing support for Ukraine, thorny issues such as the conduct of the war, the treatment of refugees and how a post-war Ukraine would be integrated into the EU could once again divide Europe. If fatigue from the war, the refugee crisis and the high cost of living sets in, the 2024 European elections could become a new battleground.
Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of “The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict” (Bantam Press, 2021). ? Project Syndicate, 2023
The Ukraine war and European identity | The Japan Times
+++++++++++++++++
Yahoo News
Exclusive: U.S. could train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s in 4 months
Yahoo News has obtained a U.S. Air Force assessment of two Ukrainian pilots who outperformed stated Pentagon expectations over two weeks in a flight simulator at a U.S. air base.
By Michael Weiss and James Rushton - Thu, May 18, 2023
Yahoo News has exclusively obtained an internal U.S. Air Force assessment that concludes it would take only four months to train Ukrainian pilots to operate American-made F-16 fighter jets, a far shorter time frame than what has been repeatedly cited by Pentagon officials.
Ukrainian pilots used simulators in Arizona
The document, which was shared with a number of NATO allies who fly F-16s, contains a detailed assessment undertaken in late February and early March at Morris Air National Guard Base in Tucson, Ariz., home to the 162nd Wing of the U.S. Air Force. Two Ukrainian airmen, one qualified on the MiG-29, the other on the Su-27, were given “no formal training” on the F-16, according to the assessment, other than a brief familiarization. They were then tested on a flight simulator, conducting “9 simulator events covering 11.5 total hours.”
The Su-27 and the MiG-29 are both Soviet-era fighter jets, which constitute the bulk of what remains of Ukraine’s air force. Both Ukrainian pilots were assessed by four experienced U.S. Air Force instructors, each of whom had clocked thousands of hours flying F-16s.
The assessment, written by Lt. Col. Jared P. White of the 162nd, concludes that the Ukrainian pilots were able to carry out a number of “relatively technical” maneuvers in their simulated environments such as landing the aircraft after losing an engine in a scenario called a “flameout.” “After a single demonstration ... both pilots were able to successfully land the aircraft from an overhead simulated flameout (SFO) pattern. This is a relatively technical skill that must be continually practiced throughout an F-16 pilot’s career,” the document states. Both pilots were also able to “execute mock attacks based on parameters communicated while they were flying the sim.”
Reasons for concern
The main training issue identified in the evaluation was the Ukrainian pilots not being comfortable with the complex avionics of the F-16, which displays information in English. Language ability is elsewhere listed as a “concern,” although the assessors state there was a “noted improvement in English aptitude” over the course of two weeks for both Ukrainian pilots. Unsurprisingly, both the Su-27 and MiG-29 pilots were unfamiliar with flying U.S. standard multi-aircraft formations, having been trained on Soviet-era tactics.
Despite these drawbacks, the report concludes that “given the current skill set demonstrated by the Ukrainian Air Force pilot ... four months is a realistic training timeline.”
Pressure on allies mounts
The document will increase pressure on Ukraine’s major foreign allies, such as the U.S., some of whom had claimed that Western aircraft are too sophisticated and would therefore take too long to train pilots in order to have an impact in the war between Ukraine and Russia. For instance, Colin Kahl, outgoing U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, speaking at a House Armed Services Committee hearing in February, claimed that training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s would take “about 18 months,” the same time Kahl said it would take to deliver these aircraft to Ukraine.
This revelation that Ukrainians could be combat-ready on F-16s much faster than expected comes amid an international push to supply Kyiv with modern Western fighter jets. In a Downing Street statement released Monday during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent visit to the United Kingdom, the British government reiterated its commitment to help train Ukrainian pilots as part of a program to “build a new Ukrainian air force with NATO-standard, F16 jets.” The U.K. has been characteristically bullish about the supply of Western aircraft to Ukraine, despite not operating F-16s in the Royal Air Force. British Member of Parliament Alicia Kearns, chair of the influential Foreign Affairs Select Committee, told Yahoo News that the USAF assessment “challenged some of the arguments against providing jets to our Ukrainian friends.”
