The United Kingdom; The European Union; NATO: which is the primary sense of identity?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The current resident at 1600 Penn Ave. in DC is, as nearly as I can tell, the President with a mindset closest to a pre-WW2 GOP party leader I have yet seen. This is part of why he is shaking up so many things in such a short time.

I have been mulling over a number of comments across a few of the threads here, but wanted to bring the discussion together in this one to address some musings/questions I have had.


I don't think Trump will repudiate NATO (I think it mostly bluster trying to get the EU to cough up more funds), but what WOULD the UK and EU do were the USA to withdraw from NATO? Would their be an EU army and would Britain return to the EU or move forward with an even stronger "special relationship?" What would a USA-less NATO mean for Europe?

Is the EU really drawing countries together to create a true Union in Europe, and how far will that coalescence really go? Will there be a common language, schooling choices, Europe-wide medical system? What is the EU long-term identity?

And as to identity, how do persons in Europe (and especially the UK given our "special relationship" (which is NOT entirely unidirectional, though it trends that way too often) see themselves? Is their sense of identity linked with the soil of their birth? the political collective of the EU? Quasi-anarchic familialism? Was gibt?


Just a few questions from a fellow in Florida trying to understand you lot on that side of "the pond."

[Montmorency]

If the US is uninterested in Europe, then we settle into a globalized imperial system, where spheres of influence are condoned and officially recognized: the US in the Americas, China in the West Pacific and East Asia, Russia in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Africa would have multiple centers around Nigeria, South Africa, and the Lake Victoria region. Western Europe, who cares.

It will be benign and productive. Until there is friction over supply chains and tributary states. Then you get what all multipolar regimes turn into, which is competition, because regional hegemony is only sustainable in the context of pursuing global hegemony. This would be painful for China to acknowledge.

As for identity, I'm not sure this is the right time to ask that question - our UK members have discussed it plenty, right?. And NATO isn't really something to do with civil identities, the thought reminds me of trends in science fiction of the 1980s-90s.

There's a new tome, The Great Leveler out on how mass mortality is the single most significant driving factor toward changes in economic standards (namely, equalization of wealth distribution). I don't know if the same sweeping argument makes sense with regard to identity, but we might add here that mass mortality following mass violence has high potential to transform social groups and identities.

[Brenus]

Well, a lot of questions.
I will try to answer some of them as a former French professional soldier.
First I don't think Trump will dissolve NATO as it is a good tool for US supremacy and it sell a lot of US weapons to the "allies". What Trump wants, as he said during his campaign, is US first, so the demand of an increasing budget from the Allies is just in order to buy more US equipment.

As a French, our defence is based on the horrible but efficient concept of dissuasion which means that any country attacking France will be vaporised by nuclear weapons. No proxy wars, no limited war, just war.
French projection capacity in Africa and others parts of the world where the French interests are in danger or concerned is covered by the Army, Fleet and Air Force which are (allegedly) enough for the job (i.e. Chad), big UN missions being done in cooperation with others countries (Iraq first Campaign being an example).
As a French, I think we have to be independent of others countries interests. It is not possible to use the French Nuclear firepower to protect Norway... Cooperation is possible, not subordination.
Unfortunately, under Sarkolland, France was reunited to NATO, and our capacity in making our own weapons system badly damaged.
Fortunately, with Trump demands and his comments about NATO, perhaps some European Nations having lived under the dream of the US umbrella will realise that is was just this, a dream, and start to think about building their own forces.

The EU is dead. Built as a political project it was killed by the Commission and it undemocratic political behavior, the spreading of poverty and the choice of an economical model which can't be challenged by democratic votes, by law under the actual Constitution.
EU has no respect or acknowledgment local history or traditions. Having an unique model, the EU leaders are not able to see they just go to the wall.

The French identity, as I am concerned, and some French might disagree, is based on a political contract based on the French Revolution (1789). The french Identity can not be based on territory, as it had changed, and the longest French border is with Brazil. This fact rules out "culture" as well.
It can't be based on language as a lot a French speaking are not French citizens (Quebec coming immediately in mind, but some in Louisiana as well). 29 countries have French as official languages.
It can't be based on religions, as France has all of them, and a majority being atheist.
It can't be based on ethnicities as well, for obvious historical reasons.

