Could a nation that would become hegemonic in Europe threaten the geopolitical interests of the United States?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

The question is a bit too vague to answer with any specificity. Suffice to say that it has been the aim of American - and also even more classically British - foreign policy strategy to maintain a balance of power on the continent and prevent the rise of a hegemonic power in Europe. Suffice to say, the Americans and British must know something.

That said, as noted the question is a bit vague. For example, at the moment, there is a rising crisis between Russia and the United States over Ukraine. The American don't have a specific interest in Ukraine, but were the Russian to take/regain Ukraine, it would cause Poland and the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) to doubt American security assurances to NATO. This then sending them to seek viable alternatives.

Indeed, the effect of the current Russia/Ukraine dispute has been seriously disruptive to NATO. Romania, and the aforementioned Poland and the Baltic states are seeking reassurances and economic sanctions against Russia from the US. (Hence the USA and Britain deploying extra troops to Poland.)

In the meantime, Germany is seeking closer economic relations with Russia while using NATO security assurances to prevent a Russian double cross. Thus Germany has been extremely reluctant to impose sanctions on Russia. Into this President Macron of France is going to Russia and Ukraine. Superficially, this being to prevent war between Russia and Ukraine, but as much to balance Germany and Russia. Italy also waiting to see how the balance between Germany and France plays out.

Suffice to say, if Russia can play its cards right, Europe will get a Russian/German hegemon on the continent. Russian militarily dominant, with Germany in an economically advantageous position. (Russia has the world's 11th largest economy, Germany the 4th largest economy. In military terms, Russia ranks second or third, depending on how it is calculated, and Germany has not been a military force since 1945.)

Then throw in China. Russia and China are not natural allies. However, it is arguable that American foreign policy has driven them together. China having the world's second largest economy and the world's second or third - again, depending on how it is calculated - military.

So, the potential exists for a Europe dominated by a de facto Russian-German-Chinese hegemon. Suffice to say, that would dwarf the United States and shatter NATO in the bargain. That would, to say no more, threaten the geopolitical interests of the United States.

In terms of global trade, the USA would be marginalized and sidelined from its largest trading partners in Europe. In military terms, the USA would be at least confined to the Western hemisphere - and even that would be compromised. See also Argentina's recent deal with China, which the former sees as a rising power. Thus ends the Monroe Doctrine and if the USA is not secure in its own hemisphere, it is not secure at all.

So, as noted, the question is a bit too lacking in specifics to answer. In the scenario above, the hegemon is not a single state, but an awkward - and therefore presumably unstable - de facto coalition of states. (One of whom is actually an American NATO ally.)

As to the historic answer, the USA fought two world wars to prevent a European hegemon and established NATO to, as Lord Ismay famously put it, "Keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down." To put it simply, to prevent a hegemon in Europe.

That question, in that case, answers itself.

The bottom line being that it is in the nature of the international arena, which is absent any overriding legal authority and abides by no common moral standard, that the interests of any state, at an irreducible level, conflict with and negate that of other states. Then, by default, a hegemon must, at some level, conflict with the interests of other states. Here is born the balance of power, where other states combine to offset the dominance of a single state.

[nightdrot]

P. S. Julie, by the time you see this I will likely be off on my Valentine's Day/anniversary vacation so I won't be able to answer any reply for a week. However, I saw your question and thought it a good one - as you always manage to ask. So anyhow, have a good week and if you respond with any further discussion, just know it will be a week before I can reply. Hope you are well.

[Julie4]

You answered the question perfectly.

I was obviously thinking of England which tried to maintain the balance of power in Europe for two main reasons, 1) for economic/trade reasons, and 2) because a power which would have become hegemonic could have directly threatened British territory. .

But I wondered if Europe would keep this geopolitical importance.

That being said, it seems more than unlikely that such a hegemony exists in Europe. Unless a country invades Europe and imposes its hegemony by force, once again it seems practically impossible.

