‘In security terms, Britain is almost uniquely over-exposed, having long settled on a posture of America’s yappiest and least threatening lapdog.’ Photo: Carl Court/Getty.
In Oracles, Magic and Witchcraft Among the Azande, one of the seminal texts of British social anthropology, E.E. Evans-Pritchard used the example of a granary which suddenly collapses, killing an unfortunate Zande tribesman, to elucidate the difference between magical and scientific thinking. According to the scientific worldview, the granary’s collapse is attributable to the action of termites, gnawing away at its wooden pillars, and the consequent death is merely meaningless misfortune. Not so, for adherents to the Azande tradition: while the gnawing of termites is the proximate cause of the disaster, why should the granary collapse at this specific moment, to kill this specific person? Rationally, Evans-Pritchard shows, the answer the Azande settle on is the intervention of some malicious wizard.
A similar conflict between rival ways of interpreting the world around us can be seen in the dispute between Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory of History, in which the willed actions of specific individuals shape world events, and the social-scientific emphasis on grand and impersonal economic and social forces as the prime engine of history. Yet like the Azande answer, the latter does not preclude the former, as we are seeing with Ukraine. For Realists such as John J. Mearsheimer, Russia’s opposition to an independent Ukraine on its border, a potential launchpad for invasion from the West, is structural: any Russian leader, once strong enough to do so, would be compelled to remove the threat. Yet who can deny that it took Putin’s individual agency to launch history back into motion? If Ukraine’s strategic location provides the proximate cause, Putin’s personality answers the Why now?, just as Zelensky’s decision to stay and fight, rather than flee the invasion, provides a version of the Great Man Theory of History socially acceptable to otherwise sceptical centrist liberals. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine may be structural, as Realists correctly observe: yet it took the clash of two specific personalities for the war to take its current form, and thus define the future of our continent.
If anyone can be accused of magical thinking, it is those European liberal Atlanticists currently bewailing Trump’s turn to naked imperialism, as though some dark sorcery has suddenly overtaken the empire they eagerly subjected us to. Quoting an Economist piece, the Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman mourns on X that “I think it’s often those in Europe who have been most pro-American that are now reacting most strongly to what Trump is doing. Huge sense of betrayal and disgust,” as if neither of the two leading organs of the Atlanticist worldview that brought Britain and Europe to this moment of humiliation had any role to play in the disaster. Those who forged our manacles are now complaining that they chafe. Yet even if it took Trump’s personality to make Europe’s implicit subordination to the American empire explicit, the causes are also structural. The power imbalance between the two is so stark that some Trump or other was destined to come along eventually: the termites gnawing away at Europe from within long made sure of that.
As a result of our rulers’ policy choices, Europe is now so weak that it presents an unguarded feast for the great powers carving up the world between them. The emperor on the Washington throne now seeks to detach Greenland from Denmark and add it with Canada to his vast American domain. When Trump can say of Canada that soon “the artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear”, the dynamics are not so different from Putin harking back to Kyivan Rus and the Rurikids to justify his war of imperial expansion. Empires ebb and flow, as they always have: the weaker states between them, whether Ukraine or Europe as a whole, must either accept having their fates determined by great imperialists, or prepare to fight for their own survival.
The talk, then, of European rearmament as a means to save Ukraine from American retreat and Russian dismemberment is best understood as a form of noble lie to prepare European voters to stand alone. When Emmanuel Macron called Nato “brain dead” five years ago, suggesting America’s waning commitment, he was mocked by the very same Atlanticist voices which now, too late, demand a strong and sovereign Europe. These are the very same voices that three years ago, when Russia first invaded, were proclaiming that “Nato is back”, with the relief of born vassals suddenly rescued from the fearful responsibilities of freedom. Had Macron been listened to back in 2020, perhaps matters would be different now; perhaps, indeed, the Ukraine war would never have begun. But Europe’s empty commitments are simply too late: without American support, Ukraine has lost the war. And a Europe capable, with great exertion, of patrolling Ukraine’s eastern frontiers in a decade’s time is simply of no use in determining the outcome of the peace talks taking place now. Once again, it is those most culpable for present failure spurring us to future action: yet whether or not it is also too late for Europe remains an undetermined question. The assumption belatedly dawning on European policymakers is that Nato’s Article 5 is already dead, and with it, the Atlantic Alliance. If Nato still exists in a decade, it will do so only in the sense that Charlemagne was a Roman emperor. The titles may remain the same, perhaps the great ritual gatherings will continue, but the hard facts of power will have changed utterly, and the frontiers to defend will have shrunk.
With Nato moribund, it is difficult to think of a Western state, apart from Canada, worse prepared or politically situated for Trump 2.0 than Britain. In security terms, we are almost uniquely over-exposed, having long settled on a posture of America’s yappiest and least threatening lapdog. Trump’s annexation threats to Canada derive from Canada making itself so interwoven, economically and in security terms, with the US that its independence is essentially fictional. Yet in the security sphere, this is precisely what decades of Atlanticism have done to Britain. A close defence relationship with the US, once an asset to leverage over rivals, now looks a dangerous vulnerability. Just as is the case with Ukraine, whose future will be decided by the interaction of two opposing levers — Russian military force and the supply or withdrawal of American military aid, as imperial diplomacy dictates — so has Britain’s willed dependence on American military power eroded its sovereignty.
Our nuclear deterrent is leased from the United States, drawn from pooled stocks held in Virginia to which access can be denied as Washington sees fit. Our Army can only function as an American auxiliary unit, and our Navy has refashioned itself, at vast expense, as a means to supplement American power projection into the Pacific for American ends, with the two carriers serving as a platform for American jets whose operation and maintenance are subject to Washington’s goodwill. Dependent on a logistics chain we do not control, Britain is no more in control of its destiny than Ukraine, the result of a security establishment whose think tanks and policymaking organs, heavily funded by American largesse, have been explicitly designed to achieve this outcome. And yet the Trump administration seems to have a strangely benign approach to Britain so far. The explanation given by the Westminster lobby is that this is the result of Starmer’s political skill and personal charm: time will reveal if there are other explanations.
Even Starmer’s closest allies, who have likened him to a passenger in the front seat of the DLR pretending to drive the train, accept that he is no great man of history. Yet the moment has arrived for a great exertion of will in the service of seizing Britain’s sovereignty, a moment of grave peril which demands vision and foresight. The great unasked question in all the current flurry of panicked meetings and delusional op-eds is how the new, nakedly imperial American regime actually views its future relationship with Europe. Is our continent to remain an imperial possession, drawn tighter into America’s embrace through increased spending on American arms and munitions that deepens its dependence, or is it a rival power, as Trump’s trade tariffs imply?
The Pentagon’s notorious leaked 1992 planning document observed that through “convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests”, the United States “must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO”, as Europe is “a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power”. Europe’s post-Cold War weakness is as much the product of cold American calculation as of European delusion. While the Continent’s inability to defend itself is shameful, Trump’s declared shock at this outcome rings hollow, given the great American efforts, over decades, to enable our present weakness and dependency. A Europe that does not rely on America’s defence umbrella, that develops its own defence-industrial base, its own surveillance and target acquisition capabilities, its own nuclear shield and own reliable sources of energy is also a sovereign Europe, whose interests will of necessity diverge from those of Washington. Vassals or rivals: either path is now fraught with risks.
For Britain and for Europe, everything must be thought through again, from first principles. Strategic autonomy is at least a decade’s work, yet the hurried focus on achieving a tolerable solution to the Ukraine war, now beyond Europe’s power to negotiate or enforce, displays only panicked activity in place of cool decision-making, tactical manoeuvering bereft of a wider strategic vision. The risk for Europe now is that Trump walks away from peace negotiations with Putin leaving European leaders committed to a confrontation with Russia for which they are entirely unprepared. Shorn of a role as America’s most committed European franchisee, Britain’s security elites are suddenly bereft of purpose, the incoming Strategic Defence and Security Review less useful than a blank sheet of paper. The moment requires sober reflection, for the decisions made now will define Britain’s future for years to come. Yet the urgency of the Ukraine crisis, and the commitment to sunk political costs, has outrun any wider reappraisal of Britain’s role in the world, as Starmer bounces from conference to lobby briefing, scrambling to catch up with events beyond his control.
Seeking to fill the gap between rhetoric and capacity, Europe’s leaders have hurriedly settled on Turkey as a force enhancer, without reflecting that Turkey’s rise under Erdogan is that of a cynical, self-interested actor expert in playing great power blocs against each other for advantage, building a domestic industrial base to hedge against dependence on patrons. Surely Turkey’s ruthless and transactional pursuit of its national interest presents a model for a mid-size peripheral power such as Britain? The hour of Europe’s independence has dawned, but there is no Bismarck or Mazzini to meet it, merely Von der Leyen and Kallas, regional HR managers for Washington’s soon-to-be-wound-down European operation. Macron excepted, Europe has no great men waiting in the wings: but the conflict between a truly sovereign Europe and an imperial America presents challenges that have not yet been articulated, let alone planned for. In plotting Britain’s next steps Starmer must set aside Whitehall’s tendency towards magical thinking, and ruthlessly pursue the national interest. Yet even as the international order collapses around him, fate has granted Britain a leader committed to multilateralism and international consensus-seeking at the very moment that will determine the nation’s destiny for decades to come.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s amazing to see how the Ukraine war has red-pilled Ruossinos into becoming a realist thinker and I thoroughly enjoy him eviscerating the European clown show on a weekly basis, though I disagree with his Macron-exemption in this instance. Macron did what all French leaders do; whinge at American overlordship, make a failed attempt at leadership/autonomy and then crawl back into vassal-mode.
Except this time it’s not just his domestic political career on the line but rather all of Europe and I don’t care for another, larger war in Europe just so that he can improve his polling numbers. Ditto for the majority of the EU establishment parties.
‘Realist thinker’? Where are Aris’s thoughts about the US seemingly taking on everyone at once? (Not that I believe it is, far too naive a view, but that belief is required for the article above to make sense). Trade wars with it’s northern and southern neighbours, with China, with Europe. Threats of annexation against Canada, Greenland, Panama, all whilst preparing for contest with China, slashing it’s public sector and, in the case of the Republican party, keeping the opposition down whilst going through a rough economic time.
The US is the most powerful nation on the planet, but it is not all powerful. Yet there are no articles on this, just the endless same old bashing of the same old subjects that just so happen to go down so well on here.
I would suggest that everyone who is seeking to understand the USA and it’s policies go to Youtube and look up the Trump Administration Secretary of State Marco Rubeo’s opening remarks at his confirmation hearing. There he lays out, not simply his view, but the views of the new Trump administration. Watch it, study it, think about it, and you will be far ahead of the curve from any article you read where others seek to interpret behavior apart from the already stated values, the “whys”, and “what fors”, what they beleive about history, what they value, where they see the world is now, and where they want to take America.
“the Trump Administration’s Secretary of State opening remarks at his confirmation hearing” America First!
I watched it, it’s a good speech though it doesn’t say much I didn’t already think was happening. As I said above, I don’t believe Trump is walking away*, the problem is that the article requires that belief.
* when Trump first came in I thought he was being ‘Imperialist yet isolationist’, but that isn’t right. It’s a more subtle shift. We still have to see the consequences of that shift, because, justified or not, there is a lot of ill will developing eg Canada or collapsed Tesla sales.
Trump is the president not Rubio. Trump is not notable for his consistency, long term thinking or even indeed the priorities of some of his most avid supporters, including on cultural war issues. At the moment he seems to be engineering a full-scale stock market decline.
Obsessing about one or two topics, such as how America is being “ripped off” by everybody else, is not the same thing. Obviously his own personal morality, which isn’t totally unimportant here, is pretty dubious. To me it’s disappointing that Trump has become the standard bearer of the anti-progressive Right, but history is contingent and complex and so it has come to be.
I think Roussinos accepts that we can’t do much about the United States political leadership. He is British and a European and so are most of us! That comes a time when you need to sort out your own problems rather than endlessly relitigating the cultural and other conflicts going on in a different continent, albeit accepting the cultural fascination that the United States has, especially for Britain.
There are countless articles on this.
I’ve always enjoyed reading Aris’s writing and he’s always been of the realist bent. For a while, he came over a bit word-salady and approached issues on too high an abstract level that didn’t do anything for me at all. But he seems to have come back down from the clouds now and almost every article is a winner these days.
This article is a good balance of philosophical thought and principle followed by a cogent explanation of how those thoughts relate to a particular real life situation: very well done and a great read.
Yes, apart from giving Macron free pass for some reason.
Macron and France were the main appeaser of Putin after Merkel.
Yes, I similarly found the Macron exception bizarre.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.”
History follows a cyclical pattern driven by human nature – prosperity breeds complacency, decline, and eventual collapse, necessitating renewal through struggle.
Stagnation sets in when weak leaders suppress intelligence, creativity, and courage to maintain the status quo – usually for their own benefit. This pattern is not unique to leadership – it reflects a broader cycle that applies to movements, institutions, and entire societies.
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
All ideologies, institutions, and nations follow a predictable trajectory: they begin with genuine intent, become commercialised, and are ultimately hijacked for self-serving purposes.
For decades, increasingly weak leaders have become beholden to corporate interests, which – like parasites – have drained Britain of its wealth, creativity, and identity. The toxic systems that brought us here are now so entrenched, and our leadership so feeble, that neither can be reformed; they must be transformed.
However, much like a forest fire clearing the way for new growth, true transformation only occurs when systems fully collapse. We are fast approaching this stage – making collapse inevitable.
This collapse is both a danger and an opportunity – an entropic reset that, if guided by the right leadership and values, could lead to a stronger, more balanced, and more resilient Britain.
However, before things can improve, they must first get worse. The existing systems must crumble entirely, clearing the way for the cycle to begin again – where strong leaders with courage and vision can rise from the ashes.
Best buckle up!
“which – like parasites”
No, not ‘like’ but ‘AS parasites’.
Otherwise spot on sir!
The EU likes to call itself a “regulatory superpower.”
Its leaders are fast discovering there is no real power in one’s ability to boss people around on (recycled) paper.
The fact that the EU ever bragged about that is laughable and pitiful in equal measure.
The holiday from history is over. Hope we didn’t use all our sunscreen already….
Regulation does not generate wealth. That’s all you need to know about that European conceit.
Except that it does! Limited liability companies, stable legal system, regulated financial markets etc etc – all products of regulation and all crucial to capitalist success!
Good regulation that has stood the test of time. You can have also have wealth draining bureaucratic box ticking, where the true purpose of the regulations is to keep the bureaucrats in office and indeed expanding their number for ever.
True, but maybe you missed the point of my comment. I was responding to the statement “Regulation does not generate wealth” to point out that it does and is in fact crucial in the process. Sorry Katharine but my pedantic soul can’t abide sweeping generalisations which are plain wrong!
But EU regulations stiffle markets and wealth generation.
Please tell us what new global business was created in Europe in the last 20 years?
