> Europe isn’t politically capable of decisive action. By design. Some European countries could, but I’m not seeing a proximate future where Europe is-and is treated as—a great power.
Kissinger famously said, ~ 'if I want to call Europe, who do I speak to?' Generally I think your position is more true than not.
But the Europeans have an opportunity to act more cohesively: Since Kissinger, things have changed considerably: Europe has the political and military structures: the EU government is much stronger, with greatly expanded power, and more cohesive, helped by the exit of the dissenter UK and the Russian threat; the EU and NATO now encompass pretty much everyone west of Russia. There has long been a growing movement to strengthen EU foreign policy in that way - even having a military force.
And they have powerful incentives: Russia's threat and the US's abandonment; and the rise of China (and India and others) makes Europe's individual 'great powers' into middling and regional ones. Just imagine the UK still ruling Hong Kong today. Together, the EU would be the second leading power in the world - potentially growing into the first if they don't alienate everyone like another power.
Also, they don't need to act cohesively. Germany by itself has a far bigger economy than Russia and could fund Ukraine alone - and they wouldn't be totally alone, either.
> What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
Again, likely true. My very hypothetical point was, a broader NATO-Russian peace could disarm both sides, including the sensitive regions. Maybe Ukraine joins NATO to give them security. Open up trade with Russia too.
Russia has no political position to reject that offer - peace, security, trade - except Putin's imperialist ambitions. It would demonstrate the lie in Putin's claim that NATO seeks to control Russia. It might be hard for him to resist that offer domestically.
Kissinger famously said, ~ 'if I want to call Europe, who do I speak to?' Generally I think your position is more true than not.
But the Europeans have an opportunity to act more cohesively: Since Kissinger, things have changed considerably: Europe has the political and military structures: the EU government is much stronger, with greatly expanded power, and more cohesive, helped by the exit of the dissenter UK and the Russian threat; the EU and NATO now encompass pretty much everyone west of Russia. There has long been a growing movement to strengthen EU foreign policy in that way - even having a military force.
And they have powerful incentives: Russia's threat and the US's abandonment; and the rise of China (and India and others) makes Europe's individual 'great powers' into middling and regional ones. Just imagine the UK still ruling Hong Kong today. Together, the EU would be the second leading power in the world - potentially growing into the first if they don't alienate everyone like another power.
Also, they don't need to act cohesively. Germany by itself has a far bigger economy than Russia and could fund Ukraine alone - and they wouldn't be totally alone, either.
> What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
Again, likely true. My very hypothetical point was, a broader NATO-Russian peace could disarm both sides, including the sensitive regions. Maybe Ukraine joins NATO to give them security. Open up trade with Russia too.
Russia has no political position to reject that offer - peace, security, trade - except Putin's imperialist ambitions. It would demonstrate the lie in Putin's claim that NATO seeks to control Russia. It might be hard for him to resist that offer domestically.