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.
100 comments
Comments are closed.
‘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.
There will not be a Trump 3.0, so the Deep State could afford to wait him out. Heck Trump could choke on a burrito and then what? There’s also Dear Ivanka to consider, like eventually someone would read him the riot act and tell him that unpleasant stuff could happen to his family.
The only change(s) I would trust if they are accompanied by geysers of actual (not figurative) blood. Otherwise it’s the usual muppets in, muppets out.
J.D. Vance could well be Trump 3.0 plus. I saw his reply on X to Niall Ferguson with respect to the latter’s not-so-subtle charge of “appeasement”. BOOM!
Vance = Thiel
X = Musk
WaPo = Bezos
Which master will win the universe?
Epic time to be alive!
IRT needing a HQ for your peacekeeper, Aurelian is clear on pointing out only NATO and the US can provide such a thing. You can’t order one up from Amazon prime.
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?
Well said
🛎️ 🛎️ 🛎️
General/President Eisenhower knew the Europeans during the war and after the war. Therefore his pronouncements should be heard and followed, even though they were first heard in the late fifties. He said that NATO should be disbanded in the early sixties, because supporting it, and letting it expand is not necessary, and should be gotten rid of. The Euros are relying on the US to save them, should mean old Russia invade the West. they underpay for their security for weapons, personnel, training, Stink tanks, etc. etc., yet another reason to be rid of them. Furthermore, the cold war should also end. As others here have said. the MIC, or should I say the MICIMATT wants the money to make inferior though expensive weapons, since they gave the majority of them to Ukraine, and Israel. Don’t even get me started on the latter. The Euros should go along to get along, establish positive relations with neighboring countries, and if a vote is needed for certain countries in Europe to establish a defensive establishment, let them do so, with the knowledge that it will cost more than what they pay now.
P.S. I was born in Europe from a Belgian father and a German mother, and yet, like the Russians, I hold nothing but contempt for the lot of them.
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).
I’m in agreement.
Silicon Valley (great name when one ponders it) seized the White House long ago, now they are not hiding it.
Does no one recall that SVB account holders were made ‘whole’? Think about who these people are (not just rich Californians). The slavish worship of youthful diversity instead of sound and prudent risk management ran the show and runs the show here in the CA legislature (they are currently wondering how they are going to calculate ‘reparations’. I’m not kidding). The result: no problem, the citizen suckers in the USA will take care of the bill! Nice deal, huh?
These people are psychopaths and have openly seized the white house. Next step: digital prison.
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.
Despite its proven usefulness, Switzerland dropped its neutrality on 2022-02-28 by joining the sanctions against Russia.
Remaining neutral over a long period requires judgment, prudence, credible defence forces, and also the consensus of neighboring countries. It is therefore an unstable state of equilibrium.
Because that would be too sensible. Much better to tie ourselves in knots trying to come up with a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
But pretending that it does is oh so profitable for some.
Because everyone would buy there weapons from the Russians – far better, far cheaper, more reliable delivery.
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.
I’m afraid, Rev, it’s a bit more than three years. Remember when the Brits were shipping arms to the Caucasus to help the plucky Chechens against the octopoid Russian Bear? And that was in 1851.
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.
Europeans will have to pay a very high price to be back in Russia’s and China’s good graces, now, though. Maybe they could start by ceding some islands off the coast of their biggest cities to Russia and China…
Otherwise the Fentanyl Wars will begin . . .
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.
Somewhat ironic that at its base this war is ‘Democratic’ Europe defending the internal administrative borders of ‘Communist’ Russia.
That was the first part of balkanizing Yugoslavia too. History repeating/rhyming is not a coincidence.
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.
As someone who remembers the late sixties and the seventies pretty clearly, I would argue that Starmer, nor any other British politician, could ever meet “with Led Zeppelin like enthusiasm here”. Obviously you must have been an avid supporter of the punk revolution and still affect a strong distaste for us “boring old farts”.
I read that reference as in “lead balloon” as opposed to “old rock band.”
Exactly. Lead Balloon… also probably describes Starmer’s current political standing.
Personally I always felt that Taurus was the inspiration for Stairway despite the court decision, but then I preferred Spirit anyway.
Apart from some of their earlier live performances, plus Kashmir at Knebworth, I never was a Zep fan, more Floyd, the Dan and the Canterbury set.
Nor did I rate punk, though post punk new wave like BAD and Costello were lyrically excellent in the early 80s.
As for Trump… codename “Krasnov”…. , was a verfied target by several KGB agents including a Mussayev and Kalugin who both confirmed the American business class as useful ‘assets’.
The whole point of ‘kompromat’ is that the target really is compromised…..
Should be plenty with such a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein..
Anyone wanting to disrupt and wreck US politically and institutionally would be doing exactly as Mr T is presently, both internally and globally.
We are still in the “Action” phase. The “Reaction” is yet to come.
“Europe”‘s population gets larger by the post.
No point including 145 million Russians. Which is what 650 million Europeans includes!
https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-europe-by-population/
So it’s about 520 million Western Europeans who huddle in fear at the possibility of a
Cossack outrage invading the gardens of Europe and forcing vodka on them. The silliness and hatred of Russia surpasseth my undersranding. It’s nuts.
But so is Trump’s outlook. “Europe look after yourself. Russia and China: let’s cut our miltary budgets in half! No, US troops won’t leave Europe — we need to keep them there for US strategic purposes! ” Logic of any normal sort does not enter Trump’s mind, so far as I can see. No wonder nobody in Europe cannot figure him out, Plato would be unable to. How’s illegal immigrant deportation going in the US? Bueller, anyone?
Boogie-woogie ragtime band time, far as I can see, and everyone’s pissed to the eyeballs,
“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.
Aren’t there also laws and systems of enforcement in operation to ensure the orthodoxy? You can get in trouble for saying the wrong thing about occupied Palestine. Isn’t that also true for talk about Zelensky, Ukraine and the war? If so then any serious talk about the emperor’s new clothes will be difficult.
It’s not just the usual impediments to reversing the propaganda and group-think, political inertia. There’s also the specific political configuration that the only Europols that talk of any kind of policy independent of Washington and having relations with Russia are designated as untouchable, e.g. AfD, Orban, etc.
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.
Because current European elites, funded and educated partly by and in the US and expecting the post-political career payoffs that e.g. T. Blair has enjoyed, are in fealty to the US.
Additionally, European states would post-2008 have collapsed in some cases without the Fed credit swap lines extended then. Note :-
[1] The very different behavior of ‘Old Europe’
in 2003 to the US attempt to lead them into Iraq War 2 then.
[2] The fact that US financial misbehavior that led up to 2008 ironically only served to strengthen the privileged US strategic position internationally afterwards in the same way as the previous US misbehavior leading up to its going off the gold standard did in 1971.
It’s a bad old world. The Europeans or anyone else can cry about it all they like now Trump is here. Alternatively, they could do something about it.
My thoughts exactly! Unfortunately we Europeans are scared off the school bully, we would have to act in unison…
We know that:
1. A main purpose of European signal surveiliance is bulk transmission to the NSA. (2009 FRA-debate, Sweden)
2. The US has surveillance on top EU politicians (2013, Snowden)
3. At least one of EUs member states has surveillance on politicians in surrounding conutries on behalf of the NSA (2021, whistleblower at Danish Forsvarets Efteretningstjeneste (Danish equivalent to NSA)).
4. The US strategy in negotiations with European politicians is to first flatter, then blackmail. (Helmuth Kohl’s top man for contacts with the US, on German television)
I think if we add these four up and assume that they can be a bit generalised to most or all EU states, we can get to a point were we can make a good guess of why European politicians sometimes look like they are not simply acting in their national interest.
Just today, I have seen the first maps that lift the veil of silence on Odessa. The big non-surprise, Russia gets Odessa all the way to Transnistria. The ‘new Europe’ will have a hard time coming to grips with this. This article repeats lines about Europe being left defenseless without Uncle Sam, but the Ukraine defeat shows, as you point out, that Europe was already defenseless, and grows more so with every shipment of hard to replace arms to the front.
The larger fallacy is that Europe needs security guarantees, and needs to step up in defense against a threat which was fabricated with the purpose of increasing arms expenditures. If Ukraine, or the Baltics or Germany want security guarantees, they will need to get them from Russia. It may do a better job protecting the remaining Nordstream line.
Russia doesn’t control Odessa, so they would need to offer something in exchange to get it. They need to give up Kalingrad. That would help a negotiated peace actually be a deal for Europe. Letting Russia take another port they don’t control with no exchange is way too much to give. I think the Baltics will be next target for war and border changes if the deal favors Russia too much.
Ummm…
The “something in exchange” that Ukraine will get, should some agreement occur, will likely be its continued existence.
Now, I’ll happily agree that the current government in Ukraine will not agree to this, but I believe its’ days are numbered in any case. Who knows what subsequent states may concede.
Aurelian is spot on.
The author laments, “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.”
Leaving aside the issue of the EU’s flight to total incompetence, the problem of the European nations is that, despite the strange but central feature in the frames of reference through which most of Europe’s political élites see the world – that Russia has re-emerged as the bogey slavering to consume them as a crusher consumes a pile of junk – they have, quite deliberately, allowed diplomacy to decline until it is totally insignificant in their international dealings, much as the US has, so convinced are they of their superiority over every non-European culture, including the local populations they are forced to rule/screw over and the economies and intricate web of social relations they have destroyed in order to enjoy their brief moment basking in the sun of imagined power.
And they’ve only just noticed it’s come to an end and nobody cares except the people they govern so badly who have been forced into a process of jettisoning the old, fumbling, bumbling and ideologically blinded and replacing them with completely new élites of indeterminate quality who might just have an idea or two which could make things a little better for ordinary folk – like having their country negotiate good treaties with Russia, China and each of the BRICS countries.
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!
I second that! Although The Rev is joking, there is an element of truth that makes it even more hilarious.
But it’s a plan!
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.
I’ve wondered about that: who’s doing all the editing? It just seems it’d be too much bother for the youtubers to edit their shows down to click-baity pieces while Google hides the real stuff…
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?
By all accounts the Romanian stunt is working as well as the last color revolution attempt in Belarus. If US pulls out, will the NATO bases stay?
Europe will re-arm ….. against its population, https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-comes-to-the-west/
Actual war requires lots and lots of oil which European countries don’t have.
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.
NATO and the EU are corporate fictions, dreamlike structures which are designed to create an imaginary political and bureaucratic élite to loot national economies at the expense of the common citizen who doesn’t mind trains that fail, regular power failures, industries that disappear overseas or shit in the water they drink. They are not designed to withstand stress and strain of the reality they have brought on themselves and are incapable of making any credible agreement with Russia. That can only be done by nation-states which have parliamentary or equivalent systems capable of ratifying any agreement or treaty Russia is prepared to tolerate.
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.
The made up memories of the young are way worse than the people who lived through the actual experience–I’ve seen examples of this in several parts of the world.
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.
Another precedent worth noting is the Soviet-Japan peace declaration of 1956. After years of fruitlessly trying to sort out the Kuriles, both parties decided that they don’t need a peace treaty to normalize relations. Naturally, once the relationship was normalized, they neither needed to sort out some small islands that were more trouble than they were worth or even an actual peace treaty. So they are still trying to reach a “peace treaty,” but no one is really interested enough to make a serious effort. Once you decide that making a deal (or a set of them) is important and whatever’s supposedly getting in the way is not really relevant, you can always agree to ignore it while moving on to other stuff.
How it may end is by the US simply disengaging from the conflict with no formal peace treaty.
It would leave a very unstable situation but one that the Europeans would need to resolve.
> 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.
Chas Freeman has a quite a way with deadpan humor.
This after summarizing the results of Macron’s efforts this past week. He’s making a serious point about its consensus methods and about the UK being a stalking horse for Washington. Still, it’s a way of phrasing it that I will pocket.
It’s dangerous (in the sense that it’s illusory and leads to analytical errors) to think of “Europe” as a unitary political agent. And yet it’s such an easy habit to fall into.
Jacques Baud has said that fighting Russia is the only thing that’s really unified Europe recently.
The “negative identity principle” and a bit of Orientalism mixed in for good measure.
Great intro by Yves, great comments (so grateful they are back)!
I keep asking myself why Russia would conquer Europe with its ageing population and no resources.
As far as I can see, it’s only if we keep making such a nuisance of ourselves.
But, at least for now, European “leaders” are insistently making a nuissance of themselves. Unless they and “their democracy” are swept away by real reoresentative governments, Russians may well need to actually conquer Europe eventually…
Yves, if you want to find the full video you might want to check the live portion of Nima’s YouTube account.
The video portion of his account is mostly used for cuts from the lives.
… 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….
That right there from the introduction, is the likely scenario to unfold.
The present-day toothless United Nations to be given power & authority to act.
? The UN is merely an intergovernmental organization: it can only act with the approval of the UNSC. Any member of the UNSC can use the veto.
Only the five permanent members of the USNC have veto power. Two of them, UK and France, are no longer justifiable permanent members.
I’ll try to explain the better I can. I strongly disagree that NATO was/is useful, now or ever. Even for the Cold War scenario, was an organisation militarily ineffective and inept (my opinion). It was good for nothing in Cyprus issue (on the contrary, it worsened all), in despite of Spain and Portugal being during their dictatorships a true nest of fascists (Gladio et al), the organization as such did nothing about the colonial wars of Portugal and even the 1974 coup of the Portuguese army took it totally unaware. And many other cases.
As we all know, NATO is far more political than military, and it was the way the US could control European countries until certain extent (cfr. De Gaulle). Western Europe is a minnow since 1945, it’s only needed to remember the Suez crisis. All the power the former colonial powers have is precisely by being the servants of the US. Yes, they are important countries but they are nobody outside the US umbrella, politically speaking. Never, never, since 1949 until today was no serious attempt by anybody to forge a completely independent from the US foreign policy, let alone disband NATO, not even after the fall of the USSR. It’s clear for me that this dependence is crucial for the Western European states, not a matter of choice.
It’s not going to happen now what didn’t happen when opportunities were better and favorable. And, above all, there is nobody anywhere to make that thing. In my opinion, the fate of the EU, or whatever it transforms into, will be to have the same sick dependence but of China, not the US, since Trump seems to think that the US needs to do some kind of retreat to its hemisphere, of course after plunder the most he can from the EU.
And we are talking about a bloc (we can consider UK a strange partner) which have *two* seats in UNSC, house most of the international organizations and has made a lot of industrial standards, far more than the US.
Besides, any possibility of creating a European grip in world affairs would be necessarily with Russia, not without, let alone against. This way is closed now. Maybe not forever, but not even thinkable in many years from now.
instead of a military approach, how about a financial approach.
1. disband nato
2. setup a new organisation that EVERYONE joins.
3. everyone must pay a bond (min 500bn) of which the collective interest of all the bonds would be used to serve the members needs.
4. EVERYONE can argue/negotiate potential conflicts behind close doors and on a predesignated platform.
5. EVERYONE gets a vote on the outcome of these negotiations.
6. if a country pursuing military action chooses to ignore the outcome of this vote, then quite simply they lose the bond! The bond must be high enough that military action is simply not worth it.
of course people may argue against this proposal, as we all know there is alot of money to be made in the business of death!
It’s obvious what needs to be done – many others have stated it above – make peace, get a security agreement with Russia and reforge economic ties with Russia and China.
The problem is the EU elites are completely out of touch. This is similar to America elites who despite change on Ukraine may still persist in an almost equally insane “pivot to China”.
>”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” etc.
If we look into the post-war era I feel it pretty obvious that the US needed no pressure at all to put Europe where it was supposed to be. In fact Europeans had to be held back at times in their RU-hatred.
Keep in mind the situation by 1948. Western Europe had mostly participated in the genocidal attack on the USSR. Then when they settled in Yalta and Potsdam Stalin tried to secure as much territory as possible.
At this point in time the EU elite independently from the US purged their Communist traditions and labour movements. With the help of the CIA but out of their most genuine private conviction. In 1949 Konrad Adenauer won the 1st election against SPD´s Kurt Schumacher by 1 vote. With the support of the successors of the Nazis, the DP.
Today one likes to fancy “what-if” questions on this pivotal election.
However when around 1955/56 German SoD Strauß asked the SPD in parliament „would you be willing to abandon NATO?“ they of course remained silent. Which tells you everything of how easy it was for the US to actually cooperate with Europe. No coercion necessary!
All the antiwar talk by the SPD had a deeply disingenious touch. Despite the fact that until the late 1950s SPD, unions, church, press stepped up protest against WWIII along 1-2M protestesters.
The events of those late 1940s opened the way to institutionalize the anti-USSR path of Western Germany. Accompanied by such events as the Communist purge in France and the anti-PC coup in Italy. In Greece it became evident that Stalin and the West both despised genuine independent Marxist movements. And it is not unlikely that between USSR and the West there was a tacit understanding and informal intelligence exchange over who the true enemy was to both – an independent, anti-imperialist EU progressive labour left.
On a second diplomatic track Stalin – may be because he was dying – attempted to defuse a NATO threat with his Stalin Notes and the inquiries to join NATO. Both of which were rejected by Adenauer in a way that can only be regarded as insults.
Germans simply laughed it away. With the foundation of the GDR vis-à-vis the FRG the anti-Russian stance became standard. A deeply ultra-conservative/Catholic movement formed in the heart of Europe with Bonn, Paris, Rome as a triangle of constant warmongering.
The “Circle Violet” became a focal organisational point using the USSR specter as a means to justify anything. Be it Gladio, be it a joint European WMD program, be it boycotts of any kind.
None of this happened under US tutelage. The CIA observed all of this and via London was informed too (e.g. German-French nukes).
The Germans gave up on WMDs, pushing against Russia and giving up on unification only under US pressure since Washington sought a status quo with Moscow. And Moscow had more issues with uncontrollable EU hatred than American spy games.
The situation was not unlike what we have now.
In this context the so-called Ostpolitik by chancellor Brandt marked a win for Washington as much as for the new SPD. Only Germany´s the acceptance of the Russians´ firm grip over their own turf would open a path for the SPD in Germany to win.
Adenauer and his CDU successors wanted to reverse history. The new SPD – after with the Godesberger Program of 1959 they had sold out on the Communist/Socialist traditions – and Brandt accepted the new era and only then the US was more at ease.
The domestic hatred towards the European left went as far as Adenauer and his right-wing French allies admitting to each other how much they hated French left PM Mendès-France. And did everything they could to end his term which they successfully achieved.
In Europe first came imperialism. Only then left ideals and any form of international solidarity not to speak of taking down the Iron Curtain. The Americans used it. They did not have to teach them to hate however.
Nice historical outline AG. The only question I have: the US and UK had no involvement in Gladio? I may not recall, or may be misinformed, but I thought that they did.
The UK most certainly did, and I believe that there was also CIA involvement.
That’s my understanding as well, the newly created CIA was almost certainly involved.
Slightly different topic: the US and British intelligence creating the BND, apparently recruiting unreformed Nazis. (and of course Paperclip)
Some might think that the BND answers to CIA/MI6 more than the German government, especially after the Wikileaks revelations about Merkel’s phone being tapped for years etc.