The New Atlanticism

Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics in the UK, published an interesting paper in May called "The New Atlanticism" Summary: The emergence of the new Atlanticism represents a shift in the meaning of ‘the West’. The traditional pluralism and capaciousness of the concept is now narrowed into a transdemocratic combination of security and normative concerns suggesting the development of new Atlantic security system. The author explores the transformation of NATO as well as the EU into the Atlantic community.

He describes how NATO came into being after World War 2 and how it faced an existential crisis of purpose and tried to justify its own existence since the Cold War with the concept of "burden-sharing" among countries in its alliance leading to expansionism. The paper goes on to talk about the old model of security arrangements which evolved during the Cold War and how they do not meet the challenges of the 21st century citing Ukraine as an example.

I provide a few quotes to give you an idea of what the author talks about. I have provided a link at the bottom of this post if anyone wants to read the full article.

"This meant that the Atlantic system was increasingly unable to reflect critically on the geopolitical and power implications of its own actions, a type of geopolitical nihilism that in the end provoked the Ukraine crisis. From a defensive alliance established to resist the Soviet Union, the new Atlanticism is both more militant in advancing its interests and more culturally aggressive, setting itself up as a model of civilisational achievement. It is unable to accept geopolitical pluralism in Europe, and thus has become an increasingly monistic body"

"Invocations of the American commitment to the defence of Europe take on mantric qualities, obscuring the dynamic whereby that very commitment undermines pan-European security. Any concession, or even understanding, of the Russian position is considered weakness, if not appeasement of the worst order, thus ratcheting up confrontation. The idea of a multipolar world order, advocated loudly by Russia and by China more quietly, is considered anathema to the new atlanticists. This is as much to do with normative issues as it is with power considerations. The ease with which the NATO alliance slipped back into a posture of Cold War confrontation with Russia illustrates the hermetic character of the organisation. The ambient conditions had changed immeasurably, yet the ideational and corporate mentalities of the Cold War endured, now revived to take the lead in the neo-containment strategy."

"As for the comprehensive character, this is something that has been gaining in intensity in recent years as the foreign and security dimension of the EU has effectively merged with the Atlantic security community. The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) since the Treaty of Lisbon (the ‘Reform Treaty’) of 13 December 2007, which came into effect in 2009, is now in substance part of an Atlantic system. Accession countries are now required to align their defence and security policy with that of NATO, resulting in the effective ‘militarisation’ of the EU"

"In keeping with its hermetic and comprehensive character, the new Atlanticism has effectively made security an exclusive public good. If in the past security emerged out of a balance of power or some sort of arrangement where different states engage in diplomacy to manage difference, the new power system guarantees security for its own members and allies (although of course to a different degree for the latter), but increasingly lacks a mechanism to engage in genuine equilateral security relations with others. This is a stance of one-sided geopolitical nihilism, where the very principle of other states having geopolitical interests that do not coincide with those of the Atlantic community is considered an aberration that not only delegitimizes those who assert different interests, but easily leads to the demonization of the leaders and elites who oppose the atlanticist hegemony. Sanctions, media campaigns, and covert operations are all part of the comprehensive attack on outsiders and antagonists."

The MSM is reporting news such as "Russians flying in Syria with transponders off", "Russia, Syria and Iran are working together in Baghdad to co-ordinate Shia militias fighting ISIS, say US intelligence " and "Russia's sole aim is to defend Assad not destroy ISIS". These type of headlines try to give the impression that "hostile alien forces" are at work with ulterior motives that are not for the greater good. I believe this paper not only offers an alternative view of current specific news events in Syria but also evidence of "soft power" at work. Soft power is just one aspect of the multidimensional war effort which I believe exists in current times.

The New Atlanticism

Mr. Sakwa appears to have many publications supporting the various positions of the Russians. In a way, I perceive this as their 'whining' that they are excluded from Atlanticism. It would be interesting if you give more of your personal insights.