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s spokesperson said Tuesday that the U.K. was cooperating with the Netherlands to form “an international coalition to provide Ukraine with combat air capabilities, supporting everything from training to procuring F-16 jets.” The statement came after a meeting between Sunak and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, another outspoken supporter of Ukraine’s security assistance, at a Council of Europe summit in Iceland. Rutte had previously said that “nothing is beyond the realm of possibility to the extent that it helps to deter Russian aggression” when asked about the prospect of supplying Dutch F-16s to Ukraine.
The Ukrainians have repeatedly asked for the supply of Western fighter jets to replace its dwindling stock of ex-Soviet MiG-29s and Su-27s, which have seen extensive use since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 and have suffered significant combat attrition. Ukraine has lost “over 60” aircraft, top U.S. Air Force Gen. James B. Hecker said at a conference in Colorado on March 6. Reacting to the British and Dutch announcements, Andriy Yermak, a key Zelensky aide, said, “We need F-16s, and I am grateful to our allies for their decision to work in this direction, including training our pilots.”
Exclusive: U.S. could train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s in 4 months (yahoo.com)
+++++++++++++++++++
Frankreich will, dass Atomstrom Teil der Energiewende wird. Nun hat es mit Verbündeten eine EU-Abstimmung zum Klimaschutz blockiert
Die EU-Botschafter konnten sich letzte Woche nicht auf Richtlinien für erneuerbare Energien einigen. Dahinter stecken vermutlich Frankreich und seine ?Atom-Allianz?. Der Zwist zwischen Befürwortern und Gegnern von Kernkraftwerken geht in der EU in eine neue Runde.
von Elena Oberholzer - 21.05.2023
Eigentlich war alles beschlossene Sache. Bereits Ende M?rz hatten sich die Delegierten des Europaparlaments und der EU-Ministerrat darauf geeinigt, dass 42,5 Prozent der in der EU verbrauchten Energie bis 2030 aus erneuerbaren Quellen wie Wind-, Solar- oder Wasserkraft stammen sollen. Die endgültige Zustimmung von Parlament und Ministerrat, die vergangene Woche anstand, w?re nur noch eine Formsache gewesen, so schien es.
Aber die EU-Botschafter mussten den Entscheid vertagen. Die Abstimmung, die als wichtiges Element für die Umsetzung des Green-Deal-Pakets der EU gilt, wurde im letzten Moment vom Programm gestrichen. Dies teilte Schweden, das gerade die Ratspr?sidentschaft innehat, am Mittwoch mit. Weshalb die Abstimmung verschoben wurde, wollte Schweden nicht sagen.
In verschiedenen Medien liessen sich jedoch EU-Botschafter zitieren, die Frankreich dafür verantwortlich machten. Das überrascht nicht. Bereits im M?rz waren die Verhandlungen harzig verlaufen. Frankreich stellt sich zwar nicht gegen neue Richtlinien für erneuerbare Energien. Doch das Land wollte sicherstellen, dass Atomkraft für die Produktion von Wasserstoff, der von der Industrie verwendet wird, auch in Zukunft genutzt werden kann und als ?grün? gilt.
Frankreichs Vorliebe für Atomstrom
Vor allem um die Vorgaben für die Industrie haben Gegner und Befürworter der Atomkraft lange gerungen. Doch die EU-Staaten fanden im M?rz zun?chst einen Kompromiss. Dieser beinhaltete auch, dass der in der Industrie verwendete Wasserstoff bis 2030 zu 42 Prozent und bis 2035 zu 60 Prozent aus erneuerbaren Quellen, sprich Wind-, Solar- oder Wasserkraft, stammen muss. Das Ziel, Atomkraft in den neuen Richtlinien als ?grüne Technologie? zu verankern, konnte Frankreich nicht durchsetzen.
über die Rolle der Kernenergie beim Klimaschutz gehen die Meinungen in der EU seit langem auseinander. Auf der einen Seite stehen die Mitglieder der sogenannten ?Atom-Allianz?. Diese wurde Anfang Jahr von Frankreich gegründet und ist ein Zusammenschluss jener EU-L?nder, welche sich bei der Energiewende ausser auf erneuerbare Energien auch auf die Atomenergie stützen wollen.
