Two British Nightmares
The London Economist has provided a sample of the nightmares that motivate Britain’s drive to war. They concern potential developments that would make the current world order, based on the power of the City of London and Wall Street, irreversibly defunct.
The first nightmare is described under the headline “What Would Europe Do If Trump Won?”, in an article published July 11. It expresses great concern over the future of NATO’s “forever war” in Ukraine, should Donald Trump be re-elected President of the U.S. Thus, “even as NATO meets, Europeans are exploring a plan B,” given that Trump said he would end the war “in 24 hours.”
“How? He did not say, but his words imply halting military aid to Ukraine and letting Russia keep the gains of its invasion…. If so, the return of a ‘Trump unbound’—more resentful, more organized and less constrained than in his first term—could be a calamity for Ukraine. It may be a disaster for Europe in other ways. He may well enact a threat, dating from his first term, to leave NATO…. And merely suggesting he would not fight for allies could complete the destruction of the European order that Russia is attempting.”
The article continues: “European governments are thus in the grip of three fears: of attack by Russia, of economic evisceration by China and of abandonment by America…. Were America to forsake Ukraine, Europeans would have to choose whether to keep up the war effort. Some diplomats say they would; many doubt it….
“The election of Mr. Trump would be a ‘catastrophe foretold’, says Constanze Stelzenmüller of the Brookings Institution, an American think-tank. Few European leaders have a good answer to it. Many ignore it; others pray Mr. Trump will prove less destructive than feared, perhaps restrained by Congress and the Pentagon. Some talk of wooing his more moderate acolytes.”
The second nightmare is described under the headline “What if China and India Became Friends?”, in an article published July 19.
The “tectonics of the trans-Himalayan relationship are shifting,” acknowledges the British publication. “Recent border bloodshed suggests mounting hostility,” they are relieved to say. But not all is well in this trigger-point for conflict: “Blossoming economic ties tell a different story that could trouble America and its allies.” Oh, no—what if peace breaks out?
The Economist doesn’t hide its imperial desire for conflict: “The hope among American and allied officials is that India’s continuing frontier friction with China is pushing it irreversibly into a democratic coalition determined to constrain Chinese power.” But, they worry, “what if they find a way to shelve the border dispute?”
The article fondly recalls the 2020 skirmish that took the lives of two dozen border troops and ushered in a wave of anti-China regulations in India. But even so, Chinese investment and trade with India continues to grow. The prospect of the two Asian giants finding a path of collaboration may upset the British Empire-run powers that “see India as a counterweight to China.”
