Instead of being conquered, the Greek city of Syracuse secured its position by becoming a hyper-loyal ally to the new Roman superpower. This "special relationship" mirrors the dynamic between Britain and the US post-WWII, where a former great power ensures its security by being an indispensable partner to the new hegemon.

Related Insights

The United States' greatest strategic advantage over competitors like China is its vast ecosystem of over 50 wealthy, advanced, allied nations. China has only one treaty ally: North Korea. Weakening these alliances through punitive actions is a critical foreign policy error that erodes America's primary source of global strength.

For generations, Western societies have viewed peace and prosperity as the default state. This perception is a historical outlier, making the return to 'dog eat dog' great power politics seem shocking, when in fact it's a reversion to the historical norm of conflict.

The reality of power is morally ugly, necessitating strategic alliances with monstrous figures, like the US partnering with Stalin to defeat Hitler. This isn't an aberration but a core function of geopolitics: using a lesser evil to combat a greater, more immediate threat.

Societal decline doesn't have to be a painful collapse. A wealthy culture can enjoy a long, comfortable "sunset period" by remaining open to importing technologies, ideas, and services from rising powers. The Byzantium Empire's 1000-year decline was sustained this way. The alternative is isolation and rapid decay.

The losers of WWII, Germany and Japan, paradoxically "won the peace." Their complete devastation forced a societal and industrial reset, funded by the US. This allowed hyper-modernization and rapid economic growth, while victorious but bankrupt Britain was stuck with aging infrastructure and financial burdens.

Openness is a tool for dominance, not just a moral virtue. The Romans became powerful by being strategically tolerant, quickly abandoning their own methods when they found better ones elsewhere. This allowed them to constantly upgrade their military, technology, and knowledge from conquered peoples.

With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional leadership role, European countries are creating new, direct alliances to ensure their own security. A notable example is the emerging UK-Scandinavia-Baltic-Poland axis, which signals a fundamental shift in the continent's geopolitical architecture away from a singular reliance on Washington.

Ed Luttwak identifies a recurring historical pattern of self-sabotage. Imperial Germany challenged the British Royal Navy, which protected its global commerce. Today, China challenges the US Navy, which secures the sea lanes vital for Chinese trade. This is a recurring strategic error driven by a misplaced desire for military parity.

After WWII, the U.S. used its naval dominance to guarantee global trade. In exchange for writing its allies' security policies, it allowed open access to its market. This economic "unfairness" was the strategic cost of building a global coalition against the Soviet Union, effectively bribing nations into an alliance.

European rhetoric about 'strategic autonomy' is ultimately hollow. For decades, Europe's security has been guaranteed by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, a public good it cannot afford or politically agree to replicate. This fundamental dependency ensures Europe cannot truly break from U.S. foreign policy, regardless of leadership style.