Russia could militarily defeat any country in Europe, but the United States will eventually intervene, and against the United States Russia will not be able to win, because its economy could not withstand a long war.

No problem. Have a great family vacation, and I hope you are all well 😊

As for me I'm fine thank you for asking 😊

And I almost forgot, Happy Birthday 🥳🎉🎈🎁🎂

[NamerOfStars]

In theory, sure, but I don't think it's very likely. We acknowledge cultures and subcultures; most of Europe is (to varying degrees) aligned with the US (and Canada, I suppose, and even to a lesser extent Mexico) in being part of the "Western" superculture. Polish folks that I've talked to will vehemently insist that Poland is part of CENTRAL Europe, not eastern Europe, for pretty much just this reason; they're pretty US-aligned too, given our shared histories and their memories of the Cold War (and the Polish-Soviet war before that). Obviously, a shared culture doesn't prevent conflicts (at the outbreak of the American Revolution, most Colonists thought of themselves as loyal Englishmen, who just wanted some seats in Parliament), but they tend to be smaller and more easily resolved.

I don't think Europe uniting like that is all that likely, though; given their histories, and how much of them is beating the snot out of each other, it'd take someone truly remarkable to bring everyone together under one banner. It CAN happen- look at Genghis Khan- but it'd fall apart after that leader died or left power.

[Julie4]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. In fact, the member countries of the European Union have interests that are too different for it to be truly united.

This is why I was talking about a single nation that would dominate Europe, in a fairly consistent way (hegemonic) to be able to impose its policy in one way or another on the other European states.

Which could give geopolitical weight to this rather extraordinary nation.

[Anonymous]

Nope. The US is more powerful than any country in the EU combined

[Julie4]

That's not really the question.

And then if the European Union became a real political construction and ended up becoming a federal nation, that would change a lot of things for different reasons.

In the current state of things, the countries of the EU are in a Union, but with various strategic interests which absolutely does not help to develop a powerful union.

[Soteris]

You mean like a certain British Empire who burned down the white house?

It would not take much for a nation in Europe to become too powerful for USA to touch however in modern day terms there is no way to fight a war over the ocean like that anyway. The only way USA could contribute to Europe during WW2 was because it could use its allies as staging ground. Without that buffer on either side there won't be any threats of invasions.

As for geopolitics? Europe has ready access to both the middle east and Africa where as USA has access to the east coast of Asia, the islands around there and Australia. It is very unlikely for example that USA could challenge European dominance over the middle east since Europe could very easily just lock USA off from that geographic area by closing off the straight of Gibraltar and patrolling the Arabian sea.

This would fundamentally shake up the world but I dont think it would necessarily cripple either side. For example, while the middle east provides a lot of oil its not like USA can't produce it domestically or find other suppliers.

Having a strong power in Europe could basically work to cut USA off from the west and if China does the same on the other side you could effectively box USA into northern and Southern America plus Australia.

[MrCommodore]

The EU has the potential to economically and militarily match or surpass the US and China, but the stigma of WWII is still very raw in Germany and other Western European nations, thus why there was no drive for a German army again or a EU army. However with recent developments that may soon change.

[Julie4]

Yes, I don't think that will really change, except if the USA decides to abandon NATO.

That being said, the member countries of the EU are far too divided, and have too different interests to be able to really transform the EU into even a federal nation.

[jshm2]

The EU itself is a threat to US interests. It's why they conned the UK into Brexit to reduce some of it's influence.

[DryGermanGuy]

"What about Poland?" I have a feeling they are up to no good! :-o

[Julie4]

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying

[DryGermanGuy]

Poland has the infamous "Katsche" brothers:

www-spiegel-de.translate.goog/.../...a-452424.html

[Julie4]

I don't understand because of my bad English.

Regardless, to be honest, I find it hard to imagine Poland having the capacity to be able to dominate the European continent in a hegemonic way.

