Oh please.
Idiots. Stratfor doesn't begin understand the magnitude of the game that is being played out right now.
Invading Iraq is SECONDARY.
Posted on 03/03/2003 6:29:57 AM PST by advocate10
Oh please.
Idiots. Stratfor doesn't begin understand the magnitude of the game that is being played out right now.
Invading Iraq is SECONDARY.
If there is a miscalculation it is that the French/German/Russian strategy has triggered a counter-coalition formed around Britain, Spain and Italy, which threatens to seize the EU leadership away from France.
Spain (and in which case, probably also Portugal) would also be no great loss. As far as France is concerned. Italy would be a more serious economic loss and threat to the EU's legitimacy, because it is a major European economic power and one of the original six. But when it comes down to having to make a choice, I don't see the Italians as really having the guts to make such a wrenching move. They will make all sorts of symbolic pro-US gestures, and they won't go out of their way to hurt the US like France and Germany will, but in the final analysis, they are not going to cut themselves out of the EU.
Your analysis WRT E. Europe is right as far as it goes. However, they will increasingly find themselves (as they have for centuries, actually forever) between the rock of France/Germany and the hard place of Russia. Yes, they would love to have the US guarantee their independence, but it could be a tough place to reinforce, and how many hundreds of thousands of troops are we really willing to risk losing if push comes to shove? Our ONLY geostrategic interest in E. Europe is to continue to maintain a foothold in continental Europe (not really necessary) and to prevent the Franco/Russo/German axis from consolidating a contiguous zone of hegemony across the entire continent. This later is a desirable strategic objective, but it competes against many other strategic objectives, and I'm not at all convinced that it ranks all that high in terms of priority. Besides, it must be remembered that simply due to geographic distances, E. Europe's natural trade partners are going to be W. Europe and Russia. The US is just too far away to be a major import or export market for them. You cannot totally divorce these economic realities from geostrategy.
I am forced to conclude that NATO is dead. It probably died not long after Gulf War I and the final dissolution of the Soviet Union. It has continued to exist institutionally, but in reality it is now a disfunctional alliance, and those never last.
If France started throwing major European countries out of the EU to preserve it's control it would forfeit any claim to European leadership and could create a Europe once again divided by an alliance system.
If the US wins big in Iraq, as many think, and establishes itself as the unstoppable superpower, we're bound to attract opposition through the operation of old fashioned, Machiavellian, balance of power politics. We're already seeing some of that right now. Just some thoughts. Thanks for your post.
Note that the French and Russians were allies for a good while in the run-up to WWI. In many ways, they are natural allies, and perhaps the gravitation of the two back to each other now is a natural and inevitable outcome.
Germany, of course, is still living with the aftermath of WWII and the huge mistakes it made. It is one of history's big losers, there is simply no other way to put it. They do realize that because of their economic might, they can be valuable to both France and Russia -- more valuable to them than to anyone else. Germany also realizes that if it lies safely in their arms, neither the Americans nor British nor anyone else is very likely to cause them any harm. Colaborating with the French in booting the Americans out of Europe will at least rid the Germans of the last vestage reminder of postwar occupation, and they may be at the point where this is now important to them.
It is true that the Germans and Russians have historically been competitors in E. Europe. But the Germans are in no position to exert anything other than the most benign political leadership in that sphere. Economics is another matter. As the largest economy bordering the region, Germany is E. Europe's natural and largest trading partner. At the same time, while Russia has a long-term possibility of stronger trade with E. Europe, its economy is in such a mess right now that this matters little. What Russia has, however, is a still-substantial army. Enough to keep E. Europe from being TOO independent in relation to its neighbors. Both E. Europe and Russia need the EU's -- and especially Germany's - capital and technology.
Yes, Russia faces a long-term threat from China. Yet there is also the attraction of good trade relations between Russia and China, and also between China and Europe through Russia. And Russia might have realized that the US might not be as helpful to them as they initially thought, in which case their best bet is to join the European alliance and try to keep China as friendly as possible.
Thus, I do see a Franco/Russo/German alliance emerging, and the mutual interests of each of these three are sufficiently strong to hold them together at least for the time being.
T'would appear so.
I thought that's what they said. Guess I'll have to read it again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.