I think that the Europeans are going to be slapped by the reality of their failure with the Ukraine gambit to destroy Russia and feast on the carcass. It was always predicated on massive US involvement which is now most likely no longer there. They are up shit creek without a paddle and have few options beyond accepting the failure and making the best of it. They have little military capacity without US satellite intelligence so will be flying blind everywhere. Their industrial base has withered so they will struggle to arm themselves in any way that will enable them to defeat Russia. Terrorism is all that they have.
Russia has had enough of being invaded from the West every eighty or so years as has been the case since Gustav Adolphus (1594-1632) and is determined to finally put a stop to this. They have read the think tank reports and listened to the bloviations from multiple western politicians and know that unless they end it themselves it will continue forever. This is it.
As Tony Blinken stated "if you are not at the table, you are on the menu", and this is the uncomfortable place the Europeans have found themselves. They have earned it, but it will still be a hard lesson.
One precedent that comes to my mind immediately is the Soviet-Japanese peace declaration of 1955 (I think that's the right year.). Japan and USSR could not agree on the terms of the peace treaty, mostly over the Kuriles, so they simply declared peace and decided to normalize relations while they'd keep talking over the particulars of the peace treaty. Well, I don't think Russians and Japanese held any "serious" talk about the Kuriles since 1960s. They know that the issue is fundamentally unresolvable, but nobody really cares much about the Kuriles anyways. So if you could normalize relations without a treaty, without actually dealing with the technical particulars, why not?
Here, the "distance" between US and Russia comes to play. Quite frankly, Ukraine matters less to US than the Kuriles to Japan--at least the Kuriles used to be/sort of still are Japanese territory. Ukraine means anything to US, because? There's nothing there that should prevent normalization of US-Russia relationship. Just a few happy declarations and photo ops, if played well, should be enough--just something symbolic so that we can go on to other things. Trump, the consummate showman, probably has the best shot at pulling this off compared to anyone. The actual negotiation can go on as long as that over the Kuriles and nobody would really care. Not that there'd be a Ukraine in its current form for long anyways.
Edit: To expand a bit, that normaluzation of diplomatic relations was thought to be tied to the peace treaty, which, in turn, seemed to stumble on the Kuriles, made both Japanese and Russians interested in resolving the Kuriles problem early on--by 1955, I think, they agreed in principle to split the Kuriles, with the details to be worked out later. But once peace was declared and the relationship normalized, there was no interest in resolving the Kuriles problem--indeed, both sides actually retreated from what was agreed to in principle--and it didn't matter, since they had a lot of more valuable business besides some godforsaken islands with bad climate, small population, and not much resources, but with not inconsiderable security concerns and a lot of symbolic value should you be seen as surrendering them without a big enough concession in return. So, what would this mean for Ukraine? I think this means US just leaves, with a justification that the Ukrainian regime is full of liars and criminals and thus not worth the bother while the normalization vis a vis Russia is unchained from shatever happens in Ukraine. Trump has done a masterful job setting up the trap and Zelenski fell in completely--reminiscent of how Trump set up his rivals during 2016 GOP primaries, in fact. Unlike the Kuriles, where life goes on unchanged, though, this will have consequences--although, one hopes that shaking up the status quo will lead to some self reflection and a chance for improvements....
However it omits the same issue as previous ones. A terrorist Ukrainian state, continuing to use drones to kill and injure Russian citizens on a daily basis.
I cannot see how Putin could allow this to remain in place irrespective of arrangements with the US or others.
Unless this is resolved I cannot see how the fighting stops until the western boundaries of Ukraine are reached.
Even then of course it could continue from outside Ukraine national boundaries but it then becomes a 'real' terrorist situation with potentially international support for remedial solution.
