The ‘Mutual’, ‘Shared’ and ‘Dual’ Responsibility of the West: The EU and the US in a Sustainable Transatlantic Alliance

2006 ◽  
pp. 57-75
Author(s):  
Hartmut Mayer
Keyword(s):  
The West ◽  
The Us ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.


European View ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 178168582110056
Author(s):  
Maria Snegovaya

The regime that has emerged in Russia under President Vladimir Putin is no longer only Russia’s problem. By promoting corruption, kleptocratic practices and the violation of democratic norms in Western societies, and by using chemical weapons on their territories and carrying out assassinations abroad, Putin’s regime has become a significant domestic problem for the EU and the US. However, the preventative measures put in place by the West fall short of fundamentally influencing the regime’s behaviour. This article offers some suggestions on how to adjust existing European policy to enable it to more effectively influence the actions of the Kremlin on the international stage.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-90
Author(s):  
Hilmar Þór Hilmarsson

Ukraine’s history has been a turbulent one, and currently the country is in a crisis. The purpose of the article is to discuss how Ukraine can move away from the current East-West competition that poses a risk of dividing the country into two. What does it take to move a united Ukraine forward? How can Ukraine progress economically, politically and improve its security profile? The methodology used in the article is the case study method and it often compares Ukraine’s performance with Poland, a country of a similar size in terms of population, land mass, and located in geographic proximity. The article argues that more inclusive and sustainable growth in Ukraine will require increased productivity of the economy, more benefits from international trade and investment supported by closer integration into the global economy, as well as a well-governed domestic economy with stronger institutions to withstand pressures from vested interests. The US, EU and NATO must make more efforts to help Ukraine resolve the current conflict with Russia, which in turn needs to stop the military engagement in Ukraine to let it recover and benefit from integration and cooperation with the West. NATO membership and full EU membership should not be considered for now, but Ukraine should be an independent and neutral buffer state between the East and the West, with full access to the EU common market. Ukraine needs increased financial support, especially from the EU, US, IMF and the World Bank for its reconstruction.


2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Valdis Balcers

The research is dedicated to the problem of mutual dependence in space policies between the West, represented by great spacefaring actors the US and the EU, and Russia. In the study the correlation analysis, content analysis, and scenario-building methods were used. The conclusion of the analysis comprises consideration on the need to invest in their independence by Western countries in order to avoid unnecessary extra dependence on uncertain and unreliable regimes that supply substantial components for their space technology.


Significance Although Russian influence abroad has become a global concern in light of the US election hacking scandal, Central-Eastern Europe (CEE), which Moscow has traditionally seen as a buffer between itself and the West, is perhaps the most exposed to meddling. Global interdependence and the increased haziness of boundaries make countering it difficult. Impacts Russia will spread disunity in the EU in order to have the sanctions imposed on it lifted. The moral authority of liberal democratic countries will suffer and illiberal forms of governance gain more respectability worldwide. President Vladimir Putin's power will be further entrenched if Russia becomes established as an influential player.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-93
Author(s):  
S. Gajić ◽  
E. G. Ponomareva

The Balkans in general and post-Yugoslav countries in particular have been under significant geopolitical pressure of the political West since the end of the bipolar global order. From the beginning of the Yugoslav Civil War in 1991, followed by Western recognition of secessionist republics in 1992 and NATO attacks on Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994-1995 and on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, the US, NATO and EU have been actively involved in the Balkan crisis. It was in concordance with the logic of unipolarity, or the New World Order, proclaimed by George W.H. Bush, in which there is “no substitute for American leadership”.The year of 2008 marked the start of profound changes. The changes we are witnessing today are of the magnitude described by Paul Kennedy’s classic The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia crossed Russia’s red lines and exposed the latter’s ambitions to regain the superpower status; China symbolically showed the same ambition with the Olympics in Beijing; the crash of the US real-estate market triggered the global economic crisis; and the NATO-sponsored unilateral declaration of secession by Kosovo Albanians set a precedent and introduced uncertainty in international law and the entire system of United Nations. By the beginning of 2020, many problems had accumulated in the EU – against the background of the ongoing migration crisis, right-wing and nationalist movements became more active, and differences between members increased. Long before COVID-19, Brexit became a serious stress test for the economy and social structure of the European Union. Dramatic changes took place on the other side of the Atlantic too, resulting in the shocking victory of staunch anti-globalist Donald Trump. The rules established during the 1991-2008 unipolarity have thus been challenged. Subsequently, post-Cold War ideological consensus in the West has also been challenged even further by the growth of non-systemic political movements – many of them directed not only against the EU expansion, but also against the EU itself.The significance of all these events for the Balkans is somewhat surprising and paradoxical, as the mainstream forces that have been weakened in the West forcefully push for a stronger Atlantic integration of the remaining Balkan countries. At the height of the pandemic, on 27 March 2020 Northern Macedonia became the 30th member of the Alliance, having previously undergone a humiliating procedure of changing its own name for this purpose. Three years earlier, Montenegro was admitted to NATO, but its population did not have the opportunity to vote on this in a referendum. The negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina on ‘normalisation of relations’, continued pressures on the prerogatives of Republic Srpska, Croatian initiative for a new Intermarium and many other similar efforts are stages in the process of NATOisation of former Yugoslavia. Based on the analysis of a large body of narrative sources and recent literature, the article presents the main trends and possible prospects for developments in the Balkans, depending on the outcome of the ongoing ideological and political struggle within the West.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-252
Author(s):  
Zafer Kizilkaya ◽  
Sofie Hamdi ◽  
Mohammad Salman

Throughout the civil war, the Syrian opposition has been politically and militarily supported by several countries. At present, with its boots on the ground, Turkey is the main backer of the armed opposition in northern Syria. In the region, Ankara envisions a long-term presence which is characterized by a continuous control along the M-4 highway from Idlib in the west to the Iraqi border in the east. This will depend, however, on Turkey’s negotiations with Russia and its relations with the US. Meanwhile, the EU has limited its engagement with Ankara, by mainly focusing on the refugee crisis. Yet, divergent views and contesting interests are hindering an effective cooperation between the two on the Syrian “dossier”. In light of this, this paper argues that the EU should broaden its perspectives, while establishing permanent contact with Turkey. This necessitates the continuation of the EU’s financial support given to Ankara to host refugees; the backing of Turkey in maintaining a frozen conflict situation in Idlib; the increasement of diplomatic engagement in the provision of humanitarian aid; the backing of any effort that aims at ending the hostilities and establishing ceasefires; and the showing of empathy towards Turkish concerns on border security and terrorism. Keywords: Syrian crisis, Turkey, European Union, Northern Syria, humanitarian aid


2015 ◽  
pp. 30-53
Author(s):  
V. Popov

This paper examines the trajectory of growth in the Global South. Before the 1500s all countries were roughly at the same level of development, but from the 1500s Western countries started to grow faster than the rest of the world and PPP GDP per capita by 1950 in the US, the richest Western nation, was nearly 5 times higher than the world average and 2 times higher than in Western Europe. Since 1950 this ratio stabilized - not only Western Europe and Japan improved their relative standing in per capita income versus the US, but also East Asia, South Asia and some developing countries in other regions started to bridge the gap with the West. After nearly half of the millennium of growing economic divergence, the world seems to have entered the era of convergence. The factors behind these trends are analyzed; implications for the future and possible scenarios are considered.


2014 ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Glazyev

This article examines fundamental questions of monetary policy in the context of challenges to the national security of Russia in connection with the imposition of economic sanctions by the US and the EU. It is proved that the policy of the Russian monetary authorities, particularly the Central Bank, artificially limiting the money supply in the domestic market and pandering to the export of capital, compounds the effects of economic sanctions and plunges the economy into depression. The article presents practical advice on the transition from external to domestic sources of long-term credit with the simultaneous adoption of measures to prevent capital flight.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document