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


The political consequences.

I wrote in 2016 that one shouldn't quit NATO ASAP when America turns fascist, despite the summer of 1914 experience with Austria-Hungary

We should quit eventually (there's a 12 month period between quitting and actually leaving the treaty, see article 13), though. The time should be used to build up deterrence & defence against the United States of America (that would be part III of the series).


The lessons learned about Putin's fifth columns in Hungary, Slovakia and kind of (more complicated) Poland point strongly at the EU not being fit for acting as a multinational defence organisation for Europe.

The European unification fanatics, EU politicians and EU bureaucrats would oppose it, but we would have to create a separate and functional European Defence initiative. It doesn't need to be a real alliance; the Lisbon Treaty can serve that purpose. We'd need a coordinating and meetings agency because we'd need to keep Americans, Canadians, Russia's 5th column, America's 5th column and unstable partners who might fall into such a category out of the core consultations and core preparations.

I mentioned the Lisbon Treaty. We really should raise awareness about it now that the "neutral" Swedes have shed their neutrality. Disregard Austrian sensitivities about them wanting to pretend to remain neutral! They signed the Lisbon Treaty as well. The public needs to understand that the Lisbon Treaty is at least as much an alliance as is the North Atlantic Treaty. Perception makes treaties powerful. Just look at Article I of the North Atlantic Treaty, which hardly anyone knows and thus almost nobody complaints about its violations. How many comments in newspapers or on television would point out our EU collective defence obligation if Vienna was hit by a Russian missile? They would probably manage to notice -with Wikipedia's help- that Austria is not NATO member, that's all.

We need to change that! A Turkish attack on a Greek island means the EU members go to war with Turkey. A Russian missile on Vienna means the EU members go to war with Russia. An American missile on Paris means the EU members go to war with America. This should be self-evident to the majority of adults in all middle-sized and large EU countries.

Finally, we need to stockpile strategic raw materials more and develop alternative routes of transportation with enough capacity for very high value but small volume and mass exports and imports. We could not make do with only services & air freight as objects of trade beyond Europe and its periphery. The stockpiling in particular would be difficult (and capital-intensive), but also useful in case of a Pacific War.

The problem with all this is that the current generation of politicians in the larger European countries is utterly worthless. They would rather misgovern so badly that their own country falls to extremists than to get their act together for European security in less than a generation.

Part III will be more about development, procurement and force design.





  1. The EU is predictably going to be a backstabbing snake pit whenever we face the US as hostiles.
    We can prepare to be of indispensable utility to whatever US government and build up our position during the expected major conflict including Russia and China, which is about to emerge. The US is badly prepared in many ways. It will have to rely on other countries to maintain its global dominance.

    Why do you put so much faith in EU institutions and treaties?
    And why do you rank Israel as a greater threat than Turkey?

    1. Turkey has no nukes and its economy is unsustainable.
      Its air force is 3rd rate, its navy is 3rd rate and its army is big but 3rd rate and would not matter much on the continent.

    2. They could take US nukes in Incirlik AB by force? Hopefully they have been removed after being in close proximity to ISIS for a decade.
      Turkey's inflation is off the charts, but if it turns out that Israel's nukes have been a bluff all along, they are more capable of waging conventional war due to huge MIC.

  2. Hello, long time reader but not commenter here. Regarding 2 points:

    The European unification fanatics, [...] would oppose it, but we would have to create a separate and functional European Defence initiative.

    Being one of those european unification fanatics (and Austrian by the way), i have to disagree with you slightly. I don't oppose this, I actually think that's frigging GREAT idea!


    Disregard Austrian sensitivities about them wanting to pretend to remain neutral!

    That might actually be the easiest way to get Austria into this. Not the best way mind you, because public debate and discussion about this topic is desperatly needed.

    But in reality, as long as the treaty does not include the permanent basing of non-austrian troops in Austria, and as long as this happens discretly, there will probably be zero actual fuss raised about it by the public.

  3. When you see the F-35 as the de facto new euro figther, many countries relying on US made military hardware (with the second thought of also buying US goodwill) and all the US influence, via NATO (or in many case even more other institutions) in European militaries... in the direct conflict scenario it will be very short for Europe, even in the case on a very agressive US that makes the ''5th column'' not in the double digits in number of countries... The US just have to cut any class of small parts, sofware etc... and wait. And they can use Turkey, and other countries near Europe indeed... the whole pan-european defense thing, even with a strong political will, will take a lot of years and money. I hope that the conflict will be in politics and diplomay even if it gets way worse that the first Orange Man presidency... yet on the long run it will good for Europe to go her own way, if we survive it...

    1. The F35 needs a new US supplied code everytime it is started, so it's impossible to use those against the US.
      European has neither the disposable income nor the organizational efficiency to match the US.

    2. As of right this instant, Europe is overmatched by the United States. NOT through lack of capacity, but because you lack unity, and the structural efficiencies. In REAL (no BS) economic terms, meaning Purchasing Power Parity, Europe is almost the same as the U.S. So the know how, skill and wealth is there.
      But it is all squandered and subverted by petty bickering, old animosities, and the general internal division of Europeans. And of course, the United States does and will do everything in its power to sow discord - pro U.S. politicians (this is the biggest one), pro U.S. media (another factor), propaganda, appeal to "Western values" (which of course, the U.S. has half abandoned, and the other half is in the process of being trashed as well). Don't get me started.
      At this point, all Europe is, is just the rich part of the American Empire. But not rich enough - oh no, if we (Americans) want something, we'll take it.
      The actions surrounding Toshiba, Alstom, Nordstream speak for themselves. We tried again with Huawei, but failed. We are still trying with TSMC and ASML - failing, but getting angrier as a result. Huawei technology a threat to Europe? Let's ask Angela Merkel about her take on Echelon and her private phone.
      I would not put it past my country to actually conduct selective assassinations of independent-minded, patriotic European leaders. In fact, we've probably done this a lot over the decades.
      As John Mearsheimer put it when he threatened Australians in their own country: "You do NOT want to find out how nasty and truly vicious Americans can become". (I am paraphrasing)
      I'll leave you with a quote from Kissinger: "To be America's enemy is dangerous; to be America's "friend" is fatal." Look up the context of that quote (from the Vietnam era). That context applies to Europe now.

    3. @KRT That's an implausible and unsubstantiated assertion.

    4. @SO, I see, might have been a rumour.

  4. Somebody please explain to me why people in Asia (of all places) are displaying more independent geopolitical thought and action, than people in Europe.

    SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) collapsed and died in the early 1970s. Nobody has been interested in it ever since. ASEAN, a bunch of developing South East Asian countries, is not interested in falling into either the American or Chinese camp. They are 10 countries, but only the Philippines is for the U.S. The others have decided to nail their asses to the fences - and there's nothing the U.S. can do about it.

    The "Quad" is not working, because both India and Japan are not keen to suffer for American hegemony. So we now have AUKUS - Australia, UK and US. Uh huh, YES! English-speaking peoples unite! Preserve our primacy!
    Of course, the Asians see right through this, and are not playing ball.

    But in Europe, you have no independent foreign policy. Pretty soon, Europeans will have no independent DOMESTIC policy, and you will be well and truly fu_*ed.

    Do not conflate the United States with the American people. They are not the same! The structure, the state, the formal country, no longer serves anybody but itself.

    Europeans, put those drugs down, wake up.

  5. Japan is still quite keen, and in a not so much lesser way, South Korea are like Europe for similar reasons: WW2 (or the Korean War in the case of SK) and the local US bases. And Australia is cleary going again that path.
    This is an tremendous amount of soft and hard power for the US and more important the US elites had decades to put in place organizations and people that are totally devoted to the US domination. All was reorganized so they have the real power in the western world. A part from that many in the EU don't want at all to be independent, they feel better under the US umbrella, see the NATO expansion since the 90s, no European defense pact could have achieved that. I don't even think that a self suficient EU is a scenario that is even taken in some consideration in Brussels and the major capital cities. And in case of major conflict in Asia many of those countries will be suck in to the US leadership. It's very difficult to become undependent when all your mindset is against that.

  6. The clash of contrasts made by comparing hypothetical fascist Americans with the reality of German political police storming Jurgen Elsasser's home for crimethink and censoring the press is delicious.

    I'd worry about the nation of Naziism first.

    1. It's illegal everywhere to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

      Compact and its chief editor openly agitated to assault the liberal democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany. There's no reason why it shouldn't fight back.

      They attacked the constitutional articles 1, 3, 4 & 16a and learned that articles 5, 9, 13 & 18 mention limits.

      Meanwhile, the lying moron is still a wannabe Mussolini. Too dumb & lazy to overthrow the republic on first opportunity, but there's a 50/50 chance that gets a 2nd chance, and then free Europe would face a full fascist USA.

      Europeans might find themselves fighting off Americans, Russians & Indians hand in hand with the Chinese in the 2030's.