Spotify?
Airbus is very successful but it was created long ago.
It does for the grifters that collect around the regulators.
Certainly, the ability to produce red tape is unsurpassed, super-reinforced by activist lawyers. The UK is doing its best to keep up. Western Civilization may be strangled by its owner regulators. Technocracy kills.
I doubt Trump will walk away from negotiations to end the Ukraine war; he made its ending a campaign promise and, love him or hate him, he’s a politician with a singular habit of trying to keep his promises. I don’t think, therefore that the EU has to worry that he’ll shove the job of ending the war on them. I suspect that they know this and that much of this talk of rearmament with the goal of protecting Ukraine is political theater; the various EU governments pretend to prepare to rearm in the interest of supporting Ukraine all the while knowing that Trump and Putin will hammer out a settlement, secure in the knowledge that they won’t actually have to immediately use their militaries. Whether the EU will rearm in its own interest over the next decade is another question.
They wont use the next decade to unwind red tape, copy and paste the US VC model into their financial centres, develop an industrial strategy that includes everything from rare earth extraction to upstream processing to advanced semiconductor manufacturing to rekindling their maritime and defence industries and everything in between. The ability for the UK and EU to do exactly that exists. But it wont happen. Our stepford managerial political class are vassal HR types, not leaders in the genuine sense with the exception of what Macron and the French, to their complete credit, have been saying for some time.
I am sorry, Macron and French?
After Merkel, Macron and France were main appeasers of Putin.
And there is no Europe independ advanced semiconductors manufacturing capacity.
It has hard to believe that with UK and EU red tape, any of these desirable things would happen ever.
Never mind in 10 years.
If Trump has ‘…a singular habit of keeping his promises…’ then my uncle is a banana. He can’t even remember what they are from one day to the next. I think you mean – he has a happy habit of redefining his intentions to suit the actual outcomes of his rambling declarations.
Putting aside the gender of your uncle …. you are correct. Building a wall, deporting millions from day 1, ending the war in a day, reducing inflation etc etc – all empty ‘promises’. So how come all the downvotes? TDS indeed – one has to be deranged to believe in Trump!
This seems very unlikely to me. Putin is an extremely canny and patient operator while Trump almost the opposite. That is already completely obvious this just matters much more to Putin than it does for Trump. Any settlement is likely to be undermined by Russia within not made too many years. It won’t be difficult to engineer some incident.
Yes, it is likely that some sort of agreement will happen.
But in long term what is the guarantee that Russia will not invade again.
Not under Trump or even Vance but under another administration.
Let’s remember that there was Budapest memorandum about Ukraine guaranteeing Ukraine independence and territorial integrity.
Signed by USA, Britain, France and Russia.
Did it work?
No.
I haven’t seen any convincing explanation why it would work this time.
Many people are naive about Russia and don’t know history of this part of Europe and Putin pronouncements about Ukraine.
It is not about some bits of land but about genocide of Ukrainian people.
Russia has track record here.
Remember Holodomor of the 1930s?
It would be refreshing if the bright minds in the editorial team could once in a while try to analyse solutions and not constantly tell us in an elegant way how bad things are and how weak, stupid and dysfunctional Europeans and Europe are and have been.
Gillray’s cartoon of the plum pudding in danger. Only now Europe is the delicious ‘feast’, as Mr R puts it.
As the Good Books says, better a dinner of herbs with love in attendance than a meat feast seasoned with hatred.
Is it a sign of the state of the nation that the one that produced the Magna Carta, albeit of no immediate benefit to the ruled, can only now produce a document that is (in Mr R’s wonderful summation) as useful as a blank sheet of paper?
Usual stuff from Roussinos. Europe crap, Putin justified and good, it’s all our fault, we’re doomed Captain Mainwaring etc.
Firstly he, like many Putin apologists, seem to forget how weak the Russian army and economy are. The Polish army would be in Moscow in a week. Europe does not need to stir as much as sometimes thought to be more than match for what Putin has left. Our population, economy and technology much much stronger. Yes we have coordination challenges, but surmountable especially as Germany awakens.
Secondly it needs repeating – Putin invaded and there is no excuse whatsoever. If Ukraine capitulates many more Bucha’s will occur. Roussinos and the other key Unherd apologist, Fazi, are like a couple of FSB plants seeking to create a false narrative to justify naked aggression. It’s pretty shameful but free speech important too. The dial will turn in the US and the Trump aberration will abate. The situation of having a Putin ally in the WH will not last and the oxygen given to apologists will reduce.
Thirdly it just may be that the potential Keynesian stimulus a surge in defence spending would provide is exactly what Europe needs. One wouldn’t really want to do it, Europe is one of the most peace-loving regions of the World and there is good reason we haven’t been stockpiling arms for the last couple of decades. However if we have to Defence spending can turbo-charge an economy because of the technology elements it draws in and the jobs it creates. Europe has the skills and the workforce. And the situation gives an imperative to have fiscal rules that allow it. We may stir very slowly and unwillingly but in some regards the threat is a crisis not worth wasting.
The Polish army would be in Moscow in a week. I agree with you generally, but that is a big call.
And Warsaw would be a smoking ruin…
They got there in 1610, and hung on there until 1612 before being ejected.
At risk of stating the very obvious, that was over 400 years ago.
Yes, but Russia has nukes now.
It’s the fact it could rather than would of course. It just highlights how weak the Russian forces are. They can disrupt and cause lots of difficulties – cutting undersea cables, cyber warfare, stoking tensions, funding extremists etc, but their offensive go forward military capability is shot. Unless we capitulate in Ukraine, let them recover and then…
Europeans have gone back and forth between having their heads up their asses about net zero and in the clouds about their ability to ward off Russia. All while looking down their noses at those who make their lifestyles possible.
You aren’t wrong.
Appositely the French have word for that, CANAILLE.
Europeans, if one can generalise at all, are peace-loving and care about the Planet. Nought wrong with those two instincts. Now one has to be ready to defend oneself too and not be naive. I would concur Europe has been the latter, but not that the base instincts are wrong.
Firstly, yes Russia isn’t actually the super powerful power that Europe is pearl clutching about…so why is it doing it? Probably to distract from the total mess that Europe is actually in.
Secondly, yes no excuse but definitely a rational explanation. Also many Western precedents to justify it…Cuba, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria…so exactly the same moral position but it’s happened in Europe so “a bad thing”…
Thirdly, see Firstly above…distraction and economic stimulation of failing economies. It’s a phoney crisis which the political class definitely won’t waste…and the people’s welfare comes last, as usual.
You forget MC Russia invaded 4 countries of which Ukraine the 4th. West has never invaded a democratic country. You contort yourself to find equivalence. It doesn’t exist my friend.
Europe is also not a real mess. It has problems but where else in the World is better? Why do so many want to come here (even though we can’t take them)? I fear you lack perspective and probably never lived anywhere but the West and thus you’ve become complacent about all the advantages and good fortune that has given you. The self hatred of the West by the intelligentsia was something Orwell drew attention to. I feel you suffer from it.
The piece is too negative on Europe’s prospects, though it doesn’t exclude it achieving ‘independence’ in defence over time and certainly Russia does not have the capability to attack other fronts in Europe currently given the strength of Poland.
Were anyone to attack Russia it would resort to tactical nukes – one of the reasons its defence rationale for invading Ukraine is nonsense.
He seems keen to stress European rhetoric is about ‘saving’ Ukraine, the fate of which will indeed be determined by the US and Russia for the most part though Europe isn’t entirely helpless. Everyone knows this and the focus is on Europe preparing quickly so it is able to contain Russia from here. And this must also apply to Russian shadow warfare in its myriad forms.