I tend to agree in that Ukraine had an opportunity to become neutral in April 2022 but was not permitted to do so, and the coontrolled Zelensky regime and NATO continued to fight and escalate in the hope that Russia might suffer some sort of internal collapse or even battlefield defeat. However the time has long since passed where Russia will allow an "independant" Ukraine time and space to re-gather its strength. Nope, it is over for them. I think this will look like Vietnam or Syria or Afghanistan in the end. I cannot easily see a scenario where negotiations will produce an outcome acceptable to Russia, even with Ukraine and Europe excluded. With the USA walking and wishing to rebuild a relationship with Russia, Ukraine is going to be fed to the bear. And so will Europe, not covered by Article 5 in any Ukraine adventure, should they decide to offer up the laughably called peace-keeping force - which will never be accepted by Russia.
At some point, Europe / European countries will have to figure out how to live with a very large Russia on their doorstep and without the comfort blanket of the U.S. as “protector”. We did it before. After all, Russia was traditionally part of the Concert of Europe. It will take a generation or so but ultimately it will happen because it will have to.
Meanwhile the US will stay imperial and seek to continue to control Europe. But its ability to do so will reduce as its own relative power in the world declines and in the next generation or so European leaders emerge who question the value of the US “alliance”. Especially if the key consequence is impoverishment and being forced to spend fortunes on multi decade US weapons programmes, effectively subsidising the US war machine.
I fear there will be a lot more conflict as these dynamics play out, and Europe will be very much on the receiving end of it.
As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?
Others, e.g. Glenn Diesen, have pointed out that the Ukraine conflict really started when the EU offered a trade agreement to Ukraine but insisted that Ukraine must cut its trade relations with Russia to get it. Why insisting on such a senseless thing? Have they ever done that to another country?
I mean, let's accept that they are idiots, but why do they have to be malicious idiots as well? Couldn't it be enough to be shortsighted, self-aggrandizing and greedy?
"As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?"
Because Russia is seen as the antieurope. Because a Scary Enemy is always necessary, as a pretext for crackdowns, as a means of rallying support, and as an excuse as to why the plebs cannot have nice things.
That is one possible explanation - always blame the foreigner. But they haven't used it very consistently. Perhaps they are too incompetent to carry it out.
And perhaps it's sheer inertia. Nato began a campaign in the late 90s against Islam but apparently found that it is impossible to fight a religion with guns. So they may simply have switched back to Russia as the Evil One because they were used to that version; everybody had seen Bond films and the story was easy to sell in.
Russia is a convenient antieurope because Russians are white and largely christian, and therefore claims of racism and islamophoba are harder to make stick.
A good question. Indeed, if we knew the answer, it might unlock an explanation that makes sense. Right now, like you, I'm baffled. Could it really be they simply believed their own propaganda? 'Hegemony brain' kept them from thinking clearly? An unwillingness to accept circumstances have changed?
I believe Russia stated it would limit trade relations with Ukraine if Ukraine entered into a trade agreement with the EU. My understanding is that Russia was concerned that EU goods would flood Russia if there was an EU/Ukraine agreement. This was based on Russia and Ukraine being a preexisting mutual free trade zone and Russia not wanting EU goods to come into Russia under Russia’s free trade agreement with Ukraine.
We in Russia are also perplexed why Europe is hell bent on pushing Russians away. It makes no sense and has no rational explanations (I don't buy any talk about sinister Brussels' plans to dismember us). It's just plain crazy.
Ну я просто думаю что европейцы последних лет 30 в принципе не способны на сложное планирование, а нынешняя бюрократия евросовка еще и продукт отрицательного отбора. Они по моему сами не знают, чего хотят, а все воинственные вопли не несут никакого смысла кроме того, что it's the right thing to do, как любят выражаться все эти прибабахнутые колумнисты.
My stupid computer doesn't speak Russian, but have you ever seen the "Looney Tunes" cartoons with the little yappy dog that follows Spike The Bulldog around, singing Spike's praises, getting slapped around by Spike and getting him into fights?
The europeans are like a pack of yappy little dogs. Evropeets - eto trus.
Chances of a settlement are distant. Promises by the Trump administration can't be expected to last past 2028.
