logo
Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism

Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism

AllAfrica03-03-2025
The public spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the White House last week sent shockwaves through Europe, and rightly so.
With Trump advocating for an end to the Ukraine war and signaling a hard shift in US policy, Europe finds itself caught in a geopolitical non-man's land. It alienated China, severed economic ties with Russia and failed to anticipate Trump's historic strategic shift.
Making matters worse, Europe disqualified itself as a reliable interlocutor after EU leaders publically admitted that the Minsk negotiations were used to buy time for Ukraine's military buildup. In a few short years, Europe managed to isolate itself on the world stage.
Henry Kissinger once said that the US has no permanent friends, only interests. The war in Ukraine is a case in point.
Starting about 30 years ago, most European countries, influenced by a neoliberal wave in the US, elected a slew of Atlanticist-minded political leaders who agreed with US neoliberal policies.
Consecutive US administrations, including Bush, Clinton and Obama, supported NATO expansion. The pretext was the spread of democracy and freedom, which obscured the geopolitical and economic reasons that can be traced to the colonial era.
The Heartland Theory, developed by British geographer Halford Mackinder in the early 20th century, argued that Western hegemony relied on a divided Eurasian continent.
Mackinder addressed the battle as one between emerging maritime powers (mostly Western European) and land-based powers (Russia, China, India). The development of railroads challenged the maritime hegemonic power of the West. From Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory. Railroads changed military logistics.
In the 1980s, American geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski updated the Heartland Theory and identified Ukraine as the pivotal nation in the battle for the Eurasian continent.
NATO's expansion since the 1990s was orchestrated by Brzezinski's proteges, and championed by successive US administrations.
Only by keeping the Eurasian continent divided, the reasoning was, could the maritime powers of the West remain global hegemony. China's Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), which stretches across the Eurasian continent, also concerned the Atlanticists. China's Belt & Road Initiative will ultimately integrate the Eurasian continent.
From an Atlanticist perspective, the Ukraine war accomplished its mission: cutting Europe off from the Eurasian continent. Blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline connecting Russia and Europe was part of the program.
But the Atlanticists could not have foreseen that Trump would so drastically change the strategic chess board.
The old adage 'Follow the money' still holds true. The US is facing a growing and unsustainable national debt, a perennial budget deficit and ever-growing trade deficits. These triple deficits can only be sustained as long as the dollar is the world's reserve currency.
The US earns trillions as the 'toll booth' of the global dollar system. However, the US government has now borrowed US$36 trillion to cover its budget deficits. Interest payments on the national debt are larger than the defense budget, and rising. On the current trajectory, the US is heading for default or hyperinflation.
Trump's priority is restoring the fiscal health of the US, and to make sure the dollar remains the world's reserve currency. It explains both his ruthless cost-cutting and why he threatens sanctions on countries that try to de-dollarize.
The West was never able to convince Russia that NATO expansion to the Russian border was no threat to it. Unconcerned about the possible Russian reaction, they framed NATO expansion as an exercise of democracy and freedom. Ideology trumped pragmatism.
But the climb down will be painful. Early on in the war, Western media depicted Russia as weak and corrupt, with a dying economy and an inefficient military. Overly confident or historically naive, the West relied on three pillars that crumbled one after another:
– Sanctions to weaken or collapse the Russian economy and cause an uprising against Putin failed
– Isolating Russia from the Global South, including China and India, failed
– Inflicting strategic defeat on Russia with superior NATO weapons failed
Convinced that Russia could be brought to its knees, the West did not bother to formulate a backup plan. When it became clear Russia was not to be defeated, the West flipped the script. Russia was no longer a weak state with an impotent military, it was an existential threat to Europe.
Russia has an economy the size of Spain, less than one-third of the European population, and a quarter of the European defense budget (about $84 billion vs Europe's $326 billion). But Europeans are now told that if they don't defend Ukraine, they may have to fight the Russians at their own borders.
Fully in denial that the end game has begun and incapable of offering peace proposals, the Europeans are doubling down on their strategic folly. They are discussing a collective European defense fund, and building up a defense industry that does not rely on the US.
Experts predict that it could take ten years for Europe to reach military self-sufficiency, not to mention that a growing number of countries in Europe are expressing dissatisfaction with the Ukraine policy. Most EU leaders have approval ratings of under 30%.
Europe's weakness is intrinsic and can't be papered over. A Chinese geopolitical analyst recently described the dilemma: 'Europe consists of small countries and countries that don't realize they are small (in the context of geopolitics).'
Should the US, Russia, and China discuss a postwar architecture – a Yalta II – Europe may find itself relegated to the sidelines. When the chips are down, Europe lacks the strategic leverage that can be yielded by the 'Big Three.'
The biggest challenge for the EU elite is to manage public opinion during the unavoidable climb-down from their ideological crusade.
Since 2014, when Russia regained control of Crimea, the Western media has served as the propaganda arm of the Atlanticists, some sponsored by USAID. They demonized Putin and Russia 24/7. Anyone uttering a word of critique of Zelensky or Ukraine was depicted as a Russian asset.
The non-stop barrage of anti-Russian propaganda was highly effective. A recent poll in Britain indicated 80+% in favor of boots on the ground in Ukraine. Never mind that the entire British army would fit in Wembley Stadium.
The Atlanticist virus that infected Europe in the past three decades has transformed the ideological landscape. Today, the proverbial right, like the AfD in Germany, calls for peace, while the proverbial left, including the 'Greens', are the cheerleaders for continuing the war. This historic role reversal is hardly discussed in Europe.
Europe's Green Parties have roots in the student uprisings of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war protests in the early 1970s. The Dutch Green Party resulted from the merger of pacifists and environmentalists, yet the 'Green' major of Amsterdam displayed a burned-out Russian tank in the center of Amsterdam as a war trophy.
When peace returns to Ukraine, Europe would do well to analyze the ideological role reversal that contributed to the Ukraine tragedy.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US reaches trade deals with Japan, Philippines: Trump
US reaches trade deals with Japan, Philippines: Trump

