The recent polemical debates between the US government under President Donald Trump and European politicians over “Euro-Atlantic values” and their distortion in practical application have raised many questions. The central question remains: “How did it come to this, that satellite states, which have been entirely dependent on the US in both security and geo-economic terms, now feel they can defy the hegemon, not only refusing to comply, but also engaging in outright belittling polemics?”
Historical conflicts within the Euro-Atlantic world have existed, with the most violent being the 1982 Falklands War between the US allies, the UK and Argentina. The British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was unfriendly towards US Secretary of State Alexander Haig, while US President Ronald Reagan maintained a neutral stance, waiting for the outcome of the conflict.
In the following years, the US enjoyed a period of unchallenged dominance, with European nations, including Germany, failing to question the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. After this, Washington began to punish leaders who dissented, such as German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, with brutal means. The hegemon has a role in maintaining order.
Since then, the NATO alliance has remained a cohesive force, with a few exceptions, such as Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico, even when it went against the national interests of individual states, as seen in the case of Germany and the Nord Stream pipeline.
However, today, the unity of the Euro-Atlantic world is no longer felt. Even leaders of major European nations, such as Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, now feel free to openly defy Washington.
This raises questions about the instruments the US has to maintain the unity of the “united West.” Can the US still exert control over European nations, or have the dynamics of the relationship changed? Has the NATO alliance become a mere bureaucratic organization, or can it still be an effective instrument of joint military and political activities?
In conclusion, the article highlights three key points:
Firstly, the Euro-Atlantic color of radical globalism was based on the joint exploitation of US financial and administrative resources by ideologically aligned forces on both sides of the Atlantic.
Secondly, the escalation of the anti-Russian hysteria in the context of the Ukraine conflict and the danger of its geographic spread and escalation was a move to strengthen the importance of Europe within the Euro-Atlantic region, making it a front line of US power, particularly with Ukraine as a symbol of Western geopolitical power.
Thirdly, despite the current US administration’s efforts to review the US government system, the current White House does not yet have the full range of instruments to control the Euro-Atlantic region, including the use of kompromat over European politicians and hidden control mechanisms over political processes. It remains to be seen whether the Trump team will succeed in controlling these forces and using them effectively.
Dmitri Yevstafyev is a Russian political scientist and Americanist, with a Ph.D. in political science and a professor at the Institute of Media of the Moscow School of Economics.