EuRussia, ChiMerica, and Enlarging NATO

This video from La Repubblica includes some fascinating maps:

The narrator’s English is not always completely clear, so I’ve posted a full transcript below the jump.
– – – – – – – –

The American answer: enlarging Nato?

by F. Maronta, A. Desiderio — map by Laura Canali

The United States are doubtful of Eurussia. From Washington’s point of view, Europe is not crucially important; what really matters are the relations with Russia, strategically important for matters of high interest such as Iran, nuclear armament and Afghanistan.

How does the US see EuRussia? Officially, the problem doesn’t exist. But when the German-Russian flirt becomes too evident, Washington’s irritation appears, showing how distasteful the EuRussian perspective can be for America.

Seen from the White House, this Europe is stable and impotent enough not to deserve a specific attention. It is not a problem, nor a resource. Therefore, Obama doesn’t count much on Europe to pull his country out of the quagmire it was thrown in by Clinton’s and Bush’s imperial dreams.

But with gas, is different. Obama hopes to re-establish a useful, if not trustful relation with the only power currently able to destroy America.

As noted by the bipartisan commission on US policy toward Russia, Washington can’t but “recognizing the importance of cooperating with Russia, in order to reach paramount US goals, such as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling al-Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, or ensuring stability and prosperity in Europe”.

Nevertheless, these chances of cooperation are threatened by the expansion of Nato, sought after by the US and endured by many Europeans.

Anyway, in the current “retuning” taking place between Moscow and Washington, nothing seems impossible. Not even the future integration of Russia in the Atlantic Alliance.

Hat tip: C. Cantoni.

3 thoughts on “EuRussia, ChiMerica, and Enlarging NATO

  1. I remember writing a few years ago about an idea being semi-officially floated around some circles of NATO, and that idea was bringing Israel into the alliance. Which makes perfect sense to me and probably makes sense to a lot of others in the counterjihad realm.

    But that idea now seems moribund at best, or more likely–bearing in mind who the current occupant of the Oval office is–completely dead. If Georgia can’t get into NATO after having some of its territory lopped off by its neighbor to the north, what makes anyone think the dreaded Zionist Entity could do the same?

Comments are closed.