[DryGermanGuy]

Sorry, you have "United States" as your country on your profile page, so I set Google auto-translate...

In these days no one country is able to dominate the European continent and I doubt this will change for the foreseeable future (disregarding any "third world war" scenario). Most, if not all, European countries are in the same treaties, associations and pacts as the United States, anyway.

[Julie4]

I don't know why they say usa lol, I'm French

You are completely right

[RealMarek]

Doesn’t Germany more or less set the direction of the EU?

[Julie4]

It's more complicated than that, Germany giving up power. For obvious reasons, she decided to focus primarily on economics.

In geopolitics, economic power alone is not everything, you also have to be a great military power. This is why Russia manages to weigh so much on the international scene, even though it is only the 11th largest economy in the world.

Several times Germany during negotiations with Putin will ask France to be present with it, to be able to weigh more during the negotiations.

Germany has no intention of wanting to become a hegemonic power in Europe, again for obvious reasons. Her priority is economy and she really does very well in this area.

[RealMarek]

Well, the real hegemonic power in Western Europe (for now) is the United States. It provides most of the firepower and the EU never would have been allowed if American elites hadn’t wanted it. You are correct that Russia’s military makes it important. So does its natural gas production.

[Julie4]

I agree with you. Moreover, for historical reasons, the European nations have decided to entrust their security to the USA.

Interesting things to remember, after the Second World War it was the Europeans who begged the Americans to come back to Europe to protect them.

Of course we must be nuanced and the Russian military power is not completely sufficient to make it a geopolitical giant at the height of China or even the USA. Its economic weakness remains an important obstacle despite everything.

[RealMarek]

Correct. Russia is in a difficult position. Part of the reason it punches above its weight is that it has competent leadership (note, I did not say “good” or “nice”) while the US increasingly does not.

[Julie4]

Well indeed Putin is part of a historical logic and over the long term, like China.

It is difficult for democracies to be able to project themselves for such a long term Simply because a president cannot run for office more than twice.

Consequently, it is difficult to be able to make a policy over the long term and to see the effects of the policies carried out.

[RealMarek]

Actually, I think it is a bit more complicated. The US has had some presidents who basically ruled like kings: Washington (with Hamilton actually running things), Lincoln, and FDR. FDR installed the managerial bureaucratic state. If you look at American foreign policy, it has become remarkably consistent over time. Neoliberal globalism is the order of the day, regardless of which party holds elected office. Military activism to harass Russia, carry out Israel’s interests, and enforce the use of the dollar happens under both parties. Eventually someone will come along and break this order, especially given that the elite who benefit from it are remarkably greedy (US is near the top in average wealth, but median standard of living is close to that of Chile and declining rapidly), and has never been more hated by significant parts of the population. Until they are cleared out, it is the bureaucracy, academics, and NGOs that actually set the direction in the US, not the elected politicians.

[Citizenkirk]

Not unless they plan on having sex with everyone in the West Wing.

[Hopelessromeo33]

depends on the resources and political power they have. france, germany, russia, poland, these could do it. italy to a lesser extent but thats because they hold rome.

[Wester1967]

You mean Russia and you're delusion and on ideological drugs.

[OddBeMe]

Any hegemony could be a threat per se. Depending on it’s politics. If Poland became a superpower for example, we’d be fcked.

[joeldalton]

Considering we pay for most of Europe’s defense capabilities, it’s doubtful.

[Anonymous]

The EU is potentially the largest economy in the world. Losing Britain was a big blow but yeah a fifth reich is a danger to US intrests.

[Avicenna]

P RT ob as BLm not. China has cornered that role.

[noohair]

The enemy of the US is within our borders.

[goaded]

I disagree, but only because I'm certain we mean different groups. Only one side's leaders have broken their oath of office en masse in an attempt to steal the presidency through lies, fraud, and violence.

[Anonymous]

Just wana say ty for new word for me... hegemonic

[UdontNeedtoknow]

Never.