Regardless of how long the military-political crisis surrounding the Ukrainian problem will last, for Russia, relations with its immediate neighbours in the West, the European states, will remain an issue that it would be frivolous to simply brush aside. This means that even as we develop our political, trade and economic relations at the global level, we will have to understand how life is developing in the region, confrontation with which has shaped the majority of Russian foreign policy goals for centuries. Moreover, Europe’s position in the modern world is now fundamentally changing. The most important factor in these changes, in addition to the growth of the rest of humanity, is the relationship between Europeans and their senior partners in America. These relations have become the most important factor in the development of Europe and its position in international politics throughout the 20th century. Now they have become central to the domestic political evolution of our immediate neighbours in the West, and determine the nature of the processes and changes taking place there. The likelihood of Europe’s positive contribution to the security of all of Eurasia, which now appears not just minimal but negative, depends to a large extent on how this interaction develops at all levels.
Security is the central element of the unequal partnership between the US and Europe. In reality, the role of the US in relation to the states of Europe has always been limited to two issues. First, containing the restoration of European great power and militarism. Second, using Europe as a territorial base for its confrontation with Russia. The US has never solved any other problems in the Old World, and discussions about the “American security umbrella” are nothing more than a myth, diligently repeated by observers in the absence of any desire to show any critical attitude towards it. Such a simplified view makes sense for propaganda purposes, but when it comes to real politics, remaining captive to the concept of the “American security umbrella” over Europe means artificially limiting the scope of one’s intellectual search.
The very concept of a “security umbrella” is absurd when it comes to a physical threat from an enemy of comparable strength. Since we are far from thinking that a threat to Europe could come from North African countries, China, or the Middle East, the only such enemy is Russia. However, it is linked to the United States by a relationship of strategic deterrence, based on the direct and immediate threat of causing unacceptable damage to each other’s territory and population. Any state, especially a strong and powerful one, is responsible only to its own citizens in matters of such fundamental importance, Timofei Bordachev writes.
Regardless of how long the military-political crisis surrounding the Ukrainian problem will last, for Russia, relations with its immediate neighbours in the West, the European states, will remain an issue that it would be frivolous to simply brush aside. This means that even as we develop our political, trade and economic relations at the global level, we will have to understand how life is developing in the region, confrontation with which has shaped the majority of Russian foreign policy goals for centuries. Moreover, Europe’s position in the modern world is now fundamentally changing. The most important factor in these changes, in addition to the growth of the rest of humanity, is the relationship between Europeans and their senior partners in America. These relations have become the most important factor in the development of Europe and its position in international politics throughout the 20th century. Now they have become central to the domestic political evolution of our immediate neighbours in the West, and determine the nature of the processes and changes taking place there. The likelihood of Europe’s positive contribution to the security of all of Eurasia, which now appears not just minimal but negative, depends to a large extent on how this interaction develops at all levels.
Security is the central element of the unequal partnership between the US and Europe. In reality, the role of the US in relation to the states of Europe has always been limited to two issues. First, containing the restoration of European great power and militarism. Second, using Europe as a territorial base for its confrontation with Russia. The US has never solved any other problems in the Old World, and discussions about the “American security umbrella” are nothing more than a myth, diligently repeated by observers in the absence of any desire to show any critical attitude towards it. Such a simplified view makes sense for propaganda purposes, but when it comes to real politics, remaining captive to the concept of the “American security umbrella” over Europe means artificially limiting the scope of one’s intellectual search.
Now is the time to admit that there is no “umbrella,” but rather a US protectorate over Europe, established without enthusiasm, but with the support of a segment of the European elite, and leading this region to further degradation.
The most striking examples of such degradation are the largest European countries – Britain, Germany and France. All of them have gone through a slow but inevitable erosion of their role in world politics. All of them are now performing, in one way or another, tasks to accomplish even the most ill-contrived goals of the USA. None of them receive anything for this that could contribute to the survival of their statehood and population, either at the tactical or strategic level. Moreover, their economic benefits from such a humiliated position are becoming increasingly insignificant. There is no need to think that Europe’s slide into strategic meaninglessness is the price to pay for its own bad intentions. Europe could very well ensure its security and development, but it cannot do so, since it is constantly forced to pursue a suicidal foreign policy.
We should probably start with the fact that the very concept of a “security umbrella” is absurd when it comes to a physical threat from an enemy of comparable strength. Since we are far from thinking that a threat to Europe could come from North African countries, China, or the Middle East, the only such enemy is Russia. However, it is linked to the United States by a relationship of strategic deterrence, based on the direct and immediate threat of causing unacceptable damage to each other’s territory and population. Any state, especially a strong and powerful one, is responsible only to its own citizens in matters of such fundamental importance.
It is strange to think that the US could ever put its own survival at risk in order to protect Europeans from a massive attack by, say, Russia. Even those who voluntarily transferred a significant part of their sovereign rights to the Americans, as happened with Germany, Italy, Britain or Turkey in the case of the deployment of US nuclear weapons there. These countries sacrificed their sovereignty, but it cannot be said that they received anything convincing in exchange in terms of ensuring their own security. The understanding of this fact is certainly present there, which shows us the degree to which the survival strategy of Berlin, Rome, Ankara or London is subordinated to the interests of the US. Europe, including Turkey, is important for the US as a territory from which it can develop its hostile policy towards Russian interests. But nothing more. It is axiomatic that the US will never sacrifice itself for the sake of its European allies.
Moreover, major powers are, in principle, relatively calm about changes in the balance of power between their weaker partners. For them, this is not a factor that directly influences the solution of the most important foreign policy tasks of the state. Therefore, such categories as the “security umbrella” can only operate in cases where there is a potential clash with a much weaker adversary that is not capable of seriously threatening the main territory of a great power. This is how Russia’s allied relations with the CSTO countries work, although here, as we have seen, there are limitations associated with the decisions of the junior partner. In the same case, if the actions of the ally country are not absurd, then the major power will, of course, come to its aid, as happened at the time of the threat of the collapse of statehood in Kazakhstan in January 2022.
Due to the fact that the existence of such a category as the “security umbrella” in the Russia-USA-Europe triangle is impossible even at a theoretical level, the only thing that Europeans get in return is an illusory confidence in the impunity of their own irresponsible behaviour. For now, it is in effect, and even the largest European countries behave like the former Soviet Baltic republics. But it is completely unknown what will happen when the strategic interests of the United States no longer require such a serious territorial presence in the western part of Eurasia. Especially considering that the rivalry between the United States and China has every chance of becoming a central element of international politics in the coming decades. We are far from thinking that Europe itself is capable of maintaining a state of cold war with Russia. If American pressure here decreases, it is quite possible that the European elites will begin to show the prudence to which they are already being pushed by the will of ordinary citizens.
For now, the key factors restraining the normalisation of Europe’s behaviour are American pressure and the crisis state of its own elites, followed by the essentially neo-colonial model of Europe’s participation in the world economy. Reducing pressure from the United States, which consistently forces Europe to be hostile to Russia, may lead to a fairly rapid change not only in the rhetoric, but also in the practice of European foreign policy. The issue with the elites will be somewhat more complicated: we see what many politicians are like at the national level and, especially, by observing their nominees to the institutions of the European Union.
Negative selection, based on incompetence and corrupt relationships with American companies, has produced a generation of politicians who have nothing to do with the interests of their countries. However, if Europe’s only objective foreign policy function – the space for deploying American forces and resources in the event of a conflict with Russia – is reduced, new politicians with a new worldview and professional qualities will be in demand.
Source: Valdai. Discussion club
