
Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
EU capitulates to Trump in vassal-state trade deal
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen agreed to a framework deal with the US whereby the EU will be charged 15% tariffs on most imports, commit to purchasing US$750 billion in US energy exports and invest $600 billion in the US economy, some of which will be military purchases. US tariffs on EU steel and aluminum exports will remain at 50% while the EU agreed not to tariff the US at all. The alternative to this lopsided arrangement was for Trump to impose his threatened 30% tariffs by August 1. The EU's macroeconomic strength was greatly weakened over the past 3.5 years as a result of the anti-Russian sanctions that it imposed in solidarity with the US on what had hitherto been its cheapest and most reliable energy supplier. It was therefore already at a critical disadvantage in any prospective trade war. The EU's failure to reach a major trade deal with China since Trump's return to office, evident during their most recent summit late last week, made Sunday's outcome a fait accompli in hindsight. The end result is that the EU just subordinated itself as the US's largest-ever vassal state. The US's 15% tariffs on most imports will reduce EU production and profits, thus making a recession more likely. The bloc's commitment to purchasing more expensive US energy will become more onerous in that event. Likewise, its pledge to buy more US arms will undermine the 'ReArm Europe Plan', with the combined effect of the aforesaid concessions further ceding the EU's already reduced sovereignty to the US. This, in turn, can embolden the US to press for better terms in its ongoing trade negotiations with other countries. On the North American front, Trump envisages reasserting the US' hegemony over Canada and Mexico via economic means, which can enable him to more easily expand 'Fortress America' southward. If he succeeds in subordinating Brazil, then everything between it and Mexico will naturally fall in line. This series of deals, along with last week's one with Japan, would bolster Trump's hand with China and India. He ideally hopes to replicate his Japanese and European successes with those two Asian anchors of BRICS, which together represent around a third of humanity, but it can't be taken for granted that he will. Trump's best chance of coercing them into similarly lopsided arrangements requires him to place the US in the most advantageous geo-economic position possible during their talks; hence, the need to rapidly build 'Fortress America' through a series of trade deals, and then prove that his tariff threats aren't bluffs. As explained in this analysis, this variable and the US's Kissingerian triangulation policy most significantly determine the future of their trade talks. If he fails, then Trump might not impose 100% tariffs on China and/or India, but some would still be expected. Nevertheless, with Japan, the EU and likely 'Fortress America' on his side, this 'Global West' could insulate the US from some of the consequences. The grand strategic importance of the EU subordinating itself as the US's largest-ever vassal state is therefore that it places the US on the path of restoring its unipolar hegemony via sequential trade deals as it likely sets its sights on the Americas next before finally taking on Asia. There's no guarantee that the US will succeed, and a series of lopsided trade deals with major economies would only partially restore US-led unipolarity, but Trump's moves still represent a possibly existential threat to multipolarity. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.


South China Morning Post
7 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Looming US troop cuts in Europe raise questions about Nato's future
After keeping Donald Trump happy with a pledge to up defence spending at Nato's summit, Europe is now bracing for a key decision from the US president on the future of American forces on the continent. Advertisement Washington is currently conducting a review of its military deployments worldwide – set to be unveiled in the coming months – and the expectation is it will lead to drawdowns in Europe. That prospect is fraying the nerves of US allies, especially as fears swirl that Russia could look to attack a Nato country within the next few years if the war in Ukraine dies down. However, the alliance is basking in Trump's new-found goodwill following its June summit in The Hague, and his officials are making encouraging noises that Europe will not be left in the lurch. 'We've agreed to no surprises and no gaps in the strategic framework of Europe,' said Matthew Whitaker, US ambassador to Nato, adding he expected the review to come out in 'late summer, early fall'. Advertisement 'I have daily conversations with our allies about the process,' he said.


AllAfrica
7 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Road to Palestinian state must pass through Saudi Arabia
War makes bystanders feel powerless. Throughout the so-far 22 months of brutal conflict that began with Hamas's slaughter and abduction of Israelis in October 2023, Europeans have looked and felt impotent. This has only partly been because they have also been divided; mainly, it has been because their words, brave or not, proved irrelevant. The question now is whether the decision by France's President Emmanuel Macron to join 11 other EU countries in giving diplomatic recognition to a Palestinian state will be yet another demonstration of European powerlessness and irrelevance. There is a chance that this French initiative could prove different. That chance does not depend much on European unity or disunity, but rather on whether France and others can build a partnership with Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, that is powerful and determined enough to force Israel and the United States to change course. The chance currently looks a small one, but it may be worth taking. The timing of President Macron's announcement was no accident. On July 28-29, France and Saudi Arabia are scheduled to co-chair a ministerial conference at the United Nations in New York on the Palestinian question, which is intended to be followed by a conference of heads of state in New York in September, alongside the UN General Assembly. The French initiative is intended to inject momentum and an air of diplomatic seriousness into a process that otherwise looked destined to fail. It may still fail. But the small chance that it could make progress depends on France and others convincing the Arab leaders, especially Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, that by working together, they might be able to make the Americans take them seriously. Which really depends on Saudi Arabia's crown prince showing the courage and determination to press America's Donald Trump to take the idea of a Palestinian state seriously. The terrible truth about the past 22 months of conflict, chiefly in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, is that none of the powers involved — neither the Hamas militia, which has governed Gaza since 2006, nor Israel nor Israel's main arms-supplier, the United States — has shown that it cares much about the fate of the roughly 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza nor the roughly 3 million living in the other Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, known as the West Bank. The 60,000 Palestinians who have died in the conflict have just been seen as collateral damage by everyone concerned. Last week, Israeli and American negotiators withdrew from ceasefire talks with Hamas held in the Arab state of Qatar. It is not yet clear why the talks broke down, but it appears that in return for releasing the 50 remaining Israeli hostages that it holds (of whom 20 are thought to be alive, and 30 dead) Hamas demanded the release by Israel of a large number of Palestinian prisoners. The fact that all sides are delaying a ceasefire over a mere numbers game suggests a lack of seriousness about stopping the fighting. Amid that lack of seriousness, an already deep divide over the idea of a separate Palestinian state has deepened further. The notion of a 'two state solution' to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back many decades, but for a long period beginning in the 1990s it took on an aura of consensus, with the main issue being one of how the Israelis and Palestinians could come to an agreement on borders, on the sensitive status of Jerusalem, and on how the Palestinian state would be governed. However, in recent years, but especially since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, the very idea of a two-state solution has come into question. Previous American administrations, including that of President Joe Biden at the time of Hamas's attacks, had continued to say they were in favor of a Palestinian state even without doing anything serious to advance the idea. But now the Trump administration no longer even talks about it. The divide now is between, on one side, those who argue that creating a sovereign Palestinian state within Gaza and the West Bank represents the only path to a sustainable peace, for it would at last allow Palestinians to govern and police themselves and end their colonial status. And on the other side those, led by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who argue that the experience of Gaza shows that a Palestinian state would be a recipe for perpetual war, as it would provide a base from which Hamas-like militias could and would seek to destroy their Israeli neighbors. In reality, both of these propositions contain truth, as does a third proposition, that the status quo of Israeli occupation is itself unsustainable. It is always going to be hard for Israelis and Palestinians to live peacefully alongside each other having fought almost constantly since Israel was founded in 1948, whether in one state or two. The prospect for a more peaceful future must depend on how both states are governed and policed. This is where the rich Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, could play a crucial role. But it is a role they have sought to avoid until now. If Gaza is to be rebuilt and if any Palestinian state is to be viable, Arab money and intervention will be essential. Yet in the past, the Arabs have been just like the Europeans: powerless bystanders offering words but few actions. Unless and until the United States decides again to promote the idea of a Palestinian state and therefore to pressure Israel to take the idea seriously, there is little prospect of such a state being created. Diplomatic recognition by France, like the earlier recognition by Ireland, Spain and others, will not change the reality, which is that a Palestinian state does not exist. The only thing currently that could stand a chance of changing that reality would be if Saudi Arabia were to make a serious effort to change America's view, perhaps by making the re-adoption of a two-state solution a condition for any other deals Trump wants to make with the Arab states. With their old enemy Iran now severely weakened, this could be a moment when the Saudis feel able to take a diplomatic risk. Which is why President Macron has made his own move, in the hope of strengthening the Saudis' nerve. Other Europeans, including Britain's Sir Keir Starmer and Italy's Giorgia Meloni, should offer him support. The point is worth repeating: it is a small chance, but one that is worth taking. This article first appeared on Bill Emmott's Global View Substack and is republished with kind permission. Read the original here.