Hi Adam—thanks for the piece. I wonder if dismissing MAGA, Trump, and Vance as mere bluster is somewhat wishful thinking. They have a clear vision for the world and are actively working to reshape the status quo. During his European visit, Vance outlined concrete policy positions on AI regulation, security, and free speech—these weren’t just empty rhetoric.
What competing vision does the other side offer? The status quo in Europe is undeniably broken. European nations are aging, becoming poorer, and growing weaker. The economic divergence between the U.S. and Europe has been stark and continues to widen—doubling of the GDP gap being a prime example. Europe remains reliant on the American security guarantee for its defense, how sustainable was that, even without MAGA? You assert that the silent majority don’t want MAGA style politics- how can you be so sure?
Meanwhile, right-wing parties and politicians across Europe have been gaining ground for years (Reform/UKIP, Le Pen, Meloni, AfD) and show no signs of retreating. The decision to exclude the AfD from coalition politics—the so-called “firewall”—seems, in itself, an anti-democratic stance. Is the Pawel-clutching mainstream response to these movements sustainable, or is it merely postponing - and perhaps even making more likely - an inevitable reckoning?
I don’t think you could argue not going into coalition wirh AFD is “undemocratic” parties are entitled to go into coalition with whom they want.
The thing Adam clearly gets wrong on is immigration. I don’t like Vance, but he is clearly correct that there’s no democratic mandate for mass migration. Worst example is Britain where they voted 4 times in a row for reduced immigration and got way more of it.
I think my point is that if the convention in Germany is that parties enter into coalitions in order to govern, then there is an argument (agree not necessarily an incontestable one) that this is an anti-democratic stance by those other parties because those people that voted for that party are not being represented.
Writing from Marseille, I would suggest that the West European establishment may be more focused on creating a livable society for its citizens than we are. Though the French like to complain that public services are getting worse for them (i.e., privatized), I find the vitality here--buses and metros pumping people across the city, old men playing the French version of Bocce in the parks, mountain trails with plenty of local hikers--very different from the sad vacuum of so many American public spaces. The difference is stark.
Try a former steel or manufacturing town in the Nord Pas de Calais area. Marseilles has its issues but it's also in the midst of heavy gentrification that masks a lot of suffering.
"If Europe wants to be able to dismiss the sophomoric antics of Vance et al in the way they should, they need to be able to provide for their own security. Europeans will have to pay for and organize their own defense and face the political, diplomatic, financial and social consequences attendant upon that. This will take some extra spending, a lot of industrial policy and above all a serious effort to forge a common European security force and security policy."
OK, lets assume that the Europeans can find some new leaders to catalyse this.
First the problem has not been taking the peace dividend from 1990 and allowing the military to collapse. The threat has never been from Russia.
The problem was the Nato push Eastwards triggering a greater and greater Russian response which Nato, with or without USA, was quite unprepared for.
It has been the Karate Kid part 2014 where the bullies drank more and more beer while the bullied prepared for war. Totally stupid. Pretty soon I predict European leaders will complain they were pushed unwillingly into it by USA and I will respect them even less.
The perfect solution of course would be to break with USA, make amends with BRICS, re-open NS2 and partake in the massive new Chineses lead trading block. BUT
40 years of outrageous racist rhetoric about Russia and Minsk 1&2 makes that very difficult to do, We poisoned minds on both sides (not least with the awful pro-nazi Banderist nonsense that it seems everyone has to believe now - Gehlen did his work for CIA).
Everytime you hear someone say "Ukraine shoult be in Nato" or "rump Ukraine must include a Nato presence" (both quite ridiculous) you should identify the speaker as someone who just wants to delay any chance of Europe escaping USA.
The problem with your argument is that the US, the primary force provider to NATO, has been transferring military power from the European theater since at least the first gulf war. In other words, the military threat to Russia has significantly diminished over the past decades. If anything, I would argue that it is this reduction of the threat to Russia that has empowered Putin to see an oppurtunity to sate his expansionist fever dreams.
Well exactly. The military threat (I'd call it credibility) of Nato has got weaker and weaker. The military credibility of Russia (over last 10 years) has got much much stonger.
But the Nato Border, the actions taken by Nato have got more and more aggressive. Delesevu and the huge US base being built in Ukraine. Redzikowo in Poland. That loud antagonistic shouting of the Baltics and the hassling of Russian ships in the Baltics (where no evidence of cable cutting has been found, but plenty of Russian ships have been shaken down).
Never mind the tone of voice.
Nato went into Ukraine, 100km or less from the Russian border, and from 20015-2021 build concreted artillery bases to fire on Donbas.
The gap between actual aggression and credibility have become quite ridiculous and Europe (not US) has been punished for it. Plain stupid.
As for Putin's expansionist fever dreams - just look at a map and work out where the fighting is - and how far Nato advanced in 30 years.
Check on John Meiersheimer to verify your belief in Putin's expansionist fever dreams. The good IR professor has found no evidence of such dreams in the public record. However, if you actually have access to Putin's actual dreams (likely spoken in Russian) and you understand them, please, let us know...
I understand that in about July of the year prior to the invasion of Ukraine Putin wrote a long piece outlining his views of greater Russia ( not the Soviet Union, which he did not like).
Many experts completely disagree with Mearsheiner.
Many people disagree with Prof M. but have nothing to show as arguments and actual facts.
And I did read Putin's long essay and I didn't see anything smaking of revisionism and intention to recreate the Czarist Empire. And I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Russians are breathing a big sign of relief to not have to support all those lost republics economically anylonger.
Did you read the essay? If you have not and you cite it, than shame on you.
I, personally, as a Romanian, I have my gripes with Russia.
But I know that the biggest tragedies for Romania and Romanians in the XXth century were caused not by Russians, but by Germans: forcing the Vienna Diktat on Romanians in 1940 and the relinquishing of Northern Transylvania to Hungary (a downpayment for which Hungary had to join Germany in the war against USSR in 1941) and then allowing USSR to invade and occupy Basarabia (present day R of Moldova, but diminished, with the southern region of Budjak going to Ukraine, and Northern Bucovina, which was never before under Russian control, going again, to Ukraine). Recovering the lost territory was the reason Romania joined Germany in the war against USSR in June 22, 1941.
Which led to ultimate soviet occupation of Romania in 1944 (despite Romania turning against Germany and loosing more than 250K soldiers fighting the Germans up to the Tatra Mountains in Czechoslovakia, more than Canada lost during the entire WWII for instance).
I'll put the socialist period in Romanian history as a mixed bag, i.e. Romania was for the longest period after 1990 the top country with the highest percentage of home ownership. Now is on the fourth place. All due to Socialist investment in housing.
I did not say that I read the piece; I said that I understood he had written a piece. I understand that he also wrote another later piece.
I have been informed by people who are considered experts.
However, I am shamed for being so lazy, so I’ll finally read it.
But are you saying he does not envision controlling greater Russia, as perhaps similar to Czarist times?
I’m not familiar with the Romanian and European history to which you refer; we Americans are, after all, a bit insular. For better or worse the world has had to adapt to us.
As far as Prof M, he is strenuously disagreed with by many practioners in diplomacy.
