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.
I cannot imagine a ruder and more inappropriate way of advertising your work over in another substack than what you did here.
To sneeringly accuse another writer of inadequate product (re: Aurelien, your posts are taking a repetitive form: ) while implying that others come to your site to "see how things are being done by someone who understands what is going on", (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) is beyond vulgar and shallow.
Rest assured that your site will never be opened on my computer.
If you think NATO is a tool for dominating the USA, then I have numerous diamond and ivory bridges to sell you. It should be obvious to anyone who pays attention that the US is the driver of NATO. The European countries are just hangers on. Of course they do their best to exploit the US capacity for armed action in order to not take responsibility for their own defence, but this is hardly 'dominating the USA'.
I take your points. However, am I understanding you correctly, that you attribute to *me* advocating use of NATO as a tool to dominate USA? I advocate no such thing. Your points in that regard are accurate.
My referent was the attitude and assumption underlying the British interlocutor of our host, that thinking to dominate USA by deciding NATO's borders is immoral diplomacy. Thinking all sorts of other peoples' businesses are yours to approve, or not, and control is really nasty thinking. That's the attitude underlying Washington and London these days and some years since. I approve its exact opposite: equal and indivisible security of the nations, protected by the multi-polar, multi-centric order of those nations themselves, whether large or small. India, Russia, and The USA I see leading this effort.
The morals of the Andrew Weismann and Vicki Nuland tribe are simply unacceptable in any realm of human endeavor. With luck you understood me to be at least implying that even though I did not write it.
No, I was merely commenting on your assertion that such diplomacy stinks. If it existed, it probably would, but as it doesn't . . .
As for "equal and indivisible security of the nations, protected by the multi-polar, multi-centric order of those nations themselves" - how is the US going to transition to supporting such a view?
The best way for US citizens to contribute to world peace is to campaign for the break-up of the US into five or more separate independent states. You know it makes sense - start campaigning!
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
Sir: (this is directed at David Graham)
I cannot imagine a ruder and more inappropriate way of advertising your work over in another substack than what you did here.
To sneeringly accuse another writer of inadequate product (re: Aurelien, your posts are taking a repetitive form: ) while implying that others come to your site to "see how things are being done by someone who understands what is going on", (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) is beyond vulgar and shallow.
Rest assured that your site will never be opened on my computer.
I believe you owe our host an apology.
OK, then I guess, that's that.
" if NATO is your tool for dominating The USA".
If you think NATO is a tool for dominating the USA, then I have numerous diamond and ivory bridges to sell you. It should be obvious to anyone who pays attention that the US is the driver of NATO. The European countries are just hangers on. Of course they do their best to exploit the US capacity for armed action in order to not take responsibility for their own defence, but this is hardly 'dominating the USA'.
I take your points. However, am I understanding you correctly, that you attribute to *me* advocating use of NATO as a tool to dominate USA? I advocate no such thing. Your points in that regard are accurate.
My referent was the attitude and assumption underlying the British interlocutor of our host, that thinking to dominate USA by deciding NATO's borders is immoral diplomacy. Thinking all sorts of other peoples' businesses are yours to approve, or not, and control is really nasty thinking. That's the attitude underlying Washington and London these days and some years since. I approve its exact opposite: equal and indivisible security of the nations, protected by the multi-polar, multi-centric order of those nations themselves, whether large or small. India, Russia, and The USA I see leading this effort.
The morals of the Andrew Weismann and Vicki Nuland tribe are simply unacceptable in any realm of human endeavor. With luck you understood me to be at least implying that even though I did not write it.
No, I was merely commenting on your assertion that such diplomacy stinks. If it existed, it probably would, but as it doesn't . . .
As for "equal and indivisible security of the nations, protected by the multi-polar, multi-centric order of those nations themselves" - how is the US going to transition to supporting such a view?
I don't know. But we will. This may contribute:
https://therevdavidrgraham.substack.com/p/ur-principles-of-foreign-policy
and this:
https://theological-geography.net/?page_id=48091
The best way for US citizens to contribute to world peace is to campaign for the break-up of the US into five or more separate independent states. You know it makes sense - start campaigning!
Well, as far as I am concerned, you're welcome to do that. As to your imperative pointed at me, well, you'd have to have authority to make that stick.
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.