RTHK

time2 hours ago

  • RTHK

US reaches trade deals with Japan, Philippines: Trump

US reaches trade deals with Japan, Philippines: Trump Donald Trump hosted his Philippine counterpart Ferdinand Marcos Jr in the Oval Office, before announcing later that a deal has been reached. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump on Tuesday said the US have reached trade deals with Japan and the Philippines. In a post on his Truth Social media platform, Trump said the deal with Tokyo would include US$550 billion of Japanese investments in the United States. He also said that Japan would increase market access to American producers of cars, trucks, rice and certain agricultural products, among other items. "This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan," Trump said. But the post made no mention of easing tariffs on Japanese automobiles, which account for more than a quarter of all the country's exports to the US and are subject to a 25 percent tariff. Neither the White House nor the Japanese foreign ministry responded to a Reuters request for additional details. Separately, Trump announced a new 19 percent tariff rate for goods from the Philippines after what he called a "beautiful visit" by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr to the White House. US goods would pay zero tariffs, he added. The new tariff rate is just below the 20 percent threatened by Trump earlier this month, but still above the 17 percent set in April. Trump posted the news on Truth Social after meeting with Marcos in the Oval Office. "It was a beautiful visit, and we concluded our Trade Deal, whereby The Philippines is going OPEN MARKET with the United States, and ZERO Tariffs. The Philippines will pay a 19 percent Tariff," Trump wrote, while calling Marcos a "very good and tough negotiator". Trump said the two Pacific allies, who will celebrate 80 years of diplomatic relations next year, would also work together militarily but gave no details. Marcos, the first Southeast Asian leader to meet Trump in his second term, told reporters at the start of the meeting that the US was his country's "strongest, closest, most reliable ally". He had no comment after Trump's post on the new tariff rate. Gregory Poling, a Southeast Asia expert at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it was too early to say much about the Philippines trade deal since no details had been released, as was the case with similar pacts with Indonesia and Vietnam. "At the end of the day, I don't think the Philippine government is sweating the final number so long as it keeps Philippine-made goods competitive with those of its neighbours, which this does," Poling said. (Reuters)

Australia, Japan reluctant to commit to US-led Asian NATO
Australia, Japan reluctant to commit to US-led Asian NATO

AllAfrica

time3 hours ago

  • AllAfrica

Australia, Japan reluctant to commit to US-led Asian NATO

The Financial Times reported that US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby recently asked Australian and Japanese defense officials how their countries would respond to a war over Taiwan. He also asked them to boost defense spending after NATO just agreed to do so during its latest summit. Colby lent credence to this report by tweeting that he's 'focused on implementing the President's America First, common sense agenda of restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength.' This sequence shows that Trump 2.0 is serious about 'Pivoting (back) to (East) Asia' in order to more robustly contain China. This requires freezing the Ukraine war and assembling a de facto Asian NATO – both of which, however, are uncertain. Regarding the first, Trump is being drawn into 'mission creep,' while the latter is challenged by Australia and Japan's reluctance to step up. To elaborate, they seemingly expected the US to do all the 'heavy lifting', just like NATO expected till recently as well. That would explain why they didn't have a clear answer to Colby's inquiry about how their countries would respond to a war over Taiwan. Simply put, they likely never planned to do anything at all, thus exposing the shallowness of the de facto Asian NATO that the US has sought to assemble in recent years via the AUKUS+ format. This refers to the AUKUS trilateral of Australia, the UK and the US alongside what can be described as the honorary members of Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan. Australia and Japan are correspondingly envisaged as this informal bloc's Southeast and Northeast Asian anchors, yet they're evidently unwilling to fulfill the military roles that their US senior partner expects. What the US apparently had in mind was them, at the very least, playing supportive logistical roles in the scenario of a Sino-US war, but their representatives reportedly didn't suggest as much to Colby. This, in turn, reveals that they fear retaliation from China even if they don't participate in combat. Japan's population and resultant economic density make it extremely vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes while unconventional warfare could be waged against Australia through sabotage and the like. Moreover, China is both of their top trade partners, which opens up additional avenues for retaliation and coercion. At the same time, however, neither of them wants China to seize control of Taiwan's chip-making powerhouse TSMC (if it even survives a speculative conflict) and thus seize a monopoly over the global semiconductor industry. The US doesn't want that either, but the problem is that the two envisaged anchors of its de facto Asian NATO aren't willing to boost defense spending nor seemingly assist America in a war over Taiwan. That's unacceptable from Trump 2.0's perspective so tariff and other forms of pressure could be applied to coerce Australia and Japan into at least spending more on their armed forces. The endgame, however, is for them to agree to play some sort of role (whether logistical or ideally combative) in that scenario. Given that the US won't relent on its 'pivot (back) to (East) Asia', it will likely coerce concessions from Australia and Japan one way or another. The same applies to the other members of AUKUS+, namely South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan, albeit with perhaps a slightly lower defense spending from the latter two. All in all, the US is rounding up allies ahead of a possible war with China but it's anyone's guess whether it actually plans to spark a major conflict. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.

