Macron’s Psycho-Play to Keep Aloft the Punctured Balloon of a ‘Geo-Political EU’
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 25, 2024
Charles Michel, the European Council President, has called on Europe to switch to a ‘war economy’. He justifies this call partly as urgent support for Ukraine, but more pertinently, as the need for relaunching the (beached) European economy by focussing on the defence industry.
Calls ring out across Europe: ‘We are in a pre-war era’, Polish PM Donald Tusk says. Macron, after mooting the possibility ambiguously several times, says, “Maybe at some point – I don’t want it – we will have to have operations [French troops in Ukraine], on the ground, to counter the Russian forces”.
What has spooked the Europeans so? We know the French Intelligence briefing reaching Macron in recent days was dire; it seems to have triggered his initial sally into direct French military intervention in Ukraine. French classified Intelligence warned that the collapse of the Contact Line, and the disintegration of the AFU as a functioning military force, might be imminent.
Macron played coy: Might he send troops? At one time seemingly ‘yes’; but then frustratingly the prospect was uncertain, yet still possibly on the table. Confusion reigned. Nobody knew for sure, as the President is nothing if not volatile, and General De Gaulle bequeathed to his successors, quasi-regal powers. So yes, constitutionally he could do it.
The general view in Europe was that Macron was playing complex mind-games, firstly with the French people, and secondly with Russia. Nevertheless, it seems that there could be some substance to Macron’s sabre-rattling: The French Chief of Army Staff said he has 20,000 troops ready to be inserted in 30 days. And the Head of Russia’s SVR Intelligence Agency, Naryshkin, more modestly assessed that France seemingly is preparing a military contingent for sending to Ukraine, which at the initial stage, will be about two thousand people.
Just to be clear however, even a 20,000-man division by standards of classical military theory is supposed to be able to hold at maximum, a 10km-front. An insertion of two or twenty thousand French troops would change nothing strategically; it would not halt the vastly larger Russian steamroller, grinding on westwards. So what is Macron playing at?
Is this all bluff, then?
Likely, it is part ‘grandstanding’ by Macron, pre-occupied to present himself as ‘Mr Strongman Europe’ – particularly toward his French constituency.
His posturing comes however, at a more significant conjunction of events for the so-called ‘Geo-political EU’:
Clarity: Light has pierced, and has illuminated a space hitherto occupied by shadows. It is now as clear as it can be – after Putin’s overwhelming win in elections on a record turnout – that President Putin is here to stay. All the western shadow-play of ‘régime change’ in Moscow simply shrunk to naught in the bright light of events.
Snorts of anger can be heard from some quarters in Europe. Yet they will subside. There is no choice. The reality, as Marianne newspaper, quoting a senior French officer, derisively noting in respect to Macron’s Ukraine’s posturing: “We must make no mistake, facing the Russians; we are an army of cheerleaders” and sending French troops to the Ukrainian front would simply be “not reasonable”.
At the Élysée, an unnamed advisor argued that Macron “wanted to send a strong signal … (in) milli-metered and calibrated words”.
What pains the EU ‘neocon ever-hopefuls’ more is that Putin’s clear electoral victory coincides, almost precisely, with an EU (and NATO) humiliation in Ukraine. It is not just that the AFU appears to be in a cascading implosion, but that the retreat is accelerating, as Ukraine tries to retreat into unprepared and near indefensible terrain.
Into this grim EU prospect is that second shaft of clarifying light: The U.S. is slowly but surely turning its back on the financing and arming of Kiev, leaving Europe’s impotence exposed for all the world to see.
The EU simply cannot substitute for the U.S. pivot. Yet more hurtful for some is that a U.S. retreat represents a ‘punch in the guts’ for much of the Brussels leadership, who had fallen on the Biden Administration with almost indecent glee, upon Trump’s leaving of office. They used the moment to proclaim the cementing of a pro-Atlanticist, pro-NATO EU.
Now, as former Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar perfectly defines it, “France [is] all dressed up – with nowhere to go”:
“Ever since its ignominious defeat in the Napoleonic wars, France is entrapped in the predicament of countries that get sandwiched between great powers. Following World War II, France addressed this predicament by forging an axis with Germany in Europe”.
“Caught up in a similar predicament, Britain adapted itself to a subaltern role tapping into the American power globally but France never gave up its quest to regain glory as a global power. And it continues to be a work in progress”.
“The angst in the French mind is understandable as the five centuries of western dominance of the world order is drawing to a close. This predicament condemns France to a diplomacy that is constantly in a state of suspended animation, interspersed with sudden bouts of activism”.
The problems here for the exalted aspiration for the EU qua global power are three-fold: Firstly, the Franco-German Axis has dissolved, as Germany swerved towards the U.S. as its new foreign-policy dogma. Secondly, France’s clout is diminished further in European affairs as Scholtz has embraced Poland (not France) as its like-minded, ‘best friend forever’; and thirdly, Macron’s personal relations with Chancellor Scholz are on a dive.
The other plane to the EU geo-political project is that the embrace of Washington’s financial wars on Russia and China has resulted in “the U.S. has dramatically outgrowing the EU and the United Kingdom combined – over the last 15 years. In 2008, the EU’s economy was somewhat larger than America’s … America’s economy is now however, nearly one-third bigger. [And] it is more than 50 per cent larger than the EU without the UK”.
In other words, being America’s ally, in its ill-judged Ukraine-proxy war, has – and is – costing Europe dearly. Eurointelligence reports that a survey amongst small and medium-sized companies in Germany has registered an extreme shift in sentiment against the EU. Of the sample of 1,000 small and medium sized companies, 90% were unhappy with the EU to varying degrees, driving many to re-locate from Europe to the U.S.
Put plainly, the effort to inflate and hold aloft the notion of a ‘geo-political Europe’ is ending in débacle. Living standards are sinking and Brussel’s regulatory promiscuity and high energy costs are resulting in the de-industrialisation and impoverishment of Europe.
Macron, in a blunt interview in late 2019 with The Economist magazine, declared that Europe stood on “the edge of a precipice” and needed to start thinking of itself strategically as a geo-political power, lest we will “no longer be in control of our destiny.” (Macron’s remark preceded the war in Ukraine by 3 years).
Today, Macron’s fears are reality.
So, to turn to what the EU plans to do about this crisis, EC President Michel says he wants to buy twice as many weapons from European producers by 2030; to use the profits from Russian frozen assets to finance weapons purchases for Ukraine; to facilitate financial access for the European defence industry, including by issuing a European defence bond and getting the European Investment Bank to add defence purposes to its lending criteria.
Michel sells it to the public as a way to create jobs and growth. In reality, however, the EU is looking to create a new slush fund to replace the QE purchases by the ECB of EU states’ sovereign bonds, which the interest rate spike in the U.S. effectively killed.
The defence industry ploy is a means to create more cash flows: The EU’s various mooted ‘transitions’ (Climate, Greening and Tech) clearly required mammoth money-printing. This was just about manageable when the project could be financed at zero cost interest rates. Now the EU states’ debt explosion to fund the pandemic and ‘transitions’ threatens to take the entire geo-political ‘revolution’ into financial crisis. There is a financing crisis underway.
Defence, Michael hopes, may be saleable to the public as the new ‘transition’ to be financed by unorthodox means. Wolfgang Münchau at EuroIntellignce however, writes on ‘Michel’s rosy war economy’ – that he wants a geo-political Europe, and so concludes his letter with the familiar cold war adage – that ‘if you want peace you need to prepare for war’”.
“Are those weapons in Michel’s war economy to speak for our failures in diplomacy? What is our historic contribution to this conflict? Should we not start from there?”
“The language Michel uses is dramatic and dangerous. Some of our older citizens still remember what it means to live in a war economy. Michel’s loose talk is disrespectful”.
Eurointelligence is not alone in its criticism. Macron’s gambit has divided Europe, with a majority firmly opposed to inserting troops into Ukraine – sleep-walking into war. Marianne’s editor Natacha Polony has written:
“It is no longer about Emmanuel Macron or his postures as a virile little leader. It is no longer even about France or its weakening by blind and irresponsible élites. It is a question of whether we will collectively agree to sleepwalk into war. A war that no one can claim will be controlled or contained. It’s a question of whether we agree to send our children to die because the United States insisted on setting up bases on Russia’s borders”.
The bigger question concerns the whole ‘Von der Leyen-Macron’ geo-political gambit of the EU needing to think of itself as a geo-political power. It is the pursuit of this geo-political ‘chimaera’ (in no little part, an ego-project) that paradoxically, has brought the EU exactly to the brink of crisis.
Do a majority of Europeans truly wish to be a geo-political power, if that requires relinquishing what remains of their national sovereignty and autonomy (and parliamentary oversight) to the supra-national plane; to the Brussels technocrats? Maybe Europeans are content for the EU to remain as a trade bloc.
So why is Macron nonetheless doing this? No one is sure, but it seems that he imagines he is playing some complicated game of psycho-deterrence with Moscow – one characterised by radical ambiguity.
His is just another psy-ops, in other words.
It is possible nonetheless, that he thinks his ambiguous on/off threat of an European deployment into Ukraine might just give Kiev enough negotiating ‘leverage’ to bluff Russia into agreeing to ‘rump Ukraine’ remaining in the western (and even NATO) sphere, in which case Macron will claim have been Ukraine’s ‘saviour’.
If this is the case, it is pie in the sky. President Putin, armed with his recent electoral victory, simply swept Macron’s psy-op off the table: ‘Any insertion of French troops would be ‘invaders’ and a legitimate target for our forces’, Putin made explicit.
The French Road to Nuclear War
Consortium News | March 24, 2024
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: On the Brink of Nuclear War
Mr. President:
France is reportedly preparing to dispatch a force of some 2,000 troops — roughly a reinforced brigade built around an armored battalion and two mechanized battalions, with supporting logistical, engineering, and artillery troops attached — into Ukraine sometime in the not-so-distant future.
This force is purely symbolic, inasmuch as it would have zero survivability in a modern high-intensity conflict of the scope and scale of what is transpiring in Ukraine today. It would not be deployed directly in a conflict zone, but would serve either as (1) a screening force/tripwire to stop Russia’s advance; or (2) a replacement force deployed to a non-active zone to free up Ukrainian soldiers for combat duty. The French Brigade reportedly will be supplemented by smaller units from the Baltic states.
This would be introducing combat troops of a NATO country into a theater of war, making them “lawful targets” under the Law of War.
Such units would apparently lack a NATO mandate. In Russia’s view, however, this may be a distinction without a difference. France appears to be betting – naively – that its membership in NATO would prevent Russia from attacking French troops. Rather, it is highly likely that Russia would attack any French/Baltic contingent in Ukraine and quickly destroy/degrade its combat viability.
