Eagle, I don't want to form an alliance anymore.

Outside the window, there was still that endless cotton field, with white cotton bolls stretching to the horizon in the sunlight.

He grew up in this cotton field, and his father and grandfather died in this cotton field. He once thought that he would be encircled by this white field for the rest of his life, just like them.

But now, through hard work and dedication, he can forge his own path and achieve self-realization.

He didn't know which path he would take two years from now, nor whether he would be able to get into Moscow. He didn't even know what kind of person the General Secretary of distant Moscow, who made all of this possible, was.

He only knows one thing.

This may be the only chance he ever has in his life.

He picked up the pen and carefully signed his name at the end of the targeted contract. The technician and deputy secretary in charge of registration within the consortium shook hands with him with smiles, afraid that he might change his mind, and quickly entered the contract information into the information node and transmitted it to Moscow University.

Chapter 91 1988 NATO Summit

As the Soviet Union embarked on a major reform of education and scientific research, striving to catch up in its weak areas, the United States was also taking action.

On March 1, 1988, Reagan arrived in Brussels.

It was raining coldly when the presidential plane landed at a military airport near NATO headquarters in Brussels. As Reagan descended the gangway, staff held an umbrella for him, but the wind blew the rain at an angle, still soaking his trouser legs.

He is seventy-seven years old this year.

Waiting for him at the bottom of the gangway were the NATO Secretary General and a row of representatives from various European countries. He shook hands, exchanged pleasantries, and smiled at the reporters' cameras—a routine Reagan had followed his entire life.

Photojournalists' flashes filled the rain, and tomorrow this photo will be in newspapers around the world—the US president arrives in Brussels for the first NATO summit in six years.

NATO has conducted countless exercises, but this is the first time a presidential summit has been held. The last time NATO held a summit of this level was in 1982—the Soviet Union's West 81 exercise put a lot of pressure on NATO.

As it turns out, the transatlantic link has not been as strong as people say over the years.

As Reagan climbed into the armored car, he shook off the rain. Secretary of State George Shultz was already waiting inside.

"Mr. President, was the journey smooth and safe?"

“It’s raining quite heavily,” Reagan said.

The car drove away from the airport. Schultz handed over a document, a briefing on the summit's agenda and several key topics. Reagan took it but didn't look at it; he simply held it in his hand.

He looked out the car window, watching the gray streetscape of Brussels recede into the rain.

“George,” Reagan suddenly said, “do you think they believe me?”

Schultz knew who the "they" the president was referring to were: the European allies, West Germany, France, all the countries that relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and even South Africa.

“They need to trust you, sir, it’s not the same.”

Reagan's smile held a hint of weariness: "Yes, it's different."

Sigrún has taught at the Iceland University of the Arts as a part-time lecturer since and was Dean of the Department of Fine Art from -. In – she held a research position at Reykjavík Art Museum focusing on the role of women in Icelandic art. She studied fine art at the Icelandic College of Arts and Crafts and at Pratt Institute, New York, and holds BA and MA degrees in art history and philosophy from the University of Iceland. Sigrún lives and works in Iceland.

Reagan came to Brussels to make a promise.

The past few months have seen the United States experience a period of economic downturn. Banks collapsed, unemployment soared, and people even died in Washington, D.C., due to the suppression of protests. The U.S. government implemented a series of emergency measures, such as bank holidays, a Federal Reserve policy shift, and emergency jobs programs, to pull the domestic economy back from the brink of collapse and temporarily stabilize it, preventing it from continuing to crumble.

But this stabilization comes at a price.

The United States, burdened with huge twin deficits, already has very little fiscal space. Where will the money come from for New Deal-style relief and public works projects? It can only be cut from other sources.

The first thing Congress cut was the foreign policy budget.

Aid to Afghan jihadists—cut!

Aid to Angolan rebels – cut!

The budgets for the CIA's covert operations around the world have been drastically cut!

The gentlemen in Congress have reached a consensus: our own banks are failing, our own workers are starving, so why should we spend money on proxy wars around the world? Let's mind our own business first!