I agree that the defence argument from Russia was spurious.
NATO positions in the Baltics were already within easy striking distance of Moscow, and as you’ve noted, Russia still has a strong nuclear deterrent.
Still, buffer states are helpful in avoiding accidental escalation, and Russia was understandably annoyed at American meddling in their sphere of influence. Sooner or later, they were bound to back up diplomatic objections with military force.
The problem might well be that there was no agreement Ukraine would be a buffer state.
There are various examples of Western hubris, but the real issue was Ukraine naturally gravitating towards a western orbit out of choice. Even Yanukovich preferred the trade deal offered by the EU before Putin forbade it. Had the west not prodded the Maidan along, it is likely the underlying dynamics would have led to a similar situation – ie an east/west ‘moment’ at a later date.
Putin tipped Ukraine even further westward with his invasion of 2014, which in that sense was a mistake, and it was the 2014 Crimea move and backing of separatists in D&L that led to Ukraine absolutely transforming its army and military capacities. And it seems the 2022 full invasion decision appeared insane to many close to Putin, and indeed it has proven disastrous for Russia.
Putin should probably have continued undermining Ukraine in the ways he was doing before the Maidan, and not catalyzed its sense of national identity as he has. He may have ended up with greater control, though that remains to be seen if a settlement can be achieved.
Irony is certainly there. Putin has ‘made’ Ukraine and given it a much stronger unifying purpose and History. Proper blowback.
A lesson lost on Don J who seems intent on helping Make Canada and Europe Great again at the expense of the US medium term.
Putin also personally facilitated NATO expansion by convincing Sweden and Finland to join.
In all this it can seem odd why so many regard Putin as smart.
Don’t agree with two of your suppositions there ES, though daresay we’re not far part on much else.
Firstly an independent democratic Country has a right to autonomy in what alliances it joins. The East European states asked to join NATO. They were not compelled. And they asked for good reason as the invasion of Ukraine proves and their own History showed.
Secondly the Russians weren’t bound to object. They could have developed in a different way and also, like East European neighbours, sought the path of free democratic institutions and free markets. Instead they were taken over by a mafia-kleptocracy bank rolled by the good fortune of Oil and Gas reserves. Without the latter they’d have had to develop in a different way, a better way.
The West’s existence, it’s values and principles and the desire of others to live by them, is not the enemy of Russia. It is the enemy of Autocrats.
Good theoretical point, except that Russia is always ruled by autocrats.
I’d agree with this except Russia is ruled by the same security-complex strain of its elite as emerged in the 1980s. The oligarchs were briefly on top in the 1990s before Putin tamed them.
How this group thinks is a total mystery
Agree with much of that. For me morally and strategically though the line to hold is in Ukraine.
I agree with the author that a reset is required. However, I think it must be based on the the two fundamental pillars below: 1) Whoever might be the President of the US in 10 years or 50 years, the US itself can never be a strategic partner in the same sense as it has been for the last 80 years. By all means “be friendly” with the US, but never completely trust it, and preserve an independent defence policy. 2) Russia is “the Enemy” now, and will be in 50 years’ time (and probably 500 years’ time). Russians are a barbaric people, and the chances of them having a leader who isn’t a warmongering tyrant is miniscule. Even if they have a leader who doesn’t look like a warmongering tyrant, proceed on the basis that they secretly are one.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been a disaster on so many levels, and we must remember the collapse of the USSR.
Show us on the doll where the Russian touched you.
Give it a rest, Comrade Erstwhile.
How about you show me a time when the Russians as a people could be said to have done something civilised. I mean look at its leaders: Tyrant, tyrant, tyrant….tyrant (I can’t remember how many tyrants there were in this bit), Gorbachev, Drunkard, Tyrant.
Or where his great-great-grandfather was touched in Crimea — Russophobia has deep, deep roots in the UK …
Even ignoring Trump for a minute, it was obvious that USA commitment to defend Europe would decline in coming decades not only because of China but because of changing demographics.
Soon, majority of USA citizens will have no ancestral connections to Europe.
“The explanation given by the Westminster lobby is that this is the result of Starmer’s political skill and personal charm: time will reveal if there are other explanations.”
I’m going to interpret this as irony, since there is no other explanation for saying that Starmer has any sort of charm at all. He is acquitting himself rather well right now, but putting this down to personal magnetism just seems a bridge too far.
Shortly before DT’s inauguration, late at night in a Viennese bar after several strong cocktails had been consumed, I had it explained to me that Europe couldn’t possibly defend itself “because, you know Katharine – Europe isn’t a country”.
As if I didn’t know that, but anyway, one took a deep breath and rose above the condescension.
I replied that Europe was going to have to defend itself soon whether it liked it or not, because the Americans no longer want to and their largesse had been a much larger factor in our cushy, peaceful European lives than anyone can imagine – just as much as the existence of the EU.
I watched as said conversation partner’s jaw dropped but then smirked, thinking I was some kind of harmless loon, easily ignored. And I changed the subject because dropping political reality bombs at parties after copious alcohol consumption generally isn’t a good plan and I couldn’t remember how we strayed onto that subject in the first place.
Wonder what that person is thinking now. Probably that it’s all Trump’s fault.
I think Europe becoming more militarily self sufficient will be much more damaging for America than they realise.
The yanks weren’t contributing extra to NATO for noble reasons, they were doing it because it was in their interests to do so. If Europe had looked after their own defence, built up their own defence industry instead of buying American gear, and had no reason to always back up the Americans in their various foreign spats (or keep buying US debt that allows them run the kind of deficits that would bankrupt other nations) then America would be much poorer and weaker than it is today.
Just as well it won’t happen, then.
Lord Palmerston: Nations have interests not friends!
Starmer is a non-entity! An embarrassment! And dangerous to boot (which he should be given)!
This is misguided on many levels. American strength does not depend on it dominating Europe, if that is how you frame it. Indeed the American designed institutions after the Second World War often benefited the European significantly at the expense of the American economy. It wasn’t only Trump who thought this Nixon had a similar view. American tariffs are much less than European tariffs.
The United States spending of lot of American tax dollars on American armaments does not provide net benefit for the United States economy!, albeit it might for the “defence industry”. There is no doubt that the Americans have been spending much higher proportion of their GDP on NATO defense then the European countries.
But in fact NATO countries were spending a great deal more on defense for much of the time after the Second World War including West Germany. it is only since the end of the Cold War that we decided to downgrade them to such a significant extent.
The disdain for the United States exhibited by so many Europeans, including those on the Right seems to arise mostly for the fact that the United States has a far more dynamic successful and dynamic economy than theirs. We can argue until the cows come home about the possible excessive power of Big Tech companies, but why doesn’t Europe have any? (Yes the US has many many social problems). I read an analysis that after period of being number two to China it will regain primacy simply because it has a younger population. The only way Europe is going to get in that younger population is by continuing mass immigration
“acquitting himself rather well”? Only in the minds and scribbles of the MSM who seem to like his “tough guy” act.
The reality is that his “coalition of the willing” as “peacekeepers” requires the military backing of the USA which Trump has said isn’t going to happen.
I can as realistically claim I will rescue the British economy…but I need Soros’s backing.
Yep – this is exactly what the narrative will demand.
Ukraine only lost because of Trump, the Putin puppet.
I agree that Starmer appears devoid of charm. The best explanation I can think of for the strangely benign attitude of the Trump administration towards Britain (apart from the old keep people off balance by dealing with them inconsistently) is the Royal Family. Trump obviously loves meeting them and huge tariffs might get in the way of that. So (so far) our gain.
Remembering his remark about preferring Davos to Westminster i am not surprised at his puffing himself up amongst his beloved EU friends. He will merely make use of his despised citizens to further boost his vanity. I have never seen him look so cheerful back in Blighty.
Yes, but Europe ISN’T a country Katherine!
Katherine you write very thoughtful comments. But I think you veer into childishness in denying Starmer any credit whatsoever in the recent talks with Trump. He certainly didn’t have a lot of cards to play so it’s difficult to see what it could have been, except that he was charming or socially adept on some level. You and I weren’t there.
Problem is that versus Russia there is no Europe.
Italians, Spanish, even many (most?) French, Germans (Austrians?) don’t see Russia as enemy.
Only Baltic States, Poland, Finland and Sweden, maybe Norway, take the threat seriously.
That is why Europe can never be independent superpower.
There are huge differences between European nations in many areas of policy.
Am I alone in regarding Comrade Starmer as a national embarrassment, only exceeded by Michael Gove?
Lammy? Actually it’s quite a big field…
I picked Gove in an attempt to be even handed.
Gove represents perfectly how far the so called Tory Party has degenerated into a bien pensant, social democratic cesspit.
Off course Lammy is also a national disgrace, but for brevity’s sake I omitted him and many others because, as you rightly say, the “field” is so huge.
“Comrade Starmer” could turn out to be the best conservative prime minister we’ve had in years.
Starmer is much likelier to sink Britain than conserve it.
He is trying to do things that should have been done c.1970 (but can’t be done now), while still handing Britain over to Islam.
“Macron excepted, Europe has no great men waiting in the wings…” Am I reading this right? Have nothing against Macron but the statement seems a stretch even to me.
Is it a reference to online ‘chatter’ regarding his wife’s birth sex?
Macron a great man?
The question for the EU remains, “who do we call if we want to talk to the EU?” Is the EU really something created by people who like being governed so much that they created a government for their government?
My understanding is that it exists for two reasons. Collective trade bargaining with those outside of Europe, and for protection. The big sell inside is a sort of open border, cross-cultural sharing project that enhanced humanity within the EU sphere.
One of the first things that happened is Orban, being a Trump supporter, secured several bi-lateral trade deals with the US, (although the tax treaty for US citizens is still not in place) doing an end around the EU, and basically negating EU bloc collective bargaining.
As far as mutual defense. NATO has always been a strangely offensive force for its claims to have been for mutual defense. The whole “you will know them by their fruit” applied to NATO, and we can see it’s sort of like putting the word “democracy” in the title of an NGO whose sole purpose is destabilization and color revolution functioning democracies that don’t go along with the plan.
Then there is the Euro. I live in Italy, where we can track the average personal wealth of Italian citizens from the time of leaving the Lyra and adopting the Euro, and there has been a decline, every single year since then.
So, to put it crassly, you can give a t**d sandwich a beautiful name, describe it eloquently, and but the finest condiments on it, but in the end, it is what it is.
NATO, the EU, the Euro, add to that the philosophy of Globalism, and Neo-Liberalism which were part of the Atlanticism sandwich and we see failure, and what even looks like a looming totalitarianism consisting of censorship, health-passports, and total economic imprisonment of CBDC (digital programmable Euros) looming on the horizon. Add to that the whole Davos stated model of owning nothing and being happy, “eat ze bugs” , 15 minute cities, green-energy that also doesn’t work.
We can see that there absolutely needs to be a “great reset”, but it looks more along the lines of all of those failed things being rejected, and a return to Traditionalism, Nationalism, National Sovereignty, Native culture promotion, Family-values. Essentially Realism (Geopolitical as well as in every other way.) That’s really it, it’s about a return to realism.
I say this with a degree of sadness and exasperation — if patterns hold, “Europe” (that foggy, corrupt model of the old world) will whine and dine while the world reshapes itself. You buried your backbone in the ash heap of history. Not sure your delusional elites are up to the spadework.
I’m sure they aren’t.
I’m sure that Michelin chefs are working on the menu for the next leaders’ dinner even as we debate here. The meaningful decisions are being made over cheesburgers and Coke.
An interesting approach. Europe is different from the other three world powers in not having a leader nor territorial aspirations. It is a good thing for peace but not so good for defence. Trump’s actions, will in time, change this but in the meantime Europe has to rely on Project 2025’s statement:
The United States and its allies also face real threats from Russia, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine, as well as from Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorism at a time when decades of ill-advised military operations in the Greater Middle East, the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and effective disarmament by many U.S. allies have exacted a high toll on America’s military.
This is a grim landscape. The United States needs to deal with these threats forthrightly and with strength, but it also needs to be realistic. It cannot wish away these problems. Rather, it must confront them with a clear-eyed recognition of the need for choice, discipline, and adequate resources for defense.
In this light, U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counterterrorism enterprise. U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea. The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our freeworld efforts together.
Project 2025 has played an impeccable hand in embedding itself in the US Government, accomodating Trump’s whims whilst, behind the scenes, tempering the consequences. They are set on changing values in the US but not pro the isolation of the US. They see the risks in tarrifs and territorial expansionism and will act accordingly. They are in a stronger position than is generally appreciated,
The military industries of Europe and US are so intertwined, both in terms of technology and corporations, that the stronger militarization of Europe would just serve US interests. It would not make Europe more independent, it would just make Europe a stronger US ally. That’s why Trump is pushing forward this agenda. What would make Europe more independent is just a new Detente, in the spirit of the Helsinki Declaration.
If we’re going to be genuinely realistic, then the most logical choice is to accept our status as vassals, and work to be valuable, or at least quiescent, to our overlords. The peoples and politicians of Europe have simply become too infantilised to bear the burden of any other choice.
Plus ca change.
Since our retreat from Empire, and since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Britain has no natural enemies – no rival countries with which our interests are in conflict. Certainly not Russia with which our government, whether Tory or Labour, has needlessly chosen to pick a quarrel.
We plunged into pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan precisely because, as Roussinos points out, we have shamefully become an American vassal. We gained nothing from those wars except further waves of immigrant “translators” and their extended families.
So America’s withdrawal from its international entanglements, and therefore from any need to call upon its vassals, is a welcome liberation for us.
We have also just appointed a Muslim Imam as the chair of the national school inspection body, Ofsted. Regardless of Russia and Nato and the US, this country is cooked.
I know little about the man but from what I read he actually believes in real education, which is certainly unusual nowadays.
Of course there may be a lot of “spin” in the stuff I’ve seen. The fact that a person believes in a religion and is a “priest” of it shouldn’t disqualify him from an educational position. Evangelism of a specific religion certainly should.
Would you be against a “bearded, God bothering tw@t” (Clarksons fantastic description of Vance) being appointed to a similar position?
This is the sort of alarmist nonsense I would expect from the Daily Telegraph. Yes there are some valid or sensible warnings, but its largely 20% fact and 80% fiction in what it’s suggesting. Another British journalist who makes a living by pointing fingers and blaming everyone else for what’s going on around them. I suppose there must be a large demand for that.
“I think it’s often those in Europe who have been most pro-American that are now reacting most strongly to what Trump is doing.“
Trump is doing or trying to what he said he would do – end the killing. The man is not a war monger. He is not gripped by a paralyzing fear of Russia’s presence. He’s the same guy the euros mocked when he suggested not being overly reliant on Russian energy.
All the microphone warriors who face no personal risk from doing so are banging the war drums. Why? Putin’s been in power for 25 years without mass attacks on Europeans. There is a back story regarding Ukraine, no matter how hard some try ignoring it.
Just spare us this faff and say Ukraine doesn’t have the right to be a sovereign country. Like when Adolf decided to expand into wherever German was spoken.
So how many more Ukrainian must die so you can pat your own back? And the perpetual “he is literally Hitler” parroting makes you folks look like caricatures of human beings.
“the artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear”
God help us in the US if we actually onboard millions of shivering leftist Canadian voters who couldn’t even manage to stay culturally unilingual because of some Quebecois malcontents exercising the traditional French prerogative of arrogant solipsism (some time ago), and who have swallowed whole the “murdered Indian schoolchildren in unmarked graves” fiction (most recently). It does have a bit of Manifest Destiny about it, but please, just no.
We feel the same way. American’s seem determined to have another civil war and we’d rather not be invited. Your crime and your gun lunacy are things we’d rather avoid. Your government seems to be permanently broken. Our wokies are no worse than yours, but our conservatives are a good deal saner. It is true that we’re a ball-less bunch of weenies up here — mind, your progressives are just as bad if not worse. OTOH those of us who still have spines haven’t felt the need to line up like ducklings behind a moronic, narcissistic man-child who very clearly wants to be a dictator. And the good news is that there are signs we are waking up from wokeness. We’re tough people when we want to be, which is why we beat you in hockey. We might entertain admitting you to Canada as a province after you’ve melted down. Of course you’ll have to swear fealty to His Majesty The King.
OK, you stick with your steadily expanding Progressive state with all its known tendencies to restrict freedoms “for your own good,” and we’ll stick with a guy who not only is doing the exact opposite, but was actually in power for four years and somehow didn’t grow the little Hitler mustache and declare himself (as you guys keep predicting) Leader for Life. We’ll see who actually loses their freedom first.
‘…Europe is now so weak that it presents an unguarded feast for the great powers carving up the world between them…”
In the specific case of the UK, it is being looted even as we speak of it’s intellectual capital, by far it’s biggest asset, by… China and many others. The UK’s academic internationalism has allowed a cadre of highly intelligent, highly capable people who have burrowed into the system, like termites if you will, and many of them are steadily siphoning off intellectual property out of the UK. This is not, nor can ever be, other than a mixed picture. There will always be termites who turn against their “glorious purpose” so to speak, because they want something different for themselves and their views and loyalties shift. Yet there will be those around who make the UK vulnerable at the very least by generating internal dissent to muddy the waters, and there will be enough people around within key institutions whose loyalties lie explicity elsewhere. The Chinese in these positions are going to be smart enough to remain completely below the radar, but as the continual stream of sectarian demonstrations in London for various middle-eastern causes has shown for years, once the numbers are big enough, they don’t need to bother hiding their stances. What I mean is many many of the people demonstrating will be employed in the NHS and the civil service and corporate UK as doctors and lawyers and consultants and so on, yet as demonstrably shown by their attendance in the, um, demonstrations, their loyalties are split at best. What do you think happens when a choice is forced on these people? This is how kingdoms rot from the inside.
Fantastic post.
Training your enemies or even competitors and then employing them in our institutions is madness.
I would say treason.
A good summary, thanks. Europe has rotten for a long time and now it smells. Its just another Jugoslawia and it may end like that, no damage done.
A few thoughts:
The U K cannot control its own borders so how can it commit armed forces to help the Ukraine ?NATO was born in 1949 in an entirely different world order the purpose of which was to keep the U S A in Europe, the U S S R out of Western Europe and Western Germany shorn of its military.The United States of America since 1945 has waged war in Vietnam, Afghanistan. and Iraq none of which has resulted in a successful outcome. In addition for supposedly the greatest power in the world it was mercilessly attacked and humiliated on its own territory on 11th September 2001.Of the last five USA Presidents none were born before the USA entered the Second World War in December 1941 and therefore do not carry the baggage of American isolationism of the 1930’sWhy has taken someone like Donald Trump who prior to 2015 had never run for public office to expose the realities of this new world order?
It’s not that the U.K. cannot control its borders.
It’s that our ruling class (Conservatives and Labour alike) choose not to control our borders.
And in consequence have run down our military a fact which appears to have escaped the thinking of our current Prime Minister.
“ Macron excepted, Europe has no great men waiting in the wings”
This reading of Macron surely creates suspicions about some of the authors other assumptions.
I have not historically been a fan of Macron (I used to rank him with Trudeau), but I must say I am warming to him.
To be fair the idea of a common European army has been doing the rounds since cold war days. But the Germans ending up dominating Europe not just economically but militarily too was a bit scary for everybody.
Explain to me how one can call Trump’s diplomacy ‘imperial’ and ‘isolationist’ at the same time. Trump is folding America’s empire, it seems to me, in favor of an expanded kingdom — adding Greenland and Canada.
Quite easily. Imperial in that it’s happy to throw lesser nations under the bus to advance its interests, isolationist in that it’s seems happy to throw away old trading partnerships and alliances (for reasons that have never fully been explained)
On the whole a reasonable discussion of this topic.
I think Europe is far better of building its own armaments industry to guarantee its own security. The world used to rely on Boeing for its planes, but then came along Airbus, and now it is the leading aircraft manufacturer. If Europe can do it in planes, why can’t it do the same in military hardware?
America might stick to its NATO commitments but there is always that lurking danger that it won’t. So Europe must now grasp the mettle and ensure that sufficient funds, resources and expertise are allocated to expanding its current armaments industry.
There is a lot of talk and promises about doing this, but the proof is in the pudding. If Ukraine does make peace with Russia, then European leaders might backtrack on these commitments – but if they do, that then leaves European security in the same quagmire it is in now.
So I think European leaders will finally bite the bullet, especially on increasing their armed forces that e.g. in the UK are in a miserable state. I think a country to observe that is on the right track is Poland – it is beefing up its defence budget, equipment and military capabilities because it knows how much a dangerous actor Russia truly is.
I do not always agree with the writer’s opinions, but this essay is quite simply a collation of evident facts. Those in power will of course continue to avert their gaze.
Fascinating and well written article. However, I would not call America “Imperialist.” America is settled by the ancestors of those who left empires. America has no desire to conquer Europe, Asia, Africa, et al. This is a return to the classic Monroe doctrine and limiting foreign interference in North and South America (of which Greenland is a part). People forget – Canada is not a true Crowned Republic, it is a Crowned Confederacy, and the various provinces will more than likely (and peacefully) be swallowed up by their larger and more powerful neighbor.
I wonder if future historians will view europes failure to become a superstate as the crucial fact of the first half of the twenty first century? And Brexit as the triumph of parochialism over collective self interest.
Whatever happens, future generations will be amazed that we didn’t see it coming.
Our “collective self interest” is material prosperity, cultural integrity and individual liberty.
The EU elevates bad policy beyond the reach of voters. It is technocratic to the core.
Brexit was necessary for British revival, but not sufficient.
Brexit has nothing to do with defence of Europe.
NATO was the organisation for that.
Europeans chose to ignore their commitments and USA had enough.
For how long would you buy someone’s drinks if they were telling you about lovely holidays they have by not paying bar bills?
The magical thinking was introduced by MacMillan. He considered that interdependence meant that the old verities of the state system no longer held. 65 years later. We now have the proof he was wrong. meanwhile, the UK has spent itself silly on benefits, subsidies, pretence, and “influence”, ie the diplomatic equivalent of ar…licking. Bravo, all those RR minds running Whitehall, and all those many mediocrities in Westminster.
