America Has Sailed from Europe. What Next?
It seems that many Polish commentators — actually, almost all of them — have missed an important fact. In recent years, the American tectonic plate has drifted a long way away from the European and Russian ones. What’s important, the pace of this drifting away is not typical of tectonic plates — that is, 3 centimeters per year; instead, it was a violent process, more or less 1000 kilometers per year. Already before Barack Obama’s campaign victory, it was obvious that this politician was going to back off from Europe. He declared it openly during his pre-election travel abroad, including at a rally in Berlin. As soon as he won, he also withdrew from the “ballistic missile defense shield” project. It was obvious that he’s interested neither in Poland, nor in Georgia, nor in the creation of an anti-Russia cordon, which George Bush had tried to build.
Emptiness has taken rule over Europe since the military and political hegemon suddenly withdrew from the continent. But in international politics, emptiness won’t last. Immediately, there were others who were eager to fill the space. That’s why French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met on Oct. 19 in Deauville. It was by no means a courtesy meeting. Most likely, a breakthrough agreement has taken place, an agreement concerning the management of East and Central Europe, or, speaking openly, the division of areas of influence and the conditions of cooperation, since the United States has lost interest in this part of the world. In Deauville, the Russians suggested the conclusion of “a European security treaty,” which will enable Russia to take part in the decision-making on the conditions of peace on the continent. Thus, Russia presented its political and military position, the essence of which is the dissolution of the NATO and the replacement of the treaty by a bilateral European-Russian agreement. The Germans supported the Russian project and expressed the will to establish “an EU-Russia safety committee.” The French, in turn, expressed the wish to create, together with Russia, “a European-Russian economic cooperation zone” and “a world system of stabilization of exchange of raw materials.”
The fundamental question remains: Is the United States’ withdrawal from our part of the world permanent or temporary? The proponents of the pro-American option might have a ray of hope, as the Americans [Republicans] really gave it to the Democrats during the Congressional elections, which means that Obama has now little chance of being re-elected. It’s likely that soon there will be no Barack Obama in the White House — and not because his skin color does not match the building’s name.
American voters haven’t seen the leftist-Keynesian economic policies as a rescue from the great economic crisis. Enormous amounts of money were pumped into the economy and people are just as unemployed as they had been before. Obama’s lack of interest in international politics was clear and obvious. As well as his origins; if you want to build socialism, all your power and means must be assigned to the building of “a better world” in your own homeland; you mustn’t dissipate your material means for making war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, supporting Georgia, building “a sanitary cordon” around Russia, etc. The great social security reform and, above all, the plans for a Keynesian revitalization of the economy by the means of gigantic expenses lead to Obama knowing that even if he wanted to, he wouldn’t be able to conduct an offensive foreign policy. The question is: Will Barack Obama’s Republican successor be able to radically change his foreign policy and put an end to isolationism? In my opinion, those who believe that everything boils down to the political will of the American president are making a terrible mistake.
Wanting is one thing, but an offensive and aggressive foreign policy requires enormous financial means. And the United States no longer has them. I don’t know exactly how much money the American government pumped into the economy in order to increase domestic demand. The official data I found on the Internet show that $800 billion had been pumped into it, but the unofficial amount is about $3 trillion, if you add the increased budget expenses, including the famous socialist health care system. A few days ago the media announced that the central bank has set printing presses into motion in order to print a further $600 billion. These enormous amounts come partly from loans and partly from a simple additional printing of money. It’s really hard to say which of those Keynesian methods is more destructive for economy.
One thing is certain: The effects of this leftist economic policy will be borne by Obama’s successor, most likely someone from the Republican camp. And the question arises: Will she or he, bearing such a burden of internal debt and inflation, be able to conduct an active international policy — the policy of a superpower? The solvent governmental assets, especially those of a country like the United States, probably don’t bear much interest — 5 percent, I would guess. But go on and count how much it is; 5 percent of $3 trillion per year (the number of a trillion looks as follows: 3,000,000,000,000). How much will that be? I can tell you right away: $150 billion. The occupation of Iraq costs, as far as I know, about $40 billion every year. So, paying up the interest on Obama’s debts will cost an American tax payer annually as much as four Iraq occupations at the same time. And this is just the interest, not the debts! Another question is will a country, which simultaneously pays for four Iraq wars, be able to conduct an active international policy? The answer is an obvious no. The United States will continue to be a power, but it won’t be able to afford long-term military operations. The country will be able to send aircraft carriers and bomb-selected targets, but it won’t be able to afford long-term military activities and the occupation of the conquered territories.
That’s why Germany, France and Russia have created a new European configuration in Deauville. I wonder what the Polish political “elite” will say to that? Knowing this crowd of ignoramuses, I doubt that they even perceived those events ... Recently, the politicians from [Polish political parties] Law and Justice and Civic Platform protested against the EU’s cooperation with Russia together. Poor guys — they haven’t noticed that America has already sailed away ...
Emptiness has taken rule over Europe since the military and political hegemon suddenly withdrew from the continent. But in international politics, emptiness won’t last. Immediately, there were others who were eager to fill the space. That’s why French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met on Oct. 19 in Deauville. It was by no means a courtesy meeting. Most likely, a breakthrough agreement has taken place, an agreement concerning the management of East and Central Europe, or, speaking openly, the division of areas of influence and the conditions of cooperation, since the United States has lost interest in this part of the world. In Deauville, the Russians suggested the conclusion of “a European security treaty,” which will enable Russia to take part in the decision-making on the conditions of peace on the continent. Thus, Russia presented its political and military position, the essence of which is the dissolution of the NATO and the replacement of the treaty by a bilateral European-Russian agreement. The Germans supported the Russian project and expressed the will to establish “an EU-Russia safety committee.” The French, in turn, expressed the wish to create, together with Russia, “a European-Russian economic cooperation zone” and “a world system of stabilization of exchange of raw materials.”
The fundamental question remains: Is the United States’ withdrawal from our part of the world permanent or temporary? The proponents of the pro-American option might have a ray of hope, as the Americans [Republicans] really gave it to the Democrats during the Congressional elections, which means that Obama has now little chance of being re-elected. It’s likely that soon there will be no Barack Obama in the White House — and not because his skin color does not match the building’s name.
American voters haven’t seen the leftist-Keynesian economic policies as a rescue from the great economic crisis. Enormous amounts of money were pumped into the economy and people are just as unemployed as they had been before. Obama’s lack of interest in international politics was clear and obvious. As well as his origins; if you want to build socialism, all your power and means must be assigned to the building of “a better world” in your own homeland; you mustn’t dissipate your material means for making war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, supporting Georgia, building “a sanitary cordon” around Russia, etc. The great social security reform and, above all, the plans for a Keynesian revitalization of the economy by the means of gigantic expenses lead to Obama knowing that even if he wanted to, he wouldn’t be able to conduct an offensive foreign policy. The question is: Will Barack Obama’s Republican successor be able to radically change his foreign policy and put an end to isolationism? In my opinion, those who believe that everything boils down to the political will of the American president are making a terrible mistake.
Wanting is one thing, but an offensive and aggressive foreign policy requires enormous financial means. And the United States no longer has them. I don’t know exactly how much money the American government pumped into the economy in order to increase domestic demand. The official data I found on the Internet show that $800 billion had been pumped into it, but the unofficial amount is about $3 trillion, if you add the increased budget expenses, including the famous socialist health care system. A few days ago the media announced that the central bank has set printing presses into motion in order to print a further $600 billion. These enormous amounts come partly from loans and partly from a simple additional printing of money. It’s really hard to say which of those Keynesian methods is more destructive for economy.
One thing is certain: The effects of this leftist economic policy will be borne by Obama’s successor, most likely someone from the Republican camp. And the question arises: Will she or he, bearing such a burden of internal debt and inflation, be able to conduct an active international policy — the policy of a superpower? The solvent governmental assets, especially those of a country like the United States, probably don’t bear much interest — 5 percent, I would guess. But go on and count how much it is; 5 percent of $3 trillion per year (the number of a trillion looks as follows: 3,000,000,000,000). How much will that be? I can tell you right away: $150 billion. The occupation of Iraq costs, as far as I know, about $40 billion every year. So, paying up the interest on Obama’s debts will cost an American tax payer annually as much as four Iraq occupations at the same time. And this is just the interest, not the debts! Another question is will a country, which simultaneously pays for four Iraq wars, be able to conduct an active international policy? The answer is an obvious no. The United States will continue to be a power, but it won’t be able to afford long-term military operations. The country will be able to send aircraft carriers and bomb-selected targets, but it won’t be able to afford long-term military activities and the occupation of the conquered territories.
That’s why Germany, France and Russia have created a new European configuration in Deauville. I wonder what the Polish political “elite” will say to that? Knowing this crowd of ignoramuses, I doubt that they even perceived those events ... Recently, the politicians from [Polish political parties] Law and Justice and Civic Platform protested against the EU’s cooperation with Russia together. Poor guys — they haven’t noticed that America has already sailed away ...