2008 and return of nation-state

"The illusion of multilateralism was not put to rest - it will never die - but it was certainly put to bed. "

Not only multilatelarism. There are serious doubts if EU can function under pressure. There is no common European indentity, Italians feel Italians, and French feel French. Only vaguely they all feel European.
Not so long ago there was a celebration in Alabama, US of some battle that took place during North-South civil war. Alabamans overwhelmingly proudly displayed Confederate flags, along with posters of general Robert E. Lee, etc.
Nevertheless they all feel Americans first.
Few years ago when we were seeing piles of burning cows in Britain due to foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, some of the US states clearly had opposing interests.
Cattle-grazing Montana wanted stricter rules imposed for Brittish citizens visiting US, for obvious reasons. Outbreak would devastate Montana ranchers.
On the other hand Florida for example, wanted rules eased. Brits are the most numerous tourists in Florida, and in number of visits to Disneyworld, for example they are close second to Americans. Imposing too strict visa regime would probably result in tourists simply going somewhere else.
In the end Montana and Florida found compromise, and none of them was very satisfied with it. Yet, they went along having in mind one thing, that they are Americans first, and American interests is above their own.
We won't see something like that in Europe for a long time, maybe never.
Finding themselves with opposing interests, Holland and Sweden will never act like Montana and Florida. Each would choose to further their own interests instead.
There are other doubts about multilateralism, multiculturalism, etc.
Most EU countries have diverse populations, but with one predominant culture (Germans in Germany, Italians in Italy, Danes in Denmark, Bulgarians in Bulgaria, etc.)Nation-states for all intents and purposes.
Balkan due to it's specific history has been a latmus paper for a changes that are happening around us. Often you will find there problems that have yet to become just that on the global scale. Like a rise of islamic fundamentalism. Experts should also study changes that are brough about with natural birth rate. Kosovo has the highest in Europe (Kosovo 12 per thousand inhabitants, Serbia has minus 4.3). There are simmilar situations in other parts of the world, too. Will there be problems when fast-growing Spanish-speaking population in US decides to leave cleaning closets, and take some political power? Or with growing influence of catholic church?
I don't know.
Going back to the subject of the "latmus paper".
Given the faith of Yugoslavia, I'm not so sure that multiculturalism can work.
At ceirtain points some nations like Croats, etc. simply opted for creation of their nation-state.
Or consider this.
How many times we all read on this site Albanian commentators saying that Yugoslavia was a country of Southern Slavs, and that Kosovo Albanians should have never been included as non-slavic population.
It was unnatural, they argue to make them (non-slavic) to live with southern slavs.
What reason would I have to believe that they could live together with us in EU? Not only with southern Slavs, but others as well (Germans, Swedes, Estonians, etc.).
Besides, isn't creation of nation-states exactly what EU and US supported from the beginning in the Balkan?

The conclusions seam quite premature!

"In and of itself, Russia's attack on Georgia was not globally significant. Georgia is a small country in the Caucasus, and its fate ultimately does not affect the world. But Georgia was aligned with the United States and with Europe, and it had been seen by some as a candidate for membership in NATO. Thus, what was important about the Russian attack was that it occurred at all, and that the West did not respond to it beyond rhetoric."

None of this is true!
Georgia, despite being a "small" country in the Caucasus has a tremendous geopolitical sagnificance. It is the key for the real independence of all the Central Asian states!

What is more sagnificant about the brief war of August 2008 was its LIMITED scope!
We don't know if the West retaliated only with rhetoric or showed some behind the scene pressure on Russia, but if that claim is true, than the Russians showed untypical for them wisdom and restrained! They did not topple the regime in Tbilisi, and after a brief occupation retreated from the vital to the West pipeline. Restraining the war only to the breakaway (and strategically insignificant) regions the Russians showed strenght, but did not cross the line! Which suggests that there is really a "Russian Question", but it should be regarded in terms of "How Russia could be incorporated in the Western multinational sysytem".
As for the return of the "nation" in the seanse of identity, probably the most important event of this CENTURY may be the election of a son of a Kenian exchange student as a president of the USA. There is no sighn of "ethnic" tenssion between the western countries! The financial crisis was accompanied with the drop of visa requirements for the USA for several Eastern European countries!

I really cannot understand the use of "nation-state" in the title.

At the beginning of the piece, Stratfor sensibly defines its understanding of the term "nation-state".

It then proceeds to discuss the shift in the international order to more state self-reliance over international cooperation. Although, in my opinion, this process began on 24 March 1999 when the UN Security Council was marginalized.

No attempt at all to provide any evidence of a "return of the nation-state".

The election of Obama here in the US will signal a continued retreat from the world stage by the US. People here are tired of being the world's benefactor and policeman...especially when those funds are needed domestically to help our own people.

Also, the underlying rationale for US involvement was our reliance on foreign sources of oil and the need to keep those sources secure. After the run up in oil prices this summer however, the American public is demanding increased domestic production - which creates jobs and keeps our funds at home. Obama has promised this as a major part of his platform and must deliver if he's to get re-elected (and like all politicians globally, that's his primary aim). So, we have the overriding factor in our global activism being removed.

Be prepared for a much less active US....and when we are active...much less military and much more talk.

Sreten: In the end Montana and Florida found compromise, and none of them was very satisfied with it. Yet, they went along having in mind one thing, that they are Americans first, and American interests is above their own."

I don't think so! They did not "find a compromise"! It was another, federal institution that made the decision. And it sees itself as a political institution not en "ethnic" Americam one.
At the end of the 18th century there was a disscussion in the press in Virginia on whether if say Maryland was attached, Virginia should automatically go to war! And it was the constitution, not the affinity or the identification that solved the matter! A governer of California is supposed to deffend the interests of californians (speaking English or Spanish language) while the governor of Arizona - the 'Arizonians", again speaking English or Spanish language. They may argue a lot, but the common decisions will be made in the Congres by members of the house or senators with various nemes such as Pelosi, Obama, McCain, Biden)
An American president with, say an Irish name may identify more with a Canadian with an Irish name, than say a governor of a US state with an English name. But when discussing trade agreement that affinity of his would hardly affect his stance!
However the creation of such superstate institutions was a hard thing to accomplish! It took the US more than a century, including one horrendous civil war!
Europe is now in a process of such an integration but it is still in a very early stage! It is not that people feel more German or Italian then "European". North Italians identify more with the Swiss of Ticino than with the southern Italians, Baverians do not like the Prussians much etc.
Establishing a common Western institutions, this is the difficulte task in front of the Western civilization. Could it be done? I don't know! But it is clear that the national institutions could neither solve the global problems, nor have the insentive to "work as one"

The conclusions seam quite premature!

"In and of itself, Russia's attack on Georgia was not globally significant. Georgia is a small country in the Caucasus, and its fate ultimately does not affect the world. But Georgia was aligned with the United States and with Europe, and it had been seen by some as a candidate for membership in NATO. Thus, what was important about the Russian attack was that it occurred at all, and that the West did not respond to it beyond rhetoric."

None of this is true!
Georgia, despite being a "small" country in the Caucasus has a tremendous geopolitical sagnificance. It is the key for the real independence of all the Central Asian states!

What is more sagnificant about the brief war of August 2008 was its LIMITED scope!
We don't know if the West retaliated only with rhetoric or showed some behind the scene pressure on Russia, but if that claim is true, than the Russians showed untypical for them wisdom and restrained! They did not topple the regime in Tbilisi, and after a brief occupation retreated from the vital to the West pipeline. Restraining the war only to the breakaway (and strategically insignificant) regions the Russians showed strenght, but did not cross the line! Which suggests that there is really a "Russian Question", but it should be regarded in terms of "How Russia could be incorporated in the Western multinational sysytem".
As for the return of the "nation" in the seanse of identity, probably the most important event of this CENTURY may be the election of a son of a Kenian exchange student as a president of the USA. There is no sighn of "ethnic" tenssion between the western countries! The financial crisis was accompanied with the drop of visa requirements for the USA for several Eastern European countries!

"The illusion of multilateralism was not put to rest - it will never die - but it was certainly put to bed. "

Not only multilatelarism. There are serious doubts if EU can function under pressure. There is no common European indentity, Italians feel Italians, and French feel French. Only vaguely they all feel European.
Not so long ago there was a celebration in Alabama, US of some battle that took place during North-South civil war. Alabamans overwhelmingly proudly displayed Confederate flags, along with posters of general Robert E. Lee, etc.
Nevertheless they all feel Americans first.
Few years ago when we were seeing piles of burning cows in Britain due to foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, some of the US states clearly had opposing interests.
Cattle-grazing Montana wanted stricter rules imposed for Brittish citizens visiting US, for obvious reasons. Outbreak would devastate Montana ranchers.
On the other hand Florida for example, wanted rules eased. Brits are the most numerous tourists in Florida, and in number of visits to Disneyworld, for example they are close second to Americans. Imposing too strict visa regime would probably result in tourists simply going somewhere else.
In the end Montana and Florida found compromise, and none of them was very satisfied with it. Yet, they went along having in mind one thing, that they are Americans first, and American interests is above their own.
We won't see something like that in Europe for a long time, maybe never.
Finding themselves with opposing interests, Holland and Sweden will never act like Montana and Florida. Each would choose to further their own interests instead.
There are other doubts about multilateralism, multiculturalism, etc.
Most EU countries have diverse populations, but with one predominant culture (Germans in Germany, Italians in Italy, Danes in Denmark, Bulgarians in Bulgaria, etc.)Nation-states for all intents and purposes.
Balkan due to it's specific history has been a latmus paper for a changes that are happening around us. Often you will find there problems that have yet to become just that on the global scale. Like a rise of islamic fundamentalism. Experts should also study changes that are brough about with natural birth rate. Kosovo has the highest in Europe (Kosovo 12 per thousand inhabitants, Serbia has minus 4.3). There are simmilar situations in other parts of the world, too. Will there be problems when fast-growing Spanish-speaking population in US decides to leave cleaning closets, and take some political power? Or with growing influence of catholic church?
I don't know.
Going back to the subject of the "latmus paper".
Given the faith of Yugoslavia, I'm not so sure that multiculturalism can work.
At ceirtain points some nations like Croats, etc. simply opted for creation of their nation-state.
Or consider this.
How many times we all read on this site Albanian commentators saying that Yugoslavia was a country of Southern Slavs, and that Kosovo Albanians should have never been included as non-slavic population.
It was unnatural, they argue to make them (non-slavic) to live with southern slavs.
What reason would I have to believe that they could live together with us in EU? Not only with southern Slavs, but others as well (Germans, Swedes, Estonians, etc.).
Besides, isn't creation of nation-states exactly what EU and US supported from the beginning in the Balkan?

Sreten: In the end Montana and Florida found compromise, and none of them was very satisfied with it. Yet, they went along having in mind one thing, that they are Americans first, and American interests is above their own."

I don't think so! They did not "find a compromise"! It was another, federal institution that made the decision. And it sees itself as a political institution not en "ethnic" Americam one.
At the end of the 18th century there was a disscussion in the press in Virginia on whether if say Maryland was attached, Virginia should automatically go to war! And it was the constitution, not the affinity or the identification that solved the matter! A governer of California is supposed to deffend the interests of californians (speaking English or Spanish language) while the governor of Arizona - the 'Arizonians", again speaking English or Spanish language. They may argue a lot, but the common decisions will be made in the Congres by members of the house or senators with various nemes such as Pelosi, Obama, McCain, Biden)
An American president with, say an Irish name may identify more with a Canadian with an Irish name, than say a governor of a US state with an English name. But when discussing trade agreement that affinity of his would hardly affect his stance!
However the creation of such superstate institutions was a hard thing to accomplish! It took the US more than a century, including one horrendous civil war!
Europe is now in a process of such an integration but it is still in a very early stage! It is not that people feel more German or Italian then "European". North Italians identify more with the Swiss of Ticino than with the southern Italians, Baverians do not like the Prussians much etc.
Establishing a common Western institutions, this is the difficulte task in front of the Western civilization. Could it be done? I don't know! But it is clear that the national institutions could neither solve the global problems, nor have the insentive to "work as one"

I really cannot understand the use of "nation-state" in the title.

At the beginning of the piece, Stratfor sensibly defines its understanding of the term "nation-state".

It then proceeds to discuss the shift in the international order to more state self-reliance over international cooperation. Although, in my opinion, this process began on 24 March 1999 when the UN Security Council was marginalized.

No attempt at all to provide any evidence of a "return of the nation-state".

The election of Obama here in the US will signal a continued retreat from the world stage by the US. People here are tired of being the world's benefactor and policeman...especially when those funds are needed domestically to help our own people.

Also, the underlying rationale for US involvement was our reliance on foreign sources of oil and the need to keep those sources secure. After the run up in oil prices this summer however, the American public is demanding increased domestic production - which creates jobs and keeps our funds at home. Obama has promised this as a major part of his platform and must deliver if he's to get re-elected (and like all politicians globally, that's his primary aim). So, we have the overriding factor in our global activism being removed.

Be prepared for a much less active US....and when we are active...much less military and much more talk.