The US and Europe Identify Their Main Enemy
Published in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 30 March 2021
by (link to original)
Russia and the West are on the verge of a new round of confrontation.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CNN in an interview that a comprehensive review of Moscow’s aggressive policy is nearly finished, just as Joe Biden promised. New sanctions may follow a full list of claims against the Kremlin issued by the current U.S. president’s team. The European Union has already given Washington the go-ahead to initiate the next round of confrontation between Russia and the West. Yet, the EU clearly doesn’t want to challenge the Russian Federation before the U.S. acts. The highly anticipated discussion on the “Russia question” has been postponed from March until the EU summit in June. In the meantime, the U.S. allies have determined whether Russia or China is the primary threat.
No major amendments to the alliance’s 2030 strategy were announced after the meeting of NATO foreign ministers, and the strategy is scheduled for approval this year. Donald Trump wanted to make the policy more aggressive toward China. Now Blinken is saying the same thing. However, judging by the statements made at the ministerial NATO meeting, it seems that matters will continue as previously planned. Russia remains the primary threat, according to the announced strategy, although China is in second place. The United Kingdom’s National Security Strategy, which was released last week, is taking the same approach. Russia was called the “most direct and acute threat” and China was merely labeled an economic rival.
This can hardly be viewed as evidence of a foreign policy defeat for Biden. The very fact that the European allies joined the confrontation between the U.S. and China can be labeled an American diplomatic success. In 2014, NATO’s bureaucratic apparatus finally found a reason to form a military bloc after languishing over the lack of meaningful purpose for such a bloc after the Cold War ended. Russia once again came to be seen as a hostile power that must be confronted. Europeans seemed to seriously expect everything would now work out just as it did during the Cold War. The U.S. would protect their allies under a defense umbrella, would strengthen its military presence in Europe and thus increase its military expenses, and would bear most of the unpleasant costs of fighting with Russia in general. And the EU would merely continue to impose economic sanctions that do not impose any burdens on the Europeans themselves while still managing to criticize and interact with the Kremlin whenever possible.
Under Barack Obama’s administration, Washington made it clear that the United States was not happy with this division of responsibilities. Trump stated bluntly that Europe’s safety is primarily its own concern. Therefore, Europeans had to increase their contributions to the NATO piggy bank and refrain from making profits on trade with a potential enemy. Additionally, as compensation for American protection, the EU was expected to at least join the much more important American “crusade” against China. The overwhelming majority of EU leaders disliked the latter request. The Russian threat is, at least, evident to voters. For millions of Europeans — and not only those in the Baltic states and Poland — Russia is an aggressive, unpredictable power from which Europeans only expect problems. But sanctions and a quarrel with far-away China only guarantee economic losses for the EU.
The new U.S. administration is already clearly demonstrating that containing the Chinese Communist Party is not a whim that Trump had, but a long-term path for American foreign policy. However, the Europeans, in their desire to return to a happy past, are just as persistent about confronting Russia. It is naive, of course, to expect that disagreements over the greatest threat will turn into a serious conflict between long-time, interdependent allies. Rather, there will be as many negotiations over interests as time permits. The same NATO vision for 2030 will be approved at the alliance summit, tentatively scheduled for December.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CNN in an interview that a comprehensive review of Moscow’s aggressive policy is nearly finished, just as Joe Biden promised. New sanctions may follow a full list of claims against the Kremlin issued by the current U.S. president’s team. The European Union has already given Washington the go-ahead to initiate the next round of confrontation between Russia and the West. Yet, the EU clearly doesn’t want to challenge the Russian Federation before the U.S. acts. The highly anticipated discussion on the “Russia question” has been postponed from March until the EU summit in June. In the meantime, the U.S. allies have determined whether Russia or China is the primary threat.
No major amendments to the alliance’s 2030 strategy were announced after the meeting of NATO foreign ministers, and the strategy is scheduled for approval this year. Donald Trump wanted to make the policy more aggressive toward China. Now Blinken is saying the same thing. However, judging by the statements made at the ministerial NATO meeting, it seems that matters will continue as previously planned. Russia remains the primary threat, according to the announced strategy, although China is in second place. The United Kingdom’s National Security Strategy, which was released last week, is taking the same approach. Russia was called the “most direct and acute threat” and China was merely labeled an economic rival.
This can hardly be viewed as evidence of a foreign policy defeat for Biden. The very fact that the European allies joined the confrontation between the U.S. and China can be labeled an American diplomatic success. In 2014, NATO’s bureaucratic apparatus finally found a reason to form a military bloc after languishing over the lack of meaningful purpose for such a bloc after the Cold War ended. Russia once again came to be seen as a hostile power that must be confronted. Europeans seemed to seriously expect everything would now work out just as it did during the Cold War. The U.S. would protect their allies under a defense umbrella, would strengthen its military presence in Europe and thus increase its military expenses, and would bear most of the unpleasant costs of fighting with Russia in general. And the EU would merely continue to impose economic sanctions that do not impose any burdens on the Europeans themselves while still managing to criticize and interact with the Kremlin whenever possible.
Under Barack Obama’s administration, Washington made it clear that the United States was not happy with this division of responsibilities. Trump stated bluntly that Europe’s safety is primarily its own concern. Therefore, Europeans had to increase their contributions to the NATO piggy bank and refrain from making profits on trade with a potential enemy. Additionally, as compensation for American protection, the EU was expected to at least join the much more important American “crusade” against China. The overwhelming majority of EU leaders disliked the latter request. The Russian threat is, at least, evident to voters. For millions of Europeans — and not only those in the Baltic states and Poland — Russia is an aggressive, unpredictable power from which Europeans only expect problems. But sanctions and a quarrel with far-away China only guarantee economic losses for the EU.
The new U.S. administration is already clearly demonstrating that containing the Chinese Communist Party is not a whim that Trump had, but a long-term path for American foreign policy. However, the Europeans, in their desire to return to a happy past, are just as persistent about confronting Russia. It is naive, of course, to expect that disagreements over the greatest threat will turn into a serious conflict between long-time, interdependent allies. Rather, there will be as many negotiations over interests as time permits. The same NATO vision for 2030 will be approved at the alliance summit, tentatively scheduled for December.
Previous article![]( "Intervention for the Global Economy")
Next article![]( "After Unveiling Sanctions, Does Biden Hope for a Deal with Putin?")