Is It Time for the US to Leave Europe Behind?
A new, refreshing concept has arisen from the American policy establishment, yet it should merely serve as a preliminary step. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
Foreign Affairs recently published a thought-provoking piece titled, “A Post-American Europe: It’s Time for Washington to Europeanize NATO and Give Up Responsibility for the Continent’s Security,” authored by Justin Logan and Joshua Shifrinson. The authors argue that the United States should scale back its role in European defense, suggesting that Europe is capable of managing its own security due to its robust economic and demographic resources.
This article exemplifies a realist approach to international relations, focusing on rational state interests and realistic assessments of geopolitical challenges. Notably, Logan and Shifrinson dismiss the likelihood of Russia posing a hegemonic threat to NATO members in Europe.
Foreign Affairs, published by the influential Council on Foreign Relations, often defines the contours of debate within the American foreign policy establishment. Logan, from the Cato Institute, and Shifrinson, a recognized expert on US foreign policy, challenge prevailing ideas by advocating for a reduced American role in European defense. They argue that the only U.S. interest in controlling Europe’s defense is to prevent a single power, like Germany or Russia, from dominating the region—a concern they believe is outdated today.
Logan and Shifrinson make the case for a strategic and accelerated withdrawal from European security responsibilities, concurrently encouraging Europe to increase its self-reliance. While suggesting that the U.S. should remain in NATO, they propose that Europeans should assume greater responsibility and financial burden for the alliance.
The authors also emphasize the potential economic benefits for the U.S., citing potential savings from reducing its conventional deterrence mission in Europe, which could help alleviate the U.S.'s significant financial challenges.
The argument Logan and Shifrinson present is timely, given the ongoing conflict involving Ukraine, hinting that Europe should take over handling such regional issues.
As the U.S. political landscape evolves with upcoming presidential elections, the debate over America’s military commitments in Europe continues to be relevant. Logan and Shifrinson’s perspective might resonate differently under different administrations, reflecting deep-rooted economic and domestic pressures.
Despite their compelling points, Logan and Shifrinson’s focus appears limited in the context of a shifting global dynamic towards multipolarity and emerging alliances, notably between China and Russia. Their vision of a self-reliant Europe aligned with U.S. interests may underestimate the potential for a more integrated Eurasia, which could redefine global power structures and allegiances drastically. The idea that Europe might pivot towards new geopolitical alliances raises significant questions about the future of transatlantic relations.In light of these shifts, it becomes essential to consider what a more self-reliant Europe would mean not just for transatlantic relations but for global geopolitics as a whole. Should Europe increasingly turn inwards or towards non-Western alliances, it raises the stakes for American foreign policy in ways that Logan and Shifrinson may not fully anticipate. The risk of losing influence in a crucial region could lead to a U.S. strategy that is reactive rather than proactive, potentially compromising its global standing.
Moreover, the rise of multipolarity – characterized by emerging powers asserting their influence in various spheres – complicates the narrative of a neat division of responsibilities between the U.S. and Europe. Nations like India, Brazil, and others in the BRICS+ framework are not just economic entities; they represent shifting centers of gravity that may have their own security agendas, independent of U.S. interests. As these new powers gain traction, an isolated focus on Eurocentrism could blind policymakers to broader dynamics that warrant attention.
Equally pressing is the question of what economic interdependencies would look like in such a landscape. If the U.S. retreats further from Europe, there may be significant ramifications for trade, investment, and cooperation on multinational issues like climate change and technology regulation. Europe, while attempting to enhance its self-reliance, could seek stronger economic ties elsewhere, particularly with nations that are rivals or alternatives to U.S. interests.
Furthermore, the implications for security cannot be overlooked. If NATO continues to exist as a U.S.-led alliance but with diminished American commitment, it could encounter operational challenges. European nations might have varied levels of commitment to joint defense initiatives, leading to a fragmented security architecture that is not as effective in addressing transnational threats, such as terrorism or cyber warfare. This could also create a power vacuum that might tempt adversaries to exploit the uncertainty, as they assess the reduced risk of direct confrontation with a United States that is less engaged.
In this context, a reevaluation of NATO and a broader approach to European security is required. Logan and Shifrinson's call for Europeanization of NATO could serve as a starting point, but it must recognize the complexity of the contemporary geopolitical environment. Europe’s potential vassalage to new powers, should U.S. influence wane, necessitates a proactive rather than a passive strategy—one that considers the continent’s cultural, military, and economic dimensions within a broader global framework.
Ultimately, as Logan and Shifrinson articulate a vision of a less encumbered United States and a more self-sufficient Europe, it prompts questions about the long-term implications of such a shift. The interplay between America’s desire to disengage and Europe’s efforts to take charge will shape global politics significantly. The hope for a balanced world order hinges on constructive dialogue, mutual respect, and an acknowledgment that the future of international relations lies not in isolationism but in collaborative cooperation to tackle transnational issues.
