Posted on 04/14/2008 4:30:19 AM PDT by Renfield
Europeans have been hyperventilating over their self-perceived “victories” vis-à-vis the United States at the recent NATO Summit in Romania from April 2-4. “France and Germany Thwart Bush’s Plans,” ran a triumphant headline in the Hamburg-based Der Spiegel. “Europe Waits Out the Bush Administration,” read another. “Only One Lame Duck Here” said the London-based Guardian in commentary that waxes giddy about Russia’s growing stranglehold over Europe. “NATO Should Disappear” said the Madrid-based El Pais.
But behind the spin, the 26-member NATO Summit (arguably the most important such gathering since the end of the Cold War) exposed a security-dependent Europe that is divided, weak, and fickle above all else.
Consider Spain, for example, where newly re-elected Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was far less concerned about Spanish (or European) security than about getting some one-on-one face-time with US President George W Bush. Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist pacifist who is arguably the most anti-American leader in Europe today, is (unsurprisingly) one of the only such Europeans never to have been invited to the White House.
But in the Byzantine logic of Spanish politics, that elusive visit to the Oval Office (to see an American president who is broadly despised by most Spaniards) also happens to be the main litmus test by which Spaniards will judge whether Zapatero gets promoted from provincial politician to international “statesman” during his second term.
Thus Zapatero’s permanent non-relationship with the most powerful leader in the free world has become something of a media obsession in Spain, with the issue generating many miles of ink in national newspapers.
Imagine, then, the internecine recriminations when Zapatero’s much-vaunted “mini-summit” with Bush lasted all of about three seconds…just enough for Bush to shout three words (which brings to a grand total of 18 words the two leaders have exchanged during the last four years) that appeared in newspaper headlines all across Spain: “Hola, Hola, Felicidades.” (”Hello, Hello, Congratulations,” referring to Zapatero’s re-election.)
Zapatero then took to the podium and tried to persuade bemused members of the Alliance… to merge NATO with the United Nations! And, just for good measure, the prime minister also announced that Spain would not be sending more troops to Afghanistan, with or without the UN.
Not surprising, then, that Zapatero was captured in a politically devastating Summit photograph sitting in isolation, while the rest of the leaders present were huddled around Bush at the other end of the conference hall. The picture, which made the front page of every newspaper in Spain, opened up yet another pained debate about Spain’s declining influence in the world since Zapatero took office.
Then take Greece. It refused to allow Macedonia to join NATO because Greece wants its northern neighbor to change its name, which Greeks say jeopardizes their claim as the only the rightful descendants of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC).
The controversy erupted in 1991, when the former Yugoslav republic declared its independence from Belgrade and took the name Republic of Macedonia. Although more than 120 countries have now recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its current name, Greece says the name proves that Macedonia harbors implicit territorial claims on the northern Greek region also known as Macedonia. Never mind that by joining NATO, Macedonia would provide Greece with much-needed stability on its northern border.
Then consider Germany and France, arguably the greatest free-riding beneficiaries of American security since World War II. At the Bucharest Summit, they (together with Spain) refused to extend NATO Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine because they were afraid of provoking Russia, thanks to Europe’s growing dependence on Russian energy.
Germany, for example, already imports 35 percent of its oil and 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, more than any country in Western Europe. The problem of energy dependency is being exacerbated by leftwing energy policies that are phasing out the country’s production of nuclear energy in favor of increased reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, Germany’s (and Europe’s) dependence on Russian energy imports may reach 70 percent by 2020, which (if current German behavior is any gauge) will give Russia a de facto veto over decisions on German (and European) security.
Europeans, in any case, know that keeping Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO will not appease Russia for very long. Indeed, the Germans appear to be looking for a face-saving way out of Europe’s long-term geo-strategic dilemma. On March 4, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gave a speech titled “Towards a European Ostpolitik” in which he suggests that Europe’s future lies in staking out a position mid-way between the United States and Russia. Say what?
Well, if Germany insists on turning Europe into a province of Russian, then debates over the future of NATO will be moot anyhow.
In France, meanwhile, the government on April 8 faced down a vote of no confidence, as leftists accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous “Atlanticist drift” that risked turning France into Bush’s poodle. Socialist leader François Hollande said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan “under pressure from the Americans” and that France risked losing its independence on the world stage.
