(The Financial Times, May 13, 2010)

It is more than a little ironic that Nato has committed itself to defining a new strategic concept at precisely the moment the transatlantic relationship counts for less than at any time since the 1930s.

In part this development reflects Europe’s success. While Europe was the central arena for much of 20th- century history and a principal theatre for both world wars and the cold war, it now is mostly at peace. The Franco-German rift has been replaced by a broader integration of the continent inside the European Union, with France and Germany at its core. Europe is to a large extent whole and free. What happens within it will not determine the arc of the 21st century.

But Europe’s loss of centrality also reflects its failings. The European project is foundering. Greece is the most pronounced problem, one brought about by its own profligacy and a weak EU leadership that permitted it to live beyond its means and violate the terms under which the euro was established. But the crisis was made worse by German dithering, and initially timid responses from European institutions and governments. The euro could be one of the casualties.

Already there are signs the crisis is spreading to other countries that, having also lived beyond their means, are suffering from insolvency but are unable to do much about it given their domestic politics and membership of the euro. This week’s €750bn rescue package will buy time, but will not address the insolvency at the core of the problem. Europe’s recovery will be anaemic in absolute and relative terms. Europe is now the world’s largest economy, slightly larger than the US, but will not be for long.

Even before this economic crisis, Europe was weakened by a political crisis. Many Europeans have been preoccupied with revising European institutions, but repeated rejections of the Lisbon treaty demonstrate that a united Europe no longer captures the imagination of many of its residents. Lacklustre leadership of European organisations is both a cause and a result of this loss of momentum.

Behind this drift is the stark reality that Europeans have never quite committed to Europe, largely because of the continued pull of nationalism. If Europeans were serious about being a major power, they would trade the British and French United Nations Security Council seats for a European one. This is not about to happen.

Europe’s drift also manifests itself militarily. Few European states are willing to devote even 2 per cent of their budgets to defence; and what they spend their money on makes little sense. National politics and economics dictate expenditures, so there is much replication of what is not relevant and little investment in what is needed. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Afghanistan is a case in point. The European contribution there is substantial, with more than 30,000 soldiers from EU countries. But the involvement is uneven, with nearly a third of the troops coming from the UK. In many cases the roles are diluted by governmental “caveats” that limit missions, a lack of equipment and commitments of uncertain duration. European political culture has evolved in ways that make it harder to field militaries willing to bear the cost in blood; the US secretary of defence describes this as “the demilitarisation of Europe – where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it”. All this limits Nato’s future role, as Nato mostly makes sense as an expeditionary force in an unstable world, not as a standing army on a stable continent.

Time and demographics will not improve the situation. Europe’s population has levelled off at about 500m and is rapidly ageing. By mid-century the percentage of Europe’s adults who are older than 65 is projected to double. Fewer will be of military age; a smaller number will be working to support the retired.

History is at work here as well. US-European ties and Nato were destined to become weaker given the end of the cold war. Alliances tend to be created and to thrive in eras of predictability and consensus over threats and obligations. The post-cold war, post-9/11 world is much more fluid than this.

The combination of structural economic flaws, political parochialism and military limits will accelerate this transatlantic drift. A weaker Europe will possess a smaller voice and role. Nato will no longer be the default partner for American foreign policy. Instead, the US will forge coalitions of the willing to deal with specific challenges. These clusters will sometimes include European countries, but rarely, if ever, will the US look to either Nato or the EU as a whole. Even before it began, Europe’s moment as a major world power in the 21st century looks to be over.

Author:
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars"

Genijalno pokvaren članak. Kaže, u biti, da će Amerika (i druga zemlja proleterska) naći druge partnere, jer im slaba Europa više ne treba, što je zamjena teza. Upravo je obrnuto. Amerika treba slabu Europu, jer će joj samo takva EU i dalje služiti kao neophodni poltron u odnosu prema novim silama koje joj nagrizaju položaj dominantne sile.

Poanta članka je: Slabi ste i ne možete bez nas. Ako nećete k nama, pustit ćemo Kineze da vas pojedu. Naravno, igraju na europski konformizam, jer dok god Europa izdvaja smiješno male novce za vojsku, govorit će se o potrebi američkog vojnog "kišobrana", da ju štiti od "barbara s istoka".