In conclusion, while the emerging discourse around U.S. retrenchment from Europe presents necessary insights and timely recommendations, it warrants careful consideration of the evolving global landscape. The transition to a multipolar world where various powers interact will require both the United States and Europe to adapt in ways that may challenge their historical perspectives. Ultimately, the goal should not simply be to shift defense responsibilities, but to foster a dynamic international system where all nations can pursue collective security and shared prosperity in an increasingly interconnected world.
Sophie Wagner for TROIB News
This article exemplifies a realist approach to international relations, focusing on rational state interests and realistic assessments of geopolitical challenges. Notably, Logan and Shifrinson dismiss the likelihood of Russia posing a hegemonic threat to NATO members in Europe.
Foreign Affairs, published by the influential Council on Foreign Relations, often defines the contours of debate within the American foreign policy establishment. Logan, from the Cato Institute, and Shifrinson, a recognized expert on US foreign policy, challenge prevailing ideas by advocating for a reduced American role in European defense. They argue that the only U.S. interest in controlling Europe’s defense is to prevent a single power, like Germany or Russia, from dominating the region—a concern they believe is outdated today.
Logan and Shifrinson make the case for a strategic and accelerated withdrawal from European security responsibilities, concurrently encouraging Europe to increase its self-reliance. While suggesting that the U.S. should remain in NATO, they propose that Europeans should assume greater responsibility and financial burden for the alliance.
The authors also emphasize the potential economic benefits for the U.S., citing potential savings from reducing its conventional deterrence mission in Europe, which could help alleviate the U.S.'s significant financial challenges.
The argument Logan and Shifrinson present is timely, given the ongoing conflict involving Ukraine, hinting that Europe should take over handling such regional issues.
As the U.S. political landscape evolves with upcoming presidential elections, the debate over America’s military commitments in Europe continues to be relevant. Logan and Shifrinson’s perspective might resonate differently under different administrations, reflecting deep-rooted economic and domestic pressures.
Despite their compelling points, Logan and Shifrinson’s focus appears limited in the context of a shifting global dynamic towards multipolarity and emerging alliances, notably between China and Russia. Their vision of a self-reliant Europe aligned with U.S. interests may underestimate the potential for a more integrated Eurasia, which could redefine global power structures and allegiances drastically. The idea that Europe might pivot towards new geopolitical alliances raises significant questions about the future of transatlantic relations.In light of these shifts, it becomes essential to consider what a more self-reliant Europe would mean not just for transatlantic relations but for global geopolitics as a whole. Should Europe increasingly turn inwards or towards non-Western alliances, it raises the stakes for American foreign policy in ways that Logan and Shifrinson may not fully anticipate. The risk of losing influence in a crucial region could lead to a U.S. strategy that is reactive rather than proactive, potentially compromising its global standing.
Moreover, the rise of multipolarity – characterized by emerging powers asserting their influence in various spheres – complicates the narrative of a neat division of responsibilities between the U.S. and Europe. Nations like India, Brazil, and others in the BRICS+ framework are not just economic entities; they represent shifting centers of gravity that may have their own security agendas, independent of U.S. interests. As these new powers gain traction, an isolated focus on Eurocentrism could blind policymakers to broader dynamics that warrant attention.
Equally pressing is the question of what economic interdependencies would look like in such a landscape. If the U.S. retreats further from Europe, there may be significant ramifications for trade, investment, and cooperation on multinational issues like climate change and technology regulation. Europe, while attempting to enhance its self-reliance, could seek stronger economic ties elsewhere, particularly with nations that are rivals or alternatives to U.S. interests.
Furthermore, the implications for security cannot be overlooked. If NATO continues to exist as a U.S.-led alliance but with diminished American commitment, it could encounter operational challenges. European nations might have varied levels of commitment to joint defense initiatives, leading to a fragmented security architecture that is not as effective in addressing transnational threats, such as terrorism or cyber warfare. This could also create a power vacuum that might tempt adversaries to exploit the uncertainty, as they assess the reduced risk of direct confrontation with a United States that is less engaged.
In this context, a reevaluation of NATO and a broader approach to European security is required. Logan and Shifrinson's call for Europeanization of NATO could serve as a starting point, but it must recognize the complexity of the contemporary geopolitical environment. Europe’s potential vassalage to new powers, should U.S. influence wane, necessitates a proactive rather than a passive strategy—one that considers the continent’s cultural, military, and economic dimensions within a broader global framework.
Ultimately, as Logan and Shifrinson articulate a vision of a less encumbered United States and a more self-sufficient Europe, it prompts questions about the long-term implications of such a shift. The interplay between America’s desire to disengage and Europe’s efforts to take charge will shape global politics significantly. The hope for a balanced world order hinges on constructive dialogue, mutual respect, and an acknowledgment that the future of international relations lies not in isolationism but in collaborative cooperation to tackle transnational issues.
In conclusion, while the emerging discourse around U.S. retrenchment from Europe presents necessary insights and timely recommendations, it warrants careful consideration of the evolving global landscape. The transition to a multipolar world where various powers interact will require both the United States and Europe to adapt in ways that may challenge their historical perspectives. Ultimately, the goal should not simply be to shift defense responsibilities, but to foster a dynamic international system where all nations can pursue collective security and shared prosperity in an increasingly interconnected world.
Sophie Wagner for TROIB News
