I've lost count of the times I've seen the word "multipolar" this week. I remember it was something that our old associate/sparring partner Guessedworker used to be on about quite a lot. It's not an idea that I'm opposed to, as it seems self-evident that the rise of China as an economic behemoth creates the "multi". Previously, it was simply America and Russia as superpowers with their proxies in Eastern and Western Europe respectively.
It had seemed at that time a year or two ago that this was not a particularly pressing issue and that it was some way down the road. But, events tend to move quickly, and recent developments, notably the Trump administration's abandonment of support for Ukraine's war effort and its abandonment of Europe in favour of a peace deal, seem to have brought the idea of multi-polarism into sharper focus.
These geopolitical realities transcend everyday politics and even the EU's pet project of destroying its native population with a tsunami of immigration. Indeed, even if the radical right were in power, the same realities would be in play. The question I believe the European leaders are grappling with, as would we, is where Europe stands without the protection of America, and how does it defend itself from the economic and perhaps military threats posed by the big players? How does Europe protect its position and prosperity in this new world?
The answer would seem to be by way of unity and rearmament. I cannot see this as a bad idea. European nations cannot afford to gamble away their position of importance in the world by allowing themselves to become fractured, poor and vulnerable, and no amount of distaste for our current regimes can change that. It's not in our interests, yours or mine, to allow this to happen while we cheer on our rivals. And Russia is our nearest rival.
I've not changed my view on the conflict in Ukraine. I remain convinced that Ukraine is caught in a proxy war between the empires of Russia and America, instigated by the latter. But Ukraine has every right to independence if it desires it, especially having suffered greatly at the hands of Russia in the past, regardless of the strong historical and geographic links between the two. Of course, facing Russia on the battlefield would be bad, and I'm not up for it.
The difference is that America seeks to distance itself from the conflict and Europe. What is clear to me, and apparently to the current European elites, is that we are left weak economically and militarily in this brave new world. That state of affairs cannot continue.
Of course, it could be that in four years, a new American administration seeks to undo what has been done and reconnect with Europe, but by then, it would almost certainly be too late. Perhaps the damage to that relationship has already been done. It has been shown that America can withdraw support at any time and leave us with our pants down. In the end, this is probably inevitable and good. Europe cannot continue to be ruled by America or be its little yappy dog. As such, Europe must become strong again or die. Geopolitics and internal politics are two different things.