And in English:

A devious and brilliant article. It is stated, in essence, that America (and its transatlantic brother) will find other partners, since it no longer requires services of a weak Europe. In reality, it is the other way around. America needs a weak Europe, since that kind of EU can still serve as a necessary proxy when dealing with the emerging powers, which threaten the US global dominance.

The point of the article is: "You are weak, and, thus, cannot survive without us. If you do not stay in our camp, we will leave you to the mercy of the Chinese."

Of course, they are using the European conformism and fear, since, as long as Europe spends a negligible proportion of its GDP on military, public debate will be focused on the need to preserve the American military umbrella as a protection against "eastern barbarians".

Idiot.
Mi "živimo iznad granica svojih mogućnosti", a on živi u najzaduženijoj zemlji na svetu.

U pravu si za poentu. Nadam se da će briselski slepci jednom i progledati.

zar europa uistinu nije slaba, prezadužeda sa starim stanovništvom. e sad birati između kine ili sad...
trebalo bi možda isprobati i tu kombinaciju kina + eu, možda bi europa još mogla nekako kinu oblikovati prema nekim svojim standardima, dok kina još nije ojačala...

Not an idiot, but rotten to the core. They don't live beyond their means, it's just that they have the means of the whole world at their disposal.

Furthermore, I think the Brussels officials are not blind, just corrupted.

The only way for Europe to maintain some significance in global terms is to balance between the US, China, Russia and the other (potentially) emerging powers.

That balance is, needless to say, on a very low level.

Most of all, it is the problem of corruption, but it should be also pointed out that a number of EU burocrats suffers from the lack of political visions for the future.

When I think about some of the representatives from this country, everything becomes perfectly clear.

Europe has fallen asleep a long time ago, and is still fast at it. I am not sure what it would take to wake it up, or indeed if this sleep has not actually turned into a deep coma by now. But I am afraid there will be no alliances with Russia or China in any foreseeable future. The East is bad - West is good attitude is to strong to allow any such thinking. Highly unfortunate, if I may add.

When I speak of corruption, I do not necessarily mean a direct corruption, but more refined methods like lecturing and academic posts at American universities, publishing scientific contributions in their journals, travels, etc. The problem is that everything originating from America is perceived in Europe as something of a higher quality, which means that the mere fact of having American connections counts a lot here.

In general, the EU (Commission) is like every other bureaucratic organisation, where a person is promoted until he/she reaches a position which is above his/her ability to handle. Include nepotism on top of that, and the result is obvious.

Finally, the problem is that there is an essentially administrative organisation (as was originally conceived), which has over time been given power to make policy decisions. However, the inner logic of its functioning has remained bureaucratic. It is a paradox that the only way to introduce more democratic accountability there would be to transfer more powers to the most democratic EU institution (EP), but then there is a problem of its composition (more populated countries having, proportionately, more seats).

And highly illogical.

It is hard to act logically; indeed, it is hard to act at all when on tranquilizers.

Considering all the problems that you pointed out, I'm not sure if I could think of a solution that would be democratic / rightous enough. What do you think about american system (House of Representatives / Congress)? Could it be a better way to give more political strenght to "smaller" members of the EU?

I am not sure I would agree that the major problem here is size, but rather age. It seems, from where I stand, that there is much more difference between the power of the old and new members, than the small and big ones. But I do have to admit I am not an expert on the inner workings of the Parliament.

Regarding informal power, you're right. However, in the EP, the power is proportionate to the number of inhabitants.

And then the question remains, which is the "real" power.

Meaning to replace the Council with a directly elected upper chamber, with each of the member states having equal number of seats? That wouldn't be a bad idea. It would definitely make the legislative process more transparent.

What is the position of the DS party headquarters on this?

That is the question that goes beyond the existence of the EU. The same western countries would exert pressure on the eastern countries, whether the EU existed or not. Taking part in the legislative policy making could compensate for these weaknesses.

I really don`t know..I`m not in charge anymore.

In charge, you say... Wherever I turn, political activists.

You must be quite older than me.

But anyway, you still haven't answered my first question.

I`m not sure..

What was the question?

In my opinion, Europe never was a essential high ranking power, on its territory there was too much war and never was a focused politic force in general. Yes, Europe was a power in its colonial period, which wasn't hard with the technological advantage supposed to african, southamerican or other peoples. But today you perform alone with only what you have, exploitation like it was is gone. Even today, besides Germany, all other countries don't have a strong industrial and economical path, EU mostly invests in countries that don't have enough power to do something alone and play dependent on that aid. Germany will no longer be able to clog the holes in every undeveloped european country and a facade of a prosperous Europe which is united will fade away. High ranking power is and will remain the United States, Russia and China can talk their phantasies as long as they want , but they know the truth. Europe should increase their relations with US and form a bridge that will sustain both countries, at least because of cultural and racial identity that ties them both. Chinese expansion in way of population and industrial takeover is getting out of control and we have something to do about it, for our future and our children's future.