You find Israel detestable or the good professor, for accusing them of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide - B'Tselem, HRW, Amnesty International have all provided lengthy reports on why that is so, ICJ ruled on that as well in an advisory note to UNGA, ICC found the Israeli leadership guilty of war crimes and issued arrest warrants, and ICJ has found Israel as likely guilty of genocidal actions, and it is presently debating that charge, with more evidence arriving every day.
Re: the Vance/Hegseth speeches...Frankly, Europe should embrace a decoupling from US influence, particularly as EU members over the years have lent their militaries as Nato "partners" in the Americans' shitty wars beginning with Korea, and all the way to Iraq, Afghanistan, with stops at Libya and Syria.
TRump and Vance are saying that it's down to you, Europe, and I say that's a long time coming. I mean, the Warsaw Pact dissolved over 35 years ago, while Nato staggers on, stocked with time-servers, "warocrats", sniveling US suckups, the whole bloody
lot.
Charles de Gaulle was right back in 1966 when he pulled France out of Nato...right idea, bad politics, as it turned out. Today,
the time is indeed right, so go for it, EU...welcome to the 21st Century
I think Trump and Vance are saying we have moved on from personal bribes and blackmail to state to state bullying with Sanctions. That is just the Trump way of doing things.
Everything is now out in the open. The direct use of al qaeda / ISIS terrorists in Syria (and elsewhere) is not openly acknowledged. The US is no longer accidentally supporting mass murder in Gaza against its pretended better judgement, the US is now directly taking part in ethic cleansing of Gaza (with perhaps less murder). The whole USAID influence programs and media distortion are being admitted.
But don't think the US doesn't expect Europe to still toe the line.
The real coming event is the bifurcation of world trade to the much bigger China block and the rump US block. There is no way Europe is getting a choice on this.
If the EU expanded its arms industry and boycotted American weapons this would seriously boost a lackluster EU economy. Also, EU weapons (including Britain) are at least as effective as American ones, cost less and are more practical. The EU could seriously challenge American arms sales globally much like Airbus has beaten the pants off of Boeing.
No matter what mental gymnastics people like you use, the undeniable reality is that Russia has consistently used military force to implement its foreign policy goals, justifying the expansion of NATO to include threatened countries. If Ukraine was in NATO prior to 2014 there wouldn't be a war right now. That's what peace looks like.
And the unprovoked attack on Ukraine was far from that:
- March 2021 Ukraine passes legislation to regain control on what was deemed Ukrainian territory by any means.
- April 2021 Ukraine moves troops at Donbas borders
- May Russia moves 90,000 troops at Ukraine borders
- West panics June Biden-Putin meeting in Switzerland: US promisses that there will no missiles (including nuclear tipped missiles) installed in Ukraine.
- Russia pulls army back
- December 2021 Russia provides draft agreements to NATO & US for a new security architecture in Europe: US/NATO laugh
- January 2022: Blinken walk balks the promise regarding nuclear missiles in Ukraine and says that it is not about US not putting missiles in Ukraine, but about how many
- Early February 2022: as reported by OECD observers on the ceasfire line, Ukraine has started artillery barage on Donbas. DOnbas vulnerable population is moved further away or in Russia.
- Donbas asks Russia for help (the beacon of Minas Tirith was lit - and Rohan responded).
- Russia dotted all the legal i's and crossed all the legal t's, following article 51 on UN Charter and the precedent (which ICJ or ICC deemed ok) that US created in 1999 in Kosovo and the attack on Serbia....
Your own source points out that Georgia's firing of the 'first shots' was merely the boiling point stemming in large part from repeated violations of Georgia's sovereignty by Russia.
"...chief among those are the 'mass conferral of Russian citizenship' in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the presence of non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia before the war, the disproportionate Russian military action on Georgian territory, Russia’s long-standing support for the separatist authorities in the two regions, and its post-war recognition of the two territories as independent states."
That makes sense if you totally ignore Russia's involvement in the unrest of 2014 and continued support to the present day for Ukranian splinter groups. Citing a legally and morally dubious military action by other countries is hardly a strong argument either. It's also undeniable that Russia's actions in Ukraine are far larger than the intervention in Kosovo, making the comparison a bit silly.
The unrest in 2014? WHich one you mean? The one suported by the US that started in Maidan, because Yanukovich would not go with the crippling deal offered by the EU?
The one in which was agreed that Yanukovich will step down ahead of time and there will be elections in 3 months time, but the Americans reneged on it and led with the right wing armed Sleboda and Azov military wings (like the SA in Germany in 1930s) the coup in early 2014? Having already picked the next government of Ukraine, as Victoria Nuland told us? The one in which same right wing goons burned to a crisp about 50 people in Odessa?
The involvement of 2014, which was investigated by a University of Toronto professor and identified that all the killing shots came from the area controlled by the insurgents?
All the while brushing aside the desire of Crimeans to return to Russia as soon as the USSR fell? Or of the majority of ethnic Russians in Donbas to not accept the putch and not recognize the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian government? And that might have something to do with the desire to avoid the agreed upon elections and go for the putch, because people might not vote the right way? As demonstrated recently in Romania?
idiot is the best I can say. Georgia was armed by US and urged to go attack Russian peacekeeper (they got whooped and the peacekeepers were out of Georgia in less than a week. There was no invasion.
You can't get a more blatant US coup than 2014. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea declared independence with the help of about a dozen Russian special forces who arrived to protect parliamentarians.
In Donbas and Luhansk there was no Russia presence - numerous western attempts have been made to prove a Russian presence - they have all failed.
In both cases the only thing Russia attempted to control was the repeated murder of civilians (while the US and Europe backed the murder)
2022 was the most provoked event ever, and with 120k troops in a country the size of France with 700k of its own troops, was a tiny tiny event.
You don't seem to have understood much in the last 17 years.
Pity I cannot link that map of Latin America showing the history of American invasions and coups.
If Ukraine wanted to avoid war, all it needed to have done was implement Minsk-2, afternit immediately broke the original Minsk Accord.
As concerns Georgia, the OSCE (no friend of Russia) concluded that Georgia started that war. As to why Russia would attack Georgia but not change borders or implement regime change after winning is left as an exercise for the paranoid.
Our GDP per capital speaks for itself. Europe, the UK, even Canada are falling farther behind. I believe Macron expressed concern about EU bureaucracy.
GDP is a highly dubious stat. Just comparing GDP on PPP (Purchasing power parity) brings down US GDP by 20 odd percent. Once you look into the things wealth is made up of (lots of FIRE - Finance, Insurance, Real Estate gains) and how it is distributed (mostly to a small number of people - far more distorted in US than even Europe) it looks very different.
And as you know the bottom quartile in USA is actually quite poor with levels of homeless which would be shocking in Europe.
You have a system that creates a lot of wealth for a very small number of people.
Absolutely love the jdv speech. You’re living in a bubble. Many (most?) people in the eu agree with jdv. The bureaucrats are in for many more shocks and, hopefully, the rationing (or collapse) of the eu bureaucracy.
Bubble yourself. Vance is insufferable, and everybody I know here in Europe is of the same opinion. The gall of coming here to say we should vote for neo-fascists in the upcoming elections.