In that case, French President Macron may calculate that, after Russian attacks on the troops of NATO members – NATO mandate or not – he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter and get the NATO alliance to intervene. Such intervention would likely take the form of aircraft operating from NATO nations – and perhaps include interdiction missions against tactical targets inside Russia.
On Precipice of Nuclear War?
Doctrinally, and by legal right, Russia’s response would be to launch retaliatory strikes also against targets in NATO countries. If NATO then attacks strategic targets inside Russia, at that point Russia’s nuclear doctrine takes over, and NATO decision-making centers would be hit with nuclear weapons.
We do not believe Russia will initiate a nuclear attack against the U.S., but rather would leave it up to the United States to decide if it wants to risk destruction by preparing to launch a nuclear strike on Russia. That said, Russian strategic forces have improved to the point that, in some areas – hypersonic missiles, for example – its capability surpasses that of the U.S. and NATO.
In other words, the Russian temptation to strike first may be a bit stronger than during past crises, and we are somewhat less confident that Russia would want to “go second”. Another disquieting factor is that the Russians are likely to believe that Macron’s folly has the tacit approval of some key U.S. and other Western officials, who seem desperate to find some way to alter the trajectory of the war in Ukraine – the more so, as elections draw near.
What Needs to Be Done
Europe needs to understand that France is leading it down a path of inevitable self-destruction.
The American people need to understand that Europe is leading them to the cusp of nuclear annihilation.
Since Russian leaders may suspect that Macron is working hand in glove with Washington, the U.S. needs to make its position publicly and unambiguously clear.
And if France and the Baltics insist on sending troops into Ukraine, it must also be made clear that such action has no NATO mandate; that Article 5 will not be triggered by any Russian retaliation; and that the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including those nuclear weapons that are part of the NATO deterrent force, will not be employed as a result of any Russian military action against French or Baltic troops.
Void of such clarity, France would be leading the American people down a path toward a nuclear conflict decidedly not in the interests of the American people – or of humanity itself.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP,
VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
- William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
- Richard Black, former Virginia State Senator; Colonel, USA (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Judge Advocate General (associate VIPS)
- Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
- Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
- Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
- Philip Giraldi, C.I.A., Operations Officer (ret.)
- Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
- James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
- Larry C. Johnson, former C.I.A. and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
- John Kiriakou, former C.I.A. Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
- Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
- Douglas Macgregor, Colonel, USA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
- Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army infantry/intelligence officer & C.I.A. analyst; C.I.A. Presidential briefer (ret.)
- Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & C.I.A. political analyst (ret.)
- Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, U.S. Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
- Pedro Israel Orta, former C.I.A. and Intelligence Community (Inspector General) officer
- Scott Ritter, former MAJ, USMC; former U.N. Weapons Inspector, Iraq
- Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
- Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel USA, ret.), Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary (associate VIPS)
- Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
- Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
- Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
- Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Background: Earlier VIPS Memos for President Biden on Ukraine
May 1, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Nuclear Weapons Cannot Be Un-invented, Thus …
“The growing possibility that nuclear weapons might be used, as hostilities in Ukraine continue to escalate, merits your full attention.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
Sept. 5, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Ukraine Decision Time & Secretary of Defense
“If Austin tells you Kyiv is beating back the Russians, kick the tires”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jan. 26, 2023
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Leopards to Ukraine: Decisions in an Intelligence Vacuum
“None of the newly promised weaponry will stop Russia from defeating what’s left of the Ukrainian army. If you have been told otherwise, replace your intelligence and military advisers with competent professionals – the sooner the better.”
“There is a large conceptual – and exceptionally dangerous – disconnect. Simply stated, it is not possible to “win the war against Russia” AND avoid WWIII. It is downright scary that Defense Secretary Austin may think it possible. In any case, the Kremlin has to assume he thinks so. It is a very dangerous delusion.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
January 25, 2024
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: VIPS
SUBJECT: Throwing Good Money After Bad
“On Jan. 26, 2023, we reminded you that National Intelligence Director Avril Haines had said Russia was using up ammunition extraordinarily quickly and could not indigenously produce what it was expending.”
“On July 13, you said Putin “has already lost the war”. You may have gotten that from C.I.A. Director William Burns who, a week before, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post saying: “Putin’s war has already been a strategic failure for Russia – its military weaknesses laid bare.” Both statements are incorrect. Nor is the war a “stalemate”, as Jake Sullivan has claimed more recently.”
Spain denounces “indiscriminate massacres” in Gaza but exports weapons to Ukraine
By Ahmed Adel | March 25, 2024
Spain will acquire combat-tested Israeli military material worth €207 million at a time when the Iberian country also promised to recognise a Palestinian state and cut military exports to Israel. Decisionmakers in Madrid justify cutting exports to Israel due to “massacres” against Palestinians, but at the same time, export weapons to Ukraine, contributing to the massacre of civilians in eastern Europe.
The Ministry of Defence of Spain, through the General Subdirectorate of Acquisitions of Weapons and Materials, has initiated the purchase of Israeli-made weapons by awarding a contract to Rafael Advanced Defence Systems, one of the three largest military-industrial companies in Israel, to equip the Air Force’s Eurofighter Litening V fleet. In the award announcement, Rafael was claimed to be “the only one technically qualified to develop the project from a technical point of view” since it included the use of laser-guided precision munitions.
It also happens that the Litening V laser pods by Rafael have been used for months in Israel’s bombing campaign of Gaza, which has caused more than 31,000 deaths to date. Like almost all the war material that Israel usually exports, the Litening V laser pods are weapon support equipment whose manufacturers boast of their “combat proven” status due to their effectiveness against the Palestinians.
Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister José Manuel Albares announced on more than one occasion the “total embargo” on the export of weapons to Israel. The contract awarded to Rafael obviously concerns an import and not an export, and, in this manner, Spain virtue signals against Israel whilst still benefiting from its military-industrial complex.
However, according to a study by the Delàs Center for Peace Studies, Israeli weapons imports carry a greater severity than military exports to Tel Aviv. In effect, the purchase of military material from Israel strengthens the country’s military and security model and, more importantly, contributes to subduing the Palestinians, which Israel makes economically viable with the sale of its combat-tested military products.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez says he is going to recognise Palestine as an independent State and that he considers what Israel is committing in the Gaza Strip “an indiscriminate massacre,” but then he continues to buy weapons from Israel. Therefore, it is not feasible to grant any type of credibility to the statements of the members of the Spanish government.
Last November, Sánchez vowed to prioritise the recognition of Palestinian statehood as its main foreign policy priority. However, when speaking after a summit in Brussels on March 22, he suggested to reporters that Spain would coordinate with other EU countries instead of unilaterally making the decision to recognise Palestinian statehood.
“We want to take this step united. It’s a decisive step in order to lay the foundations of a lasting peace,” he said in an evident u-turn, adding that the EU should “carefully calibrate” the right moment to take the step.
At the same time, before the Congressional Defence Commission, the Secretary of State for Commerce reported on the list of shipments of military material to Ukraine between March 2022 and February 2024. The amount supplied is equivalent to €190 million. These are mainly drones, grenade launchers, anti-tank mines, artillery ammunition, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, tracked vehicles, night vision equipment, and 10 Leopard 2A4 tanks.
But this list does not take into account a new batch of Leopard 2A4 battle tanks since the Interministerial Board for Trade and Control of Defence Material and Dual-Use Technologies (JIMDDU) authorised the shipment of another 19 of these armoured vehicles to Kiev once they are repaired and conditioned at the facilities of the Santa Bárbara Sistemas factory in the province of Seville.
Ten of the 19 tanks have already been transferred from the Army base in Casetas near Zaragoza, where they were stored. According to military sources cited by El Heraldo de Aragón, the plan is to send them to Ukraine at the end of June. To this end, the parts and spare parts necessary for its reconstruction must first be found, and when the entire process is completed, Spain will have sent a total of 29 Leopard tanks to Ukraine.
Nonetheless, shipping will be complicated since these vehicles are in even worse condition than the dozen reconditioned Leopards already shipped in 2023. Spain is sending such poor-conditioned vehicles to Kiev to increase its rearmament because the old stock must be disposed of before buying new weapons and equipment.
In this context, Spain justifies not exporting weapons to Israel because of the “indiscriminate massacre” of Palestinians but exports weapons to Ukraine, which contributes to the massacre of people in Ukraine and Russia’s newly liberated territories. Compounding the contradiction is then the fact that Spain imports military equipment from Israel while refusing to export to the Jewish state and promising to recognise a Palestinian state.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Italy’s Salvini says ‘warmonger’ Macron ‘danger’ for Europe as Ukraine tension rises
Press TV – March 24, 2024
Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini says French President Emmanuel Macron is a “warmonger” and represents a “danger” for Europe by refusing to rule out sending Western ground troops to Ukraine.
Salvini’s remarks came on Saturday during a gathering in Rome of right-wing and nationalist European leaders to rally support ahead of EU parliamentary elections in June.
Salvini whose far-right League party is a member of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s coalition government, said that Macron’s suggestion last month that Western ground troops could be sent to Ukraine was “extremely dangerous, excessive and out of balance.”
“I think that President Macron, with his words, represents a danger for our country and our continent,” he said during his speech.
“The problem isn’t mums and dads but the warmongers like Macron who talk about war as if there were no problem now,” he added. “I don’t want to leave our children a continent ready to enter World War Three.”
In similar remarks, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani also said in mid-March that his country does not support deploying NATO troops in Ukraine, warning that the move could spark World War III.
The French president told a press conference he did not rule out sending troops last month, after a high-level meeting in Paris of mainly European partners to discuss what urgent steps could be taken to shore up Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s recent frontline advances.
Following his remarks he faced criticism from France’s Nato and EU partners and a warning of conflict from Russia.
Last week, Sergey Naryshkin, Russia’s foreign intelligence (SVR) top brass said any French military unit sent to Ukraine to help it fight Russia would be a “priority” target for the Russian army.
This warning came after Kremlin received information that Paris is preparing to dispatch a contingent of 2,000 troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia.
Naryshkin said that Macron is concealing the actual number of French soldiers who have lost their lives in Ukraine due to concerns over potential widespread demonstrations in France.
In response, the French army chief of staff, Pierre Schill has said France is ready to face whatever developments unfold internationally and is prepared for the “toughest engagements” to protect itself.
Ties between France and Russia have further deteriorated in recent weeks after Paris signed a bilateral security accord with Ukraine and vowed to send more long-range cruise missiles.
Earlier this month, Macron also said there are “no limits” to French support for Ukraine. He added that France “would be ready to make sure that Russia never wins that war.”
Russia launched what it calls “a special military operation” in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, over the perceived threat of the ex-Soviet republic joining NATO.
