Thoughts on Europe's encouraging response to transatlantic rupture, why Still Here Keir is a morbid symptom of British decline, and how the AI revolution is devouring its children
I can only say 'bang on' Simon! You've been the first I've read to have finally written a 'J'accuse'! You've brought out all the skeletons in Starmer's and BJ's cupboard and hung out their dirty washing! Thank you! Please stand for election and sort Britain out!
The British rightwing press are nihilists who have no strategic sense or vision for this country. They are just lackeys for their owners who despise them. They have never accepted the legitimacy of the huge Labour majority. They will only be happy once they have plunged this country into chaos under Farage.
Completely agree, Michael. Any Labour successor to Starmer is living in a fool's paradise if they think that they won't be subjected to the same vicious treatment from the rightwing press from their very first day.
Great as always Simon, and a lot to chew on. On AI, completely agree with you that we're witnessing something very significant that we have barely begun to understand, if at all. A couple of observations:
1. The acceleration in US productivity growth actually started in mid-2023: over the past 9 quarters of data (3Q23-3Q25) US productivity growth averaged 2.5% vs a 1.4% average over the previous 10 years. I think this is mostly driven by past waves of AI/digital-industrial innovation. It means there is most likely more to come, but also that it's not clear we can take this as evidence that LLMs are beginning to pay off at the macro level.
2. I've always loved using the Solow paradox myself. A sobering thought, however, is that the belated acceleration in productivity growth in the mid-90's fizzled out after just ten years, followed by two decades of very low productivity growth across the west. But of course, this time it's different...
Thanks Marco. I struggle with the thought that AI may deliver huge productivity gains in terms of output, but very little in terms of value. Your latest post was very helpful in terms of how to think about this from a macro perspective. But if AI really is a new GPT, perhaps it will be different this time?
Thanks Simon,I probably got lost in the numbers and did not express my thought as clearly as i should have. If AI will deliver major output gains, it will deliver major value as well, you're perfectly right. And there are plenty of indications that this will be the case. The two caveats I wanted to raise, however, are:
1. I do not think the data show any evidence of GenAI's value having accrued at the macro level yet. That does not mean it will not happen, but my view is that it will take longer than many people expect.
2. I believe AI is a General Purpose Technology, and will have a powerful impact. However, we thought the internet and the previous wave of Information and Communication Technology were a GPT as well, but the resulting acceleration in productivity growth was relatively short-lived. The claim on AI is much stronger -- that it might deliver a permanent acceleration in productivity growth, and even bring forth 'abundance', i.e. essentially eliminate most supply constraints. Such a strong claim deserves equally strong scrutiny.
In sum, I don't think you and I disagree on the substance. AI is a powerful GPT; its implications will likely be far-reaching; this time might well be different in many important respects; we're in the early stages, and we have only a very tenuous grasp of what's unfolding.
But I promise to write a full post soon to articulate my thoughts in more coherent way rather than keep rambling in your comments section -- thanks for your patience and hospitality !
I look forward to your post - from the econ perspective - I follow what they say about it in ARTE, not always novel but food for thought. I think AI is still in its infancy - hasn't grown..yet!
Very heartening following endless discoursging items, not from Simon. There is plenty to suggest that Trump and MAGAare seriously on the slide but maybe not, Europe must assume Trump does represent a significant body of opinion in the US although all the polls suggest othrrwise. I am very pleasef to see that companies likr Palantir are now not to be takem at face value. There are questionable forces behind it.My one reservstion is that I feel the journalistic campaign against Starmer is cynical and damaging. It began well before he was in Downing st. And very little space is given to jis real achievements. For those who moch "what achievements" I'm happy to write in support of my view but won't take up space here.
Thanks Robert. On Trump, I think we passed peak Trump at the end of last year, but as we have seen so far this year, that doesn't mean we are passed peak danger. Even if the GOP crashes in the mid-terms, I suspect a lot of the damage done will prove permanent, so it is good that Europe is finally starting to respond to this.
On Starmer, I agree this government does have important achievements - and it is one of Starmer's failures as a politician that he seems incapable of selling them. Providing Labour does not lose its head, I suspect we are past the worst economically. If you want to send me your list we can compare notes and I'll try to find an opportunity to write about them!
«On the evening of 10 May, the government of Iceland issued a protest, charging that its neutrality had been "flagrantly violated" and "its independence infringed"»
«The United States has discussed obtaining Greenland from Denmark since the 19th century. There were talks within the US federal government about purchasing Greenland in 1867, advocated by secretary of state William H. Seward, and again in 1910. However, in 1916, the United States proclaimed their recognition of Danish sovereignty over all Greenland as a condition for their purchase of the Virgin Islands in the Treaty of the Danish West Indies. Since World War II, the US has had at least one military base in Greenland. In 1946, the US secretly offered to buy Greenland, but it was rejected by Denmark. Since 1949, Greenland has been under the protection of NATO, of which the US and Denmark are both members. Nevertheless, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed acquiring the island in 1955 [...] The US has long seen Greenland as vital for the defense of its mainland, and former war plans listed Greenland as one of the territories the US would seize and fortify in a hypothetical war.»
Currently existing treaties allow the USA to setup pretty much any military bases they want in Greenland; the obvious reason why the USA oligarchs (and not just Trump) want to *formally* annex Greenland is that since territorial waters were extended from 3nm to 12nm and EEZs were setup up to 200nm then Greenland (and Iceland) come with large areas of full sovereignty and enormous ones of economic control, given how big Greenland is, amounting to a large part of the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic, and in particular over critical parts of the North Passage between Russian, China and Europe.
This is one of the main points about getting formal sovereignty over Greenland:
"Russia's first ice-class LNG carrier, the Alexey Kosygin, has begun its maiden voyage through the harsh conditions of the Northern Sea Route [...] According to experts, the new tanker's key advantage is its ability to independently navigate through ice more than two meters thick."
Three excellent pieces and some interesting comments too.
1. The UK’s future is as part of the EU it’s only a matter of time and it will be soon. That will feed into the others two subjects positively.
2. Political journalism needs more voices like yours. I heard you on the Today programme today and yesterday good sense amidst some of the nonsense.
3. AI will be transformative, but slowly. I suspect new jobs will piggy back on it and some of teh more soul destroying jobs will disappear. Hand crafted skills will not be replaced. There’s much to look forward to.
I found your interview on the BBC's Media Show, which seems to have slightly ruffled a few feathers. I agree with you about sources and trust in political reporting.
More generally, a greater emphasis on using basic reporting skills would be helpful. If journalism is the first draft of history, most current efforts will need extensive re-writes.
Cultural changes, and reduced resources highlighted by Mark Urban, will have made the job harder; and, perhaps, left little time for self-reflection.
Hmmm and yet the French from what I have understood have managed to keep their nose relatively clean and have not relied anywhere as heavily - they haven't gone through such a dissimilar situation but have been continually mindful and wary?
It would be devastating for the US if the EU issued its own debt as an alternative to Treasuries. Maybe they should get serious about it. That might actually start to separate Republicans from Trump.
«a riposte to Mark Carney’s now famous warning at Davos last month of a “rupture” in the global order.»
There has been no such rupture:
* The european countries are dependent on USA controlled supplies of oil and food and have a huge pro-USA fifth-column so no european government can afford to be sanctioned or color-revolutioned by the USA so they must continue to be USA vassals.
* However the current european governing elites are vassals not generically of the USA but are "globalists" sponsored by the "globalist" faction of the USA oligarchy.
* Therefore the "mid-level powers" talk about going their own way without the USA is pure verbiage and it is made in concert with their sponsors in the USA "globalist" faction solely to embarrass Trump.
* Were Trump replaced in 2029 by a "globalist" sponsored president like Obama or Romney the european "globalist" governments would switch immediately to declarations of total loyalty to the USA (Blair: "I am with you, whatever"); the same if the european "globalist" governments were replaced by "consolidationist" ones aligned with the "consolidationist" USA faction of which Trump is the front.
Within "the west" politics are what political studies academics call "transversal" that is by interest groups across states, like in any empire. Transnational politics just as transnational corporations.
I don’t think anyone is talking of going their own way without America. But they are talking, rightly in my view, about de-risking, reducing dependencies to make them less vulnerable to US coercion, and developing capabilities that enable them to better defend their interests without having to rely on an unreliable America. I think that would continue regardless of who is the White House, which is why it is right to think of this moment as a rupture.
«de-risking, reducing dependencies to make them less vulnerable to US coercion, and developing capabilities that enable them to better defend their interests»
In my imaginary parallel world we had WW1, WW2, Suez and the european elites were quite impressed by their outcomes. I guess that it is much better in the real world where you live and where the european empires still cover the world and the USA are just a medium-size player :-).
JM Keynes "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", 1920s: “The financial history of the six months from the end of the summer of 1916 up to the entry of the United States into the war in April, 1917, remains to be written. Very few persons, outside the half-dozen officials of the British Treasury who lived in daily contact with the immense anxieties and impossible financial requirements of those days, can fully realize what stead-fastness and courage were needed, and how entirely hopeless the task would soon have become without the assistance of the United States Treasury.»
Andrew Marr "History Of Modern Britain", 2000s: “Nonetheless, John Maynard Keynes, the chief economic advisor to the new Labour Government, warned ministers in August 1945 that Britain's world role was a burden which '... there is no reasonable expectation of our being able to carry [...] ' As he pointed out, the entire British war effort, including all her overseas military commitments, had only been made possible by American subsidies under the Lend-Lease programme.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3667997/How-victory-spelt-the-end-of-empire.html «“Churchill was reduced to a subordinate position in the Grand Alliance as early the Teheran Conference in 1943, when he "realised for the first time what a very small country this is". By Yalta in February 1945, he was "weaker than ever before". Roosevelt was concerned with Stalin – he "wasted little time on pandering to Churchill, a vaudeville act with which he was becoming bored". By that time, Clarke writes, "a well-briefed and prudently calculating leader" would have realised "what limited options were realistic... for Great Britain as a bantam in a heavyweight league, for the Anglo-American alliance as an expedient relationship premised on subordination...”»
«From as early as August 1941 – just two months after the Nazi invasion of the USSR – American convoy ships supplied the Soviets with what would eventually amount to more than 14,000 airplanes, 44,000 jeeps, 375,000 trucks, 8,000 tractors and 12,000 tanks. Not to mention 1.5 million blankets, 15 million pairs of army boots, 2.6 million tons of petroleum products and 4.4 million tons of food supplies.
"The Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war", admitted Georgy Zhukov, one of the Soviet Union's most famous WWII generals.»
«without having to rely on an unreliable America.»
The USA oligarchs are very reliable: you can rely on them to always undermine other potential rivals and to work hard to control medium-size players. The european ruling classes do not rely on the USA *voluntarily* but as the lesser evil. They do not consider the independence of Cuba, Iran, Korea-north a model to follow.
But that's precisely the reason why Europe must begin to move away from that over-dependency - it's finally waking up to it and it could do it, if it could get its act together - better late than never! My late father who fought in the War was warning this situation would happen all his life!
«Europe must begin to move away from that over-dependency»
Of all european countries the UK is that where the ruling elite is the most resentful of dependency on the USA and most resigned to it.
Tony Benn "Diaries" 1965: «Defence, colour television, Concorde, rocket development - these are all issues raising economic considerations that reveal this country's basic inability to stay in the big league. We just can’t afford it. The real choice is — do we go in with Europe or do we become an American satellite? Without a conscious decision being taken the latter course is being followed everywhere.»
https://www.economist.com/node/7218678 «The French drew the clearest lessons. Suez showed that they could never rely on perfide Albion. Britain, then Europe's strongest power, would, it seemed, always put its “special” relationship with America above its European interests. And the Americans, to the French, were both unreliable and annoyingly superior. [...] The major lesson of Suez for the British was that the country would never be able to act independently of America again. Unlike the French, who have sought to lead Europe, most British politicians have been content to play second fiddle to America.»
William Rees-Mogg "The Times" August 7th, 2006: «When Jack Straw was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced.
I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran.” The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon. [...]
The alternative explanation was more recently given by Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator; he has remarkably good Washington contacts and is probably right. His account is that Mr Straw was indeed dismissed because of American anxieties, but that Dr Rice herself had become worried, on her visit to Blackburn, by Mr Straw’s dependence on Muslim votes. About 20 per cent of the voters in Blackburn are Islamic; Mr Straw was dismissed only four weeks after Dr Rice’s visit to his constituency.
It may be that both explanations are correct. The first complaint may have been made by Mr Rumsfeld because of Iran; Dr Rice may have withdrawn her support after seeing the Islamic pressures in Blackburn.
At any rate, Irwin Stelzer’s account confirms that Mr Straw was fired because of American pressure.»
«Europe must begin to move away from that over-dependency - it's finally waking up to it and it could do it, if it could get its act together»
I had the same discussion with someone else who argued that independence is simply a matter of "testicular fortitude", here you are using the equivalent "get its act together".
In "realpolitik" independence is at the core a matter of fact not of will: that Europe has a tiny share of the world's oil while being a big consumer is a fact that no "get its act together" or "testicular fortitude" can change. The same for example for Japan. And both Europe and Japan are dependent also for food (despite appearances as there is a catch) on imports controlled by the USA too.
Sure if the european states were willing to shrink their population to a fraction and cut the living standards of those remaining to a fraction of what they are now things could be different but I guess that would be rather unpopular.
It is not that the european governments lack "testicular fortitude" or are incapable to "get its act together": the european elites, whose grandfathers ruled often brutally immense empires, are bitterly resentful that they are reduced to be the lackeys of the USA oligarchs, whether globalist like Biden or consolidationist like Trump makes little difference, and if they saw a possibility they would make big efforts to stop being USA vassals.
Even their feeble attempts to play both sides (first the RF with "Östpolitik" and then the PRC with "opening to China") have been slapped down and they have given up. "Ubi major minor cessat"
There many unrealistic people around and perhaps it would help if they studied a bit more how "realpolitik" is practiced. Here is a very good example of how great powers do it:
I can only say 'bang on' Simon! You've been the first I've read to have finally written a 'J'accuse'! You've brought out all the skeletons in Starmer's and BJ's cupboard and hung out their dirty washing! Thank you! Please stand for election and sort Britain out!
Thanks Cristina!
The British rightwing press are nihilists who have no strategic sense or vision for this country. They are just lackeys for their owners who despise them. They have never accepted the legitimacy of the huge Labour majority. They will only be happy once they have plunged this country into chaos under Farage.
Completely agree, Michael. Any Labour successor to Starmer is living in a fool's paradise if they think that they won't be subjected to the same vicious treatment from the rightwing press from their very first day.
Great as always Simon, and a lot to chew on. On AI, completely agree with you that we're witnessing something very significant that we have barely begun to understand, if at all. A couple of observations:
1. The acceleration in US productivity growth actually started in mid-2023: over the past 9 quarters of data (3Q23-3Q25) US productivity growth averaged 2.5% vs a 1.4% average over the previous 10 years. I think this is mostly driven by past waves of AI/digital-industrial innovation. It means there is most likely more to come, but also that it's not clear we can take this as evidence that LLMs are beginning to pay off at the macro level.
2. I've always loved using the Solow paradox myself. A sobering thought, however, is that the belated acceleration in productivity growth in the mid-90's fizzled out after just ten years, followed by two decades of very low productivity growth across the west. But of course, this time it's different...
Thanks Marco. I struggle with the thought that AI may deliver huge productivity gains in terms of output, but very little in terms of value. Your latest post was very helpful in terms of how to think about this from a macro perspective. But if AI really is a new GPT, perhaps it will be different this time?
Thanks Simon,I probably got lost in the numbers and did not express my thought as clearly as i should have. If AI will deliver major output gains, it will deliver major value as well, you're perfectly right. And there are plenty of indications that this will be the case. The two caveats I wanted to raise, however, are:
1. I do not think the data show any evidence of GenAI's value having accrued at the macro level yet. That does not mean it will not happen, but my view is that it will take longer than many people expect.
2. I believe AI is a General Purpose Technology, and will have a powerful impact. However, we thought the internet and the previous wave of Information and Communication Technology were a GPT as well, but the resulting acceleration in productivity growth was relatively short-lived. The claim on AI is much stronger -- that it might deliver a permanent acceleration in productivity growth, and even bring forth 'abundance', i.e. essentially eliminate most supply constraints. Such a strong claim deserves equally strong scrutiny.
In sum, I don't think you and I disagree on the substance. AI is a powerful GPT; its implications will likely be far-reaching; this time might well be different in many important respects; we're in the early stages, and we have only a very tenuous grasp of what's unfolding.
But I promise to write a full post soon to articulate my thoughts in more coherent way rather than keep rambling in your comments section -- thanks for your patience and hospitality !
I look forward to your post - from the econ perspective - I follow what they say about it in ARTE, not always novel but food for thought. I think AI is still in its infancy - hasn't grown..yet!
AI revolution - frankly terrifying - I fear its makers have opened a Pandora's box.
Judging by what some of the makers have been saying over the past few weeks, it seems some of them fear the same...!
Very heartening following endless discoursging items, not from Simon. There is plenty to suggest that Trump and MAGAare seriously on the slide but maybe not, Europe must assume Trump does represent a significant body of opinion in the US although all the polls suggest othrrwise. I am very pleasef to see that companies likr Palantir are now not to be takem at face value. There are questionable forces behind it.My one reservstion is that I feel the journalistic campaign against Starmer is cynical and damaging. It began well before he was in Downing st. And very little space is given to jis real achievements. For those who moch "what achievements" I'm happy to write in support of my view but won't take up space here.
Thanks Robert. On Trump, I think we passed peak Trump at the end of last year, but as we have seen so far this year, that doesn't mean we are passed peak danger. Even if the GOP crashes in the mid-terms, I suspect a lot of the damage done will prove permanent, so it is good that Europe is finally starting to respond to this.
On Starmer, I agree this government does have important achievements - and it is one of Starmer's failures as a politician that he seems incapable of selling them. Providing Labour does not lose its head, I suspect we are past the worst economically. If you want to send me your list we can compare notes and I'll try to find an opportunity to write about them!
«something has qualitatively shifted in the debate in the wake of the Trump shock, and particularly the Greenland crisis.»
In 1939 and 1940 the UK and then the USA militarily invaded and occupied both Greenland and Iceland, "for democracy" of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_occupation_of_Iceland
«On the evening of 10 May, the government of Iceland issued a protest, charging that its neutrality had been "flagrantly violated" and "its independence infringed"»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland
«The United States has discussed obtaining Greenland from Denmark since the 19th century. There were talks within the US federal government about purchasing Greenland in 1867, advocated by secretary of state William H. Seward, and again in 1910. However, in 1916, the United States proclaimed their recognition of Danish sovereignty over all Greenland as a condition for their purchase of the Virgin Islands in the Treaty of the Danish West Indies. Since World War II, the US has had at least one military base in Greenland. In 1946, the US secretly offered to buy Greenland, but it was rejected by Denmark. Since 1949, Greenland has been under the protection of NATO, of which the US and Denmark are both members. Nevertheless, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed acquiring the island in 1955 [...] The US has long seen Greenland as vital for the defense of its mainland, and former war plans listed Greenland as one of the territories the US would seize and fortify in a hypothetical war.»
Currently existing treaties allow the USA to setup pretty much any military bases they want in Greenland; the obvious reason why the USA oligarchs (and not just Trump) want to *formally* annex Greenland is that since territorial waters were extended from 3nm to 12nm and EEZs were setup up to 200nm then Greenland (and Iceland) come with large areas of full sovereignty and enormous ones of economic control, given how big Greenland is, amounting to a large part of the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic, and in particular over critical parts of the North Passage between Russian, China and Europe.
This is one of the main points about getting formal sovereignty over Greenland:
https://en.topcor.ru/68559-chto-znachit-dlja-rf-nachalo-raboty-pervogo-ledovogo-tankera-aleksej-kosygin.html
"Russia's first ice-class LNG carrier, the Alexey Kosygin, has begun its maiden voyage through the harsh conditions of the Northern Sea Route [...] According to experts, the new tanker's key advantage is its ability to independently navigate through ice more than two meters thick."
Three excellent pieces and some interesting comments too.
1. The UK’s future is as part of the EU it’s only a matter of time and it will be soon. That will feed into the others two subjects positively.
2. Political journalism needs more voices like yours. I heard you on the Today programme today and yesterday good sense amidst some of the nonsense.
3. AI will be transformative, but slowly. I suspect new jobs will piggy back on it and some of teh more soul destroying jobs will disappear. Hand crafted skills will not be replaced. There’s much to look forward to.
I found your interview on the BBC's Media Show, which seems to have slightly ruffled a few feathers. I agree with you about sources and trust in political reporting.
More generally, a greater emphasis on using basic reporting skills would be helpful. If journalism is the first draft of history, most current efforts will need extensive re-writes.
Cultural changes, and reduced resources highlighted by Mark Urban, will have made the job harder; and, perhaps, left little time for self-reflection.
Hmmm and yet the French from what I have understood have managed to keep their nose relatively clean and have not relied anywhere as heavily - they haven't gone through such a dissimilar situation but have been continually mindful and wary?
It would be devastating for the US if the EU issued its own debt as an alternative to Treasuries. Maybe they should get serious about it. That might actually start to separate Republicans from Trump.
«a riposte to Mark Carney’s now famous warning at Davos last month of a “rupture” in the global order.»
There has been no such rupture:
* The european countries are dependent on USA controlled supplies of oil and food and have a huge pro-USA fifth-column so no european government can afford to be sanctioned or color-revolutioned by the USA so they must continue to be USA vassals.
* However the current european governing elites are vassals not generically of the USA but are "globalists" sponsored by the "globalist" faction of the USA oligarchy.
* Therefore the "mid-level powers" talk about going their own way without the USA is pure verbiage and it is made in concert with their sponsors in the USA "globalist" faction solely to embarrass Trump.
* Were Trump replaced in 2029 by a "globalist" sponsored president like Obama or Romney the european "globalist" governments would switch immediately to declarations of total loyalty to the USA (Blair: "I am with you, whatever"); the same if the european "globalist" governments were replaced by "consolidationist" ones aligned with the "consolidationist" USA faction of which Trump is the front.
Within "the west" politics are what political studies academics call "transversal" that is by interest groups across states, like in any empire. Transnational politics just as transnational corporations.
I don’t think anyone is talking of going their own way without America. But they are talking, rightly in my view, about de-risking, reducing dependencies to make them less vulnerable to US coercion, and developing capabilities that enable them to better defend their interests without having to rely on an unreliable America. I think that would continue regardless of who is the White House, which is why it is right to think of this moment as a rupture.
«de-risking, reducing dependencies to make them less vulnerable to US coercion, and developing capabilities that enable them to better defend their interests»
In my imaginary parallel world we had WW1, WW2, Suez and the european elites were quite impressed by their outcomes. I guess that it is much better in the real world where you live and where the european empires still cover the world and the USA are just a medium-size player :-).
JM Keynes "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", 1920s: “The financial history of the six months from the end of the summer of 1916 up to the entry of the United States into the war in April, 1917, remains to be written. Very few persons, outside the half-dozen officials of the British Treasury who lived in daily contact with the immense anxieties and impossible financial requirements of those days, can fully realize what stead-fastness and courage were needed, and how entirely hopeless the task would soon have become without the assistance of the United States Treasury.»
Andrew Marr "History Of Modern Britain", 2000s: “Nonetheless, John Maynard Keynes, the chief economic advisor to the new Labour Government, warned ministers in August 1945 that Britain's world role was a burden which '... there is no reasonable expectation of our being able to carry [...] ' As he pointed out, the entire British war effort, including all her overseas military commitments, had only been made possible by American subsidies under the Lend-Lease programme.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3667997/How-victory-spelt-the-end-of-empire.html «“Churchill was reduced to a subordinate position in the Grand Alliance as early the Teheran Conference in 1943, when he "realised for the first time what a very small country this is". By Yalta in February 1945, he was "weaker than ever before". Roosevelt was concerned with Stalin – he "wasted little time on pandering to Churchill, a vaudeville act with which he was becoming bored". By that time, Clarke writes, "a well-briefed and prudently calculating leader" would have realised "what limited options were realistic... for Great Britain as a bantam in a heavyweight league, for the Anglo-American alliance as an expedient relationship premised on subordination...”»
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/barbarossa-usa/
«From as early as August 1941 – just two months after the Nazi invasion of the USSR – American convoy ships supplied the Soviets with what would eventually amount to more than 14,000 airplanes, 44,000 jeeps, 375,000 trucks, 8,000 tractors and 12,000 tanks. Not to mention 1.5 million blankets, 15 million pairs of army boots, 2.6 million tons of petroleum products and 4.4 million tons of food supplies.
"The Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war", admitted Georgy Zhukov, one of the Soviet Union's most famous WWII generals.»
«without having to rely on an unreliable America.»
The USA oligarchs are very reliable: you can rely on them to always undermine other potential rivals and to work hard to control medium-size players. The european ruling classes do not rely on the USA *voluntarily* but as the lesser evil. They do not consider the independence of Cuba, Iran, Korea-north a model to follow.
But that's precisely the reason why Europe must begin to move away from that over-dependency - it's finally waking up to it and it could do it, if it could get its act together - better late than never! My late father who fought in the War was warning this situation would happen all his life!
«Europe must begin to move away from that over-dependency»
Of all european countries the UK is that where the ruling elite is the most resentful of dependency on the USA and most resigned to it.
Tony Benn "Diaries" 1965: «Defence, colour television, Concorde, rocket development - these are all issues raising economic considerations that reveal this country's basic inability to stay in the big league. We just can’t afford it. The real choice is — do we go in with Europe or do we become an American satellite? Without a conscious decision being taken the latter course is being followed everywhere.»
https://www.economist.com/node/7218678 «The French drew the clearest lessons. Suez showed that they could never rely on perfide Albion. Britain, then Europe's strongest power, would, it seemed, always put its “special” relationship with America above its European interests. And the Americans, to the French, were both unreliable and annoyingly superior. [...] The major lesson of Suez for the British was that the country would never be able to act independently of America again. Unlike the French, who have sought to lead Europe, most British politicians have been content to play second fiddle to America.»
William Rees-Mogg "The Times" August 7th, 2006: «When Jack Straw was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced.
I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran.” The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon. [...]
The alternative explanation was more recently given by Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator; he has remarkably good Washington contacts and is probably right. His account is that Mr Straw was indeed dismissed because of American anxieties, but that Dr Rice herself had become worried, on her visit to Blackburn, by Mr Straw’s dependence on Muslim votes. About 20 per cent of the voters in Blackburn are Islamic; Mr Straw was dismissed only four weeks after Dr Rice’s visit to his constituency.
It may be that both explanations are correct. The first complaint may have been made by Mr Rumsfeld because of Iran; Dr Rice may have withdrawn her support after seeing the Islamic pressures in Blackburn.
At any rate, Irwin Stelzer’s account confirms that Mr Straw was fired because of American pressure.»
So independent! Much sovereignty! :-)
«Europe must begin to move away from that over-dependency - it's finally waking up to it and it could do it, if it could get its act together»
I had the same discussion with someone else who argued that independence is simply a matter of "testicular fortitude", here you are using the equivalent "get its act together".
In "realpolitik" independence is at the core a matter of fact not of will: that Europe has a tiny share of the world's oil while being a big consumer is a fact that no "get its act together" or "testicular fortitude" can change. The same for example for Japan. And both Europe and Japan are dependent also for food (despite appearances as there is a catch) on imports controlled by the USA too.
Sure if the european states were willing to shrink their population to a fraction and cut the living standards of those remaining to a fraction of what they are now things could be different but I guess that would be rather unpopular.
It is not that the european governments lack "testicular fortitude" or are incapable to "get its act together": the european elites, whose grandfathers ruled often brutally immense empires, are bitterly resentful that they are reduced to be the lackeys of the USA oligarchs, whether globalist like Biden or consolidationist like Trump makes little difference, and if they saw a possibility they would make big efforts to stop being USA vassals.
Even their feeble attempts to play both sides (first the RF with "Östpolitik" and then the PRC with "opening to China") have been slapped down and they have given up. "Ubi major minor cessat"
There many unrealistic people around and perhaps it would help if they studied a bit more how "realpolitik" is practiced. Here is a very good example of how great powers do it:
https://strategicspace.nbr.org/to-the-grand-area-and-beyond-the-sudden-transformation-of-the-united-states-strategic-space/