[Kagemusha]

Good questions Seamus. As someone from Northern periphery of Europe. I am not the best person to comment the Special relationship of UK and USA. Neither am i an expert with UK´s relations with the strongest main land European countries like Germany and France. That is too Western European for me and i am sure that are many others that are more interested and have more in-depth knowledge concerning the issues and nuance´s of the matter.

Concerning identity. I am first Finnish and second European. Being from small country and language group. I think it is important to remember my identity, while it is a non issue most of the time.
I think EU has many good things to offer for Europe and Europeans, but in its current form it is simply unsuited for trying to achieve deeper integration inside Europe. The sole reason is that EU has failed to create basic democratic institutions and checks and balances to operate as any kind of federal state. Also i think the speed which the EU ideologist´s have been trying to ram through integration is way too fast. People do not like change and even less a uncontrolled one. There should first at least be a plan created for integration, before any real actions being taken. But this really does not matter as this point as the EU cant seem to be able to even decide, if it should try to conduct at least some sort of democratic decision making or remain a coalition of individual countries, trying to achieve consensus between their representatives over issues EU should have a joint stance.

About NATO. I hail from the only "Western" country that shares a border with Russia, which is not in the NATO. Finland has deepened her cooperation with NATO and individual NATO countries like US for example in form of joint exercises and joining in NATO exercises. As another example last few years our Arctic infantry Brigade has been training US forces in arctic warfare and Last Spring we had a join exercise with Dutch and German troops at Finnish soil. Apart NATO aspect Finland and Sweden has become very tight as of late in defense issues and there is continuous talk in both countries about a formal defensive alliance.
Personally i would support Finland joining NATO, hopefully together with Sweden, but it is a clear fact that if something radical does not happen, that will not become a reality. Reason for that is that the is not enough support to join NATO for various reasons. These reasons include Nationalist pride/anger that no one has helped us in the past, so why would they now? Also folks are worried what it would do to our foreign trade as Russia is our second largest trade partner after Germany. (Well that has become reality already with EU sanctions against Russia because of Ukraine) Third large reason is reluctance to go into some distant wars for NATO, but we are already at Afghanistan for example without being at NATO.

Conclusion. I hope we can create a defensive alliance with Sweden and become a less inviting target for a large neighbor. In any case i think many times specially in Western Europe there is almost like a hysteria over Russia. I have posted about the defense spending before and the West is using so ridiculous amounts of money that there really is not real threats at least if the money would be spent with little more care. Ok. Russia is strong with its land components and tactical air force. I dont concern myself with Russian Nukes as nuking us they would kill more of themselves then us, because we are so few. In any case, if Western and central Europe would gear up for war and nukes would not be a factor, Russia would find themselves from deep end of affairs quite soon. In the end war is much about economy and logistics and the math is simple. Russia does not hold a candle compared to Europe when it comes to those issues.

[Montmorency]

A good reason for Sweden and Finland to avoid formally joining NATO is for the sake of appearances. The Baltic states are one thing, but Russia has repeatedly pointed out that it would see their accession as a direct threat disruptive to normal bilateral relations between themselves and Russia. It would indeed take serious aggression from Russia to overrule that consideration.

Recall an interesting episode recently:

Putin hints Russia will react if Finland joins NATO

President Vladimir Putin suggested on Friday Russia could move its troops closer to the Finnish-Russian border if Finland joins NATO and called for measures to improve conflict prevention over the Baltic.

Finnish armed forces "would become part of NATO's military infrastructure, which overnight would be at the borders of the Russian Federation", Putin said after meeting Finnish President Sauli Niinisto.

"Do you think we will keep it as it is: our troops at 1,500 (kilometers, 900 miles) away?"

Obviously that can't possibly be correct, unless Russia moved its military to Siberia at some point.

"NATO perhaps would gladly fight with Russia until the last Finnish soldier," Putin said.

"Do you guys need it? We don't. We don't want it. But it is your call."

[Kagemusha]

A good reason for Sweden and Finland to avoid formally joining NATO is for the sake of appearances. The Baltic states are one thing, but Russia has repeatedly pointed out that it would see their accession as a direct threat disruptive to normal bilateral relations between themselves and Russia. It would indeed take serious aggression from Russia to overrule that consideration.

Recall an interesting episode recently:



Obviously that can't possibly be correct, unless Russia moved its military to Siberia at some point.

In matter of fact. That speech from Putin become a base for lots of jokes in Finnish media and amongst the population. The cause was exactly this quote: "Do you think we will keep it as it is: our troops at 1,500 (kilometers, 900 miles) away?"

From where i am sitting now. The closest Russian motor rifle brigade is situated at Kamenka Karelia near Viborg or Viipuri as the city is called in Finnish. It is less then 250 km from Finnish capital. That is some three hours driving distance with car. Dont worry i havent lost or will be loosing any sleep because of that fact. I guess Putin just had forgot about his own troop deployments and thought the entire Russian land forces were at Siberia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting questions - here's a rough diagram of how I construct my identity.

Close Family
↓
Wessex (Southern England sans Home Counties)
↓
England
↓
UK and other Crown Dominions (I have found Canadians and Aussies to be as like the English as the Scots and Welsh so the UK has no special place for me any more - it did but I'm over it. Same monarch, same law, same form of government, etc.)
↓
Europe/Commonwealth (Again, I probably have more in common with a Canadian than a German or Italian, so the Commonwealth is going to win the toss up probably more than 50% of the time. OTOH I have more in common with a German than a Pakistani).
↓
America goes here
↓
Other Christians get a spot here
↓
The rest of Humanity.

As you can see, America is quite far down the list, I can't imagine ever backing the Americans over one of the other Dominions.

As to NATO and the EU - I don't think NATO is going anywhere but the Treaty of Rome explicitly defines the purpose of the EU as "ever closer union" so it may be that NATO's current structure is eventually replaced by one closer to "US+EU+Others".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some thoughtful contributions here. Thanks and please continue.

[Montmorency]

As you can see, America is quite far down the list, I can't imagine ever backing the Americans over one of the other Dominions.

Would you back Pakistan over America?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would you back Pakistan over America?

Pakistan isn't a Dominion.

[Montmorency]

damn

[Seamus Fermanagh]

damn

Nice try, but he gotcha. None of the subcontinent stayed in the dominion when they got rid of the Raj.

[Pannonian]

Londoner
British
European
Western (includes liberal democracies aligned with the west, especially where they're culturally not too alien, eg. Japan, Korea, etc.)

Beyond that, there are legal obligations, but no cultural identification.

[Greyblades]

British
English
Anglosphere
Western

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nice try, but he gotcha. None of the subcontinent stayed in the dominion when they got rid of the Raj.

It's "Dominions" or "Commonwealth Realms", at one time the UK might have claimed the position of Primus inter Pares but no longer - all are equal under HM Queen.

[Beskar]

Terra
Couldn't resist.

On a serious note, it is probably most accurate portrayal. Whilst I am active in my local community, this is only because of transport and logistics for me personally. There is simply too much ground for me to cover. In this sense, I feel kinship with like-minded individuals who are compassionate and want to make the world generally better.

The mindset of nation, of sphere is very limiting. Global issues concern me, because it affects the planet. Whilst some people don't care about that the Artic is disappearing before our eyes, either outright denying it, or worse, seeing it as a potentially great thing for untapped fossil fuel resources. There is that personal limitation of there is nothing I can realistically do about a situation thousands of miles away directly, and I rely on the local inhabitants to do the good thing instead.

The people I get along with, let's say Husar (Germany) & Lemur (America). I feel a lot more kinship with them than those annoying neighbours at the back of my house who love for inexpiable reasons to shine green lasers into my room at night. So my kinship is certainly not tied to a certain geography.

Similar to the fact I am going to be moving outside the UK, I already started to contact local services in the new area for networking and getting involved in local projects there. I don't have this strange desire to excessively triumph my hometown (other than sarcastically). Sure, there are some people locally like family I will miss, but you don't need to see them super-regularly and I can travel to say hello.

[Greyblades]

Oh good, casual brain drain in a time of need.

This is why neglecting and demonising the national identity was the greatest mistake of the last 3 decades.

[Husar]

Yeah, well, money has no master, it is the master.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/thi...-us-2017-02-27

Who do you think wanted the selective globalization we got?

As for my identity, that's a tough one. First and foremost I'm a member of the social and intellectual world-wide elite....
*waits for people to get triggered*
Okay, everyone who is still here, it is a mixture of German and European, but also part North-Rhine-Westphalian and part world.
Philosophically, I'm a human and so are you. To some extent my identity changes based on the topic and my perception of who I am talking to, you may call me identity-fluid.

[Montmorency]

Philosophically, I'm a human and so are you. To some extent my identity changes based on the topic and my perception of who I am talking to, you may call me identity-fluid.

Jews can be my "cousins", because I am a Jew, Arabs can be my cousins because they're Semites, Russians can be my cousins because of my ancestry in the Soviet empire, or indeed any Soviet subject group, some more so than others...

Italian-Americans can be my cousins for their role in the development of New York City in the past, Chinese-Americans can be my cousins for their role in the development of New York today, Wisconsinites/Michiganians/Minnesotans can be my cousins because they were in large part settled by New Yorkers back in the day, the "West New England", Californians can be my cousins because they're coastal and New York played a large role in their settling over the years, even up to today, and there are others I probably can't think of at the moment.

Or I can just be a New Yorker. Or I can just be an American. I'm fairly spoiled for identity. The only identity I could want to develop is a personal and interpersonal one of my own.

But I can't be everyone's cousin in the same instance.

[Brenus]

Interesting points with Canadians coming from a British. I found myself very close to the Quebecois, even if technically they are Commonwealth.
In another point of view, language is as well a marker. It is funny how French and Francophone Africans can happily speak the common language in a sea of English...

[Fragony]

France already is at war and nukes are useless

[Gilrandir]

The EU is dead.

It is not, neither officially nor de facto. It is as empty a claim as the one forwarded by some people back in the day that rock'n'roll was dead.

The french Identity can not be based on territory, as it had changed, and the longest French border is with Brazil.

Explanation needed.

I dont concern myself with Russian Nukes as nuking us they would kill more of themselves then us, because we are so few.

When did it stop Russians/Soviets?

Okay, everyone who is still here, it is a mixture of German and European, but also part North-Rhine-Westphalian and part world.

You didn't mention Rhoynar, Andals and First Men.

[Kagemusha]

When did it stop Russians/Soviets?

Nuking Finland means pretty much Nuking St.Petersburg because of the fallout, which would be bit rich for Russians to do.

[Gilrandir]

Nuking Finland means pretty much Nuking St.Petersburg because of the fallout, which would be bit rich for Russians to do.

Whatever it takes for the victory.
http://www.rferl.org/a/european-reme.../25083847.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU is dead. Built as a political project it was killed by the Commission and it undemocratic political behavior, the spreading of poverty and the choice of an economical model which can't be challenged by democratic votes, by law under the actual Constitution.
EU has no respect or acknowledgment local history or traditions. Having an unique model, the EU leaders are not able to see they just go to the wall.

That is exactly how I feel.

Weird, eh?

[Tristuskhan]

Explanation needed.

French Guyana. Kind of French Far West.

[Brenus]

That is exactly how I feel.
Weird, eh?

I evolved a lot on the subject, and some parts due to some comments on this forum... Really weird...

[Brenus]

French Guyana. Kind of French Far West.

With rocket launcher...

[Franconicus]

Seamus,

an excellent question, or rather a set of excellent questions.

My identity, well, that's me, Franconicus. I can hardly understand men feeling themselves as English, German or whatsever.
My home is my family, esp. my children.

Of course I have a culture, I come from, I have a mother tongue, and it would be stupid to ignore this.
Anyway, I certainly do not feel as a Bavarian, rather German, in the end most of all as European. What is the European identity. Just look at the common history. From Greek philosophers, Roman law and language, Christian faith to modern times - Enlightment - Democracy - Liberalism and all that stuff. There is a line from Socrates, including men like Seneca, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Morris, Kant, Marx etc.

The European Union is not perfect and the fundament is getting smaller since all the eastern countries entered the union, I think, but it would be foolish to think that anything could get better without the EU. The English will soon see that they are trying to drive on the wrong side of history.

[Greyblades]

Wrong side of history? You'd think with the amount of failed predictions last we would be past any ideas of historical determinism.

I keep seeing modern progressives declaring their string of hard won success as some sort of inevitable fate even past the point where the victories stop coming, become so trivial that they stop mattering, or even become deranged and recieve pushback from the very people they once called allies. Yet they keep clinging to a nebulous idea of progress like martyrs and preach it's eventual success as priests do a faith.

The tenacity reminds me of doomsday cults. They reach their apocalypse dates and find them uneventful but the members find themselves too invested in the idea of the oncoming end. So they declare new end times, and after that fails another date is decided upon in a cycle of dissapointment that only ends with the group disbanding or engaging in a suicde pact.