Good piece. I think a lot of people in Europe had bought into the idea that Trump and MAGA are fundamentally "isolationist" - that they want to pull back from Europe because they see it as a drain on U.S. resources. But I think it's more complicated than that. They seem to take seriously the idea that the U.S./Europe make up a shared cultural/civilizational area, and they see themselves as the upholders of certain values within that area. And they are willing to use pressure to see those values implemented within it. This was foreshadowed in the first Trump admin, for instance in his Warsaw speech, but the people in this admin are much more serious about it. And that's a level of aggression/intervention that Europe is not ready for. "Isolationism", what they thought they were dealing with, would probably be preferable.
This is hilarious. The left is now truly afraid of what their incompetence has wrought. Please continue to misunderstand and underestimate the opposition. We're counting on it.
I am not sure what blog you are reading. Tooze is one of the few left-liberal writers who has taken MAGA seriously throughout. I'd urge you to read his 31 May 2024 post on the grass roots of Trump's support (and many earlier pieces)
This piece is also at its heart a criticism of the lack of understanding and complacency with which the centrist European establishment has responded to Trump and the underlying political trends that support him. As someone possibly closer to you than to Tooze on a simple left right political spectrum (based on very few data points), I'd urge you to re-read.
Yes, Tooze is very intelligent and very perceptive and that's why I pay to read his material. But the facade broke with this post. This was the cri de couer.
When he terms it MAGA, that's in and of itself a cope. The people running the government now aren't Christian evangelicals or the magats in Iowa.
Your last sentence is obviously true. And it is awkward to say in a comment on his blog, but I agree Tooze is more emotional about the end of a liberal era that was clearly unsustainable than he might be. But the important division within the "left"* as you term it (what I would call liberal Atlanticism) is between people who, like Tooze, understand that "nur Eisen kann uns retten" and those, like the unnamed German politician he mocks, who are living in the past. So in that sense his thinking has a future, whilst that of most European MSC attendees does not.
* Left to me means AOC, Sarah Wagenknecht, Jeremy Corbyn, etc....particularly on security and foreign policy issues the distinction between them and Biden, Pistorious, Starmer is important.
What are you (as representative of the opposition -- which I'm inferring from your comment)? I don't want to misunderstand. Are you MAGA? Are you Libertarian? What are you counting on and what is your end game? Truly curious to know. I'm not being spiteful.
Maybe you were never oblique, but right now you are being rather opaque. I'm trying to shake hands with you, but it feels like you would rather leave me hanging. That's okay, though. I'm just trying to figure this stuff out; go a little deeper trying to understand the things I might be misinterpreting.
I think you are missing the point. It’s not what Vance said. It’s HOW he said it. I am from Russia, and I got an ear for that.
This sounded exactly like any foreign dignitary visiting Russia or any other non western country. He was berating and lecturing from a high ground. It doesn’t matter what he says - as long as he puts himself in a position to pass judgement and is allowed to do that, he is in a position of power and can affect what Europe does - under any pretext.
Gay rights, shmay rights , it doesn’t matter. What matters is his ability to judge European performance, which makes him a subject, and Europe and object.
To put it simply- Vance just laid bare the fact that Europe is a colony of the USA, whereas his predecessors were keeping pretences. That’s my read
Obviously a superb US 2028 campaign speech. And an incredibly insulting piece of diplomacy at the same time. Deeply ignorant of Europe. Abortion views, the migrant terrorist was from Afghanistan (why did he leave?), Romania is clearly a US supported regime change.
And every single one of the Defence ministers, Foreign ministers and all the generals in the audience were pre-vetted by CIA before they got their position.
European leaders appear desperate to stick to the bribery and blackmail system the US has used to control European politics. Sure Trump wants to abandon USAID and replace it with Sanction bullying, but is Vance really ready to abandone a corrupt system that has worked so well to date?
Adam, I do not think I have ever seen you write with such clarity and simplicity as you have here. It is long overdue and thank you for doing it. It is really beyond bullshit, it is a fever dream and fantasy of the US far right to simply destroy everything. It is the culmination of the John Birch Society way of thinking that has desired some kind of libertarian chaos (nihilism in reality) since the 1950s.
So, will Europe be up to the challenge? Or will it go out with a whimper? My gut tells me they will fight and the center of gravity and power shifted to the Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Czechia, Romania and Bulgaria. They know all too well what is at stake while the Germans bury their head in the sand, the UK continues its inexorable decline, and France remains feckless. Spain and Portugal (my wife is Spanish) seem to understand what is at stake as Franco and the Estado Novo is in our lifetimes still. But they are furthest from the action.
European leadership in the last two decades has been asleep at the wheel and now we need new blood and thinking for this moment. Adenauer, DeGaulle, and Ike are not walking through the door, though I dream they may.
"Did he have to talk about democracy? About British anti-abortion activists and the Romanian election, about the maneuvers to marginalize the AfD? Such topics, you might say, do not belong in the sphere of international relations and diplomacy. "
+ In a generally good essay, this was a whopper. An EU member, which has a veto power over Russia sanctions and hosts a key NATO base, overturning its election results certainly impacts international relations. He later referred to the Romanian situation as a "mess". If Putin or Trump canceled an election because they would lose, would that be a "mess".
+ Eatonia jailed a candidate in 2023 for his positions (his name is something like "Avios Peterson" Not mentioned by Vance.
+ I watched a DW segment on BSW and it was almost comical. Most comments agreed.
+ Vance forgot to call out his boss for his comments about deporting people based on Gaza speech.
"Added to which, as everyone at MSC is painfully aware, this “foreign country”, the USA, is Europe’s security provider and despite the warnings signs of the last decade Europe has done precious little to gain independence."
You misspelled "Master" and "european cuck"". Europe no more wants independence than a dog.
I note europoliticians are happy to tut tut about American political developments that they don't like, but everyone ignores this (Romania is a clear test case for Core Europe to overturn election results that the satraps don't like) because europoliticians have no real authority other than what they are given.
Yes. Every minister and every general at the meeting was pre-vetted by CIA before their appointment. Many of them are on the Ukraine gravy train along with all the old Biden team.
What bothered them most was the idea that they might have to ask voters what their policies should be.
America has been the cuck for the entire post-war period as it has allowed Europe to walk all over it in knee high Louboutins to protect its incredibly weak and fragile empire.
The defence guarantee was the price America paid for America's access to Europe and its imperial dominion over it.
The american propaganda tells you it's generosity that keeps America "defending liberty" etc. etc. in Europe but it's actually desperation.
NATO is famously all about keeping the Germans down, America in and Russia out. If it no longer retains that premise then the Americans shouldn't be surprised when they find themselves out.
The theme seems to be the dangers of complacency in Europe about MAGA. That doesn’t reflect reality to me at all. Rather, the Europeans’ complacency is about their own defense, and the MAGA 2.0 administration is simply making the point: if you really care, stump up.
In the final analysis, America has no way of gauging how much Europeans care about NATO than by how much they’re willing to pay to keep it. It’s unpleasant having to pay, I know, but America can’t afford it anymore. So either the big economies share the expense in proportion, or it’s “good luck.”
The carping left, including this author, always seems to hint at a Trump-Putin bromance. I don’t think that’s true at all. If Putin’s Russia is the threat that the internationalist left-liberal commentariat says it is, then they should be calling for the remilitarization of Western Europe, including Germany. Why don’t they?
We can’t afford to pay a disproportionate amount for Europe’s defense anymore. And we do. We still maintain troops, tanks, and bases there, and everybody there depends on us to protect them against Russia while we have an insecure southern border. The Europeans are perfectly capable of providing those things in the right proportion for themselves, and it’s time they started. Make it worth our while, and we’ll keep NATO. Otherwise, good luck.
