smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Widening #gulf #Political #Economy
With the change of geopolitical landscape, it seems that Winston Churchill’s passionate relations with the United States are ending. In the 1940s, Britain and most Europe accepted the US leadership in particular defense and foreign policy. The establishment of NATO was an important symbol of the Western alliance.
Straight with the United States, Western European states abandoned most of their sovereignty in international affairs. However, with the return under Donald Trump’s presidency, this long -standing partnership is under pressure. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has become a major point of tension, which has revealed the complexities of relations between Europe and the United States, which have different views to support Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression.
During the recent visit to Zilnski, this distinction became even more clear. Although European leaders have been widely supportive of Ukraine, US leaders, including Trump and JD Venice, have a very different stance.
Trump suggested that Ukraine’s struggle was not a concern for the United States and accused Zilnski of misusing US aid. Venus echoed these emotions and called for a re -considering US participation. This behavior highlighted the growing doubts about Ukraine in parts of the US political sector.
On the other hand, European leaders have been committed to supporting them, seeing the situation in Ukraine as a direct threat to European values and security, which has deepened the difference only between the United States and Europe. On the contrary, the contrary indicates a potential change in the geographical political balance, which can renounce trans -Atlantic relations in the future and potentially challenge NATO’s alliance.
Treating Zilnski indicates a wide range of US priorities, where withdrawing from Europe’s security needs in favor of more loneliness, it can have important consequences. If the United States is shifting to its role as a basic guarantee of European security, it will fall into Europe to manage its defense and navigate its relations with Russia.
This growing division against Ukraine can identify the beginning of a new era for the role of NATO and Europe globally. The situation is a mirror of historical moments when the change of unity is towards US patronage, like the axis of Churchill during the Second World War. Churchill’s decision was driven by need, as Britain was weakened by war, Nazi could not stand alone against the threat of Germany. The United States, which emerges as the world’s dominant superpower, became an inevitable ally of Britain, which changed global geopolitics and established a new global poem under the US leadership.
It is also reflected in the complexities of Henry Kissinger’s views on developing dynamic US foreign policy. It claims that although US enmity can be dangerous to a country, its friendship may be even more dangerous, which indicates the unstable effects of US intervention. From Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to Israel, these engagements have often yielded unannounced results.
In particular, the Iraq war revealed the dangers of the US alliance. It surpassed the region filled with the rise of extremist groups such as instability and ISIS. Similarly, the war on terror compromised Pakistan’s sovereignty, and attracted it to a difficult partnership with the United States and NATO, which damaged its national interests.
The intervention in Libya, which was developed as a humanitarian effort, eventually led to the collapse of the state, which created a power space and further conflicts. Due to the US support for Israel, deep division with European countries and tensions in the Middle East have also been promoted.
This intervention indicates the Kissinger: Although the US alliance may be beneficial, they often come up with hidden prices, which eliminate the sovereignty of smaller countries and contribute to instability. Since the US is far from its European allies, the destruction of these complex relations will continue to form the future of global diplomacy.
Another prominent voice of international relations, John Mercer, has criticized the US foreign policy, which is in accordance with Kissinger’s concerns. A realist, Mercimer, has argued that US intervention – especially in Eastern Europe and Ukraine – a devastating region under Russian influence.
He claims that despite Russia’s assurance in 1990-91, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States extended NATO to the east that NATO does not move towards the east. This increased the tension and led to the current conflict in Ukraine.
Mercimer views the United States as an international balance disrupting the international balance of power, and prefers his strategic interests over global stability. For this, US actions are not Sami. Rather, they create more conflicts and insecurity, especially in areas that have historically been part of Russia’s influence.
Mercimer has emphasized that for the past eight decades, Europe has left its security concerns to the United States, who continue to bear this burden to maintain their royal interests and ambitions. The time has come for Europe to think about investing in its security architecture. This will lead to the formation of its foreign policy to the European states. Independent foreign policy is a strong sign of sovereignty. In this way, Merisury supports Europe to go on a free path instead of playing another fadal in the United States.
Jeffrey Sex, economist and public scholar, has also similarly criticized US foreign policy for its role in increasing tensions between Europe and Russia. Sex has developed the United States as an unstable force in the Ukraine crisis, and has argued that the United States has increased conflicts through NATO’s expansion and its support for Ukraine’s NATO ambitions.
According to Sex, the United States is primarily driven by its military industrial complex rather than a desire for peace or stability in Europe. He suggests that Europe should focus on diplomacy rather than joining the confrontation of US interests, not European security, after facing the horrors of two world wars. He advises Ukraine to work a neutral act like Austria and Finland instead of playing like a pedestal in the hands of US imperialist designs.
Sex has warned that Europe is at risk of being caught in a geographical political struggle that could endanger its stability. In his address to the European Parliament in Brussels, he pointed out that Europe has no foreign policy other than his loyalty to the United States. Like the mayor, Professor Sex also urged the European states to devise their foreign policy, which reflects their national/ sovereign interests.
Finally, the change in the structure of global power, which is an example of Churchill’s strategic turning point towards the United States, has led to Europe’s growing dependence on US support. The arrangement, which resulted in the need for World War II, has given a long shape of geopolitics globally. His criticism highlights the risk of excessive dependence on US foreign policy by the choice of Kissinger, Mercemer and Sex.
Sighasti demands that Europe chart its course to review its relations with Russia. The Western European states need to try to remove the deep -seated Russia from the phobia and build a cordial relationship with its eastern neighbor. Among other things, Europe needs energy resources only Russia can provide its economies to keep rails.
Author is a professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Bacon House National University in Lahore
