Posted: 8/5/2012 7:04:39 AM
Walk with me, friend.
Washington wants Europe to absorb greater NATO costs, but there is minor incentive for Europe to raise their military expenditure. The expenditure of the European member states is already more than seven times greater than Moscow’s defense budget. The collective security of European member states (excluding Westminster) is more cost effective when accomplished in collaboration with Moscow rather than to thrust the old enemy into the background, destabilize the relationship between its politics and territory or compromise its defences. The veracity is that Europe is deficient of motive to devote additional considerable funds towards committing itself to undefined nation-building missions under the pretext of humanitarian intervention - despite which faction of American democracy resides in the White House. Neither a Democrat nor Republican administration can guarantee more involvement from European member states outside of NATO’s core operation - mutual assurance for the security of alliance members. The transformation of NATO’s role as global sheriff has been terminated. NATO’s eventual dissolution is inevitable. The line of demarcation between Washington and Berlin is becoming more distinct.
Militarized expansion is substandard in annexing the treasures as it previously did. The connection between territory and wealth has been severed. However building bilateral partnerships with lucrative must-have-economies such as Indonesia to ease the path for commercial interests is paramount. However these nations steadfastly acquire military appetites and make considerable investment in significant warfare capabilities, such as seeking to obtain German Leopard 2 Combat tanks. They may not want conflict but they do want tranquillity and regional status. Especially in South-East Asia where there are scores of territorial disputes.
Nations may well be agents of trade, but in the past commerce has not determined everything. Commerce is no confirmatory assurance of harmony. Neither is the nuclear deterrence theory, but collectively they encompass an effect on political disposition, which portend; international confrontation would probably be brought about by a solitary mishandled regional crisis or the ambiguity of an event that elicits affliction rather than by architectural design.
The salient nations are less pugnacious with each other from times past when the White House and the Kremlin faced each other as “superpowers,” dividing the map into aggressive blocs held together by the threat of nuclear warfare. However they still inhabit deep insecurity. The international community may be in for a cycle of competitive engagement, within narrow confines, for alliances, global pivots and resources. We may witness the perils of fierce altercations, followed by drawbacks and the easing of international tension. In a prolonged array of geopolitical theatres, it is a necessity that a nation maintains a subtle equilibrium of cooperation and rivalry with immense skill. The short-term could provide a phase where salient nations stare each other down in a manner that brings forth constant whispers of war as a shell to a turbulent, but serene core. We should fear war - not its propaganda.
Salient nations use a medium of tools and techniques to achieve foreign policy objectives devoid of the use of weaponry but by exerting information and other agents of sway. The methods are becoming more prevalent to cultivate and incite fanatical and separatist mind-sets, to manipulate the public and to guide direct intrusion in the domestic policy of autonomous nations, as seen in the proxy warfare in Damascus. And what about the world-wide-web, that inescapable cutting edge piece of technology that has limitless possibilities to reinvent itself and knows no governmental boundaries – how does this alter the concept of unarmed warfare to control its innovative potential for intergovernmental hegemony.