This is a guest blog post by Pat Patterson:

While much of the West is hyperventilating over whether they even need NATO the Russians have announced a series of military procurements and strategic plans that will force European governments to confront not only a larger Russian land force but also its promise to construct a deep water navy of at least six carrier battle groups. Simon Tisdall has written an article recommending a "coherent" European defense system in reaction to the realities of this new well-funded Russian strategic plan. Tisdall argues that Europe will be the main loser, rarely mentioning the US at all, if they do not take steps now to confront a problem that might be overwhelming in a decade. Much of his article is based on a much longer report (pdf) by Nick Witney of the European Council on Foreign Relations. But beware the Witney article, or rather report, is over 78 pages and sometimes lapses into defense jargon.

What is unusual is that Witney and Tisdall maintain that the EU and I would assume NATO does not need to increase spending but rather not waste what it does spend. That seems like a good idea but oftentimes armies get what the contractors can build rather than what the military asks for. The onus is placed squarely on the European nations to solve this problem and gain some independence from a reliance on the US to foot the bill. Tisdall does conclude that so far American criticism of the European defense posture has been ".benign" but that might well be due to American disappointment over some nation's skirting of its perceived treaty obligations in Afghanistan and thus a desire not to further roil European sensibilities. However both Tisdall and Witney hint that while the US is still saying pretty please in public its private conversations could become much more forceful and unpalatable.

This is a guest post by the US journalist David Francis:

As a journalist who covers U.S-European relations and as a U.S. citizen who hopes for better relations with Europe in the next administration, it was quite gratifying to see so many Berliners waving American flags to greet U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in Tiergarten yesterday.

Too often in the last eight years, Germany has greeted American politicians with disinterest, disdain or worse. The images of Obama standing in front of hundreds of thousands of cheering Germans are spectacular and a reminder that an American politician is still welcome on foreign shores. Many believe Obama's German reception is a harbinger of things to come.

This is a guest post from our long-time reader and commenter zyme:

July 20th is no day like any other in the self-image of the Federal Republic of Germany. The day of the assassination attempt of Count von Stauffenberg and his supporters on Hitler in 1944 marks one of the most decisive dates for the Republic and for its military, the Bundeswehr. It is conducted in remembrance of the military resistance against Hitler during the war.
From Germany's rearmament in the 1950s till today this has not changed. The circumstances have though - in many ways. Apart from foreign deployments and new defense strategies, Sunday's ceremony provides a good example of taking a look at how much the perception of the Germany Army among the national public and politicians has changed:

David Vickrey, a volunteer for Senator Barack Obama's campaign and editor of the Dialog International, wrote this guest post:

On July 24 Barack Obama will deliver a major speech in Berlin. Over the past week there has been a great deal of controversy on whether or not he should make the speech at the Brandenburg Gate (it now appears he will find a different venue).  Nearly forgotten in all of the press coverage is the purpose of Senator Obama's speech: redefining transatlantic relations.  Obama has been criticized by many (including Joerg in this blog) for not saying enough about America's relations with the European Union and for ignoring his duties as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs.  So a speech in front of a large, cheering crowd in Berlin could burnish his foreign policy credentials.

Here is my take on what Senator Obama will say in his Berlin speech (note: although I am a volunteer foot soldier for the Obama Campaign, I have no advance knowledge of his speech other than what his aides have provided the media): 

Stanley Crossick, a "European of British nationality," has published an essay which argues that a strong trilateral relationship, reinforced by three strong bilateral relationships is essential. He wrote a short version for Atlantic Review:

In the coming 20 years, the China-US-EU relationship will decide the trend of international relations. (Zbigniew Brzezinski: c 2004)

Since the end of the Cold War, a bi-polar world has become mono-polar but may be in the process of being transformed into a multi-polar world or, preferably, a multilateral one. Globalisation and rapid scientific and technological advancements are drastically transforming international relations. Although political ideology is no longer a driving force, it takes a generation or two to eliminate recent dogma, prejudices and perceptions. Regional cooperation and development have become important factors.

This is a guest post by Joe Noory:

For the past two weeks the story has been making the rounds. Fouad Ajami of the School for Advanced International Studies offers a recitation of the timbre of the traditional hatred floating around between Europe and the Near East. The title of his Wall Street Journal op-ed is "Anti-Americanism Is Mostly Hype", but seems to end up being betrayed by selectively deciding the bombings of the 80's and 90's being little other than hype, not to mention the Hizballah's debutante party on Marines stationed in Beirut as part of an Palestinian-Israeli cease fire, the holding of American diplomats as hostages in Teheran, and so forth:

This is a guest blog post by Donald Stadler, an American living and working in London:

Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson recently wrote a piece about the trade impact of the oil shock on the US, quoting economist Jeffrey Rubin of CIBC World Markets, who predicts that oil will go to $225 a barrel/$7 a gallon before this is finished.

Apart from the obvious impact on per-liter fuel prices in Europe (I have heard of diesel prices as high as £1.99 a litre in the UK), there are some interesting side effects on world trade.

