European elites literally cannot imagine a worldview other than pro-EU and Atlanticist, and any suggestion that things could be otherwise would be seen to be as gauche as standing up in the middle of a High Papal Mass to demand loudly that the person who just farted please identify him or herself.
The Atlanticist orientation is especially enticing for Euroelites, because it means that they never have to take responsibility for anything, never have to make any decisions themselves. This is why they grumbled and stared at their shoes when the United States attacked Iraq, but responded with horror at Ukraine, in spite of the fact that the United States has a track record of starting wars over far less.
"the first time that Europe had encountered the basic problem in negotiating with the United States: that no document signed by them can ever be regarded as binding."
Europe should have paid more attention to the treatment of First Nations and Mexico by the US.
“since a relationship of peaceful cooperation was quite possible”
“large parts of the electorate in many European countries don’t even share the ideology of the Brussels elites anyway”
“One is that the interests of European leaders are a reasonable surrogate for the national interests of the populations.”
This gets to the heart of the whole problem. What is it that encourages an attitude of confrontation among the supposed ‘elites’ who conspire to rule us? My answer would be an association between the urge to attain power or fame, psychopathy, arrogance, greed and egotism. What we do about this needs enquiry into a different system of government than democracy. The ancient Athenians would not recognise our present day set up as ‘democracy’ - they would call it rather, an oligarchy or maybe even a kleptocracy. We need a return to, if not one vote per person per issue, to a system of sortition, where a panel is chosen by random lot to consider each issue.
“the US pushing to control Europe, and establish an “Empire,” in that tiresome phrase”
It may be tiresome, and in the US case may not follow the traditional pattern, but nevertheless, no better descriptive term exists at present.
". . . are the interests of Europe and the interests of the US still sufficiently compatible to make it worth retaining the transatlantic link?"
Well, when German officials are near to hearing their industrial leaders, and about to reach for an energy accommodation with Russia, so CIA (DevGru), MI6 (SAS), and Polish SOF blow holes in gas pipes to scuttle any such accommodation, I'd say the answer is, "No." Europe's enemy is in her rear, not her front, to her west, not to her east. Geographically, Europe is the northwest peninsula of Eurasia.
" . . . in which case NATO will have a border with China, or we don’t, in which case we will have a border with Russia. Do we really want either?"
Well, if NATO is your tool for dominating The USA, then I'd say the ethics of your diplomacy stinks. British field commanders are disliked by American counterparts because everything they do is to benefit the British end, never the joint mission. That attitude was an engine for "the cousins' unpleasantness" in 1776. Also, on what authority do you identify your border with NATO's? And, what business is it of yours where Russia and China set their borders?
Aurelien, your posts are taking a repetitive form: state the problem, state its history, state the options, project expectation of more dire problems.
This is a helpful corrective to narratives of a purposeful eastward expansion of NATO -- it reads to me rather more as a haphazard collection of opportunisms on the part of US arms manufacturers and the politicians in their pockets along with certain Eastern Europeans with an eye to the main chance.
Thanks for the great historical overview. I confess that despite having done a great deal of reading about it, the immediate post-war period in Europe is still something of a mystery to me - so many parallel historical threads operating in such a narrow time period.
I've always wondered about the absolute consensus in the UK about the trans-Atlantic alliance. I can understand the logic from a defense and political and short term foreign policy perspective, but it's always seemed to me that it was economically crippling to the UK as it distracted its elites from the type of sharp focus on long term strategic objectives that have proven successful for others. The incoherence and (arguably) cowardice of other countries essentially hiding under the US umbrella for the most part paid off in the long term for a range of countries from Japan and ROK to Germany and Spain. For all its faults, France has maintained a certain amount of honor and strategic independence that has evaded most other similar sized countries.
It's probably worthwhile to complement this with the picture from the other side of the Atlantic, which I think is also fascinating. I started writing a comment on this, which got to be a bit too long and convoluted for its own good, and I'll deliver up on this when I can write that one up properly.
European elites literally cannot imagine a worldview other than pro-EU and Atlanticist, and any suggestion that things could be otherwise would be seen to be as gauche as standing up in the middle of a High Papal Mass to demand loudly that the person who just farted please identify him or herself.
