Since the landing of the English-speaking allies (USA, Great Britain, Canada)[1] on the beaches of Normandy in June 1944, Europe’s freedom, democracy and security were unthinkable without American commitment and security guarantees. Thus, the concept of the West acquired, in addition to vague cultural, intellectual and religious touches, relativized in any case by national specificity, transatlantic strategic importance very clearly

SETTINGS NATOby signing the North Atlantic Treaty[2] from Washington on April 4, 1949, became the “cornerstone”, the quintessence and brilliant expression of this bright idea— Deterrence Doctrine (Truman Doctrine), to “quench” the danger of Bolshevik expansion on the European continent beyond what Stalin had already occupied in 1944-1945. North America and Western Europe formed a postwar Western “dream world,” protected by the unparalleled strength of the U.S. military and the steadfast political commitment of presidents and congressmen in Washington, both Democratic and Republican.

In retrospect, the United States in the 20th century saved and liberated Europe three times (in whole or in part) from aggressors, dictators and empires – in 1917-1920, 1944-1945 and 1987-1990, the last time, persuasively, Mikhail Gorbachev refused to what Stalin IV achieved at the end of World War II, namely the division of Germany and Russian control of Eastern Europe. American “security umbrella”. therefore, from above Europe, it ruled free and democratic countries and peoples during the Cold War, and later spread to Central Europe, from the ruins of the Berlin Wall to the Prut.

After 1989, we bitter people who were taken away in 1945 began to aspire to this prosperous and safe world. prisoners of Moscow, communist dictatorship and backwardness, behind the Iron Curtain, for two generations. But for those of my generation (the “generation of revolution”), the third since the Red Army entered Eastern Europe, who grew up under communism but studied the Western liberal paradigm after 1990, there is nothing clearer, stronger, or better. than a deep, unbreakable civilizational alliance between the US and Europe. All our intellectual and academic training rests on this foundation, and nothing, ever, can change it.

Between 1997 and 2007, in just 10 years, “miracle” happened – Romania signed a Strategic Partnership with the USA (1997), joined NATO (2004) and the European Union (2007). The ideal and political project of our generation was thus realized through a window of historical opportunity. It was everything we could have wished for as an anchor for post-communist Romania in the system of international relations.

I am 53 years old too old imagine a different, better, more natural, more natural formula of strategic alliance and political order than the Western transatlantic one, and too young so I don’t notice and am no longer interested (and bothered) by the observation that the political and ideological foundation of the transatlantic West is showing the possibility of cracks after the US presidential election on November 5. The need for a plan B becomes more and more apparent, even if we still value plan A and prefer to stick with it.

For the first time since 1944 Europe can stay from next year, de facto at least if not and de jurewithout American political commitments and security guarantees, just when Putin has it (aggression) higher… Donald Trump publicly threatens that “Europe will have to take care of itself”[3] and his entourage makes it clear that it is not only a lack of interest in military aid to Ukraine, but even in the possibility of leaving NATO (this idea was also in the first term[4]) and agree on a compromise agreement with the Kremlin dictator, the face of the rapid establishment of peace in Ukraine. We don’t know if it’s a coincidence or not, but it’s too bad that these two situations coincide, Russian and American politics.

European officials from a growing number of countries say it is entirely possible that within a few years Russia will attack a NATO and EU member state, probably one on its eastern flank, in which case it could no longer be counted on for security. guarantees of American military intervention. Of course, there is no certainty that this will happen. From discourse to decisions is a long journey with many variables. Trump was also president in the White House, NATO was not dissolved, and US-Romanian bilateral relations were very good. A person is “transactional”, they say, you give to him, he gives to you… Will this be a sufficient reason not to worry? No, clearly not. These two mandates can be very different.

Now alarm clocks are ringing everywhere like in a thriller scene. Red lights are flashing on the dashboard, generals, army chiefs and political leaders rush here and there with papers in their hands, making statements that have not been heard in Europe for a long time. In NATO headquarters, in Germany, in Sweden, in Great Britain, in Finland, in the Baltic countries, in Poland, etc., military and political establishment it shows signs that something is wrong if a big storm is headed our way he has no one and nothing to cling to in order to protect our democratic world. Don’t panic for now, but we wouldn’t want it to come to that either, as it’s usually too late to do anything and avoid an accident. It’s as if everyone was still sleeping in a long and naive dream of sharing prosperity and “peace” with Putin’s Russia and suddenly woke up to the sound of sirens.

finally, a clear and responsible voice was awakened in Romania as well. Admittedly, this caused a bit of a stir as it was a full election year when the ruling parties wanted, as everywhere else in the world, to have a contented and quiet electorate, guided by the classic principle that no one votes for someone who tells them to call. To arms. Then, because no one wanted to say it, even the chief of the General Staff said because he is not running for office and is not asking for a vote anyway.