America has only one indispensable ally (U.K.) in Europe, and unfortunately it is now in the grip of an unpopular “woke” government. We hope to see the back of it before the end of the year.
You say the US can't afford it. What are the numbers? How much does it spend in Europe and how much does your desired border security cost? Why does this necessitate leaving NATO and not reducing military presence in Europe but maintaining the alliance?
US cannot afford a hot war with Russia. As the western press and EU/NATO big wigs have admitted, Russia produces in three months more materiel and ammunition than the entire NATO (including US) does in a year. US and EU cannot move to a war footing economy any longer, they are not designed for that, and there is no trained workforce laying around, nor people to do training, no closed but available factories for all this entreprise.
The question should be: does Russia pose a mortal threat to U.S. national security and interests? Does the U.S. have a vital national interest at stake in Ukraine, for example? If so, no one has clearly identified it. Adam Tooze certainly hasn’t. The left-liberal internationalist commentariat likes to scream about “democracy” around the world, but that is not a clear articulation of national interest. We have many problems here in America. We have not been seeing to them first.
You (and Tooze) want “numbers” because you think everything has a technocratic solution. As I pointed out, our southern border is very insecure, so why are our troops not concentrated there instead of some place in Europe where no vital national security interest is at stake, and where big countries like Germany and Italy are more than capable of fielding armies? Combined, the populations of those two alone approximate Russia’s. You’re saying all the Europeans need to keep America in there as the “garrison state” because the savages have to protect the civilized? As I said, good luck.
During the Cold War, the military-industrial complex could hoodwink us all with the threat of Communism, because the Soviet Union could actually project power globally. Russia today cannot (even China today is better at that). So good luck with NATO. If you all remilitarize, maybe we’ll stay with it. Looks doubtful.
If you are arguing using budgetary concerns you should cite the budget. I could cite how the US spends 5% of its defense budget in Europe, which is less than $40 billion. I could cite how the US is burning money on healthcare, spending about $1.5 trillion, by far the most in the world despite substandard health outcomes in a private healthcare system where your tax dollars are being pilfered by the ultra-wealthy. Perhaps your budgetary woes could be solved by tackling that issue instead of the comparably insignificant amount spent on Europe. Think of the wall you could build with a fraction of that money!
I couldn’t agree more about our public health system, which is a corrupt rip-off in desperate need of reform. Fortunately, our new health secretary has made such reform his life’s cause.
But again, budget isn’t everything except, as I said, in gauging how much European countries really care about defense. The only way we have to measure their sincerity is by how much they’re willing to pay. If we ignore that, we risk getting involved in war and conflict where we have no vital national interest at stake, and I gave the example of Ukraine.
If Germany and Italy feel they have a vital interest there, they can pay what’s required to uphold that interest without depending on the United States. If that means remilitarization, so be it. The days of the free ride are over.
However, there is one nuance to the German PR system which you fail to mention. I am sure you know about the five percent electoral threshold, but some of your readers may not and therefore it is worth reminding them that parties winning less than 5% nationally do not get proportional seats, and their votes are redistributed among the other parties. Hence the denominator for determining a majority is less than 100%.
In the case of the upcoming election, it is likely to be well less. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GERMANY-ELECTION/POLLS/akveedlravr/ indeed has the CDU / CSU on 29% and AFD on 21%, making 51% (due to rounding). However wth the BSW and FDP unlikely to cross 5% and 7% of the vote for other parties, the denomenator for distributing seats is will be in the mid 80s, likely giving the CDU / CSU c.34% and AFD c.25% - which would amount to a clear mandate.
Further complication: the SPD also benefit from this effect and would end up with c.18% of seats for their 16% of the votes, if the election were held today and polls were accurate. In this outcome (and here we see what Vance was really driving at) the centre-right leadership would be faced with a choice between a narrow mandate in coalition with the SPD (GroCo) or a clear mandate for a government of the right with the AfD. For any number of personal, institutional, and indeed policy reasons the former would be far more comfortable for them. Vance was setting out his stall that - faced with the current political constellation in Germany - America would prefer a government of the right.
This indeed as you rightly say should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to American politics, but it is of course a departure from post-war American policy, at least vis-a-vis Germany. I would also add, that while I broadly agree with your comments on the intellectual substance of "MAGA", Vance very likely understands these technical nuances far better than most senior American politicians, including those of prior administrations. It will have to weigh heavily on Merz's mind (and perhaps already is) as he contemplates the decisions he will have to make post election, the time required to rearm, and the need for American support in the interim.
Thank you for your report on JD Vance's speech at Munich. Having read your Chartboot for the last couple of years and being impressed with the academic tone, I guffawed out loud, when I read your definitely unacademic description of MAGA ideology as 'bullish*t.'
Earlier this morning, before reading your email, I sent family members a link to the text of The Speech. Along with what was my attempt to identify the main dangerous and propagandistic sections. Like the 'free speech,' and the repeated emphasis what he sees as the curtailment of free speech rights of, well, essentially White, Christian Males. As you point out, this is probably for Fox News consumption and rallying points for the MAGA cohorts at home. But, for females, worrying. For not White, not Christian, females, terrifying.
I do feel badly for the Europeans, but it seems to me that they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, the result of being held hostage, well, Occupied, by the the United States since 1945. And, I admit, having family in Sweden and good friends in France, I am insanely jealous of the health and welfare and education systems that they have built up by not spending money on bombs and tanks. I am experiencing a warm feeling of schadenfreude; not being an academic, this is the first time I have ever used this word in a sentence!
This takes me back to when one of my daughters was little. In the middle of serious conversations, she would place her hands over her ears and declare, "Don't tell me things I don't want to hear!"
"[Vance] professes to say that right-wing America will contribute to European defense, if European elites adopt his definition of democracy and free speech and abandon their firewalls and open the floodgates to right-populism. But one may doubt whether he is in good faith."
Very much doubt he is in good faith. MAGA and good faith don't occupy the same Universe.
But you're absolutely right: Europe must provide for her own defense. I have no doubt, we're on our way out of NATO unless the Europeans sacrifice Ukraine to Putin, and should they do that, what would be the point of NATO to begin with?
Hi Adam—thanks for the piece. I wonder if dismissing MAGA, Trump, and Vance as mere bluster is somewhat wishful thinking. They have a clear vision for the world and are actively working to reshape the status quo. During his European visit, Vance outlined concrete policy positions on AI regulation, security, and free speech—these weren’t just empty rhetoric.
What competing vision does the other side offer? The status quo in Europe is undeniably broken. European nations are aging, becoming poorer, and growing weaker. The economic divergence between the U.S. and Europe has been stark and continues to widen—doubling of the GDP gap being a prime example. Europe remains reliant on the American security guarantee for its defense, how sustainable was that, even without MAGA? You assert that the silent majority don’t want MAGA style politics- how can you be so sure?
Meanwhile, right-wing parties and politicians across Europe have been gaining ground for years (Reform/UKIP, Le Pen, Meloni, AfD) and show no signs of retreating. The decision to exclude the AfD from coalition politics—the so-called “firewall”—seems, in itself, an anti-democratic stance. Is the Pawel-clutching mainstream response to these movements sustainable, or is it merely postponing - and perhaps even making more likely - an inevitable reckoning?
