With disbelief we see the end of the reproduction of affirmative bonds within the North Atlantic alliance. The engagement of NATO led by Joe Biden in the war in Ukraine against Russia led to extremist overestimation in the fresh US leadership.
Donald Trump's administration, at the corner of the beneficiaries of the current imagination of global governance, in which war with Russia has become a strategical guideline and a origin of profit, redefines priorities and shocks the dynamics of change.
The possible abandonment of Europe by America, which has frequently been mentioned, becomes a fact. The exclusion of European leaders from consultation and negotiation mechanisms with Russia is hard not only for emotional but besides for prestigious reasons. He threatens with dishonor and “loss of face”. In the meantime, it is hard to blame Donald Trump for not trusting those politicians who have late collaborated with his opponent Joe Biden and acted jointly to harm peace in Europe. Their engagement in Ukrainian affairs deprives them of objectivity in the assessment of the situation, especially with respect to Russia. Poland and the Baltic States are an utmost example of this.
American politicians of the fresh administration are well aware of the weaknesses of European countries in the independent finalisation of the "Ukrainian project". Aspirations and muscle tension alone are not enough. The British-French-German Tercete is not coherent, let alone another countries. By the time he achieves any success, he will be able to divide himself. The US remembers well that Europeans would never be able to cope with aggressors in both planet wars without their help. Who knows, then, how the destiny of a possible clash between Europe (EU and Atlantic) and the hegemon of the continent, Russia, would turn out? Is it possible that another U.S. invasion, possibly with China, must aid reconstruct peaceful continental stability?
Trump's dismantling...
remains after the “cold war” in the form of an institutionalized military-political bloc. After the dissolution of the USSR and the disappearance of the east bloc in the US, not only lacked political will, but besides courage, especially in the face of frightened Europeans, to destruct the North Atlantic Alliance then like the Warsaw Pact. From today's perspective, it is clear that it was utilized to advance the "end of history" in the sense given by the word Francis FukuyamaWhich did not benefit the West much. On the contrary, it exposed the US to the cost and expense that could have been utilized for another purposes and in another, more rational way. Today, the cost of maintaining a multilateral and extended over-reasonable alliance outweighs the opportunities of the United States. Nor do they agree with the advanced degree of ideologicalization of allied solidarity, which has led in the last 3 decades to advance missionary and transformational leadership towards the outside world, to the detriment of their own development. The current turn towards transactional leadership entails a advanced cost of taking full work of the European Union for its own security. Hence, arms mobilization, without precedent in history. Its multiple effects are hard to predict.
Many observers observe that Europe has neither strong leadership nor efficient decision-making mechanisms. She's missing too. dominandi libidowhich characterize large empires. present we can see that the irrational commitment to the war against Russia in Ukraine has brought more losses than profits, both in the economic, energy and military fields. besides in terms of imagery, pan-European institutions lose their weapons in a confrontation with Russia. In spite of pushy propaganda, it is restored to participation in consultation mechanisms, which cannot prevent even the most rusophobic media offensive.
The European Union does not have the power to formulate and implement globally attractive visions of universal order. specified powers have only large powers, which have integrated resources in 1 political organization, capable of mobilising its power and its projection into the world. Only the United States, China and Russia presently meet this condition. So there is nothing useful here for moral condemnation of the behaviour of these powers, or negation of their methods and means of expansion. It is advanced time to realize that they are geared, not to make humanity happy, but to win in confronting different visions, to gain fresh resources, to make energy and to strengthen power.
As the United States stood during the “cold war” by far on the side of the Old Continent, successive generations of Europeans were able to get utilized to the intellectual comfort and durability of the American “protective umbrella”. They even agreed beyond the unique Europeans, as gene. Charles de Gaulle, to vassalize their countries towards America at the price of increasing prosperity and security.
However, ideological solidarity and allied credibility do not last forever. past teaches that they have their own dynamics, a derivative of changing systems of interior and external forces. erstwhile an alliance leader makes deep overestimation in his global strategy, which is imposed on allies, there is necessarily dissonance and complications in common understanding. The Ukrainian trap has exposed a crisis of trust and loyalty within an alliance that has not occurred since its establishment. NATO crisis...
It is besides about the fact that, through the ideology of his doctrine, which can be called “rusophobia pollution”, the Treaty's defence and aid objectives have been transformed into their opposite—an expansion into a council area and aggressive attitude towards Russia. The North Atlantic Alliance became a weapon in a fresh “cold war”, uncovering justification for its existence in creating an enemy in the East. The Republican circles in the US today, unfavorably geared to Euro-Atlantic allies, admit that NATO's crusades to the east of Europe, including the russian areas, have led to costly demolition of the Western safety strategy and to moral degeneration of allies.