European delusion entirely. Completely failed to recognise US policy since WWI to weaken European power. By the time of the collapse of USSR it had been sucked into neoliberal economics, followed by mad cap environmentalism, and “progressive” social politics(in fact profoundly regressive in their effect).This made it so soft headed it did not even for one moment think of engaging with Russia( an essentially Western European Civilization) independently of the US to make a truly strong and well resourced Europe that could hold its own against an increasingly hard to read US and an emerging China.
Germany, among others, reach out to USSR starting in 1960s. No question the greatest threat to US strategy is for Europe to make peace with Russia and attempt integration on putins terms. Is this better than the atlanticist option?
That is the greatest threat to Europe too.
Russia is not and never was Western European civilisation.
Russia is Orthodox, so it is of the East religiously and culturally and socially (apart from maybe 20% in big cities) continuation of Mongol satrapy.
“Starmer must set aside Whitehall’s tendency towards magical thinking, and ruthlessly pursue the national interest.”
Aris is always frustrating.
He writes well, and draws on knowledge wide and deep. He likes highlighting uncomfortable truths. But in the end, he shies away from the most obvious and brutal truth: our ruling class has no intention of pursuing British interests, Starmer least of all.
Starmer the knee-taker. Starmer the Net Zero enthusiast. Starmer the Trilateral Commission member. Starmer the Confiscator, champion of migrants. Two-tier Kier, aspiring tyrant.
Perhaps what Aris is doing is leaving “the end” open, the future and its “truth” full of possibilities rather than doom-laden.
I think its a good choice.
What a great article by Aris. Keep at it young man!
Ignoring Canada, welcome to the 51st state….
“…Macron excepted, Europe has no great men waiting in the wings…”
Macron is clearly sharper than pretty much all of the European political players, in that he identified many years ago where atlanticism was headed, and also several credible critiques of the European malaise. Yet, instead of taking the issues by the scruff of the neck and showing European leadership, he just played the usual stupid EU, Atlantic and Arab-world games of manoeuvring, of playing off the blocks against each other for small French advantages – in some ways quite similar to Erdogan. He had plenty of time in power, but now his time is up and he is going to be swept away by the rightward tide that is coming in all over Europe. He cannot in any way be called a great man.
Surely the only possible longer term solution is World Government? So these cooperative trends between Great Powers are not only desirable but essential.
When China and its client Russia will accept any world govt that they run, why would one in the west still call for it?
Thank you. The sort of thought provoking article which keeps me subscribing to UnHerd
The author must live in a parallel universe if he thinks Macron is a great man of history. Good article besides though, enjoyed the read, cheers.
The hubris of the Western liberals has really come home to bite them. At least two or three decades of “Weapons? why would we arm ourselves with weapons? we don’t do war anymore”. The entire notion that that “Sure, we don’t but others still do” seems to have floated over their self-indulgent haloes.
Trump’s gate-crashing, insult the hostess and piss in the pool crudeness is just the tonic this group of smug responsibility-averse slackers needed.
The starters was 1941, the main course was 1956, the pudding was 2016. canzuk vassalage under imperial America awaits.
“…the new, nakedly imperial American regime…”
Having been long accused of imperial hegemony and suffering the relentless scorn of Europeans for it, why not finally embrace the accusation? America has been the butt of European contempt for decades, a fact lost only on the fawning American liberals whose greatest regret has always been not being born on the eastern side of the Atlantic. So what if Trump finally embodies what America has long been portrayed as by Europeans?
It is not as if Europeans had no opportunities over the last 75 years to invest in their own autonomous national or collective NATO defense. Little Finnland managed to do it after all. The “Pentagon’s notorious leaked 1992 Planning Document” is a nonense trope from the “end of history era” of another variety of magical thinking. “Convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests” was irrelevant as none of those potential competitors required convincing and were always intending to shelter under American aegis at American expense. Does any serious student of events really believe that absent American influence Germany would have reverted to Prussian militarism post WW II or that the French would rediscover Napoleonic tendencies?
The second half of the 20th century brought tremendous economic power to the Eurozone, which also retained and added to premier legacy institutions of higher education and technology. Are we to believe that these nations were without agency, frog-marched into mediocrity by the dimwit Americans? Please, give me a break.
Britain is not responsible for the security of other European countries. They behaved terribly towards us when we chose to leave the EU and tried to hobble us. If they are worried about further Russian incursions, they should build sufficient defences.
We are actually in a great position. We have a nuclear deterrent (which is homegrown not sourced from the Americans as Aris says – if it were a priority we could find a UK built delivery mechanism to replace Trident missiles). We are an island which makes conquest very difficult. Our natural enemies- France and Germany are extremely weak. We have a good navy and shipbuilding industry, which should certainly be funded further. 3% of GDP (as long as 2TK doesn’t decide to build land forces for Ukraine etc) should be ample to defend our island, offshore infrastructure and trade routes.
If we want a grand strategy I would suggest free trade, free movement and a joint Royal Navy with Canada and Australia.
Aukus?
Don’t forget Japan !
Matt, you are right in saying that the UK does not owe the EU any favours. We owe NATO defence obligations ATM though, although Trump may be preparing to renege on the similar obligations the US owes it. Or he could simply be ‘negotiating’ in his usual style.
But you are wrong to think our nuclear deterrent is either homegrown or ours in any meaningful way. How is leasing the delivery system from foreigners independent in any way? How do we replace Trident with a homegrown ballistic missile in less than a decade? It took us 20 years to build a totally rubbish tracked scout vehicle for the Army for heaven’s sake.
As far as our nukes are concerned, we just have what our politicians call ‘operational independence’. They can’t be launched on America’s say so. But we can’t launch them either, without American agreement.
Good Navy?
Are you sure.
I think one of former UK army chiefs said that uk has only 18 surface ships and only 12 are operational.
Uk has 3 generals, 13 lieutenant generals and 44 major generals.
But is incapable of fielding one mechanised and one tank division.
Great article, thank you.
A few days ago Starmer and the EU were looking at funding Ukraine into continuing a war that it is losing and has cost it around 500,000 casualties including up to 100,000 deaths. They were worried that if the war ended, Russia would re-arm.
Now they are pushing for peace because Trump has out-manoeuvred them and it looks like the prospects for a forever war are slim.
I wonder what their position will be tomorrow.
Unless they are idiots, they will prepare for an inevitable war against Russia in (at least) the medium term.
The UK must always remember, we cannot trust the EU, if any proof was needed I refer you to their response and treatment of the UK for leaving the EU.
A process allowed under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides for the possibility of an EU member state leaving the European Union.
The EU is to all intents and purposes is defenceless, whereas our oldest ally, the USA, is the Worlds strongest military power.
We must secure our ties with the USA and at the same time re-build our military and our nuclear deterrent.
Just think what happened to Ukraine after giving up its nuclear capability.
However, to re-build defence will requre a political and social revolution, the privatisation of the NHS and a massive cut back on our welfare society would be the start.
The UK can’t trust the EU, but it can trust Russia a lot less.
There is not now and never will be a sovereign Europe (the Romans tried, Charlemagne tried, Napoleon tried, Hitler tried and a bunch of pen-pushing Eurocrats tried – God between us and all harm the latter have gifted us UVDL and Kaja Kallas). The US knows that the chance of a sovereign Europe emerging are at best nil. They are happy for Europe (the continent and the power) to come to an end and for what was formally known as Europe to in future be the western top of the Eurasian landmass, with which of course the US will have to deal.
Europe becoming a super power has much logic to it. Is it US strategy fault it has not? Or is it the petty parochialism of all the nation states unwilling to subordinate sovereignty to form US of Eurpoe?