Europe's high point was 1913 when much of the globe was ruled by European powers. The First World War was simply an attempt by the British to keep the rising German power in check on the continent since traditional British foreign policy was to always cobble together an alliance on the continent to keep any potential competitor at bay.

The Second World War was simply a continuation of the First, and the two combined were a European Civil War of sorts. The fallout from 1945 saw two non-European powers thus divide the world between themselves with Europe itself occupied.

The Cold War ended with the internal collapse of the USSR and now the USA itself is beginning to totter on its own foundation due to overspending/debt and a hyperaggressive militarism that seeks to achieve what they refer to as "full spectrum dominance" but what is in actuality global hegemony. This is done through the Bush Doctrine of "regime change" and the "War on Terror", with support from NATO. The goal here is to place American bases in Central Asia and the Middle East to control resources and to surround and neutralize Russia, thus giving the USA leverage not only over Moscow but over the future superpower China.

Europe is politically weak since it has a weak political centre. Its best hope is a partnership with Russia which has the world's most natural resources and an end to the Euro-Atlantic strategy that is NATO. Gerhard Schroder, Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi, and of course Vladimir Putin are all pushing for this to happen.

Dear Mr. Soldo, with all due respect to your flair for nonchalant summarizing, your entire post was a joke. Your fortune lies with forum members' lack of English speaking skills, hence you've in part preserved your good name.

American foreign policy has suffered some major setbacks in recent months (Ukrainian elections, coup in Kyrgyzstan probably backed by Russia, start of North Stream construction), so it's power projection has diminished somewhat.

Europe is politically weak, and some parts of it are also economically weak, that's true, but things are not that clear cut. The problem is that Germany has allowed a policy of economic colonization of former communist countries, instead of a more long-term policy of investing in technology and infrustructure. All these mistakes from the 90's are now reflected in the crisis. There were alternative possibilities, and there still are, but a shift in the 19 century thinking is required.

Europe can survive only by means of real mutual cooperation, and a balanced and rational foreign policy, instead of being based on the ideology of the same (transatlantic) culture and things like that. How is Croatia, culturally speaking, closer to America than to Russia, is beyond me.

Europe as a high-ranking "power" is a misnomer and something that belongs in history textbooks. EU doesn't have any of the prerequisites required to be a true federation with streamlined decision making, let alone capable of projecting a meaningful military presence in pursuit of strategic goals.

It's fortunes reflect the fortunes of it's largest member - Germany - an economic powerhouse and a military/political midget.

Europe as a collection of disparate, linguistically and ethnically diverse fiefdoms could never hope to be more than a loose free trade association. Even the EMU seems to be a bridge too far, with a one-size-fits-all monetary policy unable to cater to the specific needs of each and every national economy. Not to mention the differences in mentality coming to the fore, with thieving, lying and parasitic "Club-Med" statelets falsifying their own national accounts and riding the credit boom alongside the convergence of EU borrowing costs, in order to support a ludicrous and bloated social state. Luckily, all bills eventually come due, and Greece faced with several catastrophic alternatives, may yet have no choice but to leave Eurozone and default on all Euro-denominated debt.

Still, it couldn't happen to a bunch of nicer countries, collectively dubbed weirdo Euro-fags Just about the only thing keeping the bureaucratic Euro pigs oinking together at the Brussels feeding trough is collective belief in postulates of socialism, welfare and a "tax n spend" nanny-state, driving the best and the brightest out to Asia and USA. As well as an unhealthy hate and dislike of the United States, conveniently ignoring the fact that today's European prosperity was largely built on American assistance after WW2, as well as the fact that the US almost singlehandedly fought a war of economic/military attrition against the Soviet Union, whilst Europe was too busy moralising and generally indulging in self-loathing which continues to this day.

The future of Europe is one of an economic and demographic decline, a political midget carefully balancing alliances in an emerging multi-polar world.

PS: Everything I've said only applies to the decadent "old Europe" and not to the good people of "new Europe" (to borrow a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld).