The project of European unification which draws its ultimate strength and momentum from a revulsion for the carnage that devastated the continent twice in the twentieth century and many times in previous ones, has gradually gathered momentum. Now the project of European unification has reached the point where a further quantum leap is required. Angela Merkel, who is the nearest thing to a president of Europe that has been created so far, has famously declared “We need more Europe, not less Europe.” To achieve the next step in the process of unification, however, Europe needs an enemy. Through the so called Ukrainian crisis it has found one. This follows a familiar logic.
The Ukrainian crisis has been precipitated by European expansionism, which is, of course, one form of “more Europe, not less.”. The absorption of territories that were formerly part of the Russian sphere of influence was bound to provoke resistance eventually. Europe will claim that it is absorbing these territories because that is what their people's want. However, as soon as a tiny bit of the territory that Europe wants shows that it does not want to be absorbed, that its people speak Russian, feel Russian and want to be part of Russia, we cry foul. This is not playing fair, but then this is not really about fairness. It is the age old logic of politics.
You cannot unify a state without having an enemy. A certain amount of unification has been achieved by having the abstract “enemy” of an economic crisis. People unite out of fear. This is often for their own good, but, often enough, people do not do what is for their own good in a rational manner. Sometimes they have to be frightened into it.
Ideal world would be one without any boundaries at all. Alas, humans are not made like that. As the world population has grown and means of travel have become more developed, some of the old boundaries have given way. This is a boon. However, it has not led to a general easing, but rather to a process of raising higher the barriers that remain. This is in the interests of staving off panic. Hence, Fortress Europe and increasingly strident concern about immigration control.
There are huge benefits to be had from European unification. Broadly speaking, going by such basic indicators as child mortality, longevity, nutrition standards, health care, social security, freedom from danger of violent death or starvation and so on, the people of Europe are the most fortunate human beings who have walked this earth. On most of these criteria, Europe is already a more advanced civilisation than China, India or even the United States of America. Only a few much smaller political units can match it. In achieving so much over such an area in such a diversity of folk, Europe is already a pinnacle of human achievement and it is clear that the potential could be a great deal more still.
To achieve this more, however, some degree of political unification is almost certainly required. The recent and, for many areas, still current economic crisis, has provided the leverage for a degree of such unification. It has certainly made the Central European Bank into a much more powerful institution than it was formerly. Banking has suddenly and surreptitiously become an instrument of social control. It is, however, not enough.
Now, however, a more potent and traditional lever has been found. Fear of economic crisis provides sufficient driving force for people to allow themselves to be corralled into measures like the banking union, which they would never have agreed to without such crisis, but an external enemy onto whom all wickedness can be projected is much more potent.
The sense of a threat to Europe provides the psychological condition for people to start thinking of themselves as European as opposed to Russian rather than as French as opposed to Italian or German. To create a unified Europe requires people to make a shift in their sense of identity and identity is built in contra-distinction. Only be putting emotional energy into distinguishing ourselves from something or somebody else do we identify ourselves. Identity is about “Who goes there? Friend or foe?”
Now, there can and will be a discourse about European military strength and preparedness. The United States of America is united first and formerly in having a single army with a single commander in chief. The not-so-united states of Europe have many armies loosely allied together. Through NATO, this military confederation remains substantially under American leadership even though European and American interests do not always coincide. Europe as a unit has been noticeably ineffective militarily in recent decades. All that may now be about to change.
If Europe has to establish and defend an eastern border, there will be a discourse about the creation of an effective European military capability. This inevitably involves centralisation of control. Establishing a unified economy and banking system goes so far. Establishing a unified military goes a lot further. It is one of the basic foundation stones of nation building.
Inflating the Ukrainian situation into a crisis thus serves a crucial purpose. It is exactly what Project Europe needs. It is not that the Russians have acted in an irrational or wicked manner. They haven't. Any other power in their situation would have done the same and if it had not it would have been failing in its duty. Why, after all, should the people of Crimea not live under the regime of their choice? The Russians have actually, paradoxically, acted on the side of what democracy would demand. However, this conveniently provides Europe with just what it needs, just when it needs it. The more the bear can be provoked into snarling the more united Europeans will feel a need to become.