Near the end of the piece he talks of new world alliances, in particular where the US will have to look for strategic partnerships (as he points out, certainly not "EU"rope). But he fails to mention, unless I blanked out while reading the piece, Russia. In the Western World, it has the best chance of being an economically and socially dynamic democracy, one with which we can make increasingly common cause.
Ironically, Russia standing on the outside of NATO serves this purpose; because it may become necessary, in the face of increasing EU hostility and interference, to abandon NATO and let the deluded Euroweenies take on their own defense. (A good start will be when we pull our forces out of Germany, something that must be done as soon as we can secure alternative facilities, e.g. in CIS states.) Since Russia's not a member, they won't have to go through the possibly tortuous process of pulling out, and it will be easier for us to forge a 'post-NATO' relationship with the only military power in Europe that will really count.
Of course the Russian/CIS connection is in addition to Asian alliances. We all know there may unfortunately be Hell to pay in that region; but perhaps the political and economic difficulties with the big players there (read: China and Japan, respectively) will pass, or at least abate to where they do not blow up world affairs. Or the World <)B^(.
Karl makes illuminating points about the changing demographics of the EU states. But he doesn't use the "I" word, and to me this is the elephant in the powder room.
EU politicians are already afraid of their Islamist populations, and as the 'anglo' population declines, the politicians will become ever more pusillanimously deferential to the Islamic Mob. We're talking about a resurgence of brown-shirtism here, and it has the same potential for wrecking what's left of Western Civ on the Continent.
And, as in 1933, we Americans will not be able to remain aloof. Indeed, as some have said, in historical implications 9/11 in some ways resembles Pearl Harbor; in other ways, Krystallnacht or the burning of the Reichstag.
One final comment. The UK is at one of the great crossroads of her history. She's going to have to choose between EUrope and America. Which way she chooses determines her future, if she is to have one.
Amen. And may she make the right choice.
I think you're half right. I didn't see the lack of mention of Russia as an issue. Russia is imploding demographically even more rapidly than Europe is. According to Pravda, "the Russian population can be expected to drop to 25 million people in 100 years." Their birth rate is not just low, it is in free-fall decline. My personal belief is that Russia cannot maintain its territorial integrity with that going on; its vast geography almost begs for invasion from China or elsewhere. Whether that is done militarily, or simply by immigration and propagation, almost doesn't matter. The result will be the same: a "Bigger China" where a lot of Russia is now.
I was as surprised as you were that Zinsmeister did not mention the "Islamization" of Europe. The population implosion among ethnic Europeans is not occurring in a vaccum. One might even argue that the undemocratic nature of the EU machinery is an attempt to forestall an inevitable imposition of Islamic law -- via popular vote -- in European countries. By surrendering sovereignty to an unelected bureaucracy, the "elites" can perhaps maintain some power over their lives while their countries slowly devolve into Islamic Republics.
As for Muslim immigration, the Euros are bigots. There's a good a chance that they'll slam the doors on it, maybe even expel some of their "guests."
What worries me that the author didn't mention is that there are three nuclear nations in Europe. Of course that will come to mean less as time goes on.