By Thomas Palley
In her book The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, the historian Barbara Tuchman explores the perplexing question of why countries sometimes pursue policies that are fundamentally contrary to their own interests. That question has acquired renewed relevance as Europe has now enlisted in a deepening march of folly over Ukraine.
Failure to reject the march of folly will have grave consequences for Europe, but doing so is a huge political challenge. It requires explaining how Europe has been harmed by its Ukraine policy; how Europe stands to be further harmed by doubling-down on that policy; how the march of folly has been sold politically; and why the political establishment persists therewith.
The political economic costs of folly
Even though not directly involved in the Ukraine conflict, Europe (especially Germany) has been a big loser from the conflict via economic sanctions that have boomeranged back on the European economy. Cheap Russian energy has been replaced by expensive US-supplied energy. That has reduced living standards, undercut manufacturing competitiveness, and contributed to higher European inflation.
Europe has also lost Russia’s huge market where it sold manufactured goods, and which also provided investment and growth opportunities. Additionally, it has lost the lavish spending of Russia’s elite. That combination helps explain Europe’s stagnant economy. Furthermore, Europe’s economic future has been significantly compromised as its march of folly stands to make those effects permanent.
There have also been adverse consequences from the massive influx of Ukrainian refugees. That has increased downward wage competition and aggravated housing shortages which have increased rents. It has also burdened schools and social services, and increased welfare spending. Those effects have impacted all European countries, but they have been largest in Germany. In combination with the adverse economic effects, that has contributed to a souring of the political mood which helps explain the rise of proto-fascist politics, again especially in Germany.
The Big Lie and the selling of folly
The “Big Lie” is an idea introduced by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. The claim is if a gross distortion of fact that connects with popular prejudice is repeatedly asserted, it will eventually be believed as truth. The Big Lie was perfected in practice by the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. However, many societies use it to some degree, and Europe’s political establishment has used it liberally in selling the current march of folly.
One Big Lie is the revival of the “Munich 1938 appeasement” narrative, whereby it is claimed Russia will invade Central Europe if it is not defeated in Ukraine. That lie also taps into the residue of Cold War domino theory which claimed Soviet Union advance in one country would trigger a wave of collapse in other countries.
The appeasement narrative also encourages grotesquely inappropriate comparisons of President Putin with Adolf Hitler, which feeds a second Big Lie of Manichean moralism that casts Russia as evil and Europe as good. That frame precludes acknowledging any Western responsibility for provoking the conflict via NATO’s eastern expansion and via fomenting of anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics.
A third Big Lie concerns Russia’s military might. The argument is Russia’s might poses an existential threat to Central and Eastern Europe, which then lends credibility to the charge of Russian expansionism. There is no algebra that can disprove that, but the record on the battlefield suggests otherwise. So too does an assessment of Russia’s economic base, which is small relative to that of NATO countries, and Russia also has an ageing declining population.
“Munich appeasement”, “Russian expansionism”, “Russia as evil”, and “Russia’s military threat” are fictitious tropes designed to deny Russia any legitimacy, while justifying and obscuring Western aggression. There has never been any evidence of Russian desire to control Western Europe, either in the Cold war or today. Instead, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine was principally driven by national security fears created by the West’s expansion of NATO, about which Russia has repeatedly complained since the break-up of the Soviet Union.
The Big Lie poisons the possibility of peace as it is almost impossible to negotiate with an adversary that is an evil existential threat. Yet, despite being false, the lies have traction with the public. That is because they resonate with the long history of anti-Russian sentiment, which includes the Cold War and the Red Scare of the 1920s. Additionally, they appeal to the conceit of “self-righteousness” which is often a hallmark of the march of folly.
Wag the dog: the deepening embrace of folly by Europe’s political establishment
The Big Lie helps explain “how” Europe’s political establishment has sold the march of folly, but that invites the question “why”. The answer is both simple and complicated. The simple part is Europe’s political establishment has failed domestically and is now headed for the rocks. Its deepening embrace of folly is an attempt to save itself.
That is evident in France where President Macron is very unpopular and lacks democratic legitimacy. A “wag the dog” foreign war strategy redirects attention away from domestic political failure to a foreign enemy. That enables Macron to appeal to militarist nationalism and posture as defender of “La France”.
Similar logic applies to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has redoubled-down on the political strategy of “triangulation” whereby the Labour Party imitates the Conservative Party. Starmer has pushed that strategy to such extremes that Labour is now only Labour in name, and he has even exceeded the Conservatives regarding Ukraine bellicosity. However, that has left him in a deep political hole. With only conservatism on offer, rightwing voters prefer the real thing, while center-left voters increasingly absent themselves. Starmer’s response has been to further ratchet up British involvement in Ukraine and engage in military photo-ops, hoping to evoke resemblances with Winston Churchill and Mrs. Thatcher.
More generally, European Social Democrats are proving even more militarist than conservatives. That is partly due to the mimetic phenomenon of triangulation which has Social Democrats seeking to outdo their rivals. It is also due to shameful abandonment of opposition to militarist nationalism which has defined the Left since the horrors of World War I. That abandonment means many Social Democrats have now become the friends of folly.
Europe’s anti-Russian animus: the long and tangled roots of folly
The complicated part of “why” Europe has embraced folly concerns the long and tangled roots of folly, which reach deep into history. That history has seeded institutionalized anti-Russian animus which now drives Europe’s march of folly.
For the last seventy years, Europe has lacked an independent foreign policy vision. Instead, it surrendered itself to US leadership, filling its military and foreign policy establishment with persons holding a US-friendly perspective. That surrender also extended to elite civil society (e.g., thinktanks, elite universities, and mainstream media), and Europe’s military-industrial complex and business leaders also went along as they hoped to supply the US military and gain access to US markets. The net result was Europe’s foreign policy thinking was hacked and Europe turned itself into a US foreign policy satrap, a condition which still endures.
The lack of foreign policy independence meant Europe willingly supported the US-led post-Cold War eastward expansion of NATO. The US goal was to create a new world order in which the US would be hegemonic and no country could challenge it, as the Soviet Union had done. According to the masterplan outlined by former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, that involved a three-step process. The first step was eastward NATO expansion to include former Warsaw Pact countries. The second step was further NATO expansion to include former Soviet republics. The third step would finish the process by dividing Russia into three states.
Europe’s surrender to US leadership also helps explain the parallel rushed eastward expansion of the European Union (EU). Any economic gains from trade could have been readily accessed via free trade agreements, which would also have allowed European business to harvest Eastern and Central Europe’s low-cost labor. However, EU expansion was preferred, despite being enormously financially costly and Eastern Europe lacking a shared democratic political tradition. That is because expansion locked countries into a western orbit and squeezed Russia, thereby complementing NATO’s eastward expansion.
Lastly, idiosyncratic country factors also explain Europe’s embrace of folly. That is exemplified by Britain which has long-standing historical animus to Russia. That animus originates in the nineteenth century when Britain feared Russian expansion in Central Asia would threaten Britain’s hold of India. It was also driven by fear of increasing Russian influence in the declining Ottoman empire, which motivated the Crimean War. Modern British animus toward Russia is rooted in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of a Communist state, the execution of the Tsar and his close family, and the Soviet Union’s default on First World War loans from Britain. In 1945, less than six months after the Yalta Accord with the Soviet Union, Winston Churchill proposed “Operation Unthinkable” whereby Germany would be rearmed and World War II would continue against Russia. Fortunately, President Truman rejected that proposal. After World War II, Britain’s secret service also sponsored an insurgency in Soviet Ukraine which was led by the Ukrainian fascist Nazi-collaborator Stepan Bandera. That history illustrates the extent of animus to Russia within Britain’s ruling elite, and that animus endures within British politics and national security thinking.
The above long and tangled history has now come home to roost with the Ukraine conflict. Given its satrap status, Europe immediately fell into line with the US response despite the huge economic and social costs, and despite the conflict being about US hegemony and not European security.
Worse yet, earlier eastward expansion of NATO and the EU means those institutions now include countries (e.g., Poland and the Baltic Republics) with deep active animus to Russia, which renders them keen advocates of the march of folly. Within NATO, even before Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, Poland welcomed the stationing of missile facilities that potentially posed a dire threat to Russian national security. Likewise, and pre-dating the Ukraine intervention, the Baltic Republics have persistently advocated stationing increased NATO forces on their territory.
As for the EU, it has purposefully appointed Russophobes like EU President Ursula von der Leyen. The most recent appointment in that vein is the Estonian extremist nationalist Kaja Kallas, who has been given charge of the EU’s foreign affairs and security policy. Kallas has openly called for the dissolution of Russia, and she was a keen advocate of anti-ethnic Russian policies when she was prime minister of Estonia.
Plus royaliste que le roi: the bitter political economic fruits of folly
Ironically, it is the US under President Trump which has broken with the US national security establishment’s bi-partisan strategy of incremental encirclement and escalation against Russia. That break offered Europe an opportunity to escape the trap created by its past lack of policy vision. Instead, Europe has proved plus royaliste que le roi (more royalist than the king) and has remained loyal to the US national security Deep State.
Both President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer are now talking of unilaterally posting French and British military forces in Ukraine. That promises to massively escalate the conflict, and it echoes the stupidity of the events that led Europe to World War I. Starmer’s Labour government is also talking of a “coalition of the willing”, oblivious to the fact that language refers to the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq.
Meanwhile the European Union, with the blessing of Europe’s political establishment, is pushing for a huge 800bn euro military spending plan that will be bond financed. The ease with which that money has been tabled speaks volumes about the character of the EU. Money for “military-Keynesianism” is readily available, but money for civil society’s needs is never available on grounds of fiscal responsibility. Britain, Germany, Denmark, and others have also proposed their own increased military spending.
The military-Keynesian turn will have positive macroeconomic effects, and it is supported by Europe’s military-industrial complex which stands to be a big beneficiary. However, it produces guns, not butter. Worse yet, it promises to lock-in a war-driven economy that exhausts fiscal policy space, leaving no space for increased public spending on science and technology, education, housing and infrastructure – which are what generate true prosperity.
Furthermore, the military-Keynesian turn will have adverse political consequences, as it will enhance the political standing and power of the military-industrial complex and those supportive of militarism. Celebration of militarism also drips back into voters’ thinking, promoting broader reactionary political developments.
In sum, the political economic fruit of the march of folly promises to be bitter and toxic. Avoiding that fate rests on Europe’s liberals and social democrats recovering their senses. Unfortunately, that prospect is bleak.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