I don’t think you could argue not going into coalition wirh AFD is “undemocratic” parties are entitled to go into coalition with whom they want.
The thing Adam clearly gets wrong on is immigration. I don’t like Vance, but he is clearly correct that there’s no democratic mandate for mass migration. Worst example is Britain where they voted 4 times in a row for reduced immigration and got way more of it.
I think my point is that if the convention in Germany is that parties enter into coalitions in order to govern, then there is an argument (agree not necessarily an incontestable one) that this is an anti-democratic stance by those other parties because those people that voted for that party are not being represented.
Writing from Marseille, I would suggest that the West European establishment may be more focused on creating a livable society for its citizens than we are. Though the French like to complain that public services are getting worse for them (i.e., privatized), I find the vitality here--buses and metros pumping people across the city, old men playing the French version of Bocce in the parks, mountain trails with plenty of local hikers--very different from the sad vacuum of so many American public spaces. The difference is stark.
Try a former steel or manufacturing town in the Nord Pas de Calais area. Marseilles has its issues but it's also in the midst of heavy gentrification that masks a lot of suffering.
"If Europe wants to be able to dismiss the sophomoric antics of Vance et al in the way they should, they need to be able to provide for their own security. Europeans will have to pay for and organize their own defense and face the political, diplomatic, financial and social consequences attendant upon that. This will take some extra spending, a lot of industrial policy and above all a serious effort to forge a common European security force and security policy."
OK, lets assume that the Europeans can find some new leaders to catalyse this.
First the problem has not been taking the peace dividend from 1990 and allowing the military to collapse. The threat has never been from Russia.
The problem was the Nato push Eastwards triggering a greater and greater Russian response which Nato, with or without USA, was quite unprepared for.
It has been the Karate Kid part 2014 where the bullies drank more and more beer while the bullied prepared for war. Totally stupid. Pretty soon I predict European leaders will complain they were pushed unwillingly into it by USA and I will respect them even less.
The perfect solution of course would be to break with USA, make amends with BRICS, re-open NS2 and partake in the massive new Chineses lead trading block. BUT
40 years of outrageous racist rhetoric about Russia and Minsk 1&2 makes that very difficult to do, We poisoned minds on both sides (not least with the awful pro-nazi Banderist nonsense that it seems everyone has to believe now - Gehlen did his work for CIA).
Everytime you hear someone say "Ukraine shoult be in Nato" or "rump Ukraine must include a Nato presence" (both quite ridiculous) you should identify the speaker as someone who just wants to delay any chance of Europe escaping USA.
The problem with your argument is that the US, the primary force provider to NATO, has been transferring military power from the European theater since at least the first gulf war. In other words, the military threat to Russia has significantly diminished over the past decades. If anything, I would argue that it is this reduction of the threat to Russia that has empowered Putin to see an oppurtunity to sate his expansionist fever dreams.
Well exactly. The military threat (I'd call it credibility) of Nato has got weaker and weaker. The military credibility of Russia (over last 10 years) has got much much stonger.
But the Nato Border, the actions taken by Nato have got more and more aggressive. Delesevu and the huge US base being built in Ukraine. Redzikowo in Poland. That loud antagonistic shouting of the Baltics and the hassling of Russian ships in the Baltics (where no evidence of cable cutting has been found, but plenty of Russian ships have been shaken down).
Never mind the tone of voice.
Nato went into Ukraine, 100km or less from the Russian border, and from 20015-2021 build concreted artillery bases to fire on Donbas.
The gap between actual aggression and credibility have become quite ridiculous and Europe (not US) has been punished for it. Plain stupid.
As for Putin's expansionist fever dreams - just look at a map and work out where the fighting is - and how far Nato advanced in 30 years.
Think for yourself.
Check on John Meiersheimer to verify your belief in Putin's expansionist fever dreams. The good IR professor has found no evidence of such dreams in the public record. However, if you actually have access to Putin's actual dreams (likely spoken in Russian) and you understand them, please, let us know...
I understand that in about July of the year prior to the invasion of Ukraine Putin wrote a long piece outlining his views of greater Russia ( not the Soviet Union, which he did not like).
Many experts completely disagree with Mearsheiner.
Many people disagree with Prof M. but have nothing to show as arguments and actual facts.
And I did read Putin's long essay and I didn't see anything smaking of revisionism and intention to recreate the Czarist Empire. And I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Russians are breathing a big sign of relief to not have to support all those lost republics economically anylonger.
Did you read the essay? If you have not and you cite it, than shame on you.
I, personally, as a Romanian, I have my gripes with Russia.
But I know that the biggest tragedies for Romania and Romanians in the XXth century were caused not by Russians, but by Germans: forcing the Vienna Diktat on Romanians in 1940 and the relinquishing of Northern Transylvania to Hungary (a downpayment for which Hungary had to join Germany in the war against USSR in 1941) and then allowing USSR to invade and occupy Basarabia (present day R of Moldova, but diminished, with the southern region of Budjak going to Ukraine, and Northern Bucovina, which was never before under Russian control, going again, to Ukraine). Recovering the lost territory was the reason Romania joined Germany in the war against USSR in June 22, 1941.
Which led to ultimate soviet occupation of Romania in 1944 (despite Romania turning against Germany and loosing more than 250K soldiers fighting the Germans up to the Tatra Mountains in Czechoslovakia, more than Canada lost during the entire WWII for instance).
I'll put the socialist period in Romanian history as a mixed bag, i.e. Romania was for the longest period after 1990 the top country with the highest percentage of home ownership. Now is on the fourth place. All due to Socialist investment in housing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
I did not say that I read the piece; I said that I understood he had written a piece. I understand that he also wrote another later piece.
I have been informed by people who are considered experts.
However, I am shamed for being so lazy, so I’ll finally read it.
But are you saying he does not envision controlling greater Russia, as perhaps similar to Czarist times?
I’m not familiar with the Romanian and European history to which you refer; we Americans are, after all, a bit insular. For better or worse the world has had to adapt to us.
As far as Prof M, he is strenuously disagreed with by many practioners in diplomacy.
And concerning Israel, I find him detestable.
"And concerning Israel, I find him detestable."
You find Israel detestable or the good professor, for accusing them of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide - B'Tselem, HRW, Amnesty International have all provided lengthy reports on why that is so, ICJ ruled on that as well in an advisory note to UNGA, ICC found the Israeli leadership guilty of war crimes and issued arrest warrants, and ICJ has found Israel as likely guilty of genocidal actions, and it is presently debating that charge, with more evidence arriving every day.
Re: the Vance/Hegseth speeches...Frankly, Europe should embrace a decoupling from US influence, particularly as EU members over the years have lent their militaries as Nato "partners" in the Americans' shitty wars beginning with Korea, and all the way to Iraq, Afghanistan, with stops at Libya and Syria.
TRump and Vance are saying that it's down to you, Europe, and I say that's a long time coming. I mean, the Warsaw Pact dissolved over 35 years ago, while Nato staggers on, stocked with time-servers, "warocrats", sniveling US suckups, the whole bloody
lot.
Charles de Gaulle was right back in 1966 when he pulled France out of Nato...right idea, bad politics, as it turned out. Today,
the time is indeed right, so go for it, EU...welcome to the 21st Century
I think Trump and Vance are saying we have moved on from personal bribes and blackmail to state to state bullying with Sanctions. That is just the Trump way of doing things.
