US vs Europe in 2009 | Daily Kos - 24 Feb 2009 |

A former senior US government official, reacting to some of the sentiments I expressed in a previous essay for the Atlantic Community, said I was too pessimistic in my assessments. Europeans, I was told, always loudly disagree with US proposals but, in the end, whether it be expanding NATO or recognizing an independent Kosovo, will acquiesce to what America insists upon. At the same time, the US can continue to have fundamental disagreements with its European partners over matters such as climate change policy or international law without causing any major damage to the relationship.

 

With Democrats on the other hand, the expectations are going to be very high, at least on the American side. They're gonna turn towards Europe and expect to be back in the game as if nothing happened. Delusions of American Exceptionalism are very strong and in my opinion resurgent among Democrats. I can already picture Obama flying in European capitals, all proud and shining of his brand new "historical" victory, the "New JFK" and the second coming of Holy Ronald Reagan all rolled in one, and explaining in grand rhetorical flourishes how everything is going to get better thanks to American Leadership ^(TM). They really believe that shit.

 

The first paragraph is from Time for Frank Talk on US-EU Relations, by Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor-in-Chief of The National Interest, and describes the traditional view of Europe from Washington: that of slightly noisy, but basically good kids, occasionally rude but easy to bring back in line - members of the family, which you head and in whose name you can speak.

The second, less diplomatic one, comes from a comment by Francois in Paris a California-based Frenchman, reflects what is probably the majority view in Europe outside the traditional circles of power.

He continues as follows:

With Obama, well, we have a situation. The potential for a complete misunderstanding is pretty phenomenal. His style and the expectations he's setting in his campaign are going to be a big liability in relations with Europe. And then there is this little business with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs where he just spent the last year broadcasting that he doesn't give a shit about Europe. [110th Congress - Chair Joe Biden (D-DE)]

There is plenty of nasty business to sort out: the Euro/Dollar relation, the contagion of the US financial meltdown in Europe, military cooperation in Afghanistan, the mess in Iraq (if the US thinks they are going to be able to just walk away ...), global warming, trade with China, oil supply security, Israel, etc., etc., etc.

[...]

I mostly agree with Francois, with the added "bonus" that Europe currently has a number of leaders (starting with Sarkozy and Brown) who are going to be keen to look as perfect little allies and friendly pro-American freedom-loving "reformers" [...]

"Passive-aggressive spite" is likely to be an excellent description of European policy towards the US, as resentment over climate change inaction and international law décrédibilisation finally overcomes Europeans' inertia and cowardice in confronting the US. [...]

And with the global economy in a tailspin, protectionism is likely to become a major force again, both the simplistic kind (protecting a special interest with the ear of power) or the new kind (preventing imports of carbon-rich goods or labor-standard-evading goods), and Europe and the US will not necessarily be on the same side of these arguments - and trade is the one topic where Europe actually can outmuscle the US.

Some of you might remember my critical diaries on Obama's foreign policy last year (here and here), and my worrying about Obama's focus on strengthening the US military (alongside better bits about stopping torture, closing Guantanamo and listening to allies). Well, I still see the same problem this year: the combination of (i) the argument that the Bush years are over and (ii) the conviction that the US has a natural right to lead the "free world" is going to create a huge conflict of expectations.

Well read and recommended @dKos 78x with 127 comments posted. Here the version @EuroTrib.

in the year 2008, Europe's future demise was sealed at the NATO Bucharest Summit and the Georgian attack on South Ossetia ... a first failure by Bush to not put deeds where rhetoric had indicated US military support. Only McCain, Scheunemann, Israel and its military corporations were involved in the preparations of a military confrontation.

• Catch 22: From Georgian War to Ukraine 2022

.

Inside NATO expansion and The Origins of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine | The Hill by Branko Marcetic |

No gain, lives lost, Europe on a deeper path of war at a high financial cost and burden on its citizens. U.S. corporations in the military industry are the biggest winners and the fossil fuel companies destroying the planet as time passes.

Retired General on How Ukraine Is `Bleeding Out' Against Russia | WSJ - 8 Nov. 2024 |

After losing nearly 20% of its territory in the proxy war with Russia, Zelensky is willing to make a deal with scavenger Trump to give away economic assets of a future sovereign Ukraine for more advanced weapons ... thereby increasing the threat to the Russian Federation.

Trump wants Ukraine's "rare earths" as a payment for further military supplies | WSJ News |

Scholz blasts Trump's aid-for-rare earths Ukraine plan, calls them "selfish" | Kyiv Independent |

#WeAreNato  #WeAreUnited