The bottom line is that shipping cheap manufactures thousands of miles make much less sense than it has this past decade. Since 2000 the cost of shipping a 40 foot shipping container from East Asia to the US has gone from $3000 to $8000, and if oil prices go to $200 a barrel this will go to $15,000 per container.

Some production will be brought back to the US and Europe, and other production will go from Asia to nearby low-wage countries like Mexico (for the US) and Poland/Bulgaria/Romania, and perhaps Russia and Turkey (for the EU). This may be good news for factory workers in Italy and in depressed areas of Germany and the UK.

As part of a media partnership with Blogactiv, we are cross-posting this book review by Stanley Crossick:

"America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11", by Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier, is an interesting read, in particular in highlighting the continuities of policies of the Clinton and George W Bush Administrations.

American exceptionalism is alive and well in both parties as can be seen from the speeches of both Senators McCain and Obama. The authors argue that President Clinton and Madeleine Albright, his Secretary of State, shared common ground on many policies with the Project for a New American Century, a neo-con organisation, including NATO enlargement and the Balkans. And both opposed any isolationist tendencies and the US turning its back on global problems. Both believe in the "indispensable nation" (a phrase coined by Albright) with a unique role to play in the world. Both believe in democracy promotion.

These conclusions no doubt upset many red and blue politicians but it is timely to express them. There is a danger in believing that all will be well after 4 November and EU-US relations will resume where they left off. However, this is not so. Deep foreign policy differences divide the Atlantic and we need to address these frankly together. The gulf in understanding between Americans and Europeans cannot be bridged if its width is underestimated.

Finally and frighteningly, the authors point out that from 1989 to 2001, the United States averaged one large-scale military intervention every 18 months.

"Most European military sites equipped with US nuclear weapons fail to meet Pentagon security requirements, according to a US Air Force study." reports Reuters:

Hans Kristensen, director of the [Federation of American Scientists'] Nuclear Information Project, said the security problems occurred at installations operated by the national militaries of Germany, Belgium, Holland and Italy, all NATO members. About 200 to 350 nuclear weapons are believed to be stored at the sites.

"What's really going on here is that the United States has changed its standards (since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States), but NATO has not followed and it's at the national bases we're seeing this problem," Kristensen said on Monday.

"In a way, it's the United States knocking on NATO's door and saying: 'C'mon, guys, you need to upgrade, too.'"

Though, rather than calling for such security upgrades of military sites, many German politicians call for the removal of US nuclear weapons from German soil. Our reader Zyme writes this guest post:

Atlantic Review editor Nanne Zwagerman has written a Euroblog roundup regarding the Irish 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty in his personal blog DJ Nozem, which covers European issues much more extensively than Atlantic Review.

The round-up includes J. Clive Matthews' call for looking more closely at the evolution of political integration in the United States, which did not happen merely by the stroke of a pen.

David Vickrey, editor of Dialog International, wrote this guest blog post:

When Angela Merkel became Germany's chancellor in 2005 American conservatives were jubilant.  Here was a European leader who was not afraid to stand with George W. Bush and his Iraq War policy.  Conservatives were enthralled with Merkel's personal biography, her rejection of the perceived anti-Americanism her predecessor and her embrace of market solutions.  Surely her political victory would mark a new beginning for the frayed Atlantic alliance, a new strategic partnership based on conservative principles.

But 2005 now seems like long ago, and Angela Merkel has turned out to be something of a disappointment to American conservatives. 

This is a guest blog post by our long-time reader and commenter Pat Patterson:

The blog Coming Anarchy has a balanced piece concerning the recent proposal by Chancellor Merkel and the CDU to create a German National Security Council that argues, "It is for these reasons that a seemingly innocuous and in fact logical step like creating a national security council has again sparked debate among citizens and politicians alike." And that, "Over the past few years though with the changes in both the domestic and international security situation, debate has been ongoing about whether Germany needs a National Security Council based more on the American model for example."

Something similar was argued by the SPD in 1998 but very little in the way of change was made to the Bundessicherheitsrat (Federal Security Council) other than advising on the domestic state of affairs of the countries that were purchasing arms from Germany. But the current proposal goes much farther and states:

"In order to guarantee coherent and effective interagency work combining domestic and foreign security, a national security council is necessary as a center for political analysis."

But the immediate opposition came from the SPD's Frank Walter-Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, mainly because the new proposal was similar to the US's National Security Council and thus, "This cannot be the model for us." (Deutsche Welle)

A longer description of the proposal and the introduction of the idea that this new body would also be not only carrying out the instructions of the Chancellory but advising on the ".national interests" of Germany. The International Herald Tribune also mentions that the creation of this body would essentially bypass the Foreign Ministry which obviously would weaken the SPD presence in the government. As well as a quote from Karl-Heinz Kamp of the NATO college,

The fact that the conservatives decided to do without their coalition partners,.is impressive because it would have been watered down. The basic idea is not bad at all.