Europe, indeed the world, is currently living through a period best described as ‘history in the making‘. How historians in the future analyse and conclude what events happened, and how, and who was responsible for them, would be interesting for us to know right now.
In a period that in one way compares with the late Middle Ages, one can only make judgements based on the flow of information from seemingly unending on-line sources. Europe in the 15th Century experienced a new, then revolutionary, flood of information based on the invention of the printing press and the books that flowed from them.
Last week I decided to refresh my memories of a recent period that is now a significant modern historical landmark. On one of those new fangled television channels I sought out a documentary on the history of Berlin. The episode I chose was about the immediate post war period leading up to the Berlin Blockade.
The documentary refreshed my memory of that period in the city where I studied German spending much of my time on the eastern side of the Berlin Wall. At that time West Berliners were confident that America would deter the Russians. I then turned to contemporary media reports of the situation in Europe today.
There was one major difference in the negotiations with Russia that went on then and today. The Russians sent tanks into Berlin and East Germany but the war that everyone feared did not happen. What was that key difference? America was the leading world power and made it very clear that an invasion of allied controlled territory would lead to war.
This week the American President made it clear that he will not send troops to support Ukraine and advised all U.S. citizens to leave that country.
Boris Johnson’s government followed suit on Friday. The domestic problems and political divisions Boris Johnson has faced have not supported Britain’s efforts to prevent a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Also, according to reports, European countries in NATO have been divided on whether to react and even how or whether to support a blockade of Russia.
French President Macron was criticised last week by Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares for adopting an individual approach to negotiations with Russia. NATO appears not to be united and divisions would appear to be significant on the question of its leadership, with only four months to go until this year’s NATO summit in Madrid with the current Secretary General Jens Stoltenburg on the way out.
Read more from Chris White:
A critical problem at that summit will be the role of the United Kingdom following Brexit, notwithstanding that NATO is not solely comprised of EU countries. Commentators are suggesting that a woman might be the candidate to run NATO. Could they be thinking of Angela Merkel?
Assuming that war with Russia does not break out Merkel just might be the one to bring about some unity. But there is a significant underlying problem that is being ignored. With the U.S. less committed to leading what is the significance of linking Brexit to its future?
The U.K spends more on defence than any other European country. It is not just NATO that is the issue today. The EU and the UK are currently holding discussions about trade following Brexit. The reports are not good.
Perhaps EU member states should send observers to some of the cafes and bars around Deal in Kent. There is no reason to suppose that there is much difference to the rest of the country. People across the UK are getting ‘fed-up’ with the constant debate about parties at Downing Street and they fear war is about to break out. Nor are they happy with trade problems causing long queues of lorries at Dover.
A constant question that crops up in discussions is: “Why are we sending troops to Europe? What are we getting in return?” All would become clear should the current government fall and if a Nigel Farage figure were to emerge in an election campaign arguing that Britian should leave NATO and save taxpayers’ money. Would it get majority support? Who knows but, contrary to philosophical dictates, history appears to repeat itself and Britain was not militarily prepared for war in the 1930’s. Maybe history really does repeat itself but with different outcomes.
—————- Dateline: The Corner Cafe, Deal. —————
Follow EU Today on Social media:
