I do not know in what manner this document has any weight, or should be seriously considered. I’d love the opinions on the Europe chapter from a few of our resident geo-political experts.
Especially these excerpts:
View attachment 731622
View attachment 731623
This reads rather like an alarmist climate document from the previous administration where we should anticipate New Orleans and New York submerged by the sea withing 20 years. That said. like climate change, the alarmist language doesn't mean it isn't happening. However, it does mean the pace and effect of change could be quite different than this strategy implies.
Let's deal with "de-Euroization" first. There are facts which go into this sort of analytical conclusion that are worth agreeing upon before reaching an immediate judgement of the validity of the strategy. Currently, the birthrate average across the EU among native born Europeans is 1.4-1.6. This has been true for several decades and is well below the 2.1 necessary population rate. Mathematically, at some point, native Europeans become extinct. Long before that happens, economies would crumble due to the collapsing labor force.
EU policy, resisted by only a very few European States, is to bridge that collapsing population gap with immigrants primarily from the Third World, a significant majority of whom are Muslim. Whether or not that is a meaningful "threat" to European culture is currently unknown. If the majority assimilate then Europe will gradually become a little darker and more religiously diverse, but would remain "European." If they do not, then not only will native Europeans gradually become extinct (remember, however uncomfortable, math is inexorable) but so would European culture as we currently understand it.
IF that is true, then the question for the West, and for the US specifically, is whether any of that matters and what if anything to do about it.
With respect to the bullet points specifically, the first one assumes there is general agreement that some sort of instability exists in Europe. For a nation only just recovering from BLM rioting and in the midst of the most divisive political environment since 1859, that is a rather bold accusation. Perhaps the US should focus on its own stability first.
Strategic stability with Russia has been the stated goal of every administration of both parties since the end of the cold war. We can all remember Hillary Clinton's reset button. Trump seems determined to embrace it as well regardless of the behavior of the dictator in the Kremlin. That likely will be a continuing source of diplomatic conflict with Europe.
The second point is a nicely packaged way of making wanning support of the Atlantic Alliance seem part of an actual logical strategy. That logic escapes me entirely. To me, and many other "internationalists" the surest way to strategic "stability" with the despot in Moscow would seem to be to convince him any geographic aspirations in Europe or threats to sovereignty are unobtainable. That is best done with a unified Western voiced through the Atlantic Alliance with its most powerful member exerting leadership.
The third bullet is the most concerning to me. That implies an activist US policy to undermine current European political choices. This is the sort of thing one would read in Johnson era document regarding Southeast Asia, a Regan era strategy document regarding Latin America, or a Strategy document from the Bush era concerning the Middle East. I would suggest the EU collectively and individual European states treat that with some alarm as should anyone in this country with a modicum of understanding of US national interests.
Taken together, this essentially reads that we intend to relinquish our leadership role in Europe to take on a completely contradictory role of creating political instability on the continent. Perhaps the Joint Chiefs and civilian leadership should start regular strategy sessions with their counterparts in Moscow to coordinate strategy.
. Take a shower and wash your hands in Clorox after doing search.
