Brexit and the Dynamics of European Defence

Against the backdrop of an increasingly hostile Russia-NATO relationship, the dynamics of European defence is likely to change on account of ‘Brexit’. This is because NATO’s and the European Union’s (EU) memberships overlap. Britain has been a pillar of NATO, with its defence spending the highest among the EU countries. It has also strongly supported the sanctions against Russia. The ongoing ‘leave’ turmoil and a possible economic slowdown can distract its attention from NATO and its alliance commitments. The key question is which European power can fill the void, given the emerging tendency everywhere to look inwards. Meanwhile, the number of dissenting voices in Europe over the adoption of a hard-line position towards Russia has increased. These include the German Foreign Minister and the French President who have criticised the rationale for NATO’s ‘sabre-rattling’ and the EU’s economic sanctions. At stake is European solidarity and credibility.

Moreover, the EU’s new ‘Foreign and Security Policy’ envisions deeper military cooperation between its members.3 This is seen as an attempt to gain strategic independence from NATO. But will it lead to the revival of the EU-orchestrated Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)? Questions abound since, at present, only a handful of EU members meet NATO’s two per cent of GDP spending on defence threshold. Also, the dynamics of German and French collaboration need to be worked out. Consequently, European defence is likely to be in flux for the foreseeable future even though Russia is perceived as being the biggest threat and challenge to European security.

The emerging flashpoints of a Russia-NATO confrontation involve the Baltic and the Black Sea regions. Notably, the Kremlin retains ‘escalation dominance’ in its neighbourhood. This allows it to raise the stakes, knowing fully well that NATO’s success in a localised confrontation are minimal. Russia’s Syrian expedition would also have emboldened it. The tactic appears designed to force the ‘West’ to respect Russia’s core interests. In a Russia-‘West’ standoff, the optics of a strong posture are equally important. They are linked to the nuanced interplay of several events involving Syrian developments, economic sanctions and the Ukrainian crisis. These will, in the future, involve a grand bargain. When that time comes, each party would like to hold an upper hand.

As such, there does not appear to be any real appetite for a military confrontation on either side.
A Russian encroachment of the Baltics will likely unite the European fence sitters. A more plausible Russian strategy would be to cultivate the differences among EU members in order to undermine the US-led ‘Western’ alliance. In this light, it is important to note that countries like France, Austria, Italy and Greece have favoured a more reconciliatory approach towards Russia. They have expressed their unhappiness over the American pressure tactics to maintain the current course.

Implications for India - India is neither a member of NATO nor located in Europe or in Europe’s immediate vicinity and, as such, the Russia-NATO confrontation should not ideally affect it. However, the fact remains that the broad contours of this rivalry involve Moscow’s fundamental differences with the US. Therefore, the pull and pressure of this competition is likely to complicate India’s foreign policy practice. While ties with Russia have been a pillar of the country’s foreign policy, India cannot afford to ignore the ‘West’. The key challenge will be to tactfully build relationships with each side on its own merits. More notably, the Russia-China entente, which is a direct outcome of the Russia-‘West’ rivalry, is likely to have more significant implications for India.

By: Abhishek Sharma