Since then, the United States and Ukraine’s other Western allies have sent Kiev tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including rocket systems, drones, armored vehicles, tanks, and communication systems.
Western countries have also imposed a slew of economic sanctions on Moscow. The Kremlin has said the sanctions and the Western military assistance will only prolong the war.
Militaristic Revolution in the EU: Brussels Paves Legal Way for Warmongering
By Dmitry Babich – Sputnik – 23.03.2024
During the last few days, the European Union went through a real militaristic revolution. A special “legal task force” is working on allowing the use of EU funds for war.
The so-called European Peace Facility (EPF), officially stewarded by Josep Borrell, will get its money from the EU funds (and not individual states) after reporting the transfer of thousands of weapons systems to Kiev. EPF also reported having trained more than 40,000 Ukrainian military to use them.
The Financial Times chose a somewhat routinely sounding lead for its story on the EU’s decision to legally stop being an “oasis of peace”: “Brussels proposes ‘legal task force’ to explore ways to use the common budget for defense.”
The headline, however, was more disturbing: “EU looks to bypass treaty ban on buying arms to support Ukraine.”
The reality described in the FT’s story, however, is more dramatic than the headline and the lead taken together: the European Union, which was conceived as an entirely peaceful organization, becomes one of the world’s most implacable warring empires – by law. Very soon the EU’s Union Treaty will no longer have a provision prohibiting “any expenditure arising from operations having military or defense implications.” (Article 41, point 2 of the Treaty on European Union.) Or, at best, this provision will be made devoid of legal force by some new additions to the EU’s legislation.
FT reports, confirming its story by eyewitness accounts, that the European Commission is creating a “legal task force,” that would allow the EU to finance wars and military production by European money. In all likelihood, the first “beneficiary” of this financing will be NATO’s proxies in Ukraine, waging a war against Russia and Russians since 2014.
At a recent conference of the EU’s 27 members in mid-March, 2024, it was decided to create within the framework of the so-called European Peace Facility (EPF) a special fund for financing Ukrainian armed forces (Ukraine Assistance Fund). What the relation is between the word “peace” and the system of buying and transporting weapons to the zone of conflict, remains unclear.
Ukraine Assistance Fund (UAF) will be financed by donations from EU member states to the tune of €5 billion a year. At least €500 million from that sum will be spent on training Ukrainian servicemen to use the EPF-provided weapons. The weapons will mostly be European-made (such was the requirement of France), but not only. Weapons from “third countries” can be bought and sold, creating opportunities for the spread of dangerous weapons around the world.
Judging by the recent EU summit on Thursday, which discussed the ways of stealing “immobilized” Russia’s foreign assets and pouring its money into the UAF “for military support to Ukraine,” no law is an obstacle for the EU’s “legal task forces.”
Was such an evolution of the EU unexpected?
Not entirely. The EU’s quasi-pacifist image started to crumble not now, but back in the 1990s. It transpired back then that the real European Union went a long way from the lofty ideas of the EU’s founders. Only naïve people can trust the EU’s claims, that it is a purely “soft power-based institution.”
In 1995-1999 the EU’s member countries participated in military interventions against the former Yugoslav republics, later almost all EU members made their “military contributions” to the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
However, as more and more “crusades” by individual Western countries or American-British alliances ended in defeats (one can cite Afghanistan in 2001-2021 or the French intervention in West Africa after the coup in Libya in 2011), the dreams about a “collective war chest” of the EU started to take shape.
In 2020 the so-called European Defense Fund (EDF) and later, in March 2021, the European Peace Facility (EPF) started operating at the EU level. Their aim was clear from the start: to collect money from member countries and to buy arms for this money. Later, these weapons will be used against “undemocratic” countries, whose leaders happen to be at odds with the EU and the US.
Real European pacifists immediately smelt the rat and protested both against EDF and especially against EPF, which after the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict became one of the main sponsors of Zelensky’s military machine. Back in 2021, 40 pro-peace NGOs, headed by the German group Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World) came out with a statement denouncing the EPF as an instrument “which brings arms into wrong hands” and “allows to use the EU money to train the military cadres for dictatorial regimes.”
Now, however, Brussels uses widespread anti-Russian prejudice in the EU, as well as constant reminders about the “threat from Putin” to justify the final destruction of the dream of “peaceful Europe,” which once inspired the pioneers of European integration. In comparison to 2021 critics are fewer and quieter. In this way, Russophobia was spiritually destructive for Europe, stealing its dream of “world peace.”
Russia explains stance on US-proposed Palestine “cease fire” resolution
Explanation of vote by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at the UNSC vote on US-proposed draft resolution on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question
Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations | March 22, 2024
Before the vote:
Mr. President,
For six months now, the UN Security Council has been unable to adopt a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. Time and again, the United States thwarted any attempt to do so by using a veto in cold blood as many as four times.
During that time, we have heard many different excuses from our American colleagues. For example, that it is premature to seek a ceasefire because it is necessary to give space “for Israel’s counter-terrorism efforts”; that the Council should not interfere with Washington’s “effective diplomacy on the ground”; that we should wait until Ramadan, when, they say, an agreement on a cessation of violence will definitely be made.
Now, six months later, when Gaza has been practically leveled with the ground, the US representative says without batting an eye that Washington finally starts to realize the need for a ceasefire.
This leisurely thinking process by Washington has cost the lives of 32,000 Palestinian civilians, two-thirds of them women and children.