General Georgyce Vlad sounded the alarm on our plains, and he did well. Someone had to do it, and it was probably in their job descriptions. If not the Commander-in-Chief, then who would be better able to realize that “we don’t have who and what”? However, the big problem doesn’t seem to be modern weapons (although, apart from the significant gains made in recent years, more, better and more powerful ones are certainly needed), but the fact that he has no one to deal with them.

Defensive wars are not waged only by professionals. As we see in Ukraine, it takes hundreds of thousands of people to leave their peaceful lives for a while and take up weapons, know what to do with them, aim and be able to run from point A to point B with a backpack behind them (definitely heavier than a laptop ). Yes, voluntary military service of men and women aged 18-35necessary and useful if he is successful, working and attractive. That remains to be seen and for now we have some doubts. Four months does not mean any kind of military training, but if they were well spent and the number of applicants was large, the project would bring an important military resource to the country. In any case, it will be an interesting test for the government, the army and the Romanian society.

With about 60,000 to 70,000 active soldiers, as we understand Romania to have now, we can barely fill a large stadium in Bucharest. With such a small army, Romania cannot be defended against Russia, it is obvious. And if they say from the West that no one will come to our aid and fight here, then in a situation where Trump will block NATO and the Europeans will continue to look for a solution for the European army, we are left with what we can do to protect our country. And suddenly the situation becomes “problematic” (to put it mildly) and we must approach the future much more seriously and responsibly.

Let’s look at that as well Viktor Orban, nostalgic for Horthy[5] and Greater Hungary (the prime minister of the EU and NATO is demonstratively wearing a headscarf[6] with a historical map and presents it to foreign guests[7]accordingly, complains about the “injustice of the Treaty of Trianon”[8]) as good as his anti-Western and pro-Russian revisionism seems to appeal to Donald Trump[9]then we should be much more careful about some unwanted complications in both the East and the Near West.

We see in the press the amazingly naive, ignorant or cynical opinions of many Romanians of military age when they are asked whether they would volunteer in the event of aggression – Aren’t we in NATO? What is our business, NATO’s task is to protect us! That’s why “they” are here to protect us! (who cares?!), there’s nothing to defend here, I’m just defending my family and that’s all! etc., imagining a gentleman outraged by the question going into the hall to prepare to defend his family, i.e. to punch in the face a Russian who knocks on his door to disturb him from Netflix. Well, not all of us will be at that level of understanding of the situation, and we hope that the journalists did not stop on the street or select only the most shocking answers.

Returning to the political picture of the USA-NATO-EU-Russia, on which the security of Europe in general and the region of our geopolitical periphery in particular will depend in the coming years, we will have to think about Plan Babout the necessity of which I wrote last months[10].

At this point, we don’t know what, if any, that plan B might contain “European pillar of NATO”forms regional cooperation with Poland and Ukraine (or with an integer The Mediterranean Seafrom the Baltic to the Black Sea), or by bilateral security agreements concluded with the United States and Great Britain, but fears that Donald Trump may block NATO and not apply Art. 5 of the Treaty precisely at the moment of Russia’s attack on a member state of the North Atlantic Alliance. Suwalki corridor? Baltic state? The mouth of the Danube?

as we know The EU is not a provider of security guarantees and will not be soon, even if some useful measures are currently being discussed, such as restructuring the European Defense Agency and increasing its profile and strategic stakes, increasing the European Defense Fund, reviving the European defense industry and increasing interoperability and standardization, creating a European Commissioner for Defense in the new Commission, developing new European tools and means in the field of defense and security, etc. The EU was not created to protect Europe and cannot protect it.

Besides, no matter how much we pretend not to notice, the inconvenient truth is this the Russian threat will always be geopolitically asymmetricand focused on Central and Eastern Europe. It is not like the threat of Nazi Germany, which began to expand from the center of the continent to the West, to the East, to the North, and to the South. After all, even the US, we don’t know if they would have gone to war against the Axis if they hadn’t been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Everything is different with Putin’s Russia. We will never convince a Frenchman, a Belgian, or a Portuguese that Russia is a threat to their countries, and Western Europeans, except for Germany (which is actually Central European), will never have sleepless nights over it. For most Westerners, today’s Russian threat has nothing to do with the global and nuclear threat of the Cold War Soviet Union. Let’s not forget that even President Macron told us this just a few years ago “The USSR left, what is the point of NATO, which is now clinically dead?”[11]

First of all, the vulnerability of the West, The United States is in the midst of a societal transformation foreign policy can no longer be separated from domestic policy anywhere in the world, especially in the First Great Power of the world. _Read the rest of the article and comment on Contributors.ro