Europe for Europeans

Two hundred years years ago, President Monroe asked the European powers of the time to stop interfering in the affairs of their former colonies, in the Americas. It is now time Europeans ask the US to reciprocate, in order for the EU to be able to build its own security architecture on the continent.

*

In his speech before the US Congress on the 2nd of December 1823, US President Monroe outlined what has since become known the "America for Americans" doctrine:

"It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course..."

By and large, European powers heeded Monroe's call. Now it is  European leaders who need to call on the Americans to reciprocate and to dissolve the NATO alliance,  thus enabling European countries to make their own security arrangements.

At the end of the Cold War, German Foreign Minister Genscher, French President Mitterrand and Soviet leader Gorbachev fully expected NATO to be dismantled, as the Warsaw Pact was. They intended to create a new European security architecture, which would have included Russia, but excluded NATO and the United States. The project was rejected out of hand by American leaders, who decided to not only keep NATO going, but opted for its eastward expansion after the implosion of the USSR.

Since 1999, NATO ceased to be a guarantor of peace on the European continent. It started a series of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now, by proxy, in Ukraine.

As of two years ago, NATO even intends to drag European nations into military confrontations in the Indo-Pacific with China, a drive which leading European nations oppose. 

Although most leading IR specialists believe that the current war in Ukraine is a result of NATO's expansion, the fact remains that this is but a consequence of not dismantling NATO in 1991.

Accordingly, today's European leaders should collectively push for the dissolution of the Alliance and for its replacement by a collective security arrangement, not only autonomous but independent of the United States.

In truth, stopping NATO's expansion and the neutrality of Ukraine will not address the root cause of Europe's security woes and will not guarantee that Europe can become again a peaceful continent.

As matters now stand, European nations are captive to a military alliance  emulating  Athens' ancient Delian League, which has become toxic to most of its members. It is therefore not in the interest of Europeans to continue to be part of an alliance that has been redefined after 2000 as an instrument of American global hegemonism.

IS PENTAGON'S PRESENCE GOOD FOR AFRICA ?

 " We entered the region in force. We were looking, in particular, at how the U.S. strategy toward the Sahel is working. That's a strategy that we put in place about a year ago to try to bring more coherence to our efforts to support increased security," ( Victoria Nuland, 2022 )

After the start of the "war against terrorism", the Pentagon also appeared in Africa, managed until then by Europeans. The "results" were not long in coming: in the last 15 years, there have been 7 coups, led by local officers trained in the United States by the Pentagon (in Mali, Mauritania and Burkina Faso),eight if we include the recent military coup from Niger.

" Technically, the United States is not at war in Africa. But the practice and terminology of the US-led War on Terror has changed, making the US military’s involvement more difficult to trace. In the past 15 years, the US government has quietly expanded its military footprint across the African continent, engaging in “special operations” with African troops in the name of security. Since the 2007 establishment of the Africa Command (AFRICOM), the defense department’s regional combatant command for Africa, the US has adopted a military-first approach to securing its interests on the continent. This has had disastrous effects. Whether it’s the seemingly endless (undeclared) war against the militant group Al-Shabaab in Somalia or the wave of coups (in many cases led by US-trained officers), AFRICOM has contributed to the very instability it claims to address." ( Samar al-Bulushi)

In other words,  according to Nuland, all the coups mentioned above - directed against democratically elected governments - have had the objective of "bringing more coherence" in supporting "security efforts" in the Sahel region. In reality, the US military presence by proxy in Africa was the root cause for the spread of military anarchy in  Sahel.

An Agenda for NATO's 2024 Washington Summit

"The most serious danger to the security of the world right now ? The United States itself. The United States has become the most profound source of instability and an uncertain exemplar of democracy." (Richard Haass, former President, Council on Foreign Relations, July 2023)

*

It is not by accident that I decided to write this post on the national day of France. 