On the other hand, the incoming Trump admin's focus has so far featured outing of misdeeds by their internal opponents, ie to consolidate their power. USAID was a nexus of their internal opponents. Similarly, the Russiagate-NATO-UA lobby. And that same group must know how guilty they are too, in particular for sponsoring modern day Nazi revanchism with Western taxpayer funds. For this alone, they deserve far worse than embarrassment. But what's actually being asked of them, I suspect, is to accept the Trump team's power - in contrast to 2016. After that (presuming it happens) the focus may well shift elsewhere, such as Iran. With Trump admin indifferent to whether or not Ukraine war is settled.
There are "talks" between countries and then there are big Treaties that set up or cancel countries (as happened after WW1 & 2 and often in history before then such as 1815). But the break up of any country such as the Soviet Union, Iraq or Yugoslavia is always problematic as it leaves some messy bits such as mixed marriages and people whose land ends up in the 'wrong' place for them.
1. "The first is the belief that the apparent disengagement of the US from Ukraine will actually make much difference. The only way in which this would be true is if a Ukrainian victory (generously defined) would be possible with further US assistance, but not without it. But in order for that to be true, it would be necessary to argue that, whereas the Ukrainian Army after eight years of fighting could not retake control of the whole of the breakaway Republics when the UA was at full strength and the rebels were weak, then in some way a massively weaker UA could defeat not only the rebels but the Russian Army as well, with a little more effort and support from Washington. This is clearly delusional."
The unspoken subtext (which, for obvious reasons, could not be said out loud) was always that europeans would be sent, once Ukraine really started to run low on warm live bodies, and that the Americans soon follow, as they never would leave their vassals hanging out to dry.
2. Let's see whether anything concrete comes of the talks.
Thank you for this insightful work. I noticed that you use the terms "West" and "western" toward the end. Do you think they still have a meaning after 2025-02-14 ?
Not the Neoconservative wrecking ball diplomacy that we have become accustomed to resulting in a colossal loss of life orchestrated for the most part by a relative few ideologues.
Excellent write-up, @aurelien2022. My take is much simpler than yours. There would be no agreement, no treaty. Russia will defeat Banderite Ukraine on the battlefield and dictate terms of surrender. Trump will shrug and move on with his domestic agenda for the United States. Europeans will howl and cry in horror
When did the West lose the ability to view international affairs rationally, slowly, thoroughly? When was the last time it viewed diplomacy, treaties and negotiations strategically, as in chess, and not in a reactionary manner?
Geez - Western powers underestimating Russian resilience? Can't recall ever having seen that before in history [insert dripping sarcasm here]
I for one am not very optimistic that Europe's decision makers will 'wake up and smell the coffee' any time soon.
I've had my dealings with politicians, think tankers and senior bureaucrats over the decades and most of them are not exactly flexible in their thinking, let alone in their policies. Many are of them are downright cowards. Dogmatism dominates Europe because it nullifies responsibility.
I've warned for a long time how Europe's elite has been captured by American interests, to the detriment of Europeans. The upcoming generation of European figure heads are no better. They rabidly support the US led status quo because it benefits them personally - and the hand that giveth is in Washington.
And that is the one weak point were ways things could change quickly. Only if the personal interests of Europe's elite no longer align with Washington (aka they don't get their American silverlings anymore) is any European geo-political realignment based on Real Politik even possible.
And that is not going to happen any time soon. Washington still needs Europeans to sign off on overpriced American energy and weapons so Washington will continue its policy of tacitly sponsoring their champions. So in all likelihood the American domination of Europe will grow even worse in years to come.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong in all of this - but the signs are not good.
