Free Europe's security challenge if America turns full fascist (Part I)


The risk of the United States of America turning full Fascist has entered more mainstream media. I wrote about it years ago, but there's no reward for being early.

What would it mean threat-wise to Europe?

The threat ranking would change, and not just because of Americans: The Russians turn into Italians with nukes. They consume their Soviet arms arsenal inheritance in Ukraine. The addition of the Finnish army to NATO and the ruin of the VDV render Russia impotent versus free Europe, even if Turks and Hungarians would side with Russia.

So the threat ranking would change from 

  1. Russian Federation
  2. United States of America
  3. People's Republic of China
  4. India
  5. Israel 


  1. United States of America
  2. People's Republic of China
  3. Russian Federation
  4. India
  5. Israel 

The PRC being mostly of concern regarding a possible reinforcement of Russia if we (Europeans) are stupid enough to get involved too much in the Far East. (I believe that embargo & arms sales are the way to go in case of a Chinese assault on Taiwan main island, Philippines, ROK or Vietnam.)

So, what could the United States of America do to free Europe?

For starters, they could switch off our economy because our governments are stupid.

It could also subject free Europe to air attacks. This would mostly be cruise missile attacks (that damage would be repairable, though key repair industries require protection or redundancy). "Stealth" bombers could be a problem because we didn't face them so far and haven't built up the necessary long wavelength search radar network to detect them at useful distances. Those "stealth" bombers would mostly drop just some more cruise missiles, though.

Then there's the threat of naval aviation and worst of all, the USAF could set up bases in striking range, and striking range is thousands of km to them.

So let's look at the map:

Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Ireland, UK, Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands, Morocco and Israel are plausible bases for air attack. I omitted Egypt because that seems too much trouble for Americans and too much at risk nuclear-wise. Only UK and Israel might be voluntary bases, the rest would be invaded.

The parallels between U.S. vs. free Europe and U.S. vs. PRC are evident now. The U.S. needs in both cases

  • not really fear attacks on its own territory
  • attack primarily by air power
  • especially by cruise missiles
  • use nearby bases that need no great land force for their defence
  • the ability to take said bases by amphibious/triphibious invasion
  • cut off oceanic trade
  • produce (ten) thousands of guided missiles during wartime

This means it's near-impossible to enhance European security vs. Americans by pushing for arms limitations on the American side. They wouldn't agree to those because they need those arms for the conflict with China that's on their minds.

A Fascist America in conflict with free Europe could actually lead to a Sino-European alliance instead of a Sino-Russian alliance. The Americans may have what it takes to defeat the Chinese, but they cannot afford what it takes to defeat both China and free Europe at the same time - not even if Taiwan, South Korea, Japan & Philippines aid them out of self-preservation motives.

On the other hand, a quasi (Hindu-)Fascist India could ally with the U.S. due to its issues with Pakistan and China and then we've got about the same mess as if China allies with Russia, for India will become a huge industrial powerhouse especially so with the war economy-relevant 'old' industries soon.

Part II will cover what European defence policy (basically, force design) needs to include to tackle the 'hostile Fascist America' contingency.





  1. Do you mean "Fascist" as the State, Corporations, and Unions allying together (which in American political terms is called "Progressivism") or just Fascist = Trump = Bad?

    The only trend in American Foreign Policy (and this is bipartisan) is Europe becoming less and less relevant in Global power politics. I hardly think anyone is seeing Europeans as "enemies", but just becoming weaker and overrun with immigrants.

    From recent election results in the UK & France, I see this problem only accelerating.

  2. In the left right divide of the West, the USA seems to fall on the right side and much of Europe on the left side. Yes, that could result in a conflict, but I'm no longer sure which side is fascist, because both sides have their totalitarians.
    If Europe falls on the left side, Israel is only a threat, because we threaten to persecute and kill Jews again. Germany made huge purchases of air defense equipment from Israel. I doubt that'll work in such a situation.

    I'm neither left nor right, but center, and I don't want my country ravaged by war. I think you overestimate our strength and I think you underestimate the dangers by the left.

    1. Who is "we"? Europeans are not threatening to persecute and kill Jews. It's the other way around considering the Samson Option, where they have stated multiple times that they would nuke Europe if they fall. It's most likely a bluff anyways, they probaly don't have nukes.

      Their current predicament is 100% their own fault, going back to the 90s. When Rabin was assassinated, when they failed to work with the secular PLO, and when they imported millions of Refuseniks with questionable loyalty and culture.

  3. You think too much in terms of ideology instead of in terms of "Realpolitik".
    A more accurate title would be "Europes security challenge in case of a US-Euro geopolitical split".
    The US will be hostile to a Europe/European country that isn't submissive towards it anymore (like is the case so far).
    Wether it is ruled by the democrats or by the KKK is completely irrelevant.

    1. I agree and I fear that split, because our side might mistake righteousness for power. China dooms, whoever trusts them as an ally in such a conflict. I also don't believe that the European countries won't backstab each other to be in the Americans' good grace.

    2. see https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/05/utility-of-nato.html

    3. Actually, I agree. As an American, the true distinction in the world model of the United States power structure is between "our group" and "everyone else". Ideology, ideas, organizing principles - these are in fact meaningless. Japan, staunch American ally, was suppressed via the Plaza Accord in the 1980s; nothing to do with organizing principle, still much less as some non-existent "threat", but simply because they were doing better than the U.S. They could say "No" to American diktat, and that was unacceptable.
      In essence, cutting the bullshit, it does not matter who you are or how your society works. You can be peaceful, with a low % percentage of your GDP spent on the military. That is not what matters to the U.S. elite. What matters is they must be able to make you bow, submit and obey; and if you're becoming strong enough to be independent, they will "attack". At first, it will be economic. If that fails, we'll go Tonya Harding on you ( Nordstream ) If that still fails, then we (not we the people, but the ones in control of the country) will escalate all the way to war and even I daresay to nukes. Not joking, there are American idiots out there who think nuclear wars are no biggie.

      Why has our country become this? That's a multi-volume thesis in itself. My point to Mr S.O. is he should in fact be focusing on "Realpolitik". The United States is dangerous REGARDLESS of the internal culture of our country. Prepare accordingly.

    4. I've been writing about the habitual and casual aggressiveness since 2008.

      To have a total moron who doesn't care about reality/truth in the white house with checks&balances dismantled would greatly increase the risk of overt aggression, though.

      He's openly hostile to free Europe unlike Neocons, and unlike them he's got a cult followership that follows him regardless fo what he does.

  4. The subservience has limits due to GDP growth, PPP, population growth and an unwillingness to have everybody join the power structure. China cooked the books and is far from as formidable as it claims to be, but South and Southeast Asia are going to pose the real challenge. Europe and Russia are declining in importance on the sidelines and I hope it stays quiet. The problem arises when Russia gets defeated, because then German industry has unhindered access to Russian resources and could say no.