Everything is now out in the open. The direct use of al qaeda / ISIS terrorists in Syria (and elsewhere) is not openly acknowledged. The US is no longer accidentally supporting mass murder in Gaza against its pretended better judgement, the US is now directly taking part in ethic cleansing of Gaza (with perhaps less murder). The whole USAID influence programs and media distortion are being admitted.
But don't think the US doesn't expect Europe to still toe the line.
The real coming event is the bifurcation of world trade to the much bigger China block and the rump US block. There is no way Europe is getting a choice on this.
If the EU expanded its arms industry and boycotted American weapons this would seriously boost a lackluster EU economy. Also, EU weapons (including Britain) are at least as effective as American ones, cost less and are more practical. The EU could seriously challenge American arms sales globally much like Airbus has beaten the pants off of Boeing.
No matter what mental gymnastics people like you use, the undeniable reality is that Russia has consistently used military force to implement its foreign policy goals, justifying the expansion of NATO to include threatened countries. If Ukraine was in NATO prior to 2014 there wouldn't be a war right now. That's what peace looks like.
Any examples that you can provide would be helpful...
And no Russia did not attack Georgia in 2008, but it was the other way around, as RFE
https://www.rferl.org/a/EU_Report_On_2008_War_Tilts_Against_Georgia/1840447.html
And the unprovoked attack on Ukraine was far from that:
- March 2021 Ukraine passes legislation to regain control on what was deemed Ukrainian territory by any means.
- April 2021 Ukraine moves troops at Donbas borders
- May Russia moves 90,000 troops at Ukraine borders
- West panics June Biden-Putin meeting in Switzerland: US promisses that there will no missiles (including nuclear tipped missiles) installed in Ukraine.
- Russia pulls army back
- December 2021 Russia provides draft agreements to NATO & US for a new security architecture in Europe: US/NATO laugh
- January 2022: Blinken walk balks the promise regarding nuclear missiles in Ukraine and says that it is not about US not putting missiles in Ukraine, but about how many
- Early February 2022: as reported by OECD observers on the ceasfire line, Ukraine has started artillery barage on Donbas. DOnbas vulnerable population is moved further away or in Russia.
- Donbas asks Russia for help (the beacon of Minas Tirith was lit - and Rohan responded).
- Russia dotted all the legal i's and crossed all the legal t's, following article 51 on UN Charter and the precedent (which ICJ or ICC deemed ok) that US created in 1999 in Kosovo and the attack on Serbia....
Your own source points out that Georgia's firing of the 'first shots' was merely the boiling point stemming in large part from repeated violations of Georgia's sovereignty by Russia.
"...chief among those are the 'mass conferral of Russian citizenship' in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the presence of non-peacekeeping Russian troops in South Ossetia before the war, the disproportionate Russian military action on Georgian territory, Russia’s long-standing support for the separatist authorities in the two regions, and its post-war recognition of the two territories as independent states."
That makes sense if you totally ignore Russia's involvement in the unrest of 2014 and continued support to the present day for Ukranian splinter groups. Citing a legally and morally dubious military action by other countries is hardly a strong argument either. It's also undeniable that Russia's actions in Ukraine are far larger than the intervention in Kosovo, making the comparison a bit silly.
The unrest in 2014? WHich one you mean? The one suported by the US that started in Maidan, because Yanukovich would not go with the crippling deal offered by the EU?
The one in which was agreed that Yanukovich will step down ahead of time and there will be elections in 3 months time, but the Americans reneged on it and led with the right wing armed Sleboda and Azov military wings (like the SA in Germany in 1930s) the coup in early 2014? Having already picked the next government of Ukraine, as Victoria Nuland told us? The one in which same right wing goons burned to a crisp about 50 people in Odessa?
The involvement of 2014, which was investigated by a University of Toronto professor and identified that all the killing shots came from the area controlled by the insurgents?
All the while brushing aside the desire of Crimeans to return to Russia as soon as the USSR fell? Or of the majority of ethnic Russians in Donbas to not accept the putch and not recognize the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian government? And that might have something to do with the desire to avoid the agreed upon elections and go for the putch, because people might not vote the right way? As demonstrated recently in Romania?
Go look at a map and stop embarrassing yourself.
Ludicrous nonsense - you have been reading newspaper comment without thought too much.
George 2008, Ukraine 2014 and 2022. Russia has demonstrated it will use force to control its neighbors.
idiot is the best I can say. Georgia was armed by US and urged to go attack Russian peacekeeper (they got whooped and the peacekeepers were out of Georgia in less than a week. There was no invasion.
You can't get a more blatant US coup than 2014. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea declared independence with the help of about a dozen Russian special forces who arrived to protect parliamentarians.
In Donbas and Luhansk there was no Russia presence - numerous western attempts have been made to prove a Russian presence - they have all failed.
In both cases the only thing Russia attempted to control was the repeated murder of civilians (while the US and Europe backed the murder)
2022 was the most provoked event ever, and with 120k troops in a country the size of France with 700k of its own troops, was a tiny tiny event.
You don't seem to have understood much in the last 17 years.
Russians were already there, since they run the naval base at Sevastopol.
Pity I cannot link that map of Latin America showing the history of American invasions and coups.
If Ukraine wanted to avoid war, all it needed to have done was implement Minsk-2, afternit immediately broke the original Minsk Accord.
As concerns Georgia, the OSCE (no friend of Russia) concluded that Georgia started that war. As to why Russia would attack Georgia but not change borders or implement regime change after winning is left as an exercise for the paranoid.
Europe’s economy is crippled by regulation. Their companies are very low growth compared to this in the USA.
People come to America ( no offense to Canada and Mexico who are also ‘American’), to create, to grow, to invent.
No not really. People go to US because it is big enough to create sustainable monopolies from which above natural profits can be generated.
You can call that "not crippled by regulation" if you like, but over here we see it as fairer markets.
Our GDP per capital speaks for itself. Europe, the UK, even Canada are falling farther behind. I believe Macron expressed concern about EU bureaucracy.
No not really/ Life Expectancy speaks a lot louder and US is falling way behind.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/
GDP is a highly dubious stat. Just comparing GDP on PPP (Purchasing power parity) brings down US GDP by 20 odd percent. Once you look into the things wealth is made up of (lots of FIRE - Finance, Insurance, Real Estate gains) and how it is distributed (mostly to a small number of people - far more distorted in US than even Europe) it looks very different.
And as you know the bottom quartile in USA is actually quite poor with levels of homeless which would be shocking in Europe.
You have a system that creates a lot of wealth for a very small number of people.
Composition of GDP matters -- rents are utterly unproductive.
Have you checked the rate of legal immigrants in Canada for the past years mate (with all the vetting entailed by it)?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/
Absolutely love the jdv speech. You’re living in a bubble. Many (most?) people in the eu agree with jdv. The bureaucrats are in for many more shocks and, hopefully, the rationing (or collapse) of the eu bureaucracy.
Bubble yourself. Vance is insufferable, and everybody I know here in Europe is of the same opinion. The gall of coming here to say we should vote for neo-fascists in the upcoming elections.
Romania is clearly a trial run, precedent for overturning election results that the rulers do not like.
Did you actually read the post?
Good piece. I think a lot of people in Europe had bought into the idea that Trump and MAGA are fundamentally "isolationist" - that they want to pull back from Europe because they see it as a drain on U.S. resources. But I think it's more complicated than that. They seem to take seriously the idea that the U.S./Europe make up a shared cultural/civilizational area, and they see themselves as the upholders of certain values within that area. And they are willing to use pressure to see those values implemented within it. This was foreshadowed in the first Trump admin, for instance in his Warsaw speech, but the people in this admin are much more serious about it. And that's a level of aggression/intervention that Europe is not ready for. "Isolationism", what they thought they were dealing with, would probably be preferable.
This is hilarious. The left is now truly afraid of what their incompetence has wrought. Please continue to misunderstand and underestimate the opposition. We're counting on it.
I am not sure what blog you are reading. Tooze is one of the few left-liberal writers who has taken MAGA seriously throughout. I'd urge you to read his 31 May 2024 post on the grass roots of Trump's support (and many earlier pieces)
This piece is also at its heart a criticism of the lack of understanding and complacency with which the centrist European establishment has responded to Trump and the underlying political trends that support him. As someone possibly closer to you than to Tooze on a simple left right political spectrum (based on very few data points), I'd urge you to re-read.
Yes, Tooze is very intelligent and very perceptive and that's why I pay to read his material. But the facade broke with this post. This was the cri de couer.
When he terms it MAGA, that's in and of itself a cope. The people running the government now aren't Christian evangelicals or the magats in Iowa.
Your last sentence is obviously true. And it is awkward to say in a comment on his blog, but I agree Tooze is more emotional about the end of a liberal era that was clearly unsustainable than he might be. But the important division within the "left"* as you term it (what I would call liberal Atlanticism) is between people who, like Tooze, understand that "nur Eisen kann uns retten" and those, like the unnamed German politician he mocks, who are living in the past. So in that sense his thinking has a future, whilst that of most European MSC attendees does not.
* Left to me means AOC, Sarah Wagenknecht, Jeremy Corbyn, etc....particularly on security and foreign policy issues the distinction between them and Biden, Pistorious, Starmer is important.
What are you (as representative of the opposition -- which I'm inferring from your comment)? I don't want to misunderstand. Are you MAGA? Are you Libertarian? What are you counting on and what is your end game? Truly curious to know. I'm not being spiteful.
That's a great question. Who are we? What do we want?
I'm not going to tell you. Nobody listened. We were never oblique.
Maybe you were never oblique, but right now you are being rather opaque. I'm trying to shake hands with you, but it feels like you would rather leave me hanging. That's okay, though. I'm just trying to figure this stuff out; go a little deeper trying to understand the things I might be misinterpreting.
Hahahhahahahha
Does Uber Eats still deliver to the upper East side? Not for too much longer, LOL.
You could have just said "I don't know"
Guy writing from his mom’s basement really dropping the royal “we” like he’s golfing buddies with DJT.
Guy writing from the upper East side who really doesn't see what's coming.
Huh?
Doubling down on vacuity.
Go fuck yourself😤🤡
I think you are missing the point. It’s not what Vance said. It’s HOW he said it. I am from Russia, and I got an ear for that.
This sounded exactly like any foreign dignitary visiting Russia or any other non western country. He was berating and lecturing from a high ground. It doesn’t matter what he says - as long as he puts himself in a position to pass judgement and is allowed to do that, he is in a position of power and can affect what Europe does - under any pretext.
Gay rights, shmay rights , it doesn’t matter. What matters is his ability to judge European performance, which makes him a subject, and Europe and object.
To put it simply- Vance just laid bare the fact that Europe is a colony of the USA, whereas his predecessors were keeping pretences. That’s my read
Obviously a superb US 2028 campaign speech. And an incredibly insulting piece of diplomacy at the same time. Deeply ignorant of Europe. Abortion views, the migrant terrorist was from Afghanistan (why did he leave?), Romania is clearly a US supported regime change.
And every single one of the Defence ministers, Foreign ministers and all the generals in the audience were pre-vetted by CIA before they got their position.
European leaders appear desperate to stick to the bribery and blackmail system the US has used to control European politics. Sure Trump wants to abandon USAID and replace it with Sanction bullying, but is Vance really ready to abandone a corrupt system that has worked so well to date?
Adam, I do not think I have ever seen you write with such clarity and simplicity as you have here. It is long overdue and thank you for doing it. It is really beyond bullshit, it is a fever dream and fantasy of the US far right to simply destroy everything. It is the culmination of the John Birch Society way of thinking that has desired some kind of libertarian chaos (nihilism in reality) since the 1950s.
So, will Europe be up to the challenge? Or will it go out with a whimper? My gut tells me they will fight and the center of gravity and power shifted to the Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Czechia, Romania and Bulgaria. They know all too well what is at stake while the Germans bury their head in the sand, the UK continues its inexorable decline, and France remains feckless. Spain and Portugal (my wife is Spanish) seem to understand what is at stake as Franco and the Estado Novo is in our lifetimes still. But they are furthest from the action.
European leadership in the last two decades has been asleep at the wheel and now we need new blood and thinking for this moment. Adenauer, DeGaulle, and Ike are not walking through the door, though I dream they may.
"Did he have to talk about democracy? About British anti-abortion activists and the Romanian election, about the maneuvers to marginalize the AfD? Such topics, you might say, do not belong in the sphere of international relations and diplomacy. "
+ In a generally good essay, this was a whopper. An EU member, which has a veto power over Russia sanctions and hosts a key NATO base, overturning its election results certainly impacts international relations. He later referred to the Romanian situation as a "mess". If Putin or Trump canceled an election because they would lose, would that be a "mess".
+ Eatonia jailed a candidate in 2023 for his positions (his name is something like "Avios Peterson" Not mentioned by Vance.
+ I watched a DW segment on BSW and it was almost comical. Most comments agreed.
+ Vance forgot to call out his boss for his comments about deporting people based on Gaza speech.
"Added to which, as everyone at MSC is painfully aware, this “foreign country”, the USA, is Europe’s security provider and despite the warnings signs of the last decade Europe has done precious little to gain independence."
You misspelled "Master" and "european cuck"". Europe no more wants independence than a dog.
I note europoliticians are happy to tut tut about American political developments that they don't like, but everyone ignores this (Romania is a clear test case for Core Europe to overturn election results that the satraps don't like) because europoliticians have no real authority other than what they are given.
Yes. Every minister and every general at the meeting was pre-vetted by CIA before their appointment. Many of them are on the Ukraine gravy train along with all the old Biden team.
What bothered them most was the idea that they might have to ask voters what their policies should be.
Good point, Holmes. A european cannot so much as change the brand of toilet paper in the parliamentary toilet without getting permission from the CIA.
The US doesn't want an independent Europe either.
America has been the cuck for the entire post-war period as it has allowed Europe to walk all over it in knee high Louboutins to protect its incredibly weak and fragile empire.
The defence guarantee was the price America paid for America's access to Europe and its imperial dominion over it.
The american propaganda tells you it's generosity that keeps America "defending liberty" etc. etc. in Europe but it's actually desperation.
NATO is famously all about keeping the Germans down, America in and Russia out. If it no longer retains that premise then the Americans shouldn't be surprised when they find themselves out.