Marcos leaves empty-handed in face-to-face with Trump
Marcos leaves empty-handed in face-to-face with Trump

AllAfrica

time3 hours ago

  • AllAfrica

Marcos leaves empty-handed in face-to-face with Trump

MANILA – Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has met with his US counterpart Donald Trump in Washington, securing pledges for American defense support against China in a long-standing dispute but failing in his quest to significantly cut new US tariffs. Before heading into their one-on-one meeting at the White House, both leaders reaffirmed the two sides' 'good relationship', underscored by a long-time mutual defense treaty that binds both nations to coming to each other's aid in times of foreign aggression. 'We're going to talk about trade today and we are very close to finishing a trade deal, a big trade deal actually,' Trump told reporters at the start of his meeting with Marcos on Tuesday (US Time), according to transcripts released here. However, after the meeting, Trump announced on Truth Social that the Philippines had only received a slight change in the planned tariffs on its goods to the US, one of its major trading partners. 'We concluded our Trade Deal, whereby The Philippines is going OPEN MARKET with the United States, and ZERO Tariffs. The Philippines will pay a 19% Tariff,' Trump wrote. This is just 1% lower than what he had earlier threatened, and it remains to be seen how this would impact the Philippines, where many American companies also source their goods. The two countries did 'a lot of business' with each other, Trump said, saying he was surprised to see what he called 'very big numbers' that would only grow under a trade agreement. Marcos is the first Southeast Asian leader to meet Trump in his second term as president of the US. He had already struck trade deals with two other Southeast Asian nations – Indonesia and Vietnam – but has so far stuck to his guns in tough trade negotiations in pursuit of what he earlier referred to as 'Liberation Day' for the US economy. Trump characterized Marcos as a 'strong negotiator' but had told reporters earlier that he was optimistic that they will 'probably agree on something.' Marcos, prior to leaving Manila on Sunday, said his visit to Washington builds on the 'active exchanges' his government has had with the new Trump administration. He said the meeting with Trump was 'essential to continuing to advance our national interests and strengthening our alliances.' 'My top priority for this visit is to push for greater economic engagement, particularly through trade and investment between the Philippines and the United States,' Marcos had said, noting that he intended to tell Washington that the Philippines was prepared to negotiate a trade deal 'that will ensure strong, mutually beneficial and future-oriented collaborations that only the United States and the Philippines will be able to take advantage of.' 'And we will see how much progress we can make when it comes to the negotiations with the United States concerning the changes that we would like to institute so as to be able to alleviate the effects of a very severe tariff schedule on the Philippines,' he said. The Philippines has also consistently stood up to China over the disputed South China Sea, and in a meeting with US defense chief Pete Hegseth ahead of his one-on-one with Trump reaffirmed his commitment to the defense pact. 'I believe that our alliance, the United States and the Philippines, had formed a great part in terms of preserving the peace, in terms of preserving the stability of the South China Sea. But I would even go as far as to say in the entire Indo-Pacific region,' Marcos said. But the Philippine leader stressed the need for continued bilateral discussions 'amid rapidly shifting geopolitical dynamics' even as he pledged continued support for American access to Philippine bases and joint bilateral exercises. 'That forms a very, very important part of that relationship. And again, it is a proper response considering the challenges that we face in the Philippines specifically vis-à-vis the changing geopolitical forces and the political developments around our part of the world,' he said. He told Hegseth that both nations 'must continue to be in discussion' over defense issues, which took a top priority in his administration after his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, openly embraced China over the United States. Marcos, according to his office, was accorded an 'enhanced honor cordon upon arrival' at the Pentagon — a ceremonial welcome reserved for high-ranking foreign dignitaries and military leaders. This distinguished military tradition, involving additional personnel and formalities, reflects the strength of the diplomatic relationship between the two allies, it noted. Jason Gutierrez was head of Philippine news at BenarNews, an online news service affiliated with Radio Free Asia (RFA), a Washington-based news organization that covered many under-reported countries in the region. A veteran foreign correspondent, he has also worked with The New York Times and Agence France-Presse (AFP).

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store