The surrender of the self-called European political “elite” to the United States is nothing short of stunning. In fact, the real responsible for the EU’s foreign policy does not seem to be the High Representative in office, but the United States of America. Thus, European foreign policy does not defend the interests of the European citizens, but those of the US government.
US officials constantly claim that the European countries are “allies”, but this simplification sweetens the cold geopolitical reality. First, in international relations there are no cheesy alliances based on friendship or “common values”, but rather temporary unions of greater or lesser duration based on a confluence of interests or on relationships of subordination, as is the case.
Moreover, the US sees Europe more as a museum relic than as a world power, since its militarism only respects those who have large armies and Europe does not.
But the most relevant issue is that Europe is seen as a competitor by the US, and just as throughout history the United Kingdom has always plotted to keep continental Europe weak and divided, the US considers that a Eurasian continent at peace and united by the interdependence of commercial ties is a threat to its political and economic hegemony (the Brzezinski doctrine).
Therefore, the interest of the US in making the Ukrainian conflict chronic has nothing to do with altruism but rather with self-interest, that is, on maintaining its world hegemony. Divide et impera.
The conflict has coincided with the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which greatly strengthened Russia’s ties with Europe as supplier of cheap energy. Is it sheer coincidence?
Thus, the first objective of the US in involving Europe in this war was to derail such infrastructure, considered a strategic threat to US interests, and they initially succeeded thanks to the obedient German government. And when Germany had begun to understand its mistake, both Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines are sabotaged. Which State players have the technical ability to do this? Cui prodest? Who benefits?
“Ready, fire, aim”
In contrast to the calculated American strategy, EU decision-making has not been preceded by any minimally serious cost-benefit analysis that would take into account the interests of European citizens. The watchword has been: ready, fire, aim, and by firing first and aiming later we have shot ourselves in the foot.
By meddling in a power struggle that was completely alien to us, the EU bureaucrats have done nothing more than please the US and, not satisfied with encouraging an escalation of the conflict, they have been imposing sanctions without rhyme or reason in a crazy in crescendo that could mean Europe’s third suicide in a century.
In fact, these sanctions are hurting European citizens much more than they hurt Russian citizens. Although currency fluctuations respond to complex factors, the evolution of the ruble (up) and the euro (sinking) against the dollar since the war began seem a good proxy of the impact of sanctions:
The fall of the euro contributes to the very serious problem of a pre-existing inflation worsened by the war which in Spain threatens to return to poverty, via loss of purchasing power, our fragile middle class, created with enormous effort since 1950.
Trying to justify the current boycott of Russian natural resources by criticizing after the fact our previous “energy dependence” on Russia is a joke. Europe lacks sufficient energy sources of its own, so in the medium term we will simply replace our energy dependence on Russia with energy dependence on the US, on Arab dictatorships (US “allies” that share “common values”?) or the Maghreb. Are we better off? I don’t think so.
In a short period of time Russia will be able to establish new ties to sell its abundant resources to China and India, home to 36% of the world’s population, and we will probably lose her forever as a cheap and reliable (not out of friendship but because of mutual interests!) energy supplier. Do you understand the coup de grace to Europe’s future prosperity dealt to us by the US with the complicity of the inept political class in Brussels and Berlin?
Learning from history
Santayana said that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. On June 28th, 1914 the heir to the crown of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was shot dead in a terrorist attack in Sarajevo.
Only four weeks later and after an ultimatum, Austria declared war on Serbia despite the fact that Serbia had accepted 13 of the 14 points of the ultimatum. The power junkies had decided to go to war and the immediate “causes” of the conflict were no more than alibis, as is often the case.
A misguided policy of alliances then transformed a local conflict into a devastating world war. Russia activated its alliance with Serbia and announced the mobilization of its troops, which caused Germany, allied with Austria, to declare war on Russia; France came to Russia’s aid and Great Britain to France’s aid, thus forming two sides: the Triple Entente (France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Empire) against the two great Central European empires, Germany and Austria. Later, Italy, Japan, the Ottoman Empire and other countries would join one side or the other.
All hell broke loose, and four years into the slaughter the devastation was horrible, indeed: in the fields of Europe lay the corpses of 17 million people without anyone remembering the real reason why they had died for.
Some lessons for today’s Europe can be drawn from this story. First, power corrupts not only the morals of the individual, but also his judgment. Thus, in 1914 the European political “elites” dragged the continent towards hecatomb with appalling stupidity, frivolity and immorality. Second, “alliances” are dangerous double-edged weapons that can transform a local conflict into a world war.
NATO’s Article 5, for example, was designed to deter the defunct Warsaw Pact from expansionist temptations during the Cold War. What it actually provided for was not the mutual aid of its weak signatories, but the protection of the strong one (i.e., the US).
However, it was only a deterrent weapon. Had it not worked, what would have happened? A paper signed by a bunch of politicians can hold all sort of beautiful promises, but let’s get down to brass tacks: would you send your son to fight and die for Ukraine? Do you think the Germans or the British would come to defend us from an attack by Morocco?
Is NATO a source of peace or a source of conflict?
Bluff or no bluff, article 5 was a success but became obsolete when the threat of Soviet communism disappeared in 1991. In fact, NATO is today exclusively an instrument of US power and an organization whose survival depends on its traditional enemy remaining so. Hence its interest in having public opinion fallaciously identify today’s Russia with the former USSR.
Like NATO, the vast bureaucratic structures of the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the US military-industrial complex (the Deep State) depend on the existence of a big enemy to justify their budget, payroll and power. One only has to apply the logic of cui prodest (who benefits?) and understand the mechanisms of the pathology of power to conclude that, like Orwell’s Ministry of Peace in his novel 1984, they are as interested in perpetual war as the WHO is interested in a perpetual pandemic.
But beyond questioning NATO, the worrying thing is that, as in World War I, power has corrupted the morals and judgment of the European political “elite” and a domino of alliances can transform a local conflict of contained damage into a global war of unforeseeable consequences.
The US goal is to weaken Russia…and Europe.
While the West is obsessing over Ukraine, the rest of the planet does not seem to pay too much attention. In fact, the countries that have sanctioned Russia account for only 13% of the world’s population. The remaining 87% keep their relations with Russia intact. Is it Russia that is being left alone or is it the West?
Perhaps the rest of the world sees that the origin of the conflict lies in the US provocation of Russia by using the corrupt Ukrainian regime in the hope that the icy Russian autocrat would take the bait with his steely jaws, as he did. That is why the only world player interested in prolonging the war is the US, which is why it seems to have derailed the negotiations between the two sides held before the summer in Turkey in which Ukraine would have agreed to neutrality by not joining NATO, accept the status quo of Crimea and also the self-rule of the Donbass, already recognized in the Minsk II Agreements of 2015.
Don’t you think the world would be safer and more prosperous today if such an agreement had been reached? Are we better off or worse off?
In the global order of things, the war in Ukraine is part of the attempt to extend the Anglo-Saxon world hegemony put at risk by the awakening of Asia and the moral decline of the West, and in this context, it is in the interest of the US to weaken Russia at the expense of Europe with a war of attrition in which they do not put the dead nor suffer the energy debacle.
It would not be the first time that the US sacrifices Europe for the sake of its own interests. In the spring of 1917, European public opinion was fed up with so much carnage. After the revolution, Russia had promised to withdraw from the conflict and France and Austria engaged in discreet peace talks: some French divisions had refused to fight and Emperor Charles of Austria, desperate to stop the slaughter (in contrast to the aggressiveness of the German Kaiser), appealed to Pope Benedict XV. It seemed that the war would end without a clear winner, which is often the best possible outcome.
However, the US wanted to play a leading role in organizing the post-war “new world order”. After forcing the war against Spain in 1898 by falsely accusing this country of the sinking of the USS Maine (maybe a false-flag operation), it had tasted the flavor of imperialism and could not pass up the opportunity to finish off two Central European rivals.
Thus, it entered the war at the last minute using the alibi du jour, prolonging it yet for another year and producing as a result clear winners and clear losers, the latter being humiliated to the extreme in the Treaty of Versailles: The Austrian empire was dismembered, and Germany was condemned to poverty, which would eventually lead to the coming to power of Hitler, democratically elected by the desperate German people. The USA lost only 116,000 men, while the Europeans lost millions.
At the edge of the cliff
Today Europe is again at the edge of the cliff because the European political “elite” is devoted to obeying its American masters and reneging on its obligation to defend its own citizens. Thus, they have recklessly involved us in a conflict that was alien to us and put in place self-destructive sanctions that harm the Europeans as much as they delight the American government, interested only in prolonging the US hegemony.
Europe, defenseless in the face of American warmongering and left alone by the cowardice and incompetence of its own authorities, is facing an economic collapse and a dangerous escalation of a war in which a nuclear power has been pushed into a corner. As in 1914, it is difficult to find greater stupidity, frivolity, and immorality. Who is defending the European people? No one, and not to understand this is to understand nothing.