I think Europe is strong looking forward. We are the ones are the weaker, a divided nation that has isolated itself from its allies. However, the most promising thing is that of the backlash to the same Trump administration policies. I feel an old spirit awakening in the core of the citizens
Thank you for your analysis and the coining of „dual-core Europe“ . What worries me us that the UK, due to the unfortunate Brexit, is no part if dual-core Europe. It leaves Britain vulnerable and Europe weaker. For both it is very important to cooperate very closely in military domain. Britain cannot rely on the US anymore either, the „special relationship“ is so „special“ today that one can hardly detect it in the dangerous days.
Honestly, I wonder if the dual core approach is actually also a design weakness?
Hypothesis: Orban and others Eastern European right wing leaders would be a lot less bullish against EU, if they would be risking loosing defense protection
With NATO as a separate defense guarantee, it weakens EU institutions reach and encourages weak individual countries to be a lot more difficult and challenging towards the central authorities
Timothy, I look forward to getting your book. I don't see a pre-order option for the U.S., but that's OK, and will get it when it comes out. May I send you a copy of my book 'A SONG FOR BOHEMIA'?
A thought-provoking response to the article, with good points (J Jan Willem von Waning).
But, I disagree:
- it would be good if ‘Europe’ would build a security and defence agreement with the Russian Federation. I think that this remains stuck on the ‘bucket list’ of good ideas however, neither side can afford to trust the other side for substantive reasons. I don’t believe that diverse European security agencies warn about Russian efforts without cause, and definitely not because they are following behind US agencies’ in tone and content, and Putin’s team have declared NATO as an enemy.
- my other major concern is based on my perception that we (‘Europe’) are part of a paradigm shift in which there are more uncertainties than answers. Although European agencies should remain alert to any Russian proposals which could work, our deteriorating relationship with the US is still fully live in areas of defence and security.
Think of it as a deteriorating marriage or partnership: ‘the writing is on the wall’ only works as a general guide, until the precise details of the breakup (marriage or partnership) are agreed and signed. Europe should not make its own case worse beforehand, even when its temper is sorely tested.
But let’s look at the reality: European militaries currently operate eight (!) different types of 155mm howitzers, all of which are completely incompatible with one another. Take our air forces—even countries flying the same F-16 platform cannot integrate their assets to form a cohesive, operational multinational unit. Furthermore, Europe lacks any meaningful fleet of aerial refueling tankers, which are an absolute prerequisite for any operation beyond a 500km radius.
Putin has called the implosion of the Soviet-Union one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century, and that every Russian who does not feel that way has no true Russian heart. But he has also added that any Russian who thinks the Soviet empire can be restored has no brains.
The main reason for Russian aggression against Ukraine and Georgia is NATO's expansion towards the borders of Russia.
At the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, pres. Bush Jr insisted that future NATO-membership should be offered to Ukraine and Georgia. This was against the views of i.a. France, Germany, the Netherlands, his own Secretary of State and many outside experts.
The then SG NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, years later publicly told that pres. Putin, also in Bucharest, had said to him that these expansions were "not going to be".
To De Hoop Scheffer's opinion NATO should not have crossed Putin's 'red line', and Russia's invasions in 2008 of Georgia and 2014 of the Crimean, were direct consequences of that fateful offer of future NATO membership.
As it was on US insistence that future NATO-memberships were offered to Ukraine and Georgia, it is shameful that the US under pres. Trump is backing away from direct military assistance to Ukraine.
As long as Putin is president of Russia, Ukraine will not become a NATO-member.
After the end of the Cold War, 'the West'/NATO should have built together with Russia on a common European security architecture. Hopefully it is not too late for that because presently Europe is heading towards horizontal and/or vertical escalations.
Russian propaganda BS. NATO has been expanding because no population in their right mind wants to be ruled over by Russia. Who wants the gulag if you speak out, the corruption of oligarchs, rigged elections, police brutality, constant state-sponsored propaganda lies and being ruled by a psychopath? [Come to think of it, that's a good description of the US right now.] This has been happening for decades. NATO is not expanding because it wants to threaten Russia but because those nations closest to it fear Russia.
I grew up in Germany (off and on as the child of a British Army officer) during the 60s/70s/80s. The Iron curtain fell in great part because it was policy to put powerful TV and radio transmitters right on the border. In those days any TV or radio could pick up the signals. People in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania etc. could all watch our TV programmes and adverts, listen to our music etc. and they realised we were so much better off than they were. They wanted to be a part of us, not the Soviet Union. They wanted what we had and when the Iron Curtain fell, they wanted the assurance of NATO and the EU to make sure they never fell under Russia's control again.
It was inevitable Ukraine and other states would want to join. It was Russia's invasion of Ukraine that caused Finland and Sweden to join. Saying NATO caused the war in Ukraine is not only blatantly wrong but also highly offensive. It's like a wife-beating husband telling his wife 'she made him do it'. Ugghhh.
So, we do what we do to please a dictator. Should we compile lists of things we should not do and submit them for approval to Moscow and Beijing? Why not? Appeasement was practised right up to the Munich conference in 1938. Chamberlain only realised what was in the offing when he got home and started waving his piece of paper which guaranteed “peace in our time”. Within 12 months we had doubled aircraft production, which saved us during the Battle of Britain. We are up against two men in their 70’s who cannot wait. We can wait because we have already had our empire and we’re only too pleased to see the back of it. We need to assist Ukraine in such ways as they force Putin to request a ceasefire. In the meantime we supply such assistance that our armed forces are ready themselves for similar encroachments, whether physical or cyber. By the time we had reduced Russia’s export of oil and gas to nearly zero, developed the equivalent of the American Patriot defence system and smashed every bridge in Moscow, Putin might be ready for a negotiated ceasefire with most of the captured territories disarmed and the Russian diaspora resettled in Russia. All of this just requires backbone, a metaphorical concept much lacking in Europe and America.
I think Europe is strong looking forward. We are the ones are the weaker, a divided nation that has isolated itself from its allies. However, the most promising thing is that of the backlash to the same Trump administration policies. I feel an old spirit awakening in the core of the citizens
e pluribus unum.
Thank you for your analysis and the coining of „dual-core Europe“ . What worries me us that the UK, due to the unfortunate Brexit, is no part if dual-core Europe. It leaves Britain vulnerable and Europe weaker. For both it is very important to cooperate very closely in military domain. Britain cannot rely on the US anymore either, the „special relationship“ is so „special“ today that one can hardly detect it in the dangerous days.
Ordered! I look forward to reading Europe in 7 1/2 Chapters!
Russophobia is a form of racism. I wish you healing!
Trump is the enemy of western civilization. Beyond that, as a Canadian-born Portuguese transatlantic European federalist, I agree with every word.
Honestly, I wonder if the dual core approach is actually also a design weakness?
Hypothesis: Orban and others Eastern European right wing leaders would be a lot less bullish against EU, if they would be risking loosing defense protection
With NATO as a separate defense guarantee, it weakens EU institutions reach and encourages weak individual countries to be a lot more difficult and challenging towards the central authorities
Timothy, I look forward to getting your book. I don't see a pre-order option for the U.S., but that's OK, and will get it when it comes out. May I send you a copy of my book 'A SONG FOR BOHEMIA'?
https://substack.com/@usibaris477395/note/c-100909508?r=17x3tm
A thought-provoking response to the article, with good points (J Jan Willem von Waning).
But, I disagree:
- it would be good if ‘Europe’ would build a security and defence agreement with the Russian Federation. I think that this remains stuck on the ‘bucket list’ of good ideas however, neither side can afford to trust the other side for substantive reasons. I don’t believe that diverse European security agencies warn about Russian efforts without cause, and definitely not because they are following behind US agencies’ in tone and content, and Putin’s team have declared NATO as an enemy.
- my other major concern is based on my perception that we (‘Europe’) are part of a paradigm shift in which there are more uncertainties than answers. Although European agencies should remain alert to any Russian proposals which could work, our deteriorating relationship with the US is still fully live in areas of defence and security.
Think of it as a deteriorating marriage or partnership: ‘the writing is on the wall’ only works as a general guide, until the precise details of the breakup (marriage or partnership) are agreed and signed. Europe should not make its own case worse beforehand, even when its temper is sorely tested.
Regards,
Anthony
European common defense, sure.
European common defense, sure.
But let’s look at the reality: European militaries currently operate eight (!) different types of 155mm howitzers, all of which are completely incompatible with one another. Take our air forces—even countries flying the same F-16 platform cannot integrate their assets to form a cohesive, operational multinational unit. Furthermore, Europe lacks any meaningful fleet of aerial refueling tankers, which are an absolute prerequisite for any operation beyond a 500km radius.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
WHY WOULD RUSSIA ATTACK NATO COUNTRIES?
Putin has called the implosion of the Soviet-Union one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century, and that every Russian who does not feel that way has no true Russian heart. But he has also added that any Russian who thinks the Soviet empire can be restored has no brains.
The main reason for Russian aggression against Ukraine and Georgia is NATO's expansion towards the borders of Russia.
At the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, pres. Bush Jr insisted that future NATO-membership should be offered to Ukraine and Georgia. This was against the views of i.a. France, Germany, the Netherlands, his own Secretary of State and many outside experts.
The then SG NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, years later publicly told that pres. Putin, also in Bucharest, had said to him that these expansions were "not going to be".
To De Hoop Scheffer's opinion NATO should not have crossed Putin's 'red line', and Russia's invasions in 2008 of Georgia and 2014 of the Crimean, were direct consequences of that fateful offer of future NATO membership.
As it was on US insistence that future NATO-memberships were offered to Ukraine and Georgia, it is shameful that the US under pres. Trump is backing away from direct military assistance to Ukraine.
As long as Putin is president of Russia, Ukraine will not become a NATO-member.
After the end of the Cold War, 'the West'/NATO should have built together with Russia on a common European security architecture. Hopefully it is not too late for that because presently Europe is heading towards horizontal and/or vertical escalations.
@POTUS
@SecState
@SecDef
@USCongress
@NATO
@EUCouncil
@CommissionEU
@MinPres
@MinBZ
@Defensie
@TweedeKamerTwit
@EersteKamer
@nrc
@VoIkskrant
@trouw
@PubliekeOmroep
@NOS
@platformraam
@veldheren
@ajboekestijn
@robdewijk
@hugoreitsma
@Osinga10
@han_bouwmeester
Russian propaganda BS. NATO has been expanding because no population in their right mind wants to be ruled over by Russia. Who wants the gulag if you speak out, the corruption of oligarchs, rigged elections, police brutality, constant state-sponsored propaganda lies and being ruled by a psychopath? [Come to think of it, that's a good description of the US right now.] This has been happening for decades. NATO is not expanding because it wants to threaten Russia but because those nations closest to it fear Russia.
I grew up in Germany (off and on as the child of a British Army officer) during the 60s/70s/80s. The Iron curtain fell in great part because it was policy to put powerful TV and radio transmitters right on the border. In those days any TV or radio could pick up the signals. People in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania etc. could all watch our TV programmes and adverts, listen to our music etc. and they realised we were so much better off than they were. They wanted to be a part of us, not the Soviet Union. They wanted what we had and when the Iron Curtain fell, they wanted the assurance of NATO and the EU to make sure they never fell under Russia's control again.
It was inevitable Ukraine and other states would want to join. It was Russia's invasion of Ukraine that caused Finland and Sweden to join. Saying NATO caused the war in Ukraine is not only blatantly wrong but also highly offensive. It's like a wife-beating husband telling his wife 'she made him do it'. Ugghhh.
So, we do what we do to please a dictator. Should we compile lists of things we should not do and submit them for approval to Moscow and Beijing? Why not? Appeasement was practised right up to the Munich conference in 1938. Chamberlain only realised what was in the offing when he got home and started waving his piece of paper which guaranteed “peace in our time”. Within 12 months we had doubled aircraft production, which saved us during the Battle of Britain. We are up against two men in their 70’s who cannot wait. We can wait because we have already had our empire and we’re only too pleased to see the back of it. We need to assist Ukraine in such ways as they force Putin to request a ceasefire. In the meantime we supply such assistance that our armed forces are ready themselves for similar encroachments, whether physical or cyber. By the time we had reduced Russia’s export of oil and gas to nearly zero, developed the equivalent of the American Patriot defence system and smashed every bridge in Moscow, Putin might be ready for a negotiated ceasefire with most of the captured territories disarmed and the Russian diaspora resettled in Russia. All of this just requires backbone, a metaphorical concept much lacking in Europe and America.