And even now we see a typical hypocritical show, when in the wrapper of a “ceasefire” the United States is trying to sell to the members of the Security Council and the entire international community something else – a vague phrase about “defining the imperative of a ceasefire”. Such philosophy about moral imperatives looks naturally in the works of Immanuel Kant. But it is not enough to save the lives of Palestinian people. And that is not at all what the mandate of the UN Security Council suggests, which has a unique toolkit to demand a ceasefire and, if necessary, enforce it.
In an official interview to Al Hadath in Jeddah on 20 March, Secretary of State Blinken said, “Well, in fact, we actually have a resolution that we put forward right now that’s before the UNSC that does call for an immediate ceasefire tied to the release of hostages and we hope very much that countries will support that”. However, the US-proposed draft resolution does not make such call. It appears that either the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations or the US Secretary of State deliberately mislead the international community.
Colleagues,
From the very beginning, it was obvious that the “negotiations” on the draft resolution held by our American colleagues were only meant to delay time. All our comments and “red lines” were ignored, as well as the proposals of a number of other delegations. This was not a normal work on a document. It felt more like speaking into the void.
The US draft is a thoroughly politicized document, which only aims at pulling on voters’ heartstrings before the US elections by throwing them a “bone” in the form of at least some mention of a “ceasefire” in Gaza. The draft also seeks to consolidate US policy in the region through “terrorist labels” and to ensure impunity for Israel, whose criminal actions the draft gives no assessment to.
Let me also stress that the American draft contains a de facto green light for Israel to conduct a military operation in Rafah. At least, the sponsors have tried to make sure that nothing in their draft would prevent West Jerusalem from completing the deadly cleanup of southern Gaza.
That is actually what Washington wants. We already said that we will no longer pass meaningless resolutions that do not demand a ceasefire and lead us nowhere.
This draft must not pass with the majority of UNSC votes in order to send a message that Washington’s not even palliative but devious concepts are unacceptable. It will be extremely strange if those members of the Council (and they are the majority), who realize this and have been saying to us that the US draft is a flawed one, will now raise their hand in favor. If you do so, you will smear yourselves in disgrace.
Think what this will make you look in the eyes of the people of the Middle East and your own countries, if you support this hypocritical endeavor designed to disorient the international community and, in fact, undermine the authority of the Council by rendering it unable to influence the situation on the ground and making it “stay out of White House’s way”. Are you ready to play a part in this shameful show?
Russia will not do this. As a permanent member of the Security Council and one of the founders of the United Nations, we recognize the global historical responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and cannot allow the Council to become a tool of Washington’s destructive policy in the Middle East. If this resolution were adopted, it would definitively close the debate on the need for a ceasefire in Gaza, give Israel a free hand and condemn Gaza and its entire population to extermination or expulsion.
In our work, we are not guided by what pleases Washington or its satellites who are ready to cast a vote at the US behest, but by what is necessary for the Palestinians and what promotes peace.
We urge the members of the UN Security Council to prevent this and vote against the American draft resolution.
Mr. President,
In order for the UN Security Council to still be able to implement its mandate to maintain international peace and security, a number of non-permanent UNSC members have prepared an alternative draft resolution that spells out in black and white the requirements for both a ceasefire and the unconditional release of hostages. It is a balanced and depoliticized document.
We see no reason why members of the Security Council could refuse to support it, unless a ceasefire and the release of hostages are not part of their plans. This is an attempt to allow the Council to carry out the noble functions entrusted to it. We urge to not miss it.
Thank you.
After the vote:
Mr. President,
We have now listened to the hypocritical speeches of some Council members shedding crocodile tears over the Russian and Chinese vetoes. We have explained the reasons why we did not pass this resolution. It was not because it was put forward by the United States delegation, as the American Permanent Representative tried to assure us today. I told you – those of you who voted here today – that you would cover yourselves in disgrace by voting in favor of an American text that was unacceptable to you (including those of you who are now praising it).
Do you want me to say what really happened? Not hard to guess, the scenario is not complicated at all. Your American masters, in addition to “twisting the arms” of your leaders in the capitals, said, “Don’t you worry, Russia will veto anyways, so you won’t have to go against the American draft.” That’s it, that’s the whole scenario. So stop this hypocrisy about how upset you are that Russia and China vetoed the resolution. Once again, you have covered yourselves in disgrace today by voting in favor of a draft resolution that you did not and do not really support.
Thank you.
Ukraine Brought Upon Itself Russia’s Retaliatory Strikes & ‘More Will Follow’
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 22.03.2024
Russia carried out strikes that paralyzed Ukraine’s power grid, targeted decision-making centers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, logistics bases, railway junctions and ammunition depots, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced on Friday. The MoD added that the attacks left Ukraine’s military production and repair facilities in disarray.
The Kiev regime brought upon itself Russia’s massive retaliatory strikes disrupting Ukraine’s energy facilities, the functioning of military-industrial enterprises.
Evgeny Mikhailov, political scientist, director of the Center for Strategic Studies of the South Caucasus, told Sputnik that “They forced us to take such serious preventive measures,” stressing that “this is not the last such strike, and more will follow.”
Two explosions were heard in the morning at the Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant in the Ukrainian-controlled city of Zaporozhye, Vladimir Rogov, head of the regional public movement “We Are Together with Russia,” told Sputnik.
Russia has carried out massive drone and rocket attacks targeting electrical power facilities across much of Ukraine.
The country’s Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant was knocked out of action due to significant damage after being hit eight times, Ukrainian prosecutor’s office said. The overnight strikes were “the largest attack on the Ukrainian energy sector in recent times.”
Between March 16 and 22, Russia carried out “49 retaliatory strikes using high-precision long-range air-launched weapons, including Kinzhal aeroballistic hypersonic missiles, other missile systems and unmanned aerial vehicles,” the Russian Ministry of Defense in a statement on Friday. Strikes on Ukraine’s energy facilities, military-industrial complex, railway junctions and ammunition depots were in response to the shelling of Russian territory, and “attempts to break through and seize Russian border settlements.”
“It is already clear now that after Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant was targeted, Kharkov is virtually without electricity, internet traffic has sharply decreased throughout Ukraine, internet communications have suffered, and there are power outages in many cities,” Mikhailov noted.
“Everything is interconnected. Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant is the most important facility in the energy structure of Ukraine,” the pundit added. “Our strike effectively put out of operation manufacturers of weapons and other goods necessary to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the fight against the Russian military. And, of course, this is a big blow to the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian army in principle.”
Russia has demonstrated that it is capable of inflicting hefty blows on Ukraine’s infrastructure that cause significant losses and damage, said the expert.
“This was actually a response to the attack on our infrastructure facilities in the interior of the country, oil refineries, and shelling of peaceful cities,” Mikhailov explained. “The Ukrainian Armed Forces have crossed all ‘red lines,’ especially in recent months. Accordingly, nothing limits Russia from striking Kiev’s critical infrastructure facilities.”
The Russian strikes are part of the overall logical strategy of the national Armed Forces, agreed veteran Russian military expert Ivan Konovalov. The attacks are of a ‘combined’ nature, he noted: Russian forces are acting on the front line and targeting Ukraine’s energy systems deep in the rear.
“Strikes on the energy system and critical infrastructure always immediately affect the situation at the front,” Konovalov said.
The Ukrainian military-industrial complex has long ceased to exist, Konovalov noted, as it “was destroyed long before the start of Russia’s special military operation, when Kiev broke off cooperation ties with Russia in the field of military-technical cooperation.”
He stressed that any military-industrial enterprise on the territory of Ukraine is a legitimate target for Russia’s Armed Forces. And since some of Kiev’s Western patrons floated ideas of building weapons factories on Ukrainian soil, these strikes carried out by Russia could be seen as “a warning” that “they will all come under attack.”
“These blows will affect three main factors: the economy of Ukraine, the situation at the front, and the overall terrorist policy of Kiev,” Konovalov said.
Russia’s strikes came after a series of attempts by Ukrainian forces to break into the Russian border regions of Belgorod and Kursk were repulsed “thanks to the coordinated actions of the forces guarding the state border of the Russian Federation,” the Defense Ministry said.
A spate of Ukrainian drone attacks also targeted Russian oil refineries. Those acts triggered a flurry of concerns in Washington, Mikhailov believes, where they see that “Russia’s hands are no longer tied.”
France ‘Prepares for War’ and Threatens European Security Architecture
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 22, 2024
France continues to take steps towards militarization and escalating tensions with Russia. Amid discussions about whether or not to send French troops to Ukrainian territory, officials in Paris have made controversial statements about a supposed “preparation for war”, leading many analysts to believe that relations between France and Russia are close to a point-of-no-return — which could obviously have catastrophic consequences for the European continent and the entire world.
In a recent statement, Pierre Schill, commander of the French Army, stated that his troops are in combat readiness, capable of engaging in war at any time — if necessary. He believes that today’s France is severely threatened. In this sense, the country must be prepared to go to war against states that pose a danger to Paris.
At the same time, the government’s official speech continues to become increasingly aggressive towards the Russian Federation. French President Emmanuel Macron has advanced plans to increase his country’s interventionism in the Ukrainian conflict — and continues to refuse to rule out the hypothesis of direct intervention by French troops on the battlefield. In practice, France is simply advancing a plan that would certainly lead to direct war against Russia, which obviously means a high-risk global situation considering France’s NATO membership.
More than that, Russian intelligence recently discovered that around two thousand French soldiers are mobilized to be sent to Ukraine at any time. They are believed to be deployed in critical regions such as Odessa and the northern border, where the West fears the Russians will consolidate positions. Although it denies the information set out in the Russian report, the French government remains publicly willing to, “if necessary”, send troops to Ukraine, which is why tensions remain high.
Interestingly, the head of Ukrainian diplomacy, Dmitry Kuleba, stated that Russia misunderstood French plans. According to him, Macron ’s real intention is not to enter directly into the conflict, but only, “if necessary”, to allocate French instructors on Ukrainian soil so that they can train Kiev’s troops on the ground. In a scenario of military escalation and with logistical difficulties for Ukraine, some believe that this would be the best way to continue the current cooperation projects and training of Kiev’s forces by the West.
However, it is necessary to remember that at no point did Macron suggest that he was actually planning a mere sending of instructors. In his statements, the president actually said that he did not rule out the possibility of direct intervention in the war, making it clear that Paris could send troops to fight on the Ukrainian front line in the future. Furthermore, even if Macron said this incorrectly and his intention is only to send military trainers, this does not change the fact that Paris would, in practice, be going to war against Russia.
Western troops on Ukrainian soil are and will always be legitimate targets for Russian military forces. More than that, they are priority targets, as Moscow understands that these adversaries are the true strategists behind Ukrainian crimes. Several Western troops have already died in Ukraine — some of them acting as mercenaries, others as instructors or decision-makers. However, so far there is no official presence of these troops, which somehow still keeps tensions reasonably controlled.