The North Atlantic Alliance, at the request of the United States, engaged in numerous, highly controversial armed interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya in the name of "total democracy", but never truly based on Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, although so wanted by European allies in the case of an expedition to Afghanistan in 2001. As a result, alliance commitments, especially the coalition leader towards the remainder of the participants were never tested in defensive practice. Operation Enduring Freedom was a military intervention and criminal expedition against the Taliban. And with mediocre results.
The size of the alliance has besides become a problem, negatively affecting its coherence and efficiency. Above all, besides many diverse participants are hampered by coordination, and many asymmetrys in operational potentials and capabilities make contradictions and tensions. Ultimately, the greater the alliance became, the little crucial the contribution of individual countries, especially those tiny and weak. She besides had the rank of individual commitments, which yet spawned American disappointment. For example, the 3 Baltic republics, in order to compensate for their insignificant contribution, took aggressive and aggravating attitudes towards Russia. With the consent of the alliance leader, they became “frontal” states and “new warriors” acting on behalf of the West. Infecting another participants with the fear of Russian aggression, they contributed to legitimizing the legitimacy of the U.S. military placement on the east flank of the alliance.
The re-formatting of alliance bonds, and even the threat of breaking them by the US, should be read in a broader geopolitical context. Losing hegemonic leadership in the global system, primarily due to China's emergence in power, America acknowledges that maintaining a "protection umbrella" over Europe is besides costly for it to face global competition. By moving Russia to their side, the United States seeks a rivalry triangle of possible advantages, and by breaking European commitments, they gain resources and time for interior sanitization and reconstruction of transactional cooperation. In this sense, the "indirect" war (proxy war) with Russia in Ukraine seems to them to be an irrational and damaging measure.
The panic that Trump and his squad are causing among Western allies is the consequence of ignorance in the field of past and incompetence in policy analysis, as in political and media circles, as in expert and technological circles. Both of these weaknesses hinder the knowing of 1 crucial pattern in global relations. For thousands of years, since the countries had developed the globe and started to compete and cooperate with each other, various coalitions, alliances and agreements have become their policy tools. Until planet War II, these covenants were loose and uninstitutionalized. The dynamics and variability of the systems of forces determined their transient, temporal character. Today's allies and partners became tomorrow's rivals and enemies. And vice versa, yesterday's enemies were turning into today's allies.
The controversy surrounding the reassessment of US alliance commitments within NATO shows that no of the European leaders remembers these historical experiences. It was believed that the ideological solidarity of the coalitions fulfils the function of specified a strong binder that the alliance, despite almost 8 decades of existence and average moral consumption, will last forever. Yet in a constantly changing world, the favour of powerful leaders and protectors depends not only on the whims of politicians, but besides on the changing interests of powers. Against this background, the decay and extinction of the top alliance in past are inevitable.
It is now the will of the rulers of America that determines the position of intra-society commitments. Of course, 1 can be offended at specified a course, to blame Trump and his crew for selfish and highly individualistic intentions, but complaining alone will not save the Atlantic community. Therefore, the sooner European countries realize the challenges of the moment, the better they have the chance to benefit from the fresh arrangement with the US, even at the expense of losing their image. As you can see, “go to Canossa” is not only waiting for chiefs from Kiev. In time, a fresh “lenna tribute” will most likely be submitted by a full squad of their European supporters.
Europe's Last Chance
Europe now needs political realists alternatively of moralists and moralists. The fresh “German Frederick” has a chance to go beyond collective stupidity syndrome and turn European madmen from their way to disaster. It can also, through peace, halt the dangerous process of deindustrialising Europe's largest industrial economy and donor across the European Union by restoring the supply of inexpensive Russian energy carriers.
Today, you can see how naive faithfulness to values that make dangerous illusions ends in blamash. European capitals, in peculiar Berlin, Paris and London, face a historical chance of crossing the borders of their dogmatism and “outside” from the “Ukrainian trap”. Unfortunately, among European leaders there are no specified husbands or states, so they cannot be expected. It is simply a pity that no of the Polish politicians, despite their pretenses and their struggles with the ranks, are able to impress with a smart initiative, or prove that Poland, despite its “goldenism”, deserves the real position of “moderator” or “broker” of peace.
Washington elites have adequate power of persuasion, influence and force to summon allies to subordination. EU and NATO leaders realised rather late that a powerful protector from outside the ocean did not number on their subjectivity. They may be turned into a means to an end sooner than they think. Meanwhile, Orbán and Fico already have their first place in history, as despite the collective force they were able to defend their rations and "preserve their face", without giving in to rusophobic propaganda and decently qualifying the Ukrainian conflict for their own and European interests. These politicians deserve designation due to their soundness of mind, courage and resilience, and, above all, their ability to calculate the hazard of transferring war to Ukraine to neighbouring countries.
In the current situation, there is much evidence that the European vassals of America are incapable to make a clear accommodation strategy for changing circumstances.. Getting caught up in large arms investments is simply a way to nowhere erstwhile they are not getting diplomatic standardization efforts in the sukurs. Violentness in defence of existing positions and atavistic hatred of Russia and Putin block the critical judgement of the Ukrainian state and its puppet leadership. Meanwhile, Trump and his co-workers show the way to rapidly and effectively re-evaluate the myths to date and get on the road to objectiveizing their own strategies.
Many traps lie on European leaders. The fact that they might fall out of the mercy of an Atlantic protector is beautiful obvious. However, they besides have threats in their own backyard. They must face the patience and endurance of their societies which turn distant from supporting Ukraine due to negative economical consequences. Mobilising anti-war groups will yet lead to the departure from politics in the infamy of people lost in their spells and miscalculations. Meanwhile, America with Russia and China, without the participation of Europeans, will make a fresh hand in the polygonal (multipolar) arrangement of forces. So what will be the principles of hierarchical ordering of fresh dependencies? Where will the European Union find its place, which will never become a coherent military alliance? These are questions for all pseudo-leaders who are not curious in solving the problem, but in continuing the war.
Therefore, expectations on the part of the most crucial players of the global phase are right to proceed as shortly as possible to the reconstruction of assurance building measures. To reconstruct credibility and assurance (pacta sunt servanda) and the rule of good religion (bona fides) in diplomatic agreements. First of all, you should halt blaming each another like small children, who first started breaking the rules of the game. In the context of applying these principles, there is simply a problem of restoring the function of ethics in conversation and behaviour on each side, i.e. not misleading the another side (pages), avoiding lies and counterfeiting, not utilizing fraud, blackmail, bribery, deception, not utilizing insults, not harming the another side. Unfortunately, Ukrainian chiefs are leading in this respect, although all their supporters blame Russia and Putin.
Peace Not War
Joining a coalition for real peace now requires courage and admitting mistakes. In the case of war in Ukraine, no 1 is blameless. Of course, specified acts of conscience and work do not come easy to anyone. But telling about the request to accomplish “fair peace” means that European leaders live in any idealistic and daunting bubble and have ceased to realize the rules they themselves preach. If by password Ursuli von der Leyen is “peace by force”, it truly is dictated by the 1 who proved stronger in the blood conflict so far. Waiting for Europe to be able to accomplish it means further bleeding out Ukraine and bodes the fire of the full EU community. Ukraine would have long lost this war without the support of the West, and now it is clear that it will be the 1 that will endure the top consequences of the "conclusion" of peace. For her, any solution will be unfair. There have never been "fair wars" in history, or even "fair rooms". Therefore, revisionism and rematchism are a consequence of any peace regulation and fuel to prepare subsequent wars.
Justice in global relations is only a moral postulate, and always, like the law, is an expression of real agreements of force. It refers not always to fair and impartial proceedings on the appropriate distribution of goods or values on the basis of predetermined criteria, specified as parity, proportionality or priority. It is always utilized by conflict parties as a tactical weapon to claim the right to "better" moral attitudes. This behaviour leads to the attribution of "greater morality" to its own position compared to the position of the another party. Since each organization to the conflict is convinced that its own position is correct, it is so a simple way to the “negotiation path”. Different understandings of justice with disregard for the relation of forces lead to escalation of the dispute, not its resolution.
An EU and a national Europe seems to be on its way to disaster. Through her engagement in the war in Ukraine against Russia on her own request, she got free of strategical access to inexpensive Russian energy resources. Today, however, she has entered into disastrous consequences for her safety of divorce with America “for a misunderstanding of the parties”, which will lead to the weakening and even, God forbid, the liquidation of the American “protective umbrella”. The arms race with Russia, before it leads to its surrender – as the Polish Prime Minister says – will consequence in the demolition of European societies, and losses resulting from alienation will marginalize Europe as a defender of an imaginary order that has passed away.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
photo of wikiepdia
Think Poland, No. 11-12 (16-23.03.2025)