This trend of prioritizing self-management has also influenced US economic sanctions against South Africa.

Schultz said, "Mr. President, I have an assessment from the South African State Department that I need to share with you."

Reagan nodded.

South Africa has always been a hot potato for the United States. The apartheid regime in South Africa was widely condemned internationally, and the anti-apartheid movement has grown stronger in recent years.

However, under the logic of the Cold War, the United States has always secretly supported this regime—because South Africa is a bridgehead against Soviet expansion in southern Africa!

The Soviet Union was interfering in Angola and Mozambique, and South Africa became the barrier. Because of this barrier, the United States has consistently turned a blind eye to its human rights issues.

“Our pressure on South Africa to impose sanctions is easing. Parliament is now preoccupied with the domestic economy. Who has the mind to care about the human rights of black South Africans? Some of our previous sanctions against South Africa are now being eased, which is good news for that white regime.”

"But?" Reagan sensed a shift in thought.

"But on the other hand, South Africa's international isolation is deepening, and that's where the trouble lies."

Schultz leaned forward.

"Mr. President, the Soviet Union is now deepening its cooperation with Western Europe. That young General Secretary is gradually pulling Western Europe toward his side. And what will those Western European countries do to curry favor with the Soviet Union and to show that they are easing ties with Moscow?"

They will push for sanctions against South Africa more aggressively.

Sanctioning South Africa was politically correct, and strengthening the blockade was their way of currying favor with the Soviet Union—we cannot relax restrictions when other allies are strengthening their blockades, Mr. President.

That would make it seem like our values ​​of human rights, democracy, and freedom are going against the tide of international opinion. By the way, we also need to make a clear statement of support for Israel. Many veterans within the Republican Party have given you 'advice,' and they also hope you will support the white regime in South Africa.

Reagan remained silent.

He recalled the height of the Cold War many years ago, when the logic was so simple and clear—whatever the Soviet Union supported, we opposed! Whatever was anti-Soviet, we supported!

Even if the other side is an apartheid regime, as long as it stands on the front line against the Soviet Union, we will support it without hesitation!

At that time, the United States had the money, the strength, and the confidence to place its pawns around the world.

there's no more.

Now the United States is crawling out of the ruins, and those bridgeheads, proxies, and allies that were once maintained with money and promises are beginning to loosen one by one.

A bankrupt empire, where even its friends are starting to reconsider whether to remain friends.

Even under these circumstances, Israel continues to cause trouble for the United States. On December 9, 1987, the First Palestinian Intifada broke out, with large-scale protests and riots erupting in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, which were illegally controlled by Israel. By January 1988, the Israeli military had begun to impose a curfew on refugee camp areas.

At that time, 2200 armed Israeli Jewish settlers controlled 40% of Gaza, while 65 Palestinians crammed into the remaining 60%, a population density approaching that of Hong Kong. Following a series of low-intensity clashes, Palestinians fought back against the Israeli regular army with stones, burning tires, and Molotov cocktails. A unified national command quickly formed, maintaining contact with the exiled PLO but operating essentially independently.

Commercial strikes, refusal to pay Israeli taxes, and boycotts of Israeli products—civil disobedience movements unfolded widely. On December 14, Hamas was officially established in Gaza, joining the resistance as the armed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Israel initially supported Hamas because it could distract the Palestinian liberation forces, but as Hamas declared an armed uprising, the Israel Defense Forces began a full-scale invasion of Gaza to carry out a bloody crackdown, resulting in the deaths of many civilians and causing extremely negative international repercussions.

The impact was so significant that even the United States dared not take a stand against the tide, and the State Department privately urged the Israeli government to reduce its use of live ammunition against demonstrators. By late December, the US government began to publicly criticize Israel's actions, while also criticizing Palestinian violence, and abstained from voting on UN Security Council Resolution 605—rather than vetoing it.

However, the United States' position has always been contradictory. On the one hand, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Schiffer stated, "Israel clearly has not only the right but also the obligation to maintain order in the occupied territories and to use appropriate levels of force to achieve this goal."

On the other hand, Secretary of State Shulz began to realize that the Palestinian question could no longer be shelved. In early 1988, Secretary Shulz put forward a new peace initiative, calling for an international peace conference as a prelude to direct negotiations between Israel, Jordan, and the local Palestinians on provisional autonomy for the occupied territories. However, Israel rejected the proposal because it did not include an end to the uprising as a precondition for negotiations.

Fundamentally, Schultz believed that Palestinian discontent could be resolved through US aid and private investment, rather than by establishing an independent Palestinian state—a judgment that later proved to severely underestimate the political power of the uprising.

At the same time, the United States also passed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, attempting to close the Palestine Liberation Organization's observer mission at the United Nations, effectively linking the great uprising to "terrorism".

On the issue of Israel, the Soviet Union unequivocally supported the Palestinian liberation movement and the UN resolution to achieve a ceasefire and Israel's withdrawal from the illegally occupied territories.

East Germany, which underwent the most thorough de-Nazification, supported the Palestine Liberation Organization on this issue, while West Germany, which did not thoroughly purge Nazi remnants, subtly maintained neutrality and was unwilling to comment.

The United Nations has been discussing the Israel issue for the past few days, whether to send peacekeeping troops into Gaza or impose sanctions, but no consensus has been reached.

The United States is already struggling to remain neutral and abstain from voting, especially during this economic crisis, when the "lubricant" provided by Jewish financial groups to ensure the smooth functioning of the American democratic system is particularly important.

“I understand.” Reagan’s voice was devoid of emotion. “South Africa and Israel can wait; we can’t worry about them right now.”

Both Schultz and Reagan knew they had to admit that the United States was no longer the United States that could take care of everything.

Sigrún has taught at the Iceland University of the Arts as a part-time lecturer since and was Dean of the Department of Fine Art from -. In – she held a research position at Reykjavík Art Museum focusing on the role of women in Icelandic art. She studied fine art at the Icelandic College of Arts and Crafts and at Pratt Institute, New York, and holds BA and MA degrees in art history and philosophy from the University of Iceland. Sigrún lives and works in Iceland.

NATO Summit venue in Brussels

The national flags of various countries were lined up in a row. West Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium... and of course, the Stars and Stripes. The leaders filed in, shook hands, exchanged pleasantries, and took their seats at the long table. Photographers were allowed in to take a round of pictures—the leaders stood side by side, smiling at the cameras, showcasing the unity of the free world.

This photo will be on the front page worldwide tomorrow. The headline will probably read:

NATO demonstrates solidarity in jointly addressing challenges.

After the photos were taken, the reporter was asked to leave. As soon as the door closed, the atmosphere in the room changed.

Reagan delivered the keynote address, and he spoke very well—speaking was his greatest talent in his life.

He spoke of the preciousness of transatlantic ties, the shared values ​​of the free world, and the importance of solidarity in the face of challenges. He reassured allies that no matter what difficulties the United States faces domestically, its commitment to NATO will not waver.

He specifically mentioned West Germany, saying that the United States would continue to guarantee West Germany's security and independence, and that any attempt to divide the Western camp would not succeed!

These words were addressed to West Germany, and also to Moscow.

Because everyone knew that the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had met with Mitterrand at the Élysée Palace just a month earlier, and was using every means at his disposal to gradually infiltrate the cracks in the walls of Western Europe. Mitterrand also relayed to the allies the General Secretary's stance on the German question, which he had discussed in Paris: the Soviet Union supported peaceful reunification of Germany but did not promise to renounce the use of force.

The big brother on the other side has already spoken, so the big brother on our side also needs to come and appease the little brother.

Therefore, Reagan had to come. He had to stand here in person and give all our allies a resounding guarantee: America is still here! America's protective umbrella is still up, so you don't need to be afraid, and you don't need to look towards Moscow!

"...No matter what difficulties we encounter, we should not be afraid, but face them with a smile! The best way to eliminate fear is to face it, and perseverance is victory! The free world will prevail!"

Reagan spoke with heartfelt sincerity, and his allies in the audience nodded and applauded frequently, creating the impression of a global coalition of capitalists.

But everyone present, including Reagan himself, knew one thing—all of the above was bullshit.

Because Reagan is about to leave office, how much is a guarantee from an outgoing president worth?

Reagan's second term ended in January 1989, and according to domestic polls, the next president was highly likely to be Democrat Dick Gephardt.

Western European leaders knew better than anyone what kind of person Gephardt was. He was an advocate of economic nationalism and fair trade, and was known for his tough stance on Japan and West Germany.

He constantly talks about how allies are taking advantage of the US and how the US is footing the bill for its allies. It's almost a given what he'll do to Europe once he takes office—he'll use tariffs, trade restrictions, and pressure allies to share defense spending, one measure after another.

Therefore, every promise Reagan made on stage at that moment was automatically interpreted by every European leader present as follows:

"Valid until January next year."

Reagan guaranteed West Germany's independence? Okay, thank you! But will that statement still hold true next year when Gerphardt takes over? Only God knows.

Reagan promised the US wouldn't divide the Western camp? Great! But if Gruphart comes up and uses a trade war to appease allies, wouldn't that be another form of division?

On the surface, the summit appeared peaceful, a grand spectacle of the free world uniting to defend against enemies, but everyone behind the scenes was making contingency plans.

West Germany was thinking: the United States is no longer reliable. Perhaps it should seriously consider maintaining its own communication channel with Moscow and not putting all its eggs in one basket with Washington.

France has always been the most independent member of the Western camp, and Mitterrand had just been flirting with the Soviet General Secretary in Paris.

France is thinking: Europe's affairs may ultimately depend on Europeans themselves; the United States might withdraw its support one day!

Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Greece... every country is wondering what to do if the United States, which once protected everyone, really can't be relied on anymore.

The Soviet armed forces would not land in Washington anyway, and the Americans could boast all they wanted without losing a single dollar. But Europe was truly about to face the Soviet army's steel torrent.

Reagan had no choice. For him, even if it could only be stabilized for a year, it was better than it falling apart now. Even if the check bounced next year, he had to sign it neatly today.

It is said that funerals are celebrated.

During a break in the meeting, Reagan stood alone in the corridor outside the meeting room, gazing out the window at the rain in Brussels. Schultz walked over and stood beside him:

"Mr. President, you spoke very well just now."

Reagan didn't turn around: "George, do you think this league can hold on after I'm gone?"

Schultz fell silent.

"I mean, if it really is Gephart who comes up, and his methods are even more ruthless to friends than to enemies, what will become of our alliance, our free world...?"

“This is not something we can decide right now, sir,” Schultz said.

"All we can do now is try to stabilize the situation and hold out until the handover. As for what happens after that... that's a matter for the future. What will happen to the free world? Perhaps only God knows."

Reagan sighed and stared at the rain for a long time without saying a word.

He suddenly felt very tired.

He has lived his entire life on the belief that "America will prevail" and "the free world will surely defeat communism."

He had once been so certain that history was on America's side, and that the history of communism was destined to end! But now, standing in Brussels in the cold rain, watching a rising and revitalized Soviet Union, watching a group of allies applauding while harboring their own ulterior motives, watching the ruins of his own country that had just crawled out of collapse—

He began to waver in his faith.

"Go back, the next match is waiting for you."

He turned around, put on the warm and confident expression he had worn his whole life, and walked back into the venue.

Sigrún has taught at the Iceland University of the Arts as a part-time lecturer since and was Dean of the Department of Fine Art from -. In – she held a research position at Reykjavík Art Museum focusing on the role of women in Icelandic art. She studied fine art at the Icelandic College of Arts and Crafts and at Pratt Institute, New York, and holds BA and MA degrees in art history and philosophy from the University of Iceland. Sigrún lives and works in Iceland.

On the third day of the summit, Reagan and his staff held a short meeting at their accommodation.

There is only one issue: since the United States must reduce its external power, where should the limited power be concentrated after the reduction?