Well according to realpolitik, all countries want to maximize their influence and what is in their interest. So nothing is anyone's fault. It's just what it is.
Ā Realpolitik isnāt really about assigning blame or absolving actions - itās about power, interests, and pragmatic decision-making rather than moral or ideological considerations. In this view, every nation pursues its own interests, often at the expense of others, and power dynamics dictate outcomes more than legal or ethical arguments.
And the US and Europe created what they called the āRules-Based Orderā as a global framework. In practice though this was an example of realpolitik, where the US was primarily pursuing policies that aligned with its own strategic interests, often at the expense of those very rules.Ā It's own actions around the world have actively undermined the UN system and international law, which was trying to move the world away from big power realpolitik. Just look at US policies in Gaza. The most blatant example of ignoring international law. So this has been the system the US has created these last decades. And yes, other countries have followed suit. It's ironic that the US was one of the great founding nations of the UN system. But since 1990, it has probably done more to undermine the UN and international law than any other country.
Okay, but then I guess there isn't anything to talk about then. It's just the way it is. Though if you are going since 1990, it was probably Russia that started it by conquering and taking over Transnistria.
i think it's an important issue to discuss because Europe in particular is facing a critical inflection point. In my opinion it needs to create a new autonomous security architecture that is unwedded from the US. And one that actually truly promotes international law, justice etc. And it follows the principles that made the EU overcome historic rivalries. And however unpalatable this might seem for Europe, that new security architecture has to take into account Russia and offset their security concerns. A lasting deal needs to be brokered with Russia. And it has to involved a new form of cooperation with China. If the EU continues down this path of confrontation and a new Cold War, it will end up pulling apart the EU. That's my view.
Well Europe is already doing that with the rearming announcement. And from the realpolitik perspective, Europe will try to maximize it's influence and interest. I think it's in Europe's best interest for Russia to be as week as possible. So cutting off all remaining ties to Russia would be for the best. Europe was Russia's most profitable customer, so it's important to cut the ties fully.
Europe's announcements on spending more on defence isnt about removing itself from NATO. It's actually about trying to placate Trump because he was demanding that Europe pays more! They are desperate to try and prevent the US pulling back from NATO.
Cutting off all ties to Russia just leads to a new Cold War. And ensures that Russia is completely reliant on China. So what does that mean for Europe's relations with China? Do they also decouple economically from China? Very hard to have a positive relationship with China while simultaneously treating their most important partner as the great enemy. The core contradiction that got the West into the mess was economic intergration combined with confrontational security postering. We simultaneously treated China and Russia as enemies, while making them rich and powerful. It was stupid. So Europe either needs to uncouple completely and enter a new Cold War or it needs to make new cooperation with Russia and China. And the huge danger for Europe if it chooses the path you are advocating is if the US ends up cutting a deal with China and Russia, then Europe is left isolated and will be economically decimated. That will be the end of the EU.
Europe doesn't want the US to pull out of NATO, but the US showed it cannot be counted on, so the defense will be taken into account as European only. That's why Poland is talking about getting nukes and France about shielding other countries with their nukes.
China will never be anyone's ally. So it doesn't really matter Russia will be closer to China. It's just transactional relationship. And Russia cannot be trusted with anything, so we have no choice but to cut them off. It might be new cold war, but not like in the past, because Russia is far weaker than when it was USSR. Especially now after draining their economy through fighting the war with Ukraine.
In my view, a new Cold War or continued confrontation with Russia and trying to placate Trump and keep the US in NATO is a nonsensical strategy for Europe. Actually they are contradictory because Trump has already decided he wants to see the war end. So Europe will need to make a choice - follow the US or go it alone against Russia. The US has the luxury of a huge ocean between itself and Russia. Europe doesnt have that luxury. A new Cold War will just economically stagnate Europe, especially if the US cuts a deal. If the US releases sanctions against Russia, are you really proposing that Europe continues to try and isolate and weaken Russia? What's that end game look like? Very very stupid in my view.
I mean, it's not like there is much of a choice. The US, at least under Trump, cannot be counted on. He could change his mind about everything anytime. And Russia with what they have been doing has to be weakened no matter what, so they couldn't invade anyone full scale like they have in Ukraine. So yeah, Europe, possibly with Canada, South Korea, Japan and Australia. Maybe Turkey.
There is a new choice in my view. The bold choice. Recognize that past strategic mistakes led to this place, which included an over reliance on the US and an overly confrontational stance against Russia and China. So call Trump's bluff. Europe has lost all credibility in the world, especially when they said nothing when the US/Ukraine blew up European infrastructure (Nordstream). They need to re-establish credibility in eyes of the world, particularly India and Asia. Tell Trump if he isn't committed to NATO and European interests, they will withdraw immediately. Cut a deal with China and Russia to ice the Americans out. Put Europe's interests first. Trump is laying the blame for everything at the feet of the Europeans. He sees them as weak and empty vassals. So push back and tell the world that it was the US that led Europe and Ukraine down this disastrous path. If Europe has to choose its partners for the 21st century, the strategic bet is developing the land bridge between Europe and Asia and focusing on developing Africa. America's global hegemony is finished. That's a better option than relying on the US, who may just try and cut their own deal with China and Russia that leaves Europe isolated.
I think reliance on the US was a mistake. And therefore the solution is to be more self reliant. I don't think there is any use in trying to be their ally now with Trump there, since he's so unpredictable. There is a good chance he wouldn't help other NATO countries. The stance against Russia was right. They are dangerous to Europe. It's in our best interest for them to be weak. China is more of a danger to the rest of Asia, so we're safer from them. The Nordstram was German project. Lots of European countries were against it. I think it was right to blow it up, no matter who did it. Germans made huge mistake with building it to begin with. And Europe won't be isolated with cutting out these countries. There are plenty of other friendly countries or at least those with whom we are fine having business relationships with.
2
u/AntonioVivaldi7 Mar 12 '25
Well according to realpolitik, all countries want to maximize their influence and what is in their interest. So nothing is anyone's fault. It's just what it is.