I think that Since WWII the USA have had an agreement in place where countries around the world would use the dollar to buy and sell goods outside their own country this helped the modern world to dispose of the inefficient method of valuing currencies around the world which was basically how much gold they accumulated in their treasuries and so it came to pass that the so called gold standard was replaced by how much value your currency had when exchanged with a USA dollar.Many many countries were not satisfied with this arrangement because the USA gained massively by having to sell huge amounts of USA dollars worldwide to enable other countries to use them.Remember this every dollar in existence in your pocket or in you savings is USA government debt , think about that for a minute and you will see that government debt is not the evil that the media trick you into thinking it is.Every USA dollar owned by someone overseas is part of the USA government debt , around the world governments debt is essential for our daily living purchases if every government in the world cleared its debt there would be no money anywhere no money for you to use so tou would have to go back to the days when “exchange of goods or services ” was how you paid for stuff i give you a loaf of bread ive made you give me a few potatoes ive grown but in the modern world how would i buy a car or a house or food in a supermarket or a cafe ? What is changing is simple the big countries around the world are saying we are not using the USA dollar anymore because the exchange from our currency to the USA dollar costs us extra a lot extra over time and the USA response to this is that they want to try and bully countries around the world into continuing to use the USA dollar , think about it , imposing sanctions and tariffs threatening war getting those countries that you have already bullied to threaten their neighbours with sanctions and tariffs too , sorry but USA has lost its way and i really do not think it is capable of finding its way back.Will it go to war with its BIG competitors ? bearing in mind that those BIG competitors have now clubbed together to become allies and bearing in mind that the USA is doing the oppsite with its allies it is threatening them and bullying them.Can i just ask one thing , as a Scot, can you have the war you start actually in your own country for a change because up to now all the wars USA start tend to be in other peoples countries.
In some ways it is true, treaties are pieces of paper. Necessity knows no law.
“Only for one word - “neutrality,” a word that has been so often ignored in war - just for a piece of paper, Britain will wage war against a kindred nation that wants nothing better than to be its friend.” (Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg)
On the other hand, about almost all European political leaders, well, I would say: “Silete theologi in munere alieno!”
Very good Aurelien.
I think that the Europeans are going to be slapped by the reality of their failure with the Ukraine gambit to destroy Russia and feast on the carcass. It was always predicated on massive US involvement which is now most likely no longer there. They are up shit creek without a paddle and have few options beyond accepting the failure and making the best of it. They have little military capacity without US satellite intelligence so will be flying blind everywhere. Their industrial base has withered so they will struggle to arm themselves in any way that will enable them to defeat Russia. Terrorism is all that they have.
Russia has had enough of being invaded from the West every eighty or so years as has been the case since Gustav Adolphus (1594-1632) and is determined to finally put a stop to this. They have read the think tank reports and listened to the bloviations from multiple western politicians and know that unless they end it themselves it will continue forever. This is it.
As Tony Blinken stated "if you are not at the table, you are on the menu", and this is the uncomfortable place the Europeans have found themselves. They have earned it, but it will still be a hard lesson.
One precedent that comes to my mind immediately is the Soviet-Japanese peace declaration of 1955 (I think that's the right year.). Japan and USSR could not agree on the terms of the peace treaty, mostly over the Kuriles, so they simply declared peace and decided to normalize relations while they'd keep talking over the particulars of the peace treaty. Well, I don't think Russians and Japanese held any "serious" talk about the Kuriles since 1960s. They know that the issue is fundamentally unresolvable, but nobody really cares much about the Kuriles anyways. So if you could normalize relations without a treaty, without actually dealing with the technical particulars, why not?
Here, the "distance" between US and Russia comes to play. Quite frankly, Ukraine matters less to US than the Kuriles to Japan--at least the Kuriles used to be/sort of still are Japanese territory. Ukraine means anything to US, because? There's nothing there that should prevent normalization of US-Russia relationship. Just a few happy declarations and photo ops, if played well, should be enough--just something symbolic so that we can go on to other things. Trump, the consummate showman, probably has the best shot at pulling this off compared to anyone. The actual negotiation can go on as long as that over the Kuriles and nobody would really care. Not that there'd be a Ukraine in its current form for long anyways.