With allies like these, expect trouble ahead for transatlantic relations, regardless of who occupies the White House next January.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group
Pull our troops out of Germany and relocate them to Iraq.
Our troops have always been in Germany as much to keep Germany down, as to keep the Russians out. Poland and the Czech Republic would panic if we left Germany.
“...What’s left is a bunch of Eurowennie do-nothings that couldn’t fight their way out of a crowded subway station....”
I suspect that’s what the French thought during the days of the Weimar Republic....
Sniveling, appeasing, quasi-communists. The Europe of today and tomorrow.
JP -
I’m with you. Europe’s full of free-loaders. They have been cutting back on their military expenditures so as to allow the US to cover their butts. The Benelux countries pay divisions of cooks, barbers and musicians while reducing or eliminating paratroops or tank units. Many British regiments have been amalgamated into small brigades or other units. Their social welfare system has to be financed and cuts in the military are the answer for the Leftists there.
Unfortunately, we’re headed in this direction, too.
There aren't any Germans alive who remember how to fight.
I'm tired of covering their butts.
“Then consider Germany and France, arguably the greatest free-riding beneficiaries of American security since World War II.”
Free-riding ? I’m sure there’s a German Freeper out there who could tell me how much of NATO’s military expenditures has been picked by Germany, but I sure wouldn’t call that a free ride. As for France, after it left NATO’s integrated military command all of it’s military expenditures are paid in full by the French taxpayers for the past 42 years, no charge to the US...
The best European blood as a whole was soaked in the ground during the two World Wars.
Spain has become irrelevant. It is also the Western European Nation with the lowest birth replacement rate. Spain has about 40 million Spanish citizens. There numbers will be cut in half every 35 years. By the end of this century they will disappear from the map.
Your troops in Germany are not suitable to "keep Germany down" as well as they are unable to "keep the Russians out". The Russians are kept out because of the French "Force de Frappe" (the nuclear arm of the French forces). The sad truth is, that nobody in western Europe ever had much trust in the US "nuclear umbrella", since we Europeans were aware that America should and would have avoided a global nuclear war in any case. Therefore a limited nuclear conflict between the US and Russia in Poland and Germany would have been the most probable event during the cold war. The only assurance that such will never happen are and were French nuclear warheads. The Frogs are heavily affected by any nuclear bombardment in Germany and therefore would shoot back - directly to Moscow. The French "Force de Frappe" is more important to Germany than everything else in NATO.
During the beginning Iraq war there were only 25.000 GIs left in Germany (usually 70.000 to 80.000 from originally up to 350.000 in the cold war). Most of them in and around Ramstein and K-town. The manpower was that low that the German forces had to safeguard the American facilities. Due to the changed strategical situation after the cold war there are mainly deployments with duties and responsibilities in logistics (Air Mobility Command (AMC))left. It is planned to reduce this remaining US deployment in Germany until 2014 down to 24.500 men anyway.
The thing is that the city police of Berlin could deal without any difficulty with those American troops in Germany in the moment (sarcasm). Nevertheless there is for sure no intention to do that. But in the long term the changed awareness of the German society and its decline of American preemptive strikes in the ME and elsewhere could turn out as a big problem, espechially if the political German leadership would change in the near future. There are enough German politicians on the left side who have no problem to problem to shut down the German airspace to offensive operations and the US could (and for sure would) do absolutely nothing against it.
Therefore it theoretically should make sense to relocate the US deployment to Poland or the Czech Republic sooner or later from the American point of view. The political situation in western continental Europe was not compatible with the quite offensive politics of the Bush administration in the recent years. Nevertheless this is not possible since in both countries there are large majorities against any foreign deployments. No matter if they come from the US or not. Even the positioning of a few hundred American servicemen who follow the new planned missile defense turned out to be extremely difficult for most Poles and Czechs.
That are the actual points apart from some widespread propaganda blahblah that can be found on FR and elsewhere. It is absolutely okay to support your troops and to think as a patriot but you should not blank out the matters of fact completely.
Best regards from good old Europe!
A.B.
