Is it the US that guarantees the European balance?

[Julie4]

[TroyDT2]

Security for NATO members. Balance? Not so much.

[OddBeMe]

since WW2 we have been the only country able to do it. Either its us or smaller countries start arming themsevles. Good idea?

[nightdrot]

Yes, in effect, the USA assures the European balance of power. In so doing, assuring the security of the various states of Europe. This then reinforcing the balance.

To oversimplify European history a bit. It was basically a zero sum game among the great powers of Europe. (Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Italy and for a time Spain, Portugal, and the Austro--Hungarian Empire as well as the Ottoman Empire at the periphery.)

Each was more or less equal and each felt more or less insecure. As was said of Germany by Henry Kissinger, could be said of almost all the major states of Europe. They were too strong to not feel threatening to each other yet too weak to assure their own security absent the support of allies.

The result was a series of shifting alliances whose membership changed over time but whose purpose was to assure the security of their member states. Yet the problem was that even the members of these alliances did not necessarily trust each other and had competing interests that made their alliances largely ones of convenience and thus temporary.

Thus, while Britain wanted to assure France against Germany, it also wanted to steer clear of entangling alliances on the continent unless the balance of power was directly threatened. Thus Italy as the weakest of the great powers, tended to side with the alliance it perceived as stronger and thus better able to secure its interests.

As to France and Russia, they were able to balance each other off by playing off the various Italian and Germanic - especially the latter - states. However, when Italy and Germany unified, they became great powers in their own right and this made it harder for France and Russia to secure their interests. Thus binding them together in alliances during the world wars - until Germany was divided in 1945, at which point France and the USSR (Russia) took opposing positions toward each other again.

What stabilized this shifting kaleidoscope of alliances was the United States. A continental sized country with a large population, sophisticated armed forces a huge economy and, most of all, no particular security interests in Europe beyond assuring that Europe was not dominated by a single power.

Each European state had no particular reason - at an existential level - to fear the United States. Thus the USA could guarantee the stability of the continent because it posed no threat to the specific strategic interests of any individual state in Europe.

Even in ideological contests like the Second World War and the Cold War, the USA offered a counter-ideology that acted as a counterweight to world conquering ideologies like National Socialism, Fascism and Communism. Indeed, in the case of World War II, once the USA was drawn into the fight, it proffered a new vision of Europe that allowed each state to retain its autonomy while being held together by economic interdependence.

To be sure, the recent strains within the European Union seem to suggest the limits of that American vision to peoples of Europe with their own proud histories. The individual interests of the states of Europe were not facile and remain latent within the states of Europe. However, the American security assurances to the states of Europe assure that their interests will, if not fully satisfied, will at least not be existentially threatened - and where they are, the USA will step in to protect those interests. The USA having no interests in Europe of its own beyond a stable and prosperous continent.

So, long story short, the USA is what assures the European balance. Take the USA out and aggressive states like Russia will move, and the other great powers will either form counter-alliances or seek to cut deals with Russia at the expense of the other European powers.

[Matthias345]

Why would the United States want to prevent a single power from dominating the continent? Honestly, it wouldn't make any difference to the US.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Really? Nazi Germany dominates the continent? Russia?

The United States does enormous trade with Europe for one thing. A single dominant power with all those resources would have less need for American trade. This having an obvious economic impact.

More importantly, a single dominant power on the continent would be effectively immune to US diplomatic and military pressure. This would give said power the opportunity and potential to dominate other adjacent regions. See also the Middle East. See also the Atlantic trade routes.

There are other examples. Suffice to say a single dominant power in Europe would be in terms of material, economics, population and military potential a powerful rival to the United States. It would have the effect of forcing the USA to focus on Europe at the expense of our interests elsewhere around the globe.

Moreover, were that single dominant power espousing a hostile ideology - see also Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in WWII. See also the USSR in the Cold War - it would have an enormous platform from which to attack American interests at numerous points around the globe and American retaliatory options would be minimal.

Not for nothing was it an error, for which the USA paid an enormous price in blood and treasure, for Washington to stand aside as Europe descended into both world wars. Similarly, not for nothing did the USA remain engaged in Europe after WWII as the Soviet threat ramped up.

Not for nothing did President Theodore Roosevelt famously say, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

[Julie4]

Excellent answer as usual. What I find incredible in this story is that the power that succeeded in imposing this balance is outside Europe, which is a unique fact in history.

We can say that what the USA has managed to accomplish is a feat, which in addition allows Europeans to benefit greatly from this American security, in order to have a high level of economic prosperity.

And I am in full agreement with you on your answer to Matthias. Let us note that the European country which would try to break this European balance would be quite crazy, because it could have consequences on the world peace.

[nightdrot]

Thanks. As always you are too kind.

As to your last point, no doubt of it. Europe remains integral to the global economy and the world's security infrastructure. Any attempt to break the balance will - as the two world wars have already demonstrated - have VERY serious consequences.

One thing though. It is true that the USA has secured the balance and that is no small accomplishment. However, it is worth adding that the United Kingdom, in effect, played the balancing role - securing the balance.

The UK only gradually lost the capacity to secure the European balance of power on its own after the wars of German and Italian unification. Once Italy and - especially - Germany were formed into unitary states, the ability of the UK to sustain the balance diminished.

At that point, forced by events, the USA first reluctantly and then determinedly stepped in to take on what had been the UK's historic role. Indeed, actually, the UK continues to play, though to less effect, that balancing role. Standing aside the continent and throwing its weight behind whichever side in any given set of circumstances has less of an advantage.

