The Shadow of Great Britain-Chapter 648 - 318 Talleyrand’s View on Diplomacy

"Although I have no personal acquaintance with Prince Chartoryski, the scent of his views on the two tsars can indeed be discerned in the article he published in ’The Economist,’" said Arthur, recalling Prince Chartoryski’s manuscript. "As a young tsar who grew up in the Russian court, Alexander I intended to be vigorous but was nevertheless indecisive. Unlike his unfortunate father, Paul I, who was impulsive and capricious due to his temper, Alexander was under the earnest tutelage of Raur Alps, a Swiss democrat, and yearned for the noble ideals of France in 1789."

However, being the son of Paul I, he could not easily escape the traditional nature of territorial expansion pursued by past tsars. His bright blue eyes, his elegant and imposing stature, his high brow and broad forehead, coupled with his firmly closed lips—all these bestowed upon him an aura of vital strength."

He was robust in physique and fond of strutting his power, which seemed to propel him to complete the unfinished business against Turkey begun by Catherine II and to wash away through the waves of the Danube the remorse he still felt for inadvertently taking part in the conspiracy that led to his father’s assassination."

Talleyrand nodded slightly at these words, "That is fairly objective. Compared to Tsar Nicholas I, Alexander I, besides his endearing naiveté, also understood the importance of respecting the natural order and existing principles of Europe."

Arthur asked, "You have been mentioning this continuously, so what exactly constitutes the natural order and existing principles of Europe?"

Talleyrand calmly explained, "The so-called natural order and existing principles of Europe mean that the power of each country can only operate within the limits of its strategic potential. The first to realize this was Richelieu, the Cardinal who led France toward greatness.

On his deathbed, he had warned Louis XIII: ’Never invade the Netherlands; doing so would only serve to strengthen the uncontrollable Britons—it would be the greatest folly.’

For France at that time, the secret to maintaining its status lay in two things.

Firstly, do not overly weaken the Dutch, letting these sea charioteers act as a restraint against Britain. Only with the Netherlands in place, could the terrestrial supremacy of France be secure.

Secondly, keep the fragmentation of the Central European Germanic region and the city-states of Southern Europe Italy. As long as their trends toward unity were blocked, the hegemony of France in Europe would be as steadfast as Mount Tai."

Unfortunately, the strategy that Bishop Richelieu had devised for France was disrupted by the shortsightedness of Louis XIV. He allied with Britain to defeat the Dutch and broke through France’s strategic limit. If observed only within a span of one or two decades, France’s conquest of the Netherlands seemed to have expanded our national power.

In reality, however, what we lost was far more significant than what we gained. Being devoid of the Dutch restraint, the Britons rose meteorically, and France consequently lost its dominion over the European seas. Therefore, since then, all that France could aspire to was terrestrial hegemony in Europe."

Arthur, upon hearing this, simply stirred the soup in front of him with his spoon: "I am not a diplomat, so I cannot fully grasp what you are saying. However, from the perspective of a history major, your views are indeed intriguing. But having shared with me all these private secrets, aren’t you concerned that I might report this conversation to our Foreign Office? Or perhaps, would you actually like me to do so?"

Talleyrand raised his eyebrow and smiled slightly: "Arthur, on one hand, you think too little of yourself. In my eyes, you are more than just a history major—I am not sharing this with you solely to tell a story, and I believe you are certainly capable of understanding deeply.

But on the other hand, you think too much of yourself. I do not believe that sharing these words with the Foreign Office will influence Viscount Palmerston, your Foreign Secretary, in any way. His enmity toward France is deep-rooted, and at the same time, he is also wary of Austria’s expansion of power in Central and Southern Europe.

What surprises me, however, is that he seems to care the least about Russia’s continuous westward movement, attempting to control the strategic nations of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. If he is worried that supporting Poland would result in a pro-French regime, he is entirely free to discuss the issue with me face-to-face.

Since we can talk about Belgium, why can’t we all sit down calmly and have a proper discussion about Poland? He still does not understand the concept of strategic limits to this day, not realizing that a powerful Russia is far more alarming than a powerful France.

He pays too much attention to the tactical struggle limits, thereby overlooking the strategic competition and mindset. You should know that the world’s center has always been this large landmass composed of Europe and Asia, determined by factors such as population, economy, and historical culture. frёewebnoѵēl.com

The strategic limit of France determines that when France is strong, our maximum reach of control would be confined to the Iberian Peninsula, the Apennine Peninsula, and the plains of Germany. If we try to extend beyond these regions, even if France can control them for a short time, such fragile control can easily be shattered by external forces.

But Russia is different. Its geographical position determines that it is the only country in the world with the opportunity to establish continental hegemony in both Europe and Asia."

Arthur, upon hearing Talleyrand’s statement, looked at him with a mixture of emotions.

Prince Chartoryski had earlier proposed in ’The Economist’ that a united Prussia would threaten the European order, thus the independence of Poland must be maintained to contain it. Arthur was already surprised at the accuracy of this prophecy.