Love it or hate it - if we look on the issue from a Darwinistic point of view, those wars cleaned the male European gene-pool from those who were not able to survive such a situation like war. There are many reasons for it: Some were too aggressive, some were not careful enough, some were too dumb, some followed their orders to the last etc. etc. etc.. War is a perfect selection. I am aware that not all reasons for not dying in a war are that honourful, but they are for sure a good way not to win the "Darwin Award". You probably will concede that survival is not nessecarily a privilege of outstanding aggressive soldiers. Those who survive are usually (we do not speak about individual cases) more intelligent and more able compared to their fallen comrades (I know that this is not PC - but it is the plain truth). And guess what: Those Europeans who survived war, the Holocaust, Gestapo, Russian imprisonment, the foreign Legion, NKWD, KGB, SS, the economic wonder and Elvis Presley are my fathers. The by far best genetic material you can find.
Regards from good ole Europe!
A.B.
You nicely de-constructed their pithy arguments. Its a simple vendetta against Europe, they dont like us, and the growing feeling is that we dont like them. The propaganda on FR has reached massive proportions in the last few months, and has led me to many a moment of distraction!
Whats amazing is that they so easily allow themselves to be influenced by rumour and heresay. I have come across people who have no idea what we do in Afghanistan, calling us too focused on ‘peacekeeping’ in Helmand Province!
Ahh, we can be patient with them I ‘spose.
Not quite an avid supporter of us then are you?
You lot are a stuck record!
“Many British regiments have been amalgamated into small brigades or other units.”
Thats true. We have ditched our Northern Ireland Regiment as its not needed because we won the war/police action over there. Other regiments have been amalgamated into larger, regional, set-ups. Such as the Scottish Regiment. The Rifles (made up of Rifles and RGJ). The Mercian Regiment (North West England).
You talk with utter contempt for our fighting men and women, our nation and her people. Can I do the same about the US then? Of course not, cos it would be utter balls, and tactless too. Fact is, you boys have to get beyond the petty hatred of us and your instinctive xenophobia. There are bigger things at stake than America’s place in the world, and your interests should be global.
We (UK) have over 12,000 troops in two theatres. The Germans, the French, the Italians, the Dutch, the Danes, the Estonians, the Bulgarians, the Portuguese, the Irish, the Poles (and others I have no doubt forgot to mention) have got thousands more deployed in war zones across the globe, from Iraq and Afghanistan, to Bosnia and Chad. The British military is undergoing a revamp, bringing in new kit (if you were any kind of FReeper you would know this, for I post dozens of threads on this matter). New patrol vehicles, (Mastiff, Bulldog, Jackal etc), new aircraft (Typhoon, F-35, C-17 etc) and new ships for the navy (Queen Elizabeth Class Super Carriers, Type-45 ADD, Astute Class subs, River Class corvettes etc). Many of the new kit is being used to replace older stuff in a performance upgrade. With new gear, come new advantages in design, manufacture and operational capacity hence only 2 super carriers to replace our 3 AS Invincible Class. We have a much more streamlined and capable military in the 7 years since 01, the ‘cuts’ in the military are in numbers only, as our capacity remains undiminished. You dont want our help, then say so, but dont let our men and women fight, bleed and die out in the desert with you Yanks sneering over their shoulders.
You would have thought that a ‘super-power’ would have more class, but then the biggest kid in the playground is never the brightest of the bunch, nor the nicest, nor the cleverest.
...behind the spin, the 26-member NATO Summit (arguably the most important such gathering since the end of the Cold War) exposed a security-dependent Europe that is divided, weak, and fickle above all else. Consider Spain, for example, where newly re-elected Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was far less concerned about Spanish (or European) security than about getting some one-on-one face-time with US President George W Bush. Zapatero, a self-proclaimed feminist pacifist who is arguably the most anti-American leader in Europe today, is (unsurprisingly) one of the only such Europeans never to have been invited to the White House. But in the Byzantine logic of Spanish politics, that elusive visit to the Oval Office... also happens to be the main litmus test by which Spaniards will judge whether Zapatero gets promoted from provincial politician to international "statesman" during his second term. Thus Zapatero's permanent non-relationship with the most powerful leader in the free world has become something of a media obsession in Spain... Zapatero was captured in a politically devastating Summit photograph sitting in isolation, while the rest of the leaders present were huddled around Bush at the other end of the conference hall. The picture, which made the front page of every newspaper in Spain, opened up yet another pained debate about Spain's declining influence in the world since Zapatero took office... In France, meanwhile, the government on April 8 faced down a vote of no confidence, as leftists accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy of a dangerous "Atlanticist drift"... Socialist leader Francois Hollande said Sarkozy decided to send 700 French troops to Afghanistan "under pressure from the Americans"...
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.