Edit: To expand a bit, that normaluzation of diplomatic relations was thought to be tied to the peace treaty, which, in turn, seemed to stumble on the Kuriles, made both Japanese and Russians interested in resolving the Kuriles problem early on--by 1955, I think, they agreed in principle to split the Kuriles, with the details to be worked out later. But once peace was declared and the relationship normalized, there was no interest in resolving the Kuriles problem--indeed, both sides actually retreated from what was agreed to in principle--and it didn't matter, since they had a lot of more valuable business besides some godforsaken islands with bad climate, small population, and not much resources, but with not inconsiderable security concerns and a lot of symbolic value should you be seen as surrendering them without a big enough concession in return. So, what would this mean for Ukraine? I think this means US just leaves, with a justification that the Ukrainian regime is full of liars and criminals and thus not worth the bother while the normalization vis a vis Russia is unchained from shatever happens in Ukraine. Trump has done a masterful job setting up the trap and Zelenski fell in completely--reminiscent of how Trump set up his rivals during 2016 GOP primaries, in fact. Unlike the Kuriles, where life goes on unchanged, though, this will have consequences--although, one hopes that shaking up the status quo will lead to some self reflection and a chance for improvements....
As usual an excellently written analysis.
However it omits the same issue as previous ones. A terrorist Ukrainian state, continuing to use drones to kill and injure Russian citizens on a daily basis.
I cannot see how Putin could allow this to remain in place irrespective of arrangements with the US or others.
Unless this is resolved I cannot see how the fighting stops until the western boundaries of Ukraine are reached.
Even then of course it could continue from outside Ukraine national boundaries but it then becomes a 'real' terrorist situation with potentially international support for remedial solution.
I tend to agree in that Ukraine had an opportunity to become neutral in April 2022 but was not permitted to do so, and the coontrolled Zelensky regime and NATO continued to fight and escalate in the hope that Russia might suffer some sort of internal collapse or even battlefield defeat. However the time has long since passed where Russia will allow an "independant" Ukraine time and space to re-gather its strength. Nope, it is over for them. I think this will look like Vietnam or Syria or Afghanistan in the end. I cannot easily see a scenario where negotiations will produce an outcome acceptable to Russia, even with Ukraine and Europe excluded. With the USA walking and wishing to rebuild a relationship with Russia, Ukraine is going to be fed to the bear. And so will Europe, not covered by Article 5 in any Ukraine adventure, should they decide to offer up the laughably called peace-keeping force - which will never be accepted by Russia.
At some point, Europe / European countries will have to figure out how to live with a very large Russia on their doorstep and without the comfort blanket of the U.S. as “protector”. We did it before. After all, Russia was traditionally part of the Concert of Europe. It will take a generation or so but ultimately it will happen because it will have to.
Meanwhile the US will stay imperial and seek to continue to control Europe. But its ability to do so will reduce as its own relative power in the world declines and in the next generation or so European leaders emerge who question the value of the US “alliance”. Especially if the key consequence is impoverishment and being forced to spend fortunes on multi decade US weapons programmes, effectively subsidising the US war machine.
I fear there will be a lot more conflict as these dynamics play out, and Europe will be very much on the receiving end of it.
As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?
Others, e.g. Glenn Diesen, have pointed out that the Ukraine conflict really started when the EU offered a trade agreement to Ukraine but insisted that Ukraine must cut its trade relations with Russia to get it. Why insisting on such a senseless thing? Have they ever done that to another country?
I mean, let's accept that they are idiots, but why do they have to be malicious idiots as well? Couldn't it be enough to be shortsighted, self-aggrandizing and greedy?
"As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?"
Because Russia is seen as the antieurope. Because a Scary Enemy is always necessary, as a pretext for crackdowns, as a means of rallying support, and as an excuse as to why the plebs cannot have nice things.
That is one possible explanation - always blame the foreigner. But they haven't used it very consistently. Perhaps they are too incompetent to carry it out.
And perhaps it's sheer inertia. Nato began a campaign in the late 90s against Islam but apparently found that it is impossible to fight a religion with guns. So they may simply have switched back to Russia as the Evil One because they were used to that version; everybody had seen Bond films and the story was easy to sell in.
Russia is a convenient antieurope because Russians are white and largely christian, and therefore claims of racism and islamophoba are harder to make stick.
Perhaps. But it also has a long training into the role.
A good question. Indeed, if we knew the answer, it might unlock an explanation that makes sense. Right now, like you, I'm baffled. Could it really be they simply believed their own propaganda? 'Hegemony brain' kept them from thinking clearly? An unwillingness to accept circumstances have changed?
I believe Russia stated it would limit trade relations with Ukraine if Ukraine entered into a trade agreement with the EU. My understanding is that Russia was concerned that EU goods would flood Russia if there was an EU/Ukraine agreement. This was based on Russia and Ukraine being a preexisting mutual free trade zone and Russia not wanting EU goods to come into Russia under Russia’s free trade agreement with Ukraine.
We in Russia are also perplexed why Europe is hell bent on pushing Russians away. It makes no sense and has no rational explanations (I don't buy any talk about sinister Brussels' plans to dismember us). It's just plain crazy.
Bruseels and various EU politicians have made it plain that, yes, they intend to dismember Russia.
They hardly capable to control a failed state like Bosnia, let alone dismember anything.
The plan was always for the Americans to do it and the european poodles to come along for the ride.
Ну я просто думаю что европейцы последних лет 30 в принципе не способны на сложное планирование, а нынешняя бюрократия евросовка еще и продукт отрицательного отбора. Они по моему сами не знают, чего хотят, а все воинственные вопли не несут никакого смысла кроме того, что it's the right thing to do, как любят выражаться все эти прибабахнутые колумнисты.
My stupid computer doesn't speak Russian, but have you ever seen the "Looney Tunes" cartoons with the little yappy dog that follows Spike The Bulldog around, singing Spike's praises, getting slapped around by Spike and getting him into fights?
The europeans are like a pack of yappy little dogs. Evropeets - eto trus.
Chances of a settlement are distant. Promises by the Trump administration can't be expected to last past 2028.
On the other hand, the incoming Trump admin's focus has so far featured outing of misdeeds by their internal opponents, ie to consolidate their power. USAID was a nexus of their internal opponents. Similarly, the Russiagate-NATO-UA lobby. And that same group must know how guilty they are too, in particular for sponsoring modern day Nazi revanchism with Western taxpayer funds. For this alone, they deserve far worse than embarrassment. But what's actually being asked of them, I suspect, is to accept the Trump team's power - in contrast to 2016. After that (presuming it happens) the focus may well shift elsewhere, such as Iran. With Trump admin indifferent to whether or not Ukraine war is settled.
There are "talks" between countries and then there are big Treaties that set up or cancel countries (as happened after WW1 & 2 and often in history before then such as 1815). But the break up of any country such as the Soviet Union, Iraq or Yugoslavia is always problematic as it leaves some messy bits such as mixed marriages and people whose land ends up in the 'wrong' place for them.
1. "The first is the belief that the apparent disengagement of the US from Ukraine will actually make much difference. The only way in which this would be true is if a Ukrainian victory (generously defined) would be possible with further US assistance, but not without it. But in order for that to be true, it would be necessary to argue that, whereas the Ukrainian Army after eight years of fighting could not retake control of the whole of the breakaway Republics when the UA was at full strength and the rebels were weak, then in some way a massively weaker UA could defeat not only the rebels but the Russian Army as well, with a little more effort and support from Washington. This is clearly delusional."
The unspoken subtext (which, for obvious reasons, could not be said out loud) was always that europeans would be sent, once Ukraine really started to run low on warm live bodies, and that the Americans soon follow, as they never would leave their vassals hanging out to dry.
2. Let's see whether anything concrete comes of the talks.
Thank you for this insightful work. I noticed that you use the terms "West" and "western" toward the end. Do you think they still have a meaning after 2025-02-14 ?
Not the Neoconservative wrecking ball diplomacy that we have become accustomed to resulting in a colossal loss of life orchestrated for the most part by a relative few ideologues.
Thank you for the lesson on the real thing.
Excellent write-up, @aurelien2022. My take is much simpler than yours. There would be no agreement, no treaty. Russia will defeat Banderite Ukraine on the battlefield and dictate terms of surrender. Trump will shrug and move on with his domestic agenda for the United States. Europeans will howl and cry in horror
When did the West lose the ability to view international affairs rationally, slowly, thoroughly? When was the last time it viewed diplomacy, treaties and negotiations strategically, as in chess, and not in a reactionary manner?
Geez - Western powers underestimating Russian resilience? Can't recall ever having seen that before in history [insert dripping sarcasm here]
I for one am not very optimistic that Europe's decision makers will 'wake up and smell the coffee' any time soon.
I've had my dealings with politicians, think tankers and senior bureaucrats over the decades and most of them are not exactly flexible in their thinking, let alone in their policies. Many are of them are downright cowards. Dogmatism dominates Europe because it nullifies responsibility.
I've warned for a long time how Europe's elite has been captured by American interests, to the detriment of Europeans. The upcoming generation of European figure heads are no better. They rabidly support the US led status quo because it benefits them personally - and the hand that giveth is in Washington.
And that is the one weak point were ways things could change quickly. Only if the personal interests of Europe's elite no longer align with Washington (aka they don't get their American silverlings anymore) is any European geo-political realignment based on Real Politik even possible.
And that is not going to happen any time soon. Washington still needs Europeans to sign off on overpriced American energy and weapons so Washington will continue its policy of tacitly sponsoring their champions. So in all likelihood the American domination of Europe will grow even worse in years to come.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong in all of this - but the signs are not good.
I think that Since WWII the USA have had an agreement in place where countries around the world would use the dollar to buy and sell goods outside their own country this helped the modern world to dispose of the inefficient method of valuing currencies around the world which was basically how much gold they accumulated in their treasuries and so it came to pass that the so called gold standard was replaced by how much value your currency had when exchanged with a USA dollar.Many many countries were not satisfied with this arrangement because the USA gained massively by having to sell huge amounts of USA dollars worldwide to enable other countries to use them.Remember this every dollar in existence in your pocket or in you savings is USA government debt , think about that for a minute and you will see that government debt is not the evil that the media trick you into thinking it is.Every USA dollar owned by someone overseas is part of the USA government debt , around the world governments debt is essential for our daily living purchases if every government in the world cleared its debt there would be no money anywhere no money for you to use so tou would have to go back to the days when “exchange of goods or services ” was how you paid for stuff i give you a loaf of bread ive made you give me a few potatoes ive grown but in the modern world how would i buy a car or a house or food in a supermarket or a cafe ? What is changing is simple the big countries around the world are saying we are not using the USA dollar anymore because the exchange from our currency to the USA dollar costs us extra a lot extra over time and the USA response to this is that they want to try and bully countries around the world into continuing to use the USA dollar , think about it , imposing sanctions and tariffs threatening war getting those countries that you have already bullied to threaten their neighbours with sanctions and tariffs too , sorry but USA has lost its way and i really do not think it is capable of finding its way back.Will it go to war with its BIG competitors ? bearing in mind that those BIG competitors have now clubbed together to become allies and bearing in mind that the USA is doing the oppsite with its allies it is threatening them and bullying them.Can i just ask one thing , as a Scot, can you have the war you start actually in your own country for a change because up to now all the wars USA start tend to be in other peoples countries.
In some ways it is true, treaties are pieces of paper. Necessity knows no law.
“Only for one word - “neutrality,” a word that has been so often ignored in war - just for a piece of paper, Britain will wage war against a kindred nation that wants nothing better than to be its friend.” (Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg)
On the other hand, about almost all European political leaders, well, I would say: “Silete theologi in munere alieno!”
An italian translation:
"Di cosa parliamo, quando parliamo di colloqui.
La fine potrebbe essere più lontana di quanto si pensi."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/02/di-cosa-parliamo-quando-parliamo-di.html
Thanks as always Marco