Since NATO's foundation, the French have always been ill-at-ease with the US' leadership style of the alliance. In 1949, 13 American senators were also opposed to its foundation. Senator Robert A Taft, the son of the 27th American president, William Taft, refused to vote in favour because 

: “If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia from Norway on the north to Turkey on the south, and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and … Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable…. How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?”

To be sure, NATO's recent enlargement around the Baltic Sea cannot obscure the fact that this alliance has outlived its usefulness by some two decades and that it has, unfortunately, become the main war provocateur and a menace to global peace. 

No European expert or politician of note really believes that EU nations are under threat of invasion from Russia. By contrast, Russia has rightfully complained for years about NATO's expansion from Central Europe eastwards, to no avail. Its misgivings were proven prescient, as NATO has expanded right up to Russia's borders.

Since 1999, NATO has become an offensive alliance, as the wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the bombing campaigns in Syria and Libya have demonstrated. Gone are the days when NATO tasked itself with preserving peace in Europe. Nowadays there is even talk of dragging European NATO allies into the Indo-Pacific, presumably to deter China from invading Taiwan. American policymakers cannot truly hope to enlist NATO's European allies to participate in a conflict with China: in 2003 the US was unable to convince them to take part in the invasion of Iraq - a much less dangerous adversary.

These are only a few reasons why the upcoming NATO 2024 summit in Washington should have only one item on its agenda: the peaceful dissolution of this alliance. It can no longer justify its existence in geostrategic terms, and it has become toxic to its European allies. NATO officials should forget about building expensive new headquarters in Europe, opening liaison offices in Japan or pressing its members to increase their military spending. The US is no longer in a position to be the global hegemon, since it now lacks a strong industrial base and its budget deficits have become unbearable for the average American taxpayers. Putting its fiscal house in order should be the main priority for the US. Nowadays it can ill-afford to maintain its 750 military bases worldwide and to simultaneously finance NATO's European allies' defence, as well as Ukraine.

As in our nuclear age the dismantling of NATO is the only rational choice, the entire US political class should give their full support to the executive branch and back a decision to curtail the agony of an alliance which lacks a solid geostrategic justification for its existence. In other words, NATO's main preoccupation in 2024 should not be Ukraine or Russia, but how to fold its war tents from Europe as peacefully as the Soviets did in 1991.

A Eulogy for the White World

 The sheer stupidity of NATO leaders gathered in Vilnius is such that they do not realise they are hastening the final demise of their world. 

*

Do you know any more stupid race than the white one ? If so, please point it out to me, because I, as a historian, do not know of any other ! 

The story of the white world's impending demise from preeminence (think here Russia, Europe and North America) began 2500 years ago in Ancient Greece. 

In order to be able to vanquish the invading Persians, Athens focused all its diplomatic skill to build the impressive Delian League, which included most Greek city-states. Unfortunately, after their alliance's victory against the Persians, Athenians rather unwisely transformed the League into an alliance dedicated to perpetuating their hegemony over the entire Greek world. This was anathema to Sparta, which fought Athens during the fratricide Peloponnesian war and, in the process, provoked the total destruction of the Greek civilisation, the most advanced in the world at the time.

Athens' brilliant achievements during Pericles's era in the 5th century B.C. were mirrored by Europe in the 19th century. As a result of the industrial revolution and colonial expansionism, the continent - home to the bulk of the white race - reached its zenith.

To the bitter disappointment of the intellectuals of the time, the 20th century proved to be an unmitigated disaster for the white world. The drive to achieve hegemony over it, pitching Germans against an alliance between Great Britain, France and Russia, provoked tens of millions of victims on the continent. This "war to end all wars" was in fact the greatly magnified version of the Peloponnesian war that destroyed Greece during Antiquity. 

The second world war followed within a generation, proving to be at least as destructive as the first. It mortally wounded a white world that completely lost its solidarity, which had hitherto generally been the norm for hundreds of years.

