403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
Arguments surrounding whether or not US should abandon Europe raises
(MENAFN) In a thought-provoking article titled "A Post-American Europe: It’s Time for Washington to Europeanize NATO and Give Up Responsibility for the Continent’s Security," Justin Logan and Joshua Shifrinson argue that it is time for the United States to reassess its role in Europe's defense. The piece, published in *Foreign Affairs*, suggests that Washington should shift the responsibility for European security onto the Europeans themselves, given that it is no longer in America's strategic interest to bear this burden. According to the authors, Europe has both the economic and demographic resources to manage its own defense.
The article is notable for its Realist perspective, a framework in international relations that emphasizes rational self-interest and the pursuit of state objectives. This approach assumes that states act according to their interests and that these interests can be clearly defined and understood. Logan and Shifrinson adopt a realistic view of the current geopolitical landscape, arguing that Russia, contrary to some fears, does not pose a serious hegemonic threat capable of overrunning NATO member states.
This analysis stands out amid the current trend of ideological rhetoric and alarmist narratives that often dominate discussions about international policy. The article's insights are particularly significant given the platform on which it was published. *Foreign Affairs*, a publication of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, plays a crucial role in shaping discourse among the United States foreign policy establishment.
Logan, who serves as the Director of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Shifrinson, a noted expert on US foreign policy with a track record of challenging conventional wisdom, bring a critical perspective to the debate. Their arguments resonate with the broader libertarian-conservative critique of American overreach and NATO expansion, suggesting a strategic recalibration that reflects both current capabilities and evolving global dynamics.
The article is notable for its Realist perspective, a framework in international relations that emphasizes rational self-interest and the pursuit of state objectives. This approach assumes that states act according to their interests and that these interests can be clearly defined and understood. Logan and Shifrinson adopt a realistic view of the current geopolitical landscape, arguing that Russia, contrary to some fears, does not pose a serious hegemonic threat capable of overrunning NATO member states.
This analysis stands out amid the current trend of ideological rhetoric and alarmist narratives that often dominate discussions about international policy. The article's insights are particularly significant given the platform on which it was published. *Foreign Affairs*, a publication of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, plays a crucial role in shaping discourse among the United States foreign policy establishment.
Logan, who serves as the Director of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Shifrinson, a noted expert on US foreign policy with a track record of challenging conventional wisdom, bring a critical perspective to the debate. Their arguments resonate with the broader libertarian-conservative critique of American overreach and NATO expansion, suggesting a strategic recalibration that reflects both current capabilities and evolving global dynamics.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.

Comments
No comment