The theme seems to be the dangers of complacency in Europe about MAGA. That doesn’t reflect reality to me at all. Rather, the Europeans’ complacency is about their own defense, and the MAGA 2.0 administration is simply making the point: if you really care, stump up.
In the final analysis, America has no way of gauging how much Europeans care about NATO than by how much they’re willing to pay to keep it. It’s unpleasant having to pay, I know, but America can’t afford it anymore. So either the big economies share the expense in proportion, or it’s “good luck.”
The carping left, including this author, always seems to hint at a Trump-Putin bromance. I don’t think that’s true at all. If Putin’s Russia is the threat that the internationalist left-liberal commentariat says it is, then they should be calling for the remilitarization of Western Europe, including Germany. Why don’t they?
You need to explain your claim that the US can not afford their NATO contributions.
We can’t afford to pay a disproportionate amount for Europe’s defense anymore. And we do. We still maintain troops, tanks, and bases there, and everybody there depends on us to protect them against Russia while we have an insecure southern border. The Europeans are perfectly capable of providing those things in the right proportion for themselves, and it’s time they started. Make it worth our while, and we’ll keep NATO. Otherwise, good luck.
America has only one indispensable ally (U.K.) in Europe, and unfortunately it is now in the grip of an unpopular “woke” government. We hope to see the back of it before the end of the year.
You say the US can't afford it. What are the numbers? How much does it spend in Europe and how much does your desired border security cost? Why does this necessitate leaving NATO and not reducing military presence in Europe but maintaining the alliance?
US cannot afford a hot war with Russia. As the western press and EU/NATO big wigs have admitted, Russia produces in three months more materiel and ammunition than the entire NATO (including US) does in a year. US and EU cannot move to a war footing economy any longer, they are not designed for that, and there is no trained workforce laying around, nor people to do training, no closed but available factories for all this entreprise.
The question should be: does Russia pose a mortal threat to U.S. national security and interests? Does the U.S. have a vital national interest at stake in Ukraine, for example? If so, no one has clearly identified it. Adam Tooze certainly hasn’t. The left-liberal internationalist commentariat likes to scream about “democracy” around the world, but that is not a clear articulation of national interest. We have many problems here in America. We have not been seeing to them first.
You (and Tooze) want “numbers” because you think everything has a technocratic solution. As I pointed out, our southern border is very insecure, so why are our troops not concentrated there instead of some place in Europe where no vital national security interest is at stake, and where big countries like Germany and Italy are more than capable of fielding armies? Combined, the populations of those two alone approximate Russia’s. You’re saying all the Europeans need to keep America in there as the “garrison state” because the savages have to protect the civilized? As I said, good luck.
During the Cold War, the military-industrial complex could hoodwink us all with the threat of Communism, because the Soviet Union could actually project power globally. Russia today cannot (even China today is better at that). So good luck with NATO. If you all remilitarize, maybe we’ll stay with it. Looks doubtful.
If you are arguing using budgetary concerns you should cite the budget. I could cite how the US spends 5% of its defense budget in Europe, which is less than $40 billion. I could cite how the US is burning money on healthcare, spending about $1.5 trillion, by far the most in the world despite substandard health outcomes in a private healthcare system where your tax dollars are being pilfered by the ultra-wealthy. Perhaps your budgetary woes could be solved by tackling that issue instead of the comparably insignificant amount spent on Europe. Think of the wall you could build with a fraction of that money!
I couldn’t agree more about our public health system, which is a corrupt rip-off in desperate need of reform. Fortunately, our new health secretary has made such reform his life’s cause.
But again, budget isn’t everything except, as I said, in gauging how much European countries really care about defense. The only way we have to measure their sincerity is by how much they’re willing to pay. If we ignore that, we risk getting involved in war and conflict where we have no vital national interest at stake, and I gave the example of Ukraine.
If Germany and Italy feel they have a vital interest there, they can pay what’s required to uphold that interest without depending on the United States. If that means remilitarization, so be it. The days of the free ride are over.
Dear Adam - very little to disagree with here.
However, there is one nuance to the German PR system which you fail to mention. I am sure you know about the five percent electoral threshold, but some of your readers may not and therefore it is worth reminding them that parties winning less than 5% nationally do not get proportional seats, and their votes are redistributed among the other parties. Hence the denominator for determining a majority is less than 100%.
In the case of the upcoming election, it is likely to be well less. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GERMANY-ELECTION/POLLS/akveedlravr/ indeed has the CDU / CSU on 29% and AFD on 21%, making 51% (due to rounding). However wth the BSW and FDP unlikely to cross 5% and 7% of the vote for other parties, the denomenator for distributing seats is will be in the mid 80s, likely giving the CDU / CSU c.34% and AFD c.25% - which would amount to a clear mandate.
Further complication: the SPD also benefit from this effect and would end up with c.18% of seats for their 16% of the votes, if the election were held today and polls were accurate. In this outcome (and here we see what Vance was really driving at) the centre-right leadership would be faced with a choice between a narrow mandate in coalition with the SPD (GroCo) or a clear mandate for a government of the right with the AfD. For any number of personal, institutional, and indeed policy reasons the former would be far more comfortable for them. Vance was setting out his stall that - faced with the current political constellation in Germany - America would prefer a government of the right.
This indeed as you rightly say should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to American politics, but it is of course a departure from post-war American policy, at least vis-a-vis Germany. I would also add, that while I broadly agree with your comments on the intellectual substance of "MAGA", Vance very likely understands these technical nuances far better than most senior American politicians, including those of prior administrations. It will have to weigh heavily on Merz's mind (and perhaps already is) as he contemplates the decisions he will have to make post election, the time required to rearm, and the need for American support in the interim.
Thank you for your report on JD Vance's speech at Munich. Having read your Chartboot for the last couple of years and being impressed with the academic tone, I guffawed out loud, when I read your definitely unacademic description of MAGA ideology as 'bullish*t.'
Earlier this morning, before reading your email, I sent family members a link to the text of The Speech. Along with what was my attempt to identify the main dangerous and propagandistic sections. Like the 'free speech,' and the repeated emphasis what he sees as the curtailment of free speech rights of, well, essentially White, Christian Males. As you point out, this is probably for Fox News consumption and rallying points for the MAGA cohorts at home. But, for females, worrying. For not White, not Christian, females, terrifying.
I do feel badly for the Europeans, but it seems to me that they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, the result of being held hostage, well, Occupied, by the the United States since 1945. And, I admit, having family in Sweden and good friends in France, I am insanely jealous of the health and welfare and education systems that they have built up by not spending money on bombs and tanks. I am experiencing a warm feeling of schadenfreude; not being an academic, this is the first time I have ever used this word in a sentence!
This takes me back to when one of my daughters was little. In the middle of serious conversations, she would place her hands over her ears and declare, "Don't tell me things I don't want to hear!"
"[Vance] professes to say that right-wing America will contribute to European defense, if European elites adopt his definition of democracy and free speech and abandon their firewalls and open the floodgates to right-populism. But one may doubt whether he is in good faith."
Very much doubt he is in good faith. MAGA and good faith don't occupy the same Universe.
But you're absolutely right: Europe must provide for her own defense. I have no doubt, we're on our way out of NATO unless the Europeans sacrifice Ukraine to Putin, and should they do that, what would be the point of NATO to begin with?