Built on the ruins of WWII, the NATO military and political alliance was formed by the United States, which succeeded in keeping the peace on the European continent for almost 60 years. After the implosion of the USSR, the US unwisely decided - like Athens did - to repurpose NATO as an instrument of hegemonic domination over the entire European continent, Russia excluded. This new Nato has as a result become an offensive alliance which, sadly, needed a new enemy. It therefore designated the Russian Federation, as the successor to its old Soviet foe of the Cold War years.

Back at the height of its economic and military power, as the 19th century drew to a close, the white world decided it was strong enough to conquer and partition China. In the 21st century, the objectives of the Nato alliance are currently more modest. It is now aiming at destroying and partitioning Russia only. Thus the type of conflict engineered by the US in Ukraine can be characterised as a kind of civil war, pitching the white nations of Europe - using Ukrainians as their proxy - against Russia.

This ill-inspired drive against a kin country like Russia, however, could only end up in a total disaster for the whole of the white world. The war now being stoked in Ukraine could be the catalyst to "the End of History" Fukuyama peddled during the '90's. Sadly, however, the history of the white world will not end with the universal triumph of liberal democracy, but in a nuclear holocaust instead. 

If this is not the ultimate expression of stupidity, what is ?

Ditching the West to Join The Rest

By joining the Eurasian Economic Union, Ankara can greatly benefit as a result.

*

Nine years ago I wrote a post in which I alluded to the possibility of Turkiye joining the Eurasian Economic Union: 

"As was the case between France and Germany, Turkey had been Russia's number one enemy for centuries, the two countries had fought a long series of wars with each other. Both empires - the Russian and the Turkish - disappeared, however the states that emerged from their ruins enjoy excellent economic and diplomatic relations today.

Pushing the analogy with the EU further, we find that the new Eurasian Economic union needs a nucleus formed by two strong states around which new members from Eurasia can be attracted in the future.

Thus, according to a statistic published by Geo magazine (French edition) in December 2011, between 2002 and 2011 Turkey attracted a number of 27,000 foreign companies, of which 15,000 came from Russia. This being the situation, we can consider that the integration of the two economies - Russian and Turkish - has already reached an advanced stage."

As most of us know, the Eurasian Economic Community (EEC) appeared after the dissolution of the USSR and - in a way - because of it. Although headquartered in Moscow, the union was actually the brainchild of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the former president of Kazakhstan. 

After 2000, Russia wished to use the EEC as the nucleus of a larger common market, hoping to enlist Ukraine as a member. That prospect greatly upset the American Secretary of State at the time Hilary Clinton, who by 2011 campaigned internationally against it. The matter was put to rest by the Maidan coup d'etat, after which Ukraine decided to join the European Union instead.

Since then, the membership of the EEC has only included states like Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia.

During the same period, Turkiye all but gave up on its bid to join the EU after more than 50 years of waiting for a decision from Brussels. Geographically considering the matter, Turkyie is an Eurasian country with a different religion and culture from the rest of the EU members.

Taking the analogy between France and Germany after World War II and present-day Turkiye/Russia further, it is obvious to me that both the Russians and the Turks would greatly benefit economically from joining forces within the EEC.

Furthermore, the EEC includes republics from Central Asia whose populations are of Turkic descent. Finally, both Russia and Turkyie are governed by populist authoritarian leaders who strongly support traditional family values and reject Western-style liberalism with its current corollary, the LGBTQ agenda.

But there is more. 

For such a momentous transition for Turkiye to be complete, the Erdogan government should seriously consider joining the Cooperative Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Over the past few years there have been quite a few calls within American policymaking circles, including The Atlantic Council, for Turkiye to be evicted from NATO.

Again, given the fact that the CSTO includes among its members some of the Turkic republics from Central Asia such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Turkiye could play a vital role in helping stabilise those republics which periodically experience political turmoil. Thus, the 5th of January 2022 Russian intervention in Kazakhstan could very well have been undertaken by a Turkish contingent instead.

Another area where Turkiye would have made an essential contribution is that of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia has obvious leverage in Yerevan, but very little influence in Baku where Turkiye has a big say. Clearly, with both Russia and Turkiye being part of the same security organisation, Central Asia and the rest of Eurasia could only stand to benefit as a result.

The Avoidable War

It's not that the US lacks competent experts. It's the fact that nobody in Washington heeds their advice.

*

The war in Ukraine is still raging 16 months after its start. Sadly, a totally neglected aspect of the conflict is being deliberately brushed aside by mainstream American politicians and military brass alike.

I am referring to the fact that for the United States this was very clearly an avoidable war. It took Russia 8 years and two abortive Minsk agreements to decide to put a military stop to NATO's designs in Ukraine, which were perceived by Moscow as an imminent threat to its security. During all this time no major American diplomatic initiative took place to lessen the tensions in the region and to avoid the outbreak of a war. This, to be sure, is a first in the diplomatic relations between the US and Russia.

Connected to all this is the fact that for almost a decade the bureaucrats in charge of framing American foreign policy have ignored their own experts' warnings about the high probability of an outbreak of hostilities with Moscow. 

Thus, James W Carden, former adviser to the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the State Department during the Obama administration, explains in a recent article how the current impasse was reached:

 "For years, the U.S. national security establishment was warned by voices from the right, left, and center that America needed to change its policy toward Russia. It was warned that Russia could not be defeated in their near abroad. It was warned that Kiev—by launching an “anti-terrorist” campaign against its Russian speaking citizens—was recklessly antagonizing Russia. It was warned that making a semi-deity out of a corrupt tool of Ukrainian oligarchs was an obvious mistake. It was warned against conflating the interests of ethno-nationalist far-right factions in Kiev and Lviv (and their allies in Warsaw, Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius) with U.S. national interests. It was warned to take President Putin’s numerous protestations against NATO expansion seriously. Yet America’s bipartisan ruling elite decided to ignore these warnings, and the results speak for themselves."

This geopolitical entanglement in Europe is not only unnecessary for the US, but it has the potential, if unchecked in a timely fashion, to lead to an all-out nuclear war between America and Russia. 

The wisdom of reversing course in Ukraine and starting peace negotiations with Russia is clear for all to see. Alas, to date no one can claim that the current US administration has the required statecraft skills and political wisdom to come up with a negotiated solution.

How and Why the Democrats Botched the "Reset" with Russia

 Every American administration since Ronald Reagan has attempted to get on the Russians' good side and normalise diplomatic relations with Moscow. 

Some presidents, most notably Bill Clinton but also Donald Trump, have been more successful than others in this endeavour. The worst performer in this area -until now- has been president Obama with his ill-inspired choice of advisers and Russia policies.

The key actor responsible for Obama's failure was Stanford professor Michael McFaul, a mediocre Russia expert. In 2007 he was approached by then-senator Obama and was subsequently put in charge of the Russian Department in the National Security Council after 2008. In this capacity he initiated the ill-fated policy of the "reset" of relations between the two countries. 

McFaul's main helper was Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State at the time. Together with the neocons still lurking within the State Department's structures after the Iraq debacle, McFaul and Hillary Clinton tried to torpedo Vladimir Putin's 2012 presidential campaign through a plethora of American-backed NGOs. 

Such gross interference in Russia's internal affairs was quite unprecedented, save for the brief Yeltsin interlude during the 1990s. 

For all McFaul's multiple academic credentials, he failed to grasp a basic fact, namely that liberal democracy is totally ill-suited for a country like Russia.

All Obama's intended "reset" policy achieved in practical terms, therefore, was a near-total breakdown of relations between Washington and Moscow.

Obama's vice-president at the time, Joe Biden, took over from McFaul and since 2014 until today he oversaw the Maidan Square coup d'etat and the gradual but relentless escalation of US and Nato conflict with Russia.

As much as his political enemies would like to assign all the blame on Joe Biden's administration for the disastrous state of America's relationship with Russia, the truth is that the seeds of the discord were planted more than a decade ago by Obama's decision to appoint McFaul as his top Russia affairs adviser.