This, by the way, is part of the reason why the UK and the USA have a "special relationship." Although there are some differences, both powers, overall, play a similar role in European - and indeed global - affairs. Thus they tend to augment and complement each other's diplomatic influence.

[Julie4]

@nightdrot I have nothing to say about your comment which is very accurate. I did not mention the United Kingdom, not because of negligence or ignorance of the role played by England in maintaining the balance, but because it seemed to me that the United States had taken over this role, especially the fact that it is a power outside the continent that has managed to do this.

But in all honesty by asking my question I obviously thought of the United Kingdom, how could I forget it, it which was from 1713 (treaty of utrecht), until a part of the 20th century, the great guarantor of this balance. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the reasons that push England to prevent the continent from being dominated by a single power, are largely the same reasons that push the Americans to be the guarantor of this balance.

I must say that I am not a fan of the European balance for the period from the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century. After this period I am glad that England was the guarantor of this European balance, because it was useful for us during two world wars, lol.

Although I am aware of the benefits of this European balance, I have to say that I still think that a Europe dominated by France would have been and would be a beautiful Europe 🤣 (this is a joke)

[nightdrot]

Ya know, I DO like French food. So a French dominate Europe would definitely have its' up sides. No doubt of it!!

Anyhow, I only mentioned the British not because I thought you were unaware. Gosh knows, you KNOW your history!!

Rather because I had actually wanted to write a longer and more detailed answer including a section on how the USA moved into essentially the UK's old role. However, space limitations and - this month - the job did not leave me the time or space.

So when I got a chance to mention it later, I did. If nothing else than for other readers. (Even when I write an answer to one of your questions, I try to write in a style that addresses a broader audience. It makes for better reading, I think. Call it the press secretary in me.)

As to your knowledge of history - especially the history of that cozy little place you call France - you are one of the best, if not THE best, on this site.

[Julie4]

Oh yes I understand perfectly and you are right, your answers help many people here.

I hope you and your family are doing well. And as you say, cheers 😊

[Brokenodometer]

Maybe, but it's not because they care about Europeans. It's a means to their own ends. I don't think the United States or Americans give a shit about any other country besides their own.

[Anonymous]

Someone on here said so. I'd not heard that one before but it's an interesting slant.

[Astarlessnightsky]

What european balance

[RyanEC]

Could you Clarify?
I don’t understand.

[Julie4]

I have to charge my phone, but I'll clarify my point once I do

[Julie4]

Well, very simply, England in the past succeeded in imposing its "European balance system", that is to say, avoiding that one power dominates the continent, for security and economic reasons. And at the same time it was the best way for peace. Therefore England was the guarantor of this European balance, and as soon as a nation threatened it, it intervened.

Didn't the United States finally replace England in this role? Perhaps through NATO? the European nations being part of the same defense architecture, have no reason to feel threatened by the neighbor so a balance is maintained.

[KostasKouvalis]

That makes no sense, because wouldn't that make England the dominant power then?
I don't think that's the same as NATO. NATO is an alliance of multiple countries. I don't know if there's one gate keeper, but the US probably acts as a deterrent.

What you described sounds more like Germany's control of the EU

[KostasKouvalis]

Actually it sounds more like, I forgot the name of it. That agreement that only the US will meddle in Latin America. Like for example Costa Rica doesn't have a military because the US signed a treaty to protect their ass. That's not what NATO is. And if the other countries still had a military that's not a balance either. That's basically just one country saying, "We've got your back, you don't have to give us anything in return."

[RyanEC]

Oh I see I thought you meant something like that.

I would say yes America (or the American globalist elite more specifically) see European nations as vassal states that can be used for military support and trade, but should be prevented from getting too powerful, or from creating a “European army” to replace NATO.

But at the same time their are European globalist elites like George Soros who is involved in interfering financially in America elections so I would blame the globalist elites more then anyone, I don’t think they have any loyalty to any nation.

As for NATO, it was said early in its creation that it’s purpose was to “keep the Germans down and the Russians/Soviets out, the Americans in.” that hasn’t seemed to changed which has provoked the current war between Russia and Ukraine.

I have always thought American should see itself as a Pan European nation that should create true social and cultural ties with Europe instead of seeing America as its own Insular culture.
Instead of seeing our relationship as transnational.

[KostasKouvalis]

The first part makes sense, but you completely lost me on the rest. And Europe doesn't need protection from Germany anymore because Germany isn't a military threat. Germany is an ally

[KostasKouvalis]

To be completely honest, I don't even know who George Soros is or what he has to do with our election fraud or how that's even connected to what's being discussed here. I've heard his name, but that's it.

[KostasKouvalis]

Actually don't even worry about it. I'm just gonna unfollow this post because none of this makes any sense to me. I am so confused.

[Bratsondanielle]

@KostasKouvalis just in case you didn't know-- here in the US we honestly don't give a crap about England. It could sink into the ocean tomorrow and nobody here would even notice - let alone care

[RyanEC]

@Bratsondanielle. Wrong.

[Bratsondanielle]

Well I know about 400 people and I don't know anyone who gives a crap about the old world we sailed away from 600 years ago to build our own country

[RyanEC]

American was founded by Anglo Saxon people who brought a culture that came from England.

America owes so much of our culture and traditions from Europe and especially England, saying otherwise is ignoring history.

[Bratsondanielle]

Oh ok well excuse my ignorance Mr. Wise wizard. I'll rephrase: myself personally, I don't give a crap about England. I'm fairly sure lots of normal Americans feel the same... @Fuentes @exitseven @Sixgunsound what say ye? Am I wrong?

[Andres77]

I wouldn’t count on the US right now.

[AngryCarl]

How do you mean?

[holdem4884]

Anal

[msc545]

What balance?