..eta... I do, however, get sick and tired of the U.S. thinking "everybody needs to be like us". They don't. However, it pleases me immensely that the U.S., Europe and Canada have such a seemingly strong alliance.

a reply to: deliberator

I agree. The current concept of a NWO being pushed by US leadership has everyone answering to one leader. They are very short sighted and this plan will fail. Not just because it is a plan that is moving forward to ensure the dynastic reign of a few families but because it can't work.

My idea of a NWO is a global constitution.

Imagine the USA the founding fathers formed on a global scale, where all nations are bound by the global constitution, but each nation keeps its sovereignty with the ability to make its own common laws above and beyond the global constitution.

We don't need a world with one human leader. We need a world with one common law.

I believe this is the compromise that Russia and China are speaking about in opposition to the NWO as planned by the global elitists. I think both nations see what I see.

a reply to: deliberator

Leave it to learned professors to over-complicate simple problems. There was the last world war, there was a cold war between two distinct ideologies, and the worst one lost, and now the winner is the bad guy?

The fact that the majority of Europe, including the UK has been safe from foreign aggression for a few decades means nothing to this professor. Nor that that same policy has protected much of the balance of the world. He is right, however, the West and other modern nations, are winning over some of the others that are looking for respectable governments to lead the way to a better future than does the oppressive regimes left around the world. I bet he has pictures of Lenin, Stalin, Che, and Mao on his desk.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I was aware when I started this thread that his doctorate was Russian politics in the early nineteenth century. I did a quick literature search following your comment and Sawka does appear to publish articles and papers which put forward the Russian perspective. I think this is a good thing as it allows you see both views which helps with making an informed opinion. In retrospect maybe I should have highlighted both perspectives but at the time I thought this may have insulting to some people.

As to my own views I am still gathering information. In my last paragraph I meant to state "I believe this paper not only offers an alternative view of current specific news events in Syria but also , if ever proven, evidence of "soft power" at work. I missed out the text in yellow. I meant this to offer a different view rather than my own view.

I have never had more than a passing interest in global affairs until recently. I have watched videos and did some reading on Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange in the last few months. This motivated me to browse Wikileaks. The first memo I read related to the justification used to permit advanced interrogation techniques of prisoners of war which many consider to be torture (the morality relating to this is obviously a separate argument). What intrigued me was the way they interpreted certain aspects of the Geneva Conventions. When I read up on the Geneva Conventions it surprised me that the US has never ratified Protocols 1 and 2 which relate to the protection of victims of international and non-international armed conflicts.

I think it was this motivated me to explore global affairs particularly from a political and military perspective.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The current concept of a NWO being pushed by US leadership has everyone answering to one leader.

I have came across something which may implication this.

I remember reading about a German who was in Guantanamo Bay for several years and released without any charges being brought against him. His case went through the US courts but were not productive. He took his case to the European Court of Human Rights who found that he had indeed been tortured by the CIA in Poland with Poland having to pay €300,000 I think. From a European perspective this is shocking as it does not comply with the Geneva Conventions prohibiting the transfer of prisoners of war to another party who you know is going to torture them. Germany tried to pursue the issue with the US and were told it was not in Germany's best interests to pursue it as it would affect US/German relations.

a reply to: Aliensun

I respect your opinions. What you call simple I would call black and white thinking (no offence intended). Global affairs by their very nature are multi-dimensional in my opinion.

there was a cold war between two distinct ideologies, and the worst one lost

The cold war finished due to the internal disintegration of the USSR following Gorbachev's move towards democracy, not because one side won.

The fact that the majority of Europe, including the UK has been safe from foreign aggression for a few decades means nothing to this professor.

I cannot find anything which suggests that the UK has faced aggression, which threatens our borders ie an attack, from another country since the end of the cold war (this would be the only reason for NATO to get involved).

I think the security of the UK comes from being part of Europe, our armed forces, our intelligence departments, and the UN.