Parallels...

107 years ago today, Great Britain and France signed the entente cordiale, and the ground-work for the Triple Alliance between England, France and Russia was laid out.

France agreed to stop complaining about British actions in Egypt, while Britain stopped bitching about French actions in Morocco. In short, each nation's foreign policy was "shaped" (if not outright determined) by the foreign policy of the other.

In only seven short years, the real winner was neither France nor England... but Russia. After losing the Sino-Russian War in a rather epic manner, Russia managed an amazing recovery of both her military might and her national prestige through the various ententes she signed with her other European imperial neighbors.

This sort of "agreement" is the grandfather of such modern alliances as NATO. NATO was the winning "team" in the Cold War... but can it remain a legitimate factor in a Europe where the "foreign policy" is decided for the entire continent, rather than for individual nations? With each passing year, the European Union centralizes its authority into a single, pan-national government that determines and dictates economic, judicial, executive and domestic policy to each of its member states. When one individual state fails (Portugal or Ireland, for example) to maintain a standard policy, the effect is not only local, but impacts the entire continent.

The parallel that I speak of is with the Triple Alliance (or Triple Entente) of 1914. France, England and Russia all made agreements with each other that dictated how each would react given certain situational possibilities. The ententes gave each member different benefits:

England moved from a position of isolation and purely domestic security to one of greater and greater international involvement. Places like India and Egypt had been "British" for the better part of 100 years prior to the agreement, so I include them in the "domestic" schedule, of course.

France gained allies against the growing threat of German/Austro-Hungarian military growth. As the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy) made increasing advances in naval control of the Mediterranean Sea and political control of the Balkans region, France no longer needed to be the only continental state concerned with the situations.

Russia gained the most. Increased allowances and cooperation with France and England made the recovery of Russian naval and economic wounds after the tragic losses in 1908 to Japan far more rapid than they otherwise would have been. So much so that by the time WWI begins, Russia is a real threat to the Central Powers... something they were definitely NOT in 1910.

The situation I see developing now that parallels this historic example is that of the US, the EU and Russia:

The US is still, at heart, an isolationist state that wants nothing more than to see its economy grow and prosper in a growing and prosperous international market. US concerns over NATO obligations, or (better yet) United Nations obligations, have never been lower... yet the international demand for US involvement in international affairs has never been higher. These demands come from all quarters, too... Israel, the UN, the EU, NATO, our Asian/Pacific allies, South America, and Africa all demand and expect billions in aid and support from the US each year, while Muslim states and regions tie up a greater or equal amount of blood and treasure in national and international security concerns.

The EU is feeling the same sort of pains and anxiety that the Austro-Hungarians felt for the last 40 years they existed as a body politic. An almost infinitely varied array of ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious divisions in a pan-national state that wants uniformity and singular authority in its make up and execution of authority. They want allies in their efforts to secure European interests, both in Europe and outside of it, without having to commit European Union authority to such efforts. In short, they want someone else to police the "bad guys" while they reap the rewards of a "pacifist" nationhood.

Again, Russia is the greatest beneficiary of the agreement. Whatever Russia lacked in technology or technical ability after the fall of the USSR, they can look to gain back through the cooperation of both the EU and the US in keeping tabs on radical Islamic states and regional dictators/despots. Their economy gains from EU and US economic concessions in international trade. Their finances gain in artificial support of the ruble over the euro and the dollar. They control vast reserves of resources much of the world considers vital (oil, gas, coal, timber, metals, rare earth, heavy metals, etc), and which they can move through markets with no problems, while things they lack (technology, hard currency, monetary reserves) are provided at a discount through trade and economic treaties.

In my parallel, what is the "central" threat that this "alliance" is arrayed against? The emerging economies of China, India and the turbulent Middle East and Africa.

More and more, India is following her own path. Her century-old ties to the British Empire are now long dead, and her path to national viability has taken her to new friendships with China and Southeast Asia... friendships that do not share ties with the "West" as we know it. China is gaining ground through the almost unstoppable weight of her growing (and ever-growing) population and influence. The Middle East is increasingly less and less friendly toward its largest consumers... mainly the US and EU. It has recently proven itself very (VERY) vulnerable to internal instability, and the threat of radicals in positions of power is never very far away.

The parallels seem sound. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?