The landing page at the European edition of The Conversation provides good one-stop shopping on the depth of denialism on the potential impact of the US severely cutting NATO funding and coming to a settlement with Russia over the Ukraine conflict. The article cross posted below is the current lead article..
Chas Freeman, in a new talk with Nima, pointed out how unhealthy it was for the Europeans to have had the US dominated their affairs for over 80 years, and how it had weakened them. He further observed that Europe could not hope to contest Russia militarily, not just now but ever (I am not sure of the latter but it would take a decade+ of concerted effort to bulk up markedly, and it seems doubtful the that the bloc could muster the commitment and the staying power, so I would put it in the category of “extremely unlikely” as opposed to “impossible”). His bottom line is Europe has to grow up, and that means accepting their status as a group of small and not very strong states near a much greater power, namely Russia, similar to Southeast Asian countries vis-a-vis China. (It annoyingly looks like Nima has gone full clickbait. You can’t find his full interview from a mere 11 hours ago in YouTube search; it looks like he tried to replace it with a bunch of shorter segments, but I did find it here in my browser history).
This article handwaves about how the US may be leaving Europe defenseless, with not much consideration of what to do then. It claims the US may ask Europe to send peackeepers, when this has consistently been a European Trojan horse, to get forces into Ukraine. It has repeatedly rejected by Russia, which has said it will attack any troops sent to Ukraine except as approved by the UN as peackeepers…which Russia could veto in the Security Council were it to be attempted against their will. The article also trots out the usual scaremongering about Russia attacking NATO.
Another confection on The Conversation landing page is German election: a triple crisis looms large at the heart of the economy. You will see no mention of the fact that Western sanctions on Russian gas and oil produced a big rise in energy prices that has led to German de-industrialization. The in-passing formula is “prices rose because war”.
By Salvador Sánchez Tapia, Profesor de Análisis de Conflictos y Seguridad Internacional, Universidad de Navarra. Originally published at The Conversation
Last weekend’s events will have left many with the dizzying sensation of watching historic events unfold before their eyes. The content of the speeches delivered by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance – at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels and at the Munich Security Conference, respectively – was not wholly unexpected, but their delivery was destructive. Both offered nothing short of a blistering attack on their European partners and allies.
The on-the-ground consequences of these speeches remain to be seen in full, but they may well alter the course of history. Whatever comes to pass, it is already undeniably clear that transatlantic relations have taken a massive hit.
The United States is, it seems, no longer willing to unconditionally cover Europe’s back, and the security guarantee it has extended to the continent since 1945 will now depend on allies meeting Washington’s demands. The relationship is quickly evolving into an asymmetrical one, in which everything has a price.
EU: Declining and Ineffective?
Vance and Hegseth’s speeches lay bare a number of hard truths. They demonstrate how little respect the US is prepared to show its European partners, whom it regards as declining and ineffective, and they showcase President Trump’s realist and transactional view of foreign relations (while glossing over the fact that the US’ presence in Europe serves its own geostrategic interests above all else).
They also expose the stark reality that Europe is as good as defenceless in the face of the threats looming over it, and that, if it fails to react, it is condemned to irrelevance, if it is not already there.
A hastily organised European summit held two days later in Paris – with its litany of complaints from those not invited and disagreements over Europe’s role in such a crucial moment – has only made matters worse.
The EU: a Military Minnow
Many will argue that Europe is reaping today what it has sown. For decades the bloc has ignored demands to build its defence capabilities, opting instead to become a military minnow, meaning President Trump can now decide to settle the future of Ukraine bilaterally with Russia, without taking the wishes of either Ukraine or Europe into account.
This view is not completely wrong, but it is unfair. Despite considerable political headwinds, Europe has given substantial financial and material assistance to Ukraine. The continent has also made a major effort – from which the United States has benefited – to reduce its dependence on Russian energy resources.
Moreover, Europe has a direct stake in the conflict since it lives side by side with Russia, while the US has the Atlantic Ocean for a buffer zone.
A Peacekeeping Force in Ukraine?
Negotiations are only just beginning, and little is clear, but the idea of deploying a multinational European peacekeeping force to Ukraine seems to be emerging as one of Trump’s possible demands.
If Russia were to eventually agree to such a deployment, Europeans would probably accept the decision so as not to further alienate the United States. It would, however, require clarification of crucial issues, such as the need for a resolution from the UN Security Council (where the UK and France have a veto), a clear outline of the force’s mission, the conditions for the use of force, and the desired end-state for its withdrawal.
The force would also need to have a robust command and control system, and essential resources such as communications, intelligence and air defence. Lastly, it would need to have a strong reserve and credible support from other sources to deter Russia from attacking, provoking, or otherwise engaging forces deployed in Ukraine. All of this, at present, means that US involvement must be kept to a minimum.
The Worst-Case Scenario
Accepting deployment without first addressing these concerns will entail significant risk. What happens if, for example, Russia attacks a NATO member?
To participate or not would be a sovereign decision for each European country. For the sake of their own security, European nations should also continue to demand a voice in the decisions that so seriously affect them.
Trump’s arrival has opened a turbulent chapter that could, theoretically, close with a return to normality when his term ends. However, Europe has to prepare for the worst-case scenario, in which transatlantic relations are damaged beyond repair.
If this is the case, Europe will have little choice but to make a virtue of necessity by moving towards real strategic autonomy. This can only be done by working hand in hand with NATO, an organisation which, against the odds, remains vital for the continent’s security.
‘What happens if, for example, Russia attacks a NATO member?’ (in the Ukraine)
They are on their own, that’s what happens. The US has already said that if European troops go into the Ukraine and get into trouble, don’t even think about calling for Article 5 as the US will not pick up that call. And where he says ‘The force would also need to have a robust command and control system, and essential resources such as communications, intelligence and air defence. Lastly, it would need to have a strong reserve and credible support from other sources’ that describes what the US brings to the party right now so he is saying in reality that the US has to be involved right up to their necks. And in the same way that EU bureaucrats always say that the solution to any EU problem is to have more EU, the author here is saying that the only solution to NATO pushing itself up to Russia’s borders is to have more NATO. Maybe the US should pull all of its troops out of Europe and then tell those countries that it is up to them to put together a credible defence force on their own. I wouldn’t be holding my breath though.
“The US” is doing a lot of work here I think. If I remember correctly, during his first presidency, Trump’s orders were sometimes disobeyed. War costs a lot of money, which is great for the defense establishment and they are not going away because Trump is giving peace a chance. Given how untrustworthy the US has been, I wouldn’t trust anything “the US” says.
Good point, but Trump 2.0 has a different feel to it. I reckon I’m not the only one waiting to see when the pentagon and Trump have their first public row to try to gauge the power dynamic this time around.
Why not replace NATO with a European alliance and include Russia and Ukraine?
Why not disband NATO and act like the Cold War has been over for a long time?
ddt: Several writers in Italy have pointed out that the Helsinki Accords can be dusted off so as to become the required basis of a new framework for security in Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe still exists and can be pressed into service.
The end of NATO would have many benefits for Greece, which spends too much on defense. It may be a way of lessening tensions with Turkey (another NATO member). Who knows? Maybe the mess in Cyprus can be worked out and Cyprus reunified.
Yet, as someone in a Mediterranean country, I am wondering if the Northern Europeans can even be trusted. What is one to do with white-feather England, the self-destructive Germans, the resentful Poles, and the lily-livered Swedes and Finns? They are in a constant state of panic and acting irrationally.
You don’t trust Europeans, but you do Neo-Ottomans. :)
heh: No. would… may …. maybe.
But lessening of tensions and ending the continuing U.K. occupation of Cyprus may prove to have benefits.
One of the ways that we can tell that the elites are past their prime, exhausted, zombified, is that nothing new and potential productive is being tried out. Elon Musk and Doge, currently making headlines, are the same old U.S. business-merger shinola that has gone on for years, one more attack by U.S. business geniuses on government (see: post office. see: Army has to have Taco Bells to feed the underpaid troops. see: faltering IRS).
In your last paragraph you seem to portend a return to the good old days of European fractiousness and disharmony with its centuries long history of bloody conflicts both among themselves and inflicted globally upon peoples in far flung lands. Perhaps for their own sake, not to mention that of others, their diminished military capabilities is a good thing.
A big military is a big investment and people tend to want to make a return on their investment. If Europe does rearm would the heavyweights like Poland and Germany be content to pay in perpetuity for a moneysink of a military that does nothing but conduct endless exercises and pat itself on the back for “deterring” a Russian attack that never comes ? Or would they seek to justify the expense (as many would say the US MIC does) in military conflict with weaker targets (like perhaps their smaller European neighbours) ?
Neutrality seems to have served Switzerland and Austria quite well. Wonder why more Euro countries haven’t tried it.
The problem for the EU and Britain is the anti-Russia propaganda they’ve been spouting for years. A recent poll in Britain indicated 80+% in favour of boots on the ground in Ukraine. Little wonder when you factor in the media bias. Just as everyone first had to swear to condemn Hamas since October 2023 and Israel has a right to ‘self-defence’ before speaking, everyone has to swear allegience to plucky Zelensky. It is not just in news and opinion pieces, culture, lifestyle and sports pages pay homage to cruelly invaded by unprovoked Russian aggression of butter would not melt in its mouth Ukraine.
European media are so committed to this storyline, to paraphrase Macbeth, they are in blood stepped in so far that, should they wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er.
Nobody, but nobody, is allowed to say a word against Zelensky in mainstream media, or even paint an even-handed picture. To suddenly come out with ‘whoops, we did not mean all this’ is far harder to admit than simply squeeling about a traitorious Trump. TDS never went away in Europe, and since his inauguration, has resurfaced in spades. So that is the only card Europe can play.
You get the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic. The author labelled this video ‘A Sad Moment in American History’ but maybe not the way that he thinks it is-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKBM2kS6B8o (5:26 mins)
And just the other day, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee came out and said ‘Putin is a war criminal who should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed.’–
https://x.com/mkraju/status/1891972435161022526?mx=2
And of course how you described the situation in the UK is the same way that it is in Oz. Three years of propaganda has really messed with people’s minds.
Here, The Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard draws attention to George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ that he asserts was written as an allegory to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of the pre-WW2 time.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/20/trumps-embrace-putin-molotov-ribbentrop-crisis-europe/
My query is this. If it is so easy for the newly elected leadership of an historical avowed enemy to gander telephone meetings and more with his opposite number, what is stopping the leadership of the rest of us Europeans from attempting to effect the same, individually or otherwise?
Could it be that we are afraid of elevating the ‘pariah’ formally, which would undermine all previous held tenets? Or are we afraid of exposing our own weaknesses as Europeans, individually or collectively?
Trump has evidentially cast the USA adrift from its prior commitments as a ‘backstop’ to the Europeans in defence terms, and is threatening to ‘throw sand in the gears’ on the trading front. One could posit that there would be much that could be gained by Europeans aligning with Russia on both fronts, and leaving the USA to isolate itself from our ‘theatre’, as would seem to be its want, so it can go and play in what it deems to be its own ‘back yard’. We could even invite the Chinese to engage with us more deeply, which would likely really annoy Trump – a substantial consequence for his unilateral actions?
I read the 2007 Munich Security Conference Speech given by Putin and it does not surprise me that Angela Merkel was so approving then. I wonder if Putin would re-affirm those statements today. Perhaps someone should get on the telephone and ask him.
Fear my be our only enemy.
I strongly agree.
I think what we have is ‘second generation propaganda’ where the propagandists have been brought up with the propaganda and see that spreading lies, omissions & misinformation is actually setting the record straight. It’s one of the few ways I can explain the extreme commitment to the hatred of Russia in Europe.
There’s been a lot of articles trying to untangle the European psychology behind their blind adherence to what many must know is a flagrant falsification of the facts but they just don’t seem to really reach the core of the situation. When debating with people they seem more focused on the fact that Putin is an incarnation of Russia and thus The Devil, anything they have done or condoned is valid because he’s just evil incarnate in their eyes. If you point out he’s the leader of a vast, fractions and faction-ridden government they refuse to believe you.
It’s nut just a narrative, it’s an entire culture.
To your point about second generation propaganda, I see this manifesting as a widespread belief that Russia is still communist/socialist/Soviet. Meanwhile, the manner in which all are required to believe/toe this party line is itself very Stalinist/Leninist.
While Russia is coming into democracy, is relatively new to it, we’re seeing “democracy” in the West coming undone, adopting the Leninthink Russia has came out from under.
I think any untangling would need to highlight and address this, but Russians probably know the West needs to hit rock bottom, as they did, before that turn can take place. The propaganda has to be shown to be untrue in a way which is inescapable, even by the most zealous of believers.
I don’t know anyone who wants UK troops on the ground in Ukraine.
We really are not that stupid, whatever looney tune militarism Johnson has spouted.
Starmer’s recent commitment to the same has been met with Led Zeppelin like enthusiasm here.
The US has deliberately kept control of NATO strategically to feed its own defence industry export market and defence tech R&D.
Eisenhower had it right.
The big question is what links does the Trump regime now have to US defence corporations ?
Only connect.
The UK nuclear deterrent is under US control, and the US has some very large European bases. The whole point of the longstanding US presence here is to defend the USA, not Europe, and provide export markets for its defence industries, ideally with materiel still kept under US ‘oversight’..
The continuing UK aircraft carrier debacle is a case in point.
Post WW2 and through the 50s and 60s, so the EU’s formative years prior to its major 70s expansion, nobody wanted to see European nations begin large scale defence expenditure when rebuilding post war was incomplete.
I recall undeveloped bomb sites in London in the early 70s.
The postwar relationship between France, Germany and UK would not have permitted any of them to start large scale re-arming independently, and conventional forces have largely remained dependent on US equipment and control.
As is now becoming increasingly obvious, far right and fascistic politics were mostly kept submerged in Europe after WW2, rather than killed off, and the US has always had a preference for right rather than left regimes in its strategic partners.
The US profited massively from WW2, especially militarily, long after its end, but Europe had other priorities. Without the Marshall Plan, we’d still be engaged in reconstruction.
The UK was still paying off the USA WW2 loans until 2006.
Partnerships of joint military hardware development in Europe have actually been pretty limited by US standards. Perceived national self interest is a huge obstacle.
Arguments over government support to national defence suppliers in what was supposed to be economic free markets, really would have threatened fragile European unity in the 70s and 80s. Just look at the Eurofighter disputes in the 90s. Old enmities die hard.
I don’t think anyone thinks Ursula VDL does not have a very strong German bias indeed in her actions
Then we have the made up guesstimates over defence spending as a % of GDP simply as tools of political machination. The figures are being pulled out of the air.
Of course 650m Europeans could eventually re-arm sufficiently to provide a credible reaction to Russian expansionism.
However, the time-lags involved and lack of a major European defence sector with bang up to date drone hardware and the production capacity to remain on a war footing, (unlike the Israelis) are bleedin’ obvious.
The current Trump regime pressures here just look like a hard sell for the US defence sector.
We expect nothing by crassness and unenlightened self interest from the dissimulating Trump regime, and that there is some kompromat on Mr T held by Putin, looks a relatively safe bet.
European defence interests would probably be better served by getting hold of some of those videos.
“We expect nothing by crassness and unenlightened self interest from the dissimulating Trump regime, and that there is some kompromat on Mr T held by Putin, looks a relatively safe bet.”
What makes you think so?
And how do you think it would work? Specifically, what kind of information can the Russian government release that would actually be regarded by Trump as a serious threat to his image and reputation? That is to say, things that would be worse than the many truths and untruths that have been flung at him up to this point without much effect?
Really I think any modern head of state can just say any video is fake and have friendly media repeat that according to unnamed officials it is assuredly fake. Unfriendly media would point to the nameless experts insisting that it is assuredly real. Friendly media would denounce this as fakery of the highest order. Some people would believe whichever side they already identify with and others (I’d like to think most, but am not sure) would believe neither. In other words, I am not sure that there will be much of an effect from releasing any videos, certainly not enough of one for it to influence policy. Perhaps you have some reason for viewing it differently, but the very notion of effective kompromat use in international politics always struck me as deeply implausible. Especially as applied to Trump, given his long history of inconsequential scandal.
“It is not just in news and opinion pieces, culture, lifestyle and sports pages pay homage to cruelly invaded by unprovoked Russian aggression of butter would not melt in its mouth Ukraine.”
This implies that there are functioning networks that are deeply entrenched in society. Or, as Wolfgang Streeck puts it (albeit with regard to the suppression of what the government considers anti-Semitic):
‘One is the long-practised German ability to obey what the state wants in advance, even before the state actually wants it, to follow an order before it has been given, and to understand as an order what is only declared as a recommendation. The other is a dense network of state institutions and social organisations that are closely linked across sectors […]… a multitude of state-funded non-governmental organisations that work against anti-Semitism and have been given quasi-legal status by a series of legally unassailable ‘resolutions’ of the Bundestag – a huge capillary structure for the penetration of society by the state, which serves to convey to the public what kind of society the state wants and needs to install.’
There is not only an aloof political class (or PMC) that deceives itself and others, but also a multitude of compliant multipliers and their followers – at least in Germany.
Europe has painted itself into a corner and nobody seems able to see any exit. The willing would like to do something but realistic analysis rules out many of these ideas being considered and boots on the ground would face challenges for which European militaries are not prepared. The RUSI article linked thinks this is a question of credibility though it is not clear to me which entities are those supposed to ponder such credibility. Russia? Europe? the US? It is very difficult to make a show of credibility if one itself has very little confidence in its own resources and Europe risks showing very clearly to the rest of the world that it is nothing but the garden that houses a toothless poodle barking too much. That could be the definitive mistake. There is probably a consensus amongst the PMC that defence spending has to rise by a lot but one senses that mere spending would do little to increase credibility and nobody I read specifies exactly which capabilities should be improved and how, and what shape might take any rearming, and which would be the objectives, milestones and final goals, and if any coordination might be achieved.
Re: finding full videos on YouTube
It seems to be a YouTube thing – or maybe the way the YouTuber themselves are indexing their videos – but if you go to the landing page for Nima’s Dialogue Works channel, you then need to go to the ‘Live” section/tab to get the full videos…
Dialogue Works Live
This is a problem with YouTube search bar which of course has been crappified. I search by going to the channel page and clicking the ‘Live’ tab to find the long form interviews for Dialogue Works, Judge Napolitano etc. Very unintuitive, but reliable.
It’s disingenuous not to mention how the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia began…hint 2014 Maiden…
A counterpoint to what looks like far too much unanimity of opinion (a clear sign of manufacturing consent) about US’s play in Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_9vJ4iK7T0
Summary: The US isn’t abandoning Europe but trying to squeeze it to prepare for an eventual war against China. No troop withdrawal commitments have been made. It appears that Berletic has been one of few commentators to have carefully watched the full form video of Hegseth’s speech at Munich, where he pretty much hints the plans away.
Also from a recent Berletic tweet:
Acting like a wife-beater towards Europe is not a great way to win cooperation v. China, particularly if not helping to serve as a bulwark against Russia, which is their big bogeyman.
I do agree that the idea of smooth sailing or any sailing to a Russia deal is way overdone. I plan to get to some coverage that looked very carefully at the Riyadh talks. The US team was visibly totally unprepared, including apparently having no asks.
However, the deal noise may also simply be intended as cover for US abandonment. The rows with Zelensky would be consistent with that.
Much of this assumes that the presence of US troops in Europe confers a military advantage, and that their withdrawal would leave Europe “defenceless.” But that’s not true: existing US military power in Europe could not materially affect the outcome of any conflict with Russia, and no reasonable level of reinforcement and force generation could change that.
In spite of what the author thinks, there has been no US “security guarantee” for Europe, and certainly not since 1945. (I tried to explain this in an essay a few days ago.) Art 5 of the Washington Treaty associates the US with European security, but in a non-binding fashion. What the Europeans actually got was a political counterweight to the Soviet Union in the event of a crisis and, some time later, a military structure that put US troops in harm’s way if there was a conflict. The latter has largely disappeared, the former turns out to be the empty promise that Europeans always feared it would be.
European forces were run down after the end of the Cold War because there was no public support for them, and because the Soviet threat had gone away. They were reconfigured for peacekeeping and out of area operations: it was assumed that the new Russia was a declining power that would never threaten western interests, and that it was possible to conduct a hostile foreign policy towards it without needing to have a sufficient military potential to deal with Russia if things went wrong. There’s nothing that can be done about that now. Well, we all make mistakes.
Aurelien: Thanks for this comment. I was wondering something similar as I read.
If anything, the extensive military bases in Germany and Italy serve the purpose of impairing the sovereignty of those two countries (as Italians are often glad to point out). Likewise, the “extraterritorial” bases that the U.K. has carved out of Cyprus.
If US bases in Europe don’t add much to European security anyway, then the answer to Europe’s current dilemma — a newly hostile, demanding, and untrustworthy USA — would seem to be simple. But tell me if I am mistaken.
Why doesn’t Europe:
1. Tell the USA to close its bases.
2. Enter into partnerships with Russia and China, which would include renewed purchases of unlimited cheap natural gas from Russia and a free trade agreement with China. The new partnership with Russia could be coupled with a three way agreement between Ukraine, Russia and Europe (but without the USA) to end the conflict in Ukraine.
3. Stop buying LNG from the USA.
The author sounds like he has been internalizing way too much anti-Russian propganda and can no longer think straight.
“…Europe is as good as defenceless in the face of the threats looming over it, and that, if it fails to react, it is condemned to irrelevance, if it is not already there.”
What “threats” are looming exactly? He is looking in the wrong direction here. If they had not aligned themselves with the belligerent US, there would be no threats. Germany had worked with peacefully Russia to bring in cheap gas to fuel their economy. Everyone was cooperating, things were going well, and there was zero threat from Russia. The US was left out and couldn’t allow that, so goodbye Nordstream, just as the US had previously threatened. It is the US that Europe should be worrying about and they are too thickheaded to see it, or at least to admit it publicly.
Russia is not going to allow a massive European peacekeeping force right on its borders either. They are stupid, and trying to put a massive force on Russia’s borders is what started this in the first place.
As others mentioned above, if they want peace, get rid of NATO. Get rid of US military bases, This idea that one achieves peace by massively preparing for war needs to be dropped into that historical dustbin.
lyman alpha blob. Indeed. As I read the piece, I kept thinking, “Russian threat? To Italy? We’d subdue them with pizzas, if the Russian army could some how magically cross the Balkans and the Alps.”
The threats to Italy have almost nothing to do with Russia, which is why the EU’s war in Ukraine has very little support here. Giuseppe Conte and the Five Stars are unified in opposing the EU adventure (and the murderous war in Palestine). Likewise, for the most part, Sinistra Italiana and its allied Greens (in spite of the malevolence of Annalena Baerbock). Antonio Tajani, the Berlusconi-clone heading Forza Italia (the party-fief of the Berluscones / Milanese bourgeoisie) also happens to be foreign minister: He has said no Italian troops will go to Ukraine.
Sanchez truly should be smarter than writing a bunch of clichés clogged with received wisdom: “Despite considerable political headwinds, Europe has given substantial financial and material assistance to Ukraine. The continent has also made a major effort – from which the United States has benefited – to reduce its dependence on Russian energy resources. Moreover, Europe has a direct stake in the conflict since it lives side by side with Russia, while the US has the Atlantic Ocean for a buffer zone.”
Is that you Kaja Kallas?
What is this “Europe” he’s writing about? Spain? Spain, ever in fear of an invasion from Portugal? Italy? Soon to be invaded by Slovenia? (Although the most troubling aspect of history is that whenever the Germans get ultra-frisky, they do like to invade Italy.)
Sanchez seems to be unable to assess the true threats.
For those countries with borders with Russia, here’s an idea: Better foreign ministers. Negotiations. Treaties. Cordial ties across borders. Foaming at the mouth (Estonia and Latvia) and abrogating centuries of neutrality (Sweden and Finland) aren’t likely to lead to détente.
And I won’t even mention the much more serious threat of the EU parachuting in “technical governments” like Mario Draghi and cooking the books to thwart the vote, as in Romania. Who needs external enemies when one has the European Commission?
As some journalists and essayists here in Italy are noting, including people as “mainstream” as Lucio Caracciolo and Massimo Cacciari, Italian governments can plan for the end of NATO, and Italy will do just fine without NATO.
Of course if Europe really wanted to destroy Russia and its economy, all they would have to do is let it join the European Union.
Brilliant!
Totally agree.
The idea that a US/China war is “inevitable” is similarly absurd.
All of the anti-Russia and anti-China propaganda flows from a common source: the defense industry.
There’s an internal threat of violence from the proles and farmers whose lives are continually hollowed out and then blamed when they don’t cross the street to find a job. A metastasized Gilets Jaunes would be something not so unexpected if the status quo continues. The other internal threat of course arose from importing cheap labor and welcoming immigration from culturally vastly different, paternalistic, misogynistic groups across the Med and West Asia who have not been seriously encouraged to integrate while at the same time having their own cultures repressed to the point of reaction. The far right has been allowed to own the issue so far, with the sole exception of the refreshing Sarah Wagenknecht. In France, it is LFI’s stupidest own goal. Compared to those threats, Russia seems like an ally.
Re: Nima and clickbait. All of the complete shows are under the tab “Live” and the url’s contain “streams,’ e.g. https://www.youtube.com/@dialogueworks01/streams
This pattern is common to many youtube channels.
Europe will re-arm. But it will take time and money. For example, yesterday Tooze had bit on the decrepitude of German railways, essential for mobilization.
I have friends in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia. When Putin pulled out the old Hungary56/Czechoslovakia68 playbook, I tried to say how American/EU encroachment bore some responsibility, but they would have none of it. They were livid and embittered, having experienced lifetimes of Soviet repression. Do not underestimate the anger in Europe.
If Ukraine crumbles suddenly, as now becomes possible, Russians will apply the same pressure elsewhere. It’s only natural.
Equally natural, re-armament will amplify tension, misunderstanding, and lead to war.
stefan: The distinguished journalist, essayist, and former europarliamentarian Barbara Spinelli recently published an article that takes the view of the core / founding countries of the EU. Spinelli pointed out that the EU’s foreign policy has been hijacked by a group of central European countries that want to extract revenge on Russia for years of humiliation, revenge that they will never have.
Yet as you point out, you have the elites in a number these countries thinking that peace is high risk and war is low risk. That’s the message of such scoundrels as Kaja Kallas, Annalena Baerbock, and Ursula vdL. It is purely insanity.
The practical effect is the overt stupidity of the Swedish and Finnish governments in acceding to NATO. What did they accomplish besides raising tensions?
I understand that the Melian Dialogue is immoral in the sense of “the strong do what they want and the weak suffer the consequences.” But Cuba is never going to defeat and dismantle the U S of A.
Even the mighty Irish are likely to succeed in reuniting the island, but never in dismantling their oppressor, the United Kingdom.
At a certain point, the epicentre of resentment in the EU has to come to a realization that trench warfare in Lithuania means more than delays in getting into the Amazon web site.
It may be that the core / founding countries are going to have to come down hard on Latvian fantasies of empire. As someone living in Italy, I’d say that quashing Kaja Kallas’s fantasy world cannot come too soon.
Meanwhile, the European Commission just humiliated the Romanians. And now what?
Here’s where it all lies “to reduce its dependence on Russian energy resources” Russia is not the enemy of Europe, the United States is its greatest enemy, hands down! NATO and the EU should make a separate peace with Russia (including a pact with China and BRISC) and tell the US TO GO STRAIGHT TO HELL where it belongs. In my estimation, this would be their best possible solution whereas they would have the ability to rebuild with Russian energy and China’s financial resources.
They were livid and embittered, having experienced lifetimes of Soviet repression.
Does this hold as true for the young? I would assume that no one under, let’s say 40 has any actual memories of the Soviets, just the stories of their elders.
Nothing will change in regards to funding Ukraine unless politicians, countries people admit that they were wrong. And her in the US, i know hardly anyone who thinks the war should end. They believe that Russia is expansionist and won’t stop until London. They believe that to even talk to the Russians Trump is a traitor and is owned by Putin and pee tapes and videos and Ukraine if it just gets more weapons Russia will collapse, Putin is sick, and it just goes on and on.
I can only hope that Trump is able to end the war, but the longer it drags on the harder it will be for him to stop it.
My point being with all the demonization of Russia and Putin, I don’t know how it will be possible for peace let alone normalization with Russia from the majority of Dems here in the US because they have so much invested in the narrative. Maybe someone can provide some hope?
The Americans normalised relations with “Red China” after decades of “hoping it would go away” (and, I think, no small amount of nonsense – like the concept of “brainwashing”). My hope is that when confronted with a static situation that shows no sign of going away any time soon, and given some obvious practical incentive to make up, the European and American elites will eventually, slowly, quietly begin to pretend none of this ever happened. Which may not sound like the best foundation for reconciliation, but better than nothing, as it would at least create an opportunity for something more solid to emerge.
> It annoyingly looks like Nima has gone full clickbait. You can’t find his full interview from a mere 11 hours ago in YouTube search; it looks like he tried to replace it with a bunch of shorter segments
I’ve been frustrated by that before too. Nima leaves the interviews in the “Live” tab of the YouTube channel. He puts clips in the “Videos” tab.
https://www.youtube.com/@dialogueworks01/streams
I believe that the historic change in U.S. foreign policy we are witnessing is the PTB putting the neocons and the defense racketeers back into the cage of subservience to U.S. global economic interests. Musk and Hegseth are about to apply a chainsaw to the defense establishment and its camp followers. Setting up a new Iron Curtain would entail wrecking global logistics chains, and that is not acceptable to Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc. In short, the MIC is no longer aligned with the interests of the people who run America. The Europeans are now deer in the headlights of an unstoppable truck of U.S. policy change.
I always thought it was about the defense industry. If a country was willing to engage in serial conflicts, kill its own young men and women, just to keep the game going, it has to be the central motivation. The industry stretches across every state and has such a central role in its prosperity. Trump in his first term was always trying to get the Europeans to buy more weapons. Now Europe has emptied all its mismatched weapon stockpiles, now, they restock and it will be a winner gets all. If its weapons system A, all countries will restock weapons system A, not just a contract here or there. It becomes a monopoly within NATO in each category. I think Trump and/or the industry has figured out that this approach at the moment reaps the greatest profits in the short and long term. I can’t help to think they just build a story around it to achieve this end goal – sales.
“…the article also trots out the usual scaremongering about Russia attacking NATO…”
In a a reasonably objective view, one would at least try to determine what interests Russia has and what are its security requirements. The USSR is long gone, yet many in the so-called west still harbor an implicit bias that the evil Rooskies are not rational, and are bent on expansion and destruction.
Even if the xenophobic fearmongering were true: how exactly would it benefit Russia to attack NATO countries? Would the Russian economy sustain such a risky and costly effort? Would Russia’s population support it? It is as if Russia’s military and economic power were still on the level of the USSR at its height. Isn’t it time to get with the 21st century?
Germany and Russia not long ago had enough mutual trust that they set out on massive Nordstream pipeline projects. Recent polls suggest that a small fraction of Germans would be willing to fight Russia, even if Russia posed a direct threat. It looks like the Russophobic hysteria has been whipped up by the mass media, politicians and PMC sycophants.
And then there is the longer-term historical context: there have been many infamous attempts by other powers to attack and subdue Russia. Stalin’s paranoia may not have been unfounded. Russia (naively?) tried for years to make agreements with the US, but the US turned out to be “incapable of agreement”
As noted, even with the US military, there are many problems with NATO attacking Russia. I agree, it is highly unlikely. And with the relative decline of the EU (and Germany especially) economically, the likelihood of the EU developing an independent, interoperable, and integrated military force is quite unlikely as well. They have been talking about CFSP and an EU army for decades. The talk of boosting defense spending to at least 2% has been around for decades as well.
After all the drama blows over, the EU leaders will likely step back in line and join the US in what some see as a coming war with China. The folks at the CFR, Atlantic Council, USNC etc. apparently still would like to see Russia severely weakened and isolated, so the US and vassals can try to contain and confront China.