Of course the governmental institutions of the EU are deeply flawed and not conducive to the people being willing to give up their blood lines for the greater good. Democratic power must be devolved closer to the people.
Well… maybe. But from where I sit (Chicago) it looks like the EU leaders and their globalist masters are cynically using Trump’s attempt to end a losing war, to create a foreign threat (both Russia and the US) in the minds of their populations, based on nationalities and patriotism they have sought to suppress for 50 years, with only partial success. They plan to then channel these emotions into “Europe” as the people’s protector and therefore the real subject of their patriotic feelings. Feelings that a year ago were “far right” and “neo-Nazi” and “unacceptable” when applied to the old nation-states, but are now, suddenly, required of all with no dissent allowed.
For the UK, Starmer happens to be PM at this time, so in addition to the above it falls on him to start undoing Brexit by committing the UK to an EU-driven military and diplomatic agenda–one with which he and his ilk are quite aligned. The first step to making the UK (again? more?) subject to Brussels.
The leaders go about their new course in the same way they pursued their previous one–deception, manipulation, censorship, obfuscation, and the continuing Grift, all lightly covering the mailed fist, and all against their own subject people. Because, no matter what the direction, they are who they are and they have a preferred method to which they always default.
The EU trying to fool Turkey, which for decades tried for EU membership only to be repeatedly told it wasn’t wanted, is LOL funny. The desire to use Turkish blood when the Ukrainian blood runs out is so obvious, to think that Erdogan wouldn’t see it is an insult to him.
There is no getting away from the fact that Turkey (like Ukraine) is far closer to Russia than Britain is, something the Turks have been aware of since (at least) the time of the Crimean War. A pan-European defence against Russia (the obvious enemy) doesn’t have to be “subject to Brussels”. In fact, it would be better if it wasn’t.
Good grief, European countries spent centuries putting together vast armies and navies virtually overnight. It’s simply a lack of will and willingness to sacrifice welfare state spending in favor of national defense that stops them from seriously undertaking it now. A re-armed EUROPEAN alliance would be a fine partner of the U.S. as part of a global strategy, Europe taking responsibility for it’s continent, the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea (that with with Egypt and Saudi Arabia – why should the U.S. be tasked with protecting Suez?), while the U.S. buttresses the western Pacific rim vs China. But Europe must bear its share of the burden. If you won’t – good luck gentlemen.
Well, yes. But the technology of the musket and sabre, or even the bolt-action rifle and the rifled cannon, was a bit simpler than what faces the procurement people today.
Also, conscription (except in England before 1915) was accepted as the price of citizenship. That’s no longer the case, even in America. Look at the problems it caused when the US introduced a very limited draft for Vietnam…
Given that, I generally concur that it is mainly a lack of will to fight, or just even to sacrifice a few comforts for secure defence. That is partly the fault of the politicians of the West who have promoted the welfare state to win votes. It is partly the fault of the politicians who have steadily socially engineered their people into a contempt for their culture, history and nationhood.
But it is mostly, at root, the fault of the people who went along with it.
True, technology has marched on, but that has a “swings and roundabouts” aspect to it. The biggest revolution in military tactics coming from the Ukraine war is the “rise of the drone”. While the “youth of today” might be hopeless at doing a cross country run or firing a Lee Enfield, some of them might make pretty good drone pilots. Once the Ukraine was is over, Britain should hire a lot of Ukrainian drone pilots to teach British soldiers how it is done.
“The hour of Europe’s independence has dawned, but there is no Bismarck or Mazzini to meet it.” Yes: Carlyle, opposing the already current view that historical events called forth great men rather than being shaped by them, pointed out (I can’t put my finger on the exact quote) that there had been plenty of instances where circumstances had cried out for a great man, but he had failed to appear!
This is a pretty good analysis as often from Aris Roussinos, albeit a bit long winded. However it seems that he has some delusions of his own when he keeps referring to something called “Europe” as some potential independent geopolitical force.
This seems pretty unlikely, given increasing tensions within the EU and the fact that the EU won’t even agree any kind of formal defense agreement with Britain, until we give them fullaccess to our fishing grounds! Presumably in the meantime countries like Ukraine and others can go hang! Not exactly a sign of ruthless Bizsmarckian realpolitik there!
“Starmer’s … personal charm …”
???????????
The man has had a charisma by-pass!
Great article.
Aris is the reason I subscribe to UnHerd.
It’s a lie alright, but there is absolutely nothing noble about it. That Starmer (lefty north London lawyer) should ever be in a position to promote such folly is catastrophic. Our very few soldiers may be far fewer quiter soon.
Yet who can deny that it took Putin’s individual agency to launch history back into motion? Aris, really lovely ‘Why now?’ analogy, but according to our most insightful people closest to the Russians, like the exceptional former Ambassador / CIA Director William Burns, Putin’s view was absolutely line-ball with every serious senior Russian and Russian public opinion. In Burns’ view, Vladimir Putin was the safest pair of hands among more radical elements. Like the late radical nationalist Navalny, who we made over as a progressive liberal, with help from Penn, Schoen & Berland, et al.
If you are right, and Putin really was “the safest pair of hands among more radical elements”, then surely it is incumbent on us to utterly destroy Russia both militarily and economically, because any idea of living peacefully with it is folly.
There are many great points in this article but author faith in Macron being great man of history is not really based on facts.
It was Macron and Merkel who were main appeasers of Putin.
It was obvious from Putin statements at Munich conference in 2007 regarding NATO, then invasion of Georgia in 2008 and definitely after his invasion of Crimea in 2014 that Europe needs to rearm.
So Macron and others had at least 8 years before Putin invaded whole of Ukraine but they did nothing to rearm.
It is quite likely that manner of Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan was what persuaded Putin to invade.
TL, DR: you all bought too much butter. We kept most of our guns.
If it’s any consolation, the Chinese bought very little butter for most of their citizens, and as time passes, the US will need its friends.
Cut back on the butter, to some degree. At the risk of mixing metaphors, buy some red meat, and go to the gym. Russia and China seem to be doing exactly that.
I feel a sense of pity for the people of Europe. Europeans bought into the neoliberal order and internationalism more fully than any other group, most notably Americans. How much less credence Americans paid to internationalism is only now becoming apparent, and Europeans are understandably shocked how little loyalty to the international order Americans feel. The reality is that both Europeans and Americans are victims of the same cadre of globalist elites, who themselves were mostly Americans with a fondness for the old world and its older, deeper, and more openly aristocratic cultures.
After the Cold War, they set about the neoliberal globalist project. America did indeed do many things to undermine its independence and thwart its rise to great power status. That, though, was an entirely different version of America than the one Trump is trying to create. That was the neoliberal version of America where both parties saw offshoring of factories and financialization as desirable. That was the America that believed opening trade to China would lead to them becoming a part of the same global scheme. They wanted open borders and interdependence between nations. They wanted to redistribute western wealth to the global south and came up with ideologies and programs to push such things. The flaw in their plan is that they needed American military and economic power to do it. They assumed that they could manipulate, indoctrinate, distract, and coerce the people into going along with that scheme.
They were wrong, and Trump is the result. In hindsight, given the tribal nature of humanity and the fact that most of the world never bought into the ideals of the European and American elite class, there was never any way this was going to work long term. There was no question it was going to fail eventually, but it failed sooner than expected because the elites greatly underestimated the American people and their hostility towards elitism and aristocracy. The author is right that Trump has no magical power. He simply recognized the situation and moved to take advantage of it first.
Excellent article.