From the moment a NATO country starts sending regular soldiers to Ukraine, even for mere instructional purposes, the crisis will escalate to an extremely serious, possibly irreversible, level. The official presence of Western troops in Ukraine would be a point of no return in ties between NATO and Russia, leading to an open WWIII — the consequences of which could be catastrophic.
There is also the risk that France and Europeans will simply be “abandoned” in this process. So far, the US, which is the leading country in NATO, has not shown any interest in direct intervention. For Washington, the most profitable scenario is the involvement of proxy agents in attritional conflicts that “wear down” Russia, without openly involving American troops. In this sense, it is very likely that, if France engages in an open war with Russia, there will be no direct American support for Paris and its European allies — after all, NATO’s collective defense obligations are not applicable when an alliance country begins hostilities against another state.
Indeed, Macron is acting in a totally risky and irresponsible way. In his selfish attempt to gain “leadership” among Europeans, the French president is leading the entire continent into an unprecedented security crisis.
Ukraine Talks Haven’t Started Because of US Threats to Zelensky, Seymour Hersh Says
Sputnik – 22.03.2024
Negotiations on resolving the conflict in Ukraine could have started months ago, but US authorities threatened Vladimir Zelensky with withdrawal of non-military funding, US journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh said in an article on Substack.
“We were on the verge of a reasonable negotiation several months ago before Putin’s re-election and Zelensky’s military degradation. The US leaders got wind of the possibility and gave Zelensky the ultimatum-‘No negotiations or settlement or we won’t support your government with the $45 billion in non-military funds [that Ukraine is now receiving annually],'” the source told the journalist.
According to Hersh’s information, US intelligence community recognises that “Ukraine has little chance of winning…”
Hersh’s interlocutor also added that US President Joe Biden has staked on confronting the “Russian threat to NATO” and will not change his course under any circumstances, while the end is inevitable.
“There is no road to victory for Ukraine, and it will end with Putin as an historical icon in Russia…,” the source concluded.
In autumn 2022, Zelensky signed a decree according to which his country will not negotiate with Russia as long as it is led by Vladimir Putin. Russia, for its part, has repeatedly noted its readiness to discuss the settlement of the conflict through diplomatic means.
As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasised, the Russia does not see any prerequisites for a peaceful transition of the situation, and sovereignty over the new Russian regions and Crimea is not up for discussion.
‘France has no vital interests in Ukraine’ – Le Pen
RT | March 21, 2024
The conflict in Ukraine does not directly affect France’s key national interests, the former leader of the far-right National Rally party, Marine Le Pen, told the BFM TV broadcaster on Wednesday. Le Pen, who led the party for more than a decade argued that “France’s vital interests are not in question.”
The three-time presidential candidate also suggested that Russia does not pose a threat to European nations and that the best thing Kiev’s Western backers can do is ensure that it sits down at the negotiating table with Moscow as soon as possible.
According to the politician, “the only way to help Ukraine is to give it the means to enter into negotiations.”
Late last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said that, while there was no consensus among Kiev’s backers on a military deployment to Ukraine, “in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything.” Numerous NATO allies were quick to reject his suggestion. However, reports have since appeared in the media, claiming that Paris may have been preparing for such a development for months.
Reports have also alleged that active-duty military personnel from NATO states are already operating in Ukraine in various capacities – something that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski appeared to confirm on Wednesday.
Le Pen accused Macron of “playing politics with war,” suggesting that the head of state may not be fully aware of what is going on on the battlefield in Ukraine.
She also argued that Moscow was unlikely to attack European countries as it “does not have the military means to engage in a territorial war with the whole” of the continent.
Last week, French legislators voted in favor of a 10-year security pact with Ukraine, which was signed by Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart, Vladimir Zelensky, last month. National Rally abstained, with Le Pen accusing the head of state of “hijacking, exploiting and instrumentalizing a major international crisis for a short-term electoral agenda.”
She has consistently opposed plans to admit Ukraine into NATO and the EU, as well as economic sanctions on Russia, and the delivery of heavy weapons to Kiev.
On Tuesday, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, claimed that France was preparing to deploy as many as 2,000 troops to Ukraine.
Over the weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin told his supporters that fighters from NATO states were already present in Ukraine. He also said a conflict between NATO and Russia could not be ruled out, but added that everyone probably understood the dire consequences of such a development.
Western media ‘coverage’ of Russia is incredibly dangerous, and it’s getting worse
By Glenn Diesen | RT | March 20, 2024
Western media coverage of every Russian election is bad. But this time it was even worse than usual.
Instead of lashing out at the incompetence on display, it’s more constructive to explore why rational discussions about the country continue to appear impossible.
Not to mention the dire consequences of the ongoing self-delusion.
Reason versus conformity to the group
One of the first things we learn in sociology is that humans are in a constant battle between instincts and reason. Over tens of thousands of years, we have developed the instinct to organise in groups as a source of security. This is the result of evolutionary biology as survival demands that we organise into “us” versus “them”. In-group loyalty is augmented by assigning contrasting identities of the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other”, which helps stop an individual from straying too far from the pack.
Yet, human beings are also equipped with reason and thus the ability to assess objective reality independent of their immediate circle. In international relations, it’s imperative to place yourself in the shoes of the opponent. The rