Europe at War

[Madiel]

Russia is still an empire in certain respects. At least, to someone like Putin it is.

I just found an interesting article from a few years ago. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/28/putin-may-want-to-be-an-emperor-but-russia-isnt-an-imperial-power/

Make that 2 interesting articles from a few years ago. https://theconversation.com/russias-imperial-mindset-dates-back-centuries-and-it-is-here-to-stay-95832

[steve ridgway]

European nations should provide for their own security.

That should be a good thing and one would hope the extra resources from Sweden and Finland joining NATO would reduce the burden on America.

[Florestan]

I just found an interesting article from a few years ago. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/28/putin-may-want-to-be-an-emperor-but-russia-isnt-an-imperial-power/

Can't read in its entirety, paywall.

Make that 2 interesting articles from a few years ago. https://theconversation.com/russias-imperial-mindset-dates-back-centuries-and-it-is-here-to-stay-95832

On the other hand, thanks for this one. I'm in full, unqualified agreement.

[Florestan]

That should be a good thing and one would hope the extra resources from Sweden and Finland joining NATO would reduce the burden on America.

Bottom line, security from Russia means nuclear capabilities. In Europe only UK and France have them --- and if Marine Le Pen wins the presidential elections (which God forbid!) you can strike the latter off the list.

[Todd]

That should be a good thing and one would hope the extra resources from Sweden and Finland joining NATO would reduce the burden on America.

Except it will not.  NATO only exists and has any effectiveness, such as it is, because of American involvement.  Remove the US, and NATO becomes irrelevant.  There would be no comprehensive nuclear deterrent.  There would be no ability to project power globally, either via naval or air power.  (The destruction of Libya demonstrated that, as allies ended up having to rely on American power to sustain the bombing campaign that plunged the former country and immediate region into chaos that still exists today.)  Communications and signals intelligence relies very heavily on American power, though some countries have nicely developed systems outside American control - the Germans, for instance, if various foreign policy and security authors are to be believed.  To be sure, certain US interests benefit mightily from now long-standing security arrangements - eg, defense firms, consultancies, financial institutions, and of course US government agencies directly involved with foreign and military policy - and those institutions have insufficient interest in realigning security arrangements to reflect current long-term security challenges that face the US.  The world will not return to February 2022 in security terms once the current war is over, but it will return to something nearly identical.  Pity.

[Florestan]

Todd, have you read Theodor Mommsen's Roman History? If not, I urge you to read it. I know no other history book which explains that clearly and in such a stylsih prose (the work won him the Nobel Prize for Literature) the inexorable logic which lies behind the birth, growth and expansion of an empire. Far from being something irrational and unnatural, NATO and its expansion is the only too logical consequence of the original USA taking the very first expansionist step.

Actually, I recommend this three-volume treatise to anyone interested in history --- political, geopolitical, social, religious and cultural. A fascinating reading.

[Todd]

Todd, have you read Theodor Mommsen's Roman History?

I have not, and I doubt I will sit down to read over a thousand pages of translated German.  I certainly appreciate older historical analyses since human nature has not changed in at least, what, ten to twenty thousand years or more*, and as such there are always lessons to learn from the past, but I tend to rely on more recent scholarship that includes the one new thing under the sun in foreign policy since Westphalia, namely Trinity.


* jk - it has not changed and will never change.

[71 dB]

Remove the US, and NATO becomes irrelevant. 

I don't really care about your opinions, but I can comment on them to be strangely black and white (binary). Without the US, NATO becomes much weaker, but not irrelevant. The US is not everything as americans are often let to believe.

[Florestan]

I have not, and I doubt I will sit down to read over a thousand pages of translated German.  I certainly appreciate older historical analyses since human nature has not changed in at least, what, ten to twenty thousand years or more*, and as such there are always lessons to learn from the past, but I tend to rely on more recent scholarship that includes the one new thing under the sun in foreign policy since Westphalia, namely Trinity.


* jk - it has not changed and will never change.

Well, if human nature never changes, then that Trinity (whatever it might mean, which I suppose it's not God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost) must surely have had an equivalent in kind, if not degree, before Westphalia.

[Florestan]

Well, if human nature never changes, then that Trinity (whatever it might mean, which I suppose it's not God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost) must surely have had an equivalent in kind, if not degree, before Westphalia.

Btw, I'll give you ten points if you nominate off the top of your head the two cities where the Peace of Westphalia treaties were actually signed. 

[Todd]

I don't really care about your opinions, but I can comment on them to be strangely black and white (binary). Without the US, NATO become much weaker, but not irrelevant. The US is not everything as americans are often let to believe.

You obviously care enough about my opinion to respond.  I am the first to say that the USA is not everything - I do not know what that actually means - but it is currently the most powerful nation state on earth.  The US, along with only Russia, has the power to literally kill everyone on the planet, or at least something approaching that horrifying possible outcome.  The US alone has the power to militarily strike any target on earth using conventional weapons.  The US alone has the ability to cutoff any entity - corporate or national - from the US financial system, which is universally accepted as being the current foundation of the international economic system, thereby causing immediate financial distress, potentially of the existential sort, depending on the entity under consideration.

As to NATO's usefulness and effectiveness in the absence of the US, it would not matter.  The remaining allies have a small nuclear deterrent force, and were the US to abandon NATO - as it should - then the UK would most likely partner with the US more closely since the UK's nuclear deterrence is so closely tied to US technology.  That might leave France as the sole nuclear power in NATO.  Command and control structures within NATO are heavily reliant upon the US, by design, and if the US leaves, SACEUR would have to transfer to a European commander and NATO would have to operate without US support.  Depending on how quickly the US could withdraw - ideally, it would be immediate, but as with all large bureaucratic organizations, it would take time - the organization would necessarily undergo major changes, almost certainly slowing responsiveness, and when combined with vastly inferior military capabilities without the presence of the US military, it would have great difficulty deploying effective forces.  Again, one need look only at the operation in Libya to see the significant logistical shortcomings of the allies without American power.  And since NATO is a military alliance, military power is literally the most important thing.

Also, to be very clear, Europeans should take on the full responsibility of providing military security for Europe.  This would further serve to illustrate that the US is not everything.  The sooner this happens, the better.  I am not hopeful that it happens, because European leaders are entirely content with their current dependence on the US, and they are perfectly happy to have the US mistreat them. 

The Allies Are Alright: Why America Can Get Away With Bullying Its Friends

then that Trinity (whatever it might mean

It was the culmination of the Manhattan Project.

[Florestan]

The Allies Are Alright: Why America Can Get Away With Bullying Its Friends

A suggestion to Todd and indeed anyone else linking to paywalled sources: would you be so kind to copy-paste the whole thing here? Not everyone has a subscription or money to spend on subscribing. Thank you.

[Todd]

would you be so kind to copy-paste the whole thing here?

For limited article sites, one can either use Chrome incognito browsing or clear the browser history to access multiple articles.  I absolutely will not copy and paste entire articles. 

[drogulus]

     I'm too lazy to directly profit from the protection of the world economy by the US led alliance system, so I settle for indirect profits outside the defense industries. I am aware that something as valuable as the economic output of the world requires a substantial investment in military prowess by responsible parties with the means and qualifications to do so. That's the US, a fact that can't be disestablished by arguing against it. NATO continues to prove its value to its members. The primary beneficiary now as always is the US, and the success of the alliance is that it's run for the common benefit. If this was untrue no argument could hold it together. Because it is true no argument succeeds in pulling it apart.

[Florestan]

For limited article sites, one can either use Chrome incognito browsing or clear the browser history to access multiple articles.

I use Mozilla Firefox and I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not sure, though, how clearing my browsing history is going to give me access to a site I've never visited before in the first place, or to a site which is paywalled.

Actually, never mind. Not being able to read Foreign Affairs online is not going to give me headaches or cause my losing sleep. Actually, nothing we post, or link to, here, has any relevance to how the world at large in general, and politics in particular, goes. It's nice, though, to share one's thoughts with people who care to read them, even if only to refute them.

[Gurn Blanston]

I use Mozilla Firefox and I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not sure, though, how clearing my browsing history is going to give me access to a site I've never visited before in the first place, or to a site which is paywalled.

Actually, never mind. Not being able to read Foreign Affairs online is not going to give me headaches or cause my losing sleep. Actually, nothing we post, or link to, here, has any relevance to how the world at large in general, and politics in particular, goes. It's nice, though, to share one's thoughts with people who care to read them, even if only to refute them.

No, what he is suggesting is that most of those sites let you visit free the first few times,  so if you clear your cache or use incognito you can maintain that virginity long enough to read the occasional article.  If it doesn't work on that site,  it will work on others.  IIRC,  Firefox has an incognito mode that they call something else. 🤔

🤠😎

[Florestan]

No, what he is suggesting is that most of those sites let you visit free the first few times,  so if you clear your cache or use incognito you can maintain that virginity long enough to read the occasional article.  If it doesn't work on that site,  it will work on others.  IIRC,  Firefox has an incognito mode that they call something else. 🤔

🤠😎

Ah, I see, thanks. Nevertheless, as far as I can remember Foreign Affairs never let me read anything for free --- as different from The Atlantic or Grammophone, for instance. 

But as I said, it's no big deal, really.

[Karl Henning]

You seem to assume Ukraine can win without Putin feeling deeply humiliated. I personally doubt if there is a "safe" level of humiliation. And yes, that raises the important question what Putin is going to do when he has to acknowledge that defeat is inevitable. A dangerous moment.

Some commentators doubt the military necessity of sinking the Moskva, others point out that the flagship of the Black Sea fleet was its command centre and that without it a (successful) amphibious assault on Odessa is now very unlikely.

Also, the sinking of the ship and the loss of a large part of its crew was impossible to hide from the Russian public. Which IMO is a significant win in the information war. Note that the new recruits - canon fodder - for the renewed attack on Ukraine are purposely drawn from areas as far away from the European part of Russia as possible. For obvious reasons...

I'm not a military strategist, but it seems to me that if Ukraine wants to win in the south - the more damage to the Russian fleet, the better.

Also: I cannot think much of "Stop resisting, Ukraine, it only makes Putin very angry" as a strategy.

[Florestan]

Also: I cannot think much of "Stop resisting, Ukraine, it only makes Putin very angry" as a strategy.

Apparently there are people out there who think that the Ukrainian army should have surrendered in day one without firing a single shot, Zelensky and his government should have fled to Warsaw in day one and the Ukrainian people should have contented themselves with living under a Russian puppet regime or even acquiesced to being annexed by Russia altogether --- all in the name of peace.

[Karl Henning]

Apparently there are people out there who think that Ukraine should have surrendered in day one without firing a single shot, Zelensky and his government should have fled to Warsaw in day one and the Ukrainian people should have contented themselves with living under a Russian puppet regime or even acquiesced to being annexed by Russia altogether --- all in the name of peace.

I seem to recall that Neville Chamberlain felt similarly erewhile.