.
The Americans created the "Monroe Doctrine", basically the ambition to keep European powers out of messing in the Americas. They weren't able to enforce it until they were. It's a rare example of clear-cut grand strategy, and it kinda worked for a very long time.
Anyone who thinks clearly about the security of free Europe and uses the publicly available (and certainly not very far off) data understands that the Russians aren't able to challenge free Europe in war, certainly not after squandering the Soviet legacy equipment and millions of artillery shells and rockets. The only really troublesome conventional warfare threat to free Europe (understanding that the Fascist Americans are more likely adversaries than allies, but would certainly not engage in much continental land warfare in Europe) is a combination of Russia AND China.
A proper grand strategy for the security of free Europe in the Eastern direction thus has to deter China from coming to Europe with any substantial land forces.
It should be understood that we need to establish and maintain a taboo, similar to how the Monroe doctrine eventually started to keep Europeans from pursuing ambitions in the Americas: Any Chinese ground forces are taboo in Europe and its periphery. This is unlike the Russian thinking that as a great power, it can dictate to small powers around itself ('influence sphere'/Russki Mir): For one, it's defensive and second, it's not about infringing sovereignty. It would just lead to sanctions on China for entering the sphere with ground forces (beyond embassy guards and military attachés). European forces should reciprocate by staying the eff out of East and Southeast Asia with their own land forces, even in regard to temporary military exercises.
It's obvious to me that this needs to be extended to North Korea, which is under Chinese influence and has no business of having troops in Europe.
Obviously, this was not what European politicians heeded when North Korea sent its slave-soldiers to help Russia attack Ukraine.
It wasn't possible to further sanction North Korea and it wouldn't have been prudent to sanction China for this North Korean behaviour, but we could have set up a fund for Ukraine to buy Western weapons and fill it with one million Euros for every North Korean soldier that we believe entered Europe to assist Russia in its war of aggression.
Once again, I diagnose grand strategy incompetence and impotence among the leadership of the major European countries. Somehow it's the smaller countries such as Finland, Estonia and Czech Republic that have MUCH more competent political leadership. Germany didn't have a good chancellor in for four decades, for example.
related:
/2014/08/if-western-great-power-gaming-wasnt-so.html
S O
Economically, Russia is extremely weak. Why isn't it possible for Europe to buy them as a friendly buffer zone against China and resource extraction site? Do we have to defeat them first?
ReplyDeleteThe Russians in power are filthy rich and want to rebuild the empire for more power, not foreign subsidies.
DeleteAt some point, those filthy rich Russians rely on underpaid underlings to keep them in power. That's a vector to attack them, because those servants would like to have a better life.
DeleteThat hasbeen true for centuries, still only 3 successful revolutions.
DeleteLet's wait and see what happens when UKR is done crashing the fuel supply.
The question is how do we get the kind of politicians in to power who have actual strategic vision when many european (and especially most german) voters seem to specifically not want that? All we ever elect are these wet paper towels who care either only about the economy (if we're lucky) or else about stupid social ideologies.
ReplyDeleteThat is the inherent flaw of democracy.
DeleteThere is also, the issue of cyber soveirgnity.
The European informational flow is FULLY under American control, which in turn allows the Americans to manipulate the masses towards whatever direction suits it.
Until these issues are dealt with, no great figure will rise to any position of leadership in Europe.
The main problem with your musings about how Europe should conduct it's foreign policy is that they seem to be divorced from the reality of modern European politics.
ReplyDeleteYou need good leaders and organisations to implement such visions, there are currently none in Europe.
The focus should be on that issue and that issue alone.
It's a good idea that could go really far...but...A little late, the US controls right now so many levers of power in Europe, from big tech erasing all competition in many key aspects to governments addicts to NATO buying the F-35 as people paid Al Capone for protection. Maybe Trump is gonna really go too far and even the spineless politicians and eurocrats will really be cornered to do it... we can hope. At least vs. Putin it seems that the now 3 years euro coaltion is still on. No big (sorry Orban) be cracks, still.
ReplyDeleteUS control over Europe has reached a point of absurdity, Trump has been calling for the annexation of Greenland, wether he is serious about it or it's just a negotiation tactic is irrelevant, the fact that he is doing so without any meaningful response from European leaders only shows how utterly slavish European leaders have become.
DeleteEurope doesn't have to be that way and yet it is.
I think the better explanation is that they want to avoid unnecessary conflict and believe that the lying moron can be satisfied with fake concessions because he's a weak, ineffective idiot.
DeleteThis aversion to potential conflict with the US comes at the expensive of Europe's bargaining position and prestige.
DeleteIt should be noted that the US is heading towards an ecomonic crisis, such a crisis will take place irregardless of who is in power, this will mean that US will be increasingly desperate for resources and it will turn to Europe eventually, as the 3rd world does not have the capacity to keep propping up the dollar amidst absurd level of printing
As such Europe will have to assert itself at one point or the other, might as well start now, I am not saying that there should be a declaration of war against the US or any such insanity, just some sensible political measures to remind the Americans that Europe is off the menu.
China would bankrupt EU by sending a few millions))
ReplyDeleteFor starters, they cannot. They would have to mobilise and the societal problems at home (one child policy!) would be extreme.
DeleteMoreover, the money couldn't be spent that quickly. UKR would have won before the fund could spend 500B €, so spending trillions would not be possible.