Why an EU summit will never solve the Ukraine crisis

[audioplayer src=”http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/Untitled_2_AAC_audio.mp3″ title=”Anne Applebaum, Matthew Parris and John O’Sullivan discuss Ukraine”]

Listen

[/audioplayer]For the first time in many years, the eyes of the world are on Crimea. As Russian troops violated Ukrainian sovereignty, the question swiftly became, ‘What can we do?’ If the answer is ‘not very much’, then we ought at least to consider why that is the case. Part of the answer is our diminished military capabilities and ambitions, the inevitable result of reducing the defence budget. But this week our diplomatic tools seem to have failed us. We urgently need to ask: what has gone wrong?

Intent on being seen to do something, the Prime Minister at first warned that British officials might boycott the Paralympics at Sochi. Then the Foreign Secretary insisted on a meeting of the UN Security Council — a body on which Russia not merely sits, but has a veto. The dearth of further concrete ideas were exposed to the world thanks to the Prime Minister’s deputy national security advisor walking into Downing Street with Britain’s policy options in his hand, exposed to the world.

Such amateurism is embarrassing. But it is positively Bismarckian compared to what has gone on ‘above’, at the level of the European Union. If the people of Ukraine are indeed being pulled between the orbits of Russia and Europe, then never mind Westminster — who speaks for Europe?

There was a time when William Hague or David Cameron could be expected to decide British policy in our strategic and moral interests and for other European states to do likewise. But the creation of supra-governmental layers of diplomacy has added elements of confusion and competition that are starting to have the opposite of their intended effect, which was to make misunderstanding and confrontation less likely.