Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
FT editor Roula Khalaf will select your favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
It takes two to tango. Pestilence in both your homes. One, another six dozen. The British have a deep stock of phrases that try to separate human conflicts. This suggests like-minded people, most of whom may explain (or explain) the quiet domestic history.
It’s also injustice. One side is guilty if not most competition. When Britain and France fell after Brexit, the negligence with the successive prime ministers of London demanded the benefits of EU membership without the membership itself, and this wonderful wish was smeared by the negotiation room. The relationship has improved somewhat under Rishi Snack. He showed he could support Brexit without acting like a volatile gingo. This week’s Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to the UK strengthened things.
Two impressions stand out from the French President’s tour. First of all, what was King Charles? Apart from his skills in ritual splendor, what happened to all the architectural criticism and anti-modern Quackery that some had feared to use his platform to air?
Second, at least in the medium term, the fate of Europe is largely dependent on Britain and France. Coming towards the end of the decade, Russia could face a formidable Europe to test if the ambitious defensive spending plans of Germany and other NATO members are respected. Also, there may be few Kremlin-friendly presidents in the White House. Even if only one of these two developments were to take place, the continent is unrecognizable. Until then, the situation may not have any more advantages against Russian attacks.
Most large countries in Europe are not well positioned to stop it. Germany is a more generous military donor to Ukraine than France. Kiel Institute. It borrows and spends its wealth for its own military. But it does so from a very low base, so it takes years to manufacture new kits and train new recruits. Still, given his historical sensitivity, it is not clear how Germany will place armed personnel east and under what rules of engagement. This country is not only about nuclear deterrence, but also about nuclear power plants. There will also be permanent seats on the UN Security Council (for important things).
Poland is spending an exemplary share of GDP on defense, but its GDP is still much smaller than the UK and France. Its population is not more than half of 70mn each. As for Spain and Italy, there is no such thing as the distance or protected mountain ranges seen, for example, Russia, which is more equal than the Finn can manage. At the NATO summit last month, the Spanish prime minister limped over the club’s new defensive spending targets. It led to an open stimulus from Donald Trump. It is not clear how the continent will resolve this North-South division in perception of threats and preparations for defense. Europe’s nominal population is approximately 500mn. Considering the Mediterranean attitude, the continent Effective The weight of defence terms may be quite small.
Of all European powers, the two will bear an unbalanced burden until the cavalry arrives in 2030. Even after that, the reality of conflict may have permanently moved the fulcrum of European politics somewhere near the channel. On a peaceful continent, relations between France and Germany were of paramount importance. In war-filled Europe, that is not true at all. Without the UK it cannot be purchased ready-made with either its armed rights, intelligence reporting assets, or what the defence world calls its “strategic culture.” The UK is the largest military donor to Ukraine after the US. As Macron argued this week, it is necessary whether Anglo-France relations are “special” or not.
Even the arguments between the sides, a peaceful luxury, have a lot to do with the light emptying that creates familiarity. The UK and France have roughly the same population and have similar GDP, and therefore more or less equal per capita income. Both have disproportionately huge capitals (in technical terms, “primate city”) as a result of being a more unified and centralized state for centuries than Germany and Italy. Both lost the world empire at the same time, and it remains an open question that made it worse. France fought the inevitable in Algeria, Indochina, or in England.
But the most important similarity is that much of post-war Europe transcended the old-fashioned things like hard power, saying that Britain and France never did. They remain the only nuclear state in democratic Europe. Anglo-France relations may be the core of the continent, if it is to protect itself with the help of less Americans than the continent was used to. Other European countries have a fighting culture, but not on a scale. Some have scale, but not martial arts culture. Until it changes, the necessary necessity forces Britain and France together. However, it is also possible to detect traces of enthusiasm during state visits. Security, not prosperity, but prosperity, allows two declined countries to be shot at big times again.
janan.ganesh@ft.com