Dies aus verschiedenen Gründen. Viele mittel- und osteurop?ische Staaten bringen sich in die Atom-Allianz ein, weil sie die Kosten der Energiewende fürchten und sicherstellen wollen, dass Strom sowohl für Haushalte als auch für die Industrie erschwinglich bleibt. Frankreich selbst bezieht derzeit zirka zwei Drittel seines Stroms aus Kernenergie und plant, diesen Anteil in den kommenden Jahren auszubauen. Erst letzte Woche verabschiedete die franz?sische Nationalversammlung in Paris ein Gesetz, welches das Genehmigungsverfahren zum Bau von sechs neuen Atomreaktoren bis 2035 beschleunigen soll.
Andere L?nder haben den Atomausstieg bereits beschlossen
Auf der anderen Seite stehen L?nder, die strikt dagegen sind, dass Kernkraft in Europa eingesetzt wird, um die Energiewende zu schaffen. Es handelt sich namentlich um Deutschland, ?sterreich, Spanien und Luxemburg. Berlin hat im April die letzten Kernkraftwerke vom Netz genommen. Die Gegner des Atomstroms betonen, dass Kernenergie auf nicht erneuerbaren Brennstoffen beruht, welche vielfach von Russland geliefert werden. Sie verweisen dabei auch auf die Frage der Endlagerung des radioaktiven Abfalls, die technisch zwar weitgehend gel?st ist, politisch aber umstritten bleibt.
Vor der geplanten Abstimmung vergangene Woche haben sich die Mitgliedsstaaten der Atom-Allianz in Paris zu einem Treffen verabredet. Insgesamt waren sechzehn L?nder vertreten, darunter Belgien, Bulgarien, Kroatien, Estland, Finnland, Ungarn, die Tschechische Republik, Rum?nien und die Slowakei. Die Energiekommissarin der EU, Kadri Simson, war ebenfalls anwesend. Ausserdem war das Vereinigte K?nigreich als Gastland dabei: Das Land plant ebenfalls, seine nukleare Produktionskapazit?t zu erh?hen.
Am Dienstag unterzeichneten die anwesenden Parteien in Paris eine gemeinsame Erkl?rung. Sie forderten die EU auf, einen Aktionsplan zu entwerfen, welcher die Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Kernenergie regelt. Zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt wird zirka ein Viertel des Stroms in der EU von Kernkraftwerken erzeugt. In der Erkl?rung des Treffens von Paris steht, dass man bis 2050 mit dem Bau neuer Kernkraftwerke 450 000 Arbeitspl?tze schaffen und 92 Milliarden Euro zum europ?ischen BIP beitragen k?nnte. Die L?nder sind überzeugt: Neben Strom aus erneuerbaren Quellen wie etwa Wind-, Solar- oder Wasserkraft braucht es Kernenergie, um die Energiewende zu schaffen.
Erinnerungen an den ?Wissing-Move?
Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass ein EU-Land im letzten Moment eine Abstimmung zum Klimaschutz bremst. Beim Gesetz zum Verbrenner-Aus machte Deutschland vor, was Frankreich beim Atomstrom nun kopierte. Das Europaparlament und die EU-Staaten hatten sich n?mlich bereits im Oktober darauf geeinigt, dass ab 2035 nur noch emissionsfreie Neuwagen zugelassen werden dürfen. Doch der definitive Entscheid, der Anfang 2023 h?tte fallen sollen, wurde schliesslich von Deutschland wochenlang blockiert.
Der deutsche Verkehrsminister und FDP-Politiker Volker Wissing wollte erreichen, dass Fahrzeuge, die klimaneutrale Kraftstoffe tanken, sogenannte E-Fuels, auch nach 2035 neu zugelassen werden – und setzte sich schliesslich durch. Frankreich ?usserte sich vergangene Woche nicht offiziell zur verschobenen Abstimmung. Doch nach dem erneuten Treffen der Atom-Allianz in Paris ist klar: Die Kernkraft gewinnt in der EU wieder an Anh?ngern.
Streit um Atomkraft in der EU: Frankreich blockiert Abstimmung (nzz.ch)
The End++++++++++++++