The Atlanticist orientation is especially enticing for Euroelites, because it means that they never have to take responsibility for anything, never have to make any decisions themselves. This is why they grumbled and stared at their shoes when the United States attacked Iraq, but responded with horror at Ukraine, in spite of the fact that the United States has a track record of starting wars over far less.
"the first time that Europe had encountered the basic problem in negotiating with the United States: that no document signed by them can ever be regarded as binding."
Europe should have paid more attention to the treatment of First Nations and Mexico by the US.
“since a relationship of peaceful cooperation was quite possible”
“large parts of the electorate in many European countries don’t even share the ideology of the Brussels elites anyway”
“One is that the interests of European leaders are a reasonable surrogate for the national interests of the populations.”
This gets to the heart of the whole problem. What is it that encourages an attitude of confrontation among the supposed ‘elites’ who conspire to rule us? My answer would be an association between the urge to attain power or fame, psychopathy, arrogance, greed and egotism. What we do about this needs enquiry into a different system of government than democracy. The ancient Athenians would not recognise our present day set up as ‘democracy’ - they would call it rather, an oligarchy or maybe even a kleptocracy. We need a return to, if not one vote per person per issue, to a system of sortition, where a panel is chosen by random lot to consider each issue.
“the US pushing to control Europe, and establish an “Empire,” in that tiresome phrase”
It may be tiresome, and in the US case may not follow the traditional pattern, but nevertheless, no better descriptive term exists at present.
". . . are the interests of Europe and the interests of the US still sufficiently compatible to make it worth retaining the transatlantic link?"
Well, when German officials are near to hearing their industrial leaders, and about to reach for an energy accommodation with Russia, so CIA (DevGru), MI6 (SAS), and Polish SOF blow holes in gas pipes to scuttle any such accommodation, I'd say the answer is, "No." Europe's enemy is in her rear, not her front, to her west, not to her east. Geographically, Europe is the northwest peninsula of Eurasia.
" . . . in which case NATO will have a border with China, or we don’t, in which case we will have a border with Russia. Do we really want either?"
Well, if NATO is your tool for dominating The USA, then I'd say the ethics of your diplomacy stinks. British field commanders are disliked by American counterparts because everything they do is to benefit the British end, never the joint mission. That attitude was an engine for "the cousins' unpleasantness" in 1776. Also, on what authority do you identify your border with NATO's? And, what business is it of yours where Russia and China set their borders?
Aurelien, your posts are taking a repetitive form: state the problem, state its history, state the options, project expectation of more dire problems.
Perhaps some thoughts on ur-principles of foreign policy -- diplomacy in a nutshell -- might be of use: https://therevdavidrgraham.substack.com/p/ur-principles-of-foreign-policy
BTW, a year and a half late, the Nuland crew have produced an alleged US National Security Strategy: https://theological-geography.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf
This is a helpful corrective to narratives of a purposeful eastward expansion of NATO -- it reads to me rather more as a haphazard collection of opportunisms on the part of US arms manufacturers and the politicians in their pockets along with certain Eastern Europeans with an eye to the main chance.
Thanks for the great historical overview. I confess that despite having done a great deal of reading about it, the immediate post-war period in Europe is still something of a mystery to me - so many parallel historical threads operating in such a narrow time period.
I've always wondered about the absolute consensus in the UK about the trans-Atlantic alliance. I can understand the logic from a defense and political and short term foreign policy perspective, but it's always seemed to me that it was economically crippling to the UK as it distracted its elites from the type of sharp focus on long term strategic objectives that have proven successful for others. The incoherence and (arguably) cowardice of other countries essentially hiding under the US umbrella for the most part paid off in the long term for a range of countries from Japan and ROK to Germany and Spain. For all its faults, France has maintained a certain amount of honor and strategic independence that has evaded most other similar sized countries.
The United States should be neutral. There is no vital American interest in Ukraine. The EU? They will talk it to death, as always.
It's probably worthwhile to complement this with the picture from the other side of the Atlantic, which I think is also fascinating. I started writing a comment on this, which got to be a bit too long and convoluted for its own good, and I'll deliver up on this when I can write that one up properly.