This snippet below is from a piece I wrote in December 2021, before the attempted Russian takeover of Kiev.
—
Mainstream media emphasise short-term negotiating tactics with Putin, such as red lines and sanctions issued by Biden or by Ursula von der Leyen. In reality, what matters is long term strategy. Here, Putin has at least two advantages:
- Europe is reliant on Russian gas and, in many cases, is actively increasing reliance on Russian gas, e.g. closing down nuclear plants, not building capacity to receive liquid natural gas from other countries, increasing renewables penetration without a solid plan for a base-load or storage.
- Europe is somewhat reliant on the US army. I don’t know a lot about armies but it looks like there are about 35,000 US military personel in Germany, compared with a total German army of about 64,000. Further, Baltic countries have in the past requested an increased US military presence.
—
It has now been over 11 years since Russia entered Crimea. There is always a new reason (currently, a US change in foreign policy) to react with short term rhetoric and tactics. Instead, short term chaos should encourage us to double down on long term fundamentals – namely, economic strength, energy independence and total defence.
Europe’s leverage can only be improved by addressing core weaknesses:
- High energy costs and foreign dependence
- High defensive dependence and low capabilities
- A modest appetite for dynamism, or said differently, a degree of negativity about the future.
These can be turned around.
On Energy
Cheap energy facilitates industrial growth. Today, Europe has high energy prices and still imports natural gas from Russia.
In the short term, the solution is to lower prices via renewables and natural gas grids (plus the nuclear that is present). This means urgently:
- Developing natural gas fields in Europe – reducing foreign dependence, and reducing price.
- Building liquid natural gas terminals, reducing dependence by increasing optionality to import from multiple foreign sources.
Yes, we should move beyond gas, but first Europe should get to energy independence at a price point that encourages, not discourages, key industries like semiconductors, vehicles and data centres. While carbon dioxide emissions are an important global problem, disaster is not imminent, and the impacts can be mitigated and avoided from a position of economic and technological strength.
For the medium to long term, nuclear energy must be allowed back on the menu of options among renewables and storage – and gas for the short to medium term:
- In Ireland, this means immediately overturning legislation that currently blocks nuclear power for civilian purposes.
- Each European country prioritising framework and knowledge transfer from where nuclear has recently done well – namely Finland and Korea.
Total Defence
Many countries in Europe, Ireland included, are spending below what is needed to establish defence capabilities and deterrence. That said, setting a percentage target for any kind of spending can be a recipe for waste.
Finland has long prioritized a comprehensive approach to national defense, integrating both military and civilian infrastructures to enhance resilience against various threats. This strategy, known as “total defence” (kokonaismaanpuolustus), ensures that all sectors of society contribute to national security. A cornerstone of Finland’s total defence is its extensive network of dual-use bunkers and shelters. These structures serve everyday purposes during peacetime and can be swiftly repurposed for civilian protection during crises.
Rather than set percentage defence spending targets, it may be better to reset the goals of many government departments as dual-purpose, namely, serving both civilian and defense purposes. For examples:
- Drones (air and ocean) serving coastguard, search and rescue, and defensive purposes
- Cyber security that conducts penetration testing of current systems, and provides responsiveness in the case of attacks.
- Training programs/courses that serve dual industrial and defensive purposes.
Again, a strength of Europe is that countries like Finland and Poland have higher levels of preparedness. This is an opportunity to prioritise the transfer of these frameworks and approaches elsewhere in Europe.
Economic Growth
Perhaps this category is the most difficult, as the solutions required are probably granular (e.g. simplifying specific laws) but also cultural.
To some degree, even if there were no changes to rules or to taxes in Europe, leadership in datacenters, semiconductors, autonomous vehicles, pick-your-progress is do-able. In Ireland – to take one example of many – courts are functional, laws are respected, education levels are high and infrastructure is good. There is much to be appreciated. There isn’t REALLY anything to stop a great entrepreneur – except maybe the risk of losing access to foreign markets, a salient risk at present.
Yet, we have seen divergence rather than leadership in Europe relative to the US and China over the past decade in particular. Perhaps the reasons are mostly cultural. Perhaps the ratio of broad benefits to self-interest that Europeans see in entrepreneurship is not quite as high as elsewhere. Perhaps the messiness involved in discovery is a little less tolerated, and the flexibilities and range of outcomes allowed correspondingly lower. Perhaps there is a sense – not prevalent, but a little too common – that we have reached where we want to be economically, and – from here – it is primarily a matter of conservation and re-arranging existing resources.
Fortunately, there are positives. For one, European countries, communities and companies have had clear and positive visions for the future in decades past, and there are some that do so today. Poland, for example, has had exceptional economic growth and is rapidly catching up with European nations. While birth rates have been falling across Europe – there is no reason why this necessarily stays the same. Certain countries, like Ireland – albeit not without challenges – have been able integrate and benefit from immigration, and stand to do so in future.
A Path Ahead
Europe, and Ireland’s, position on energy and defence are imminently fixable. Both can be turned from achilles heel to cornerstone. The fix mostly requires a realisation that fundamentals rather than tactics are what move the needle in liaising with adversaries and allies.
On an economic and social level, there will be a certain bumpiness if we are to reimagine parts of government from the perspective of total defence. It may be uncomfortable to re-imagine laws to be simpler and systems to allow for renewal and flexibility. At the same time, this is what gives a pathway to discovery, advancement, and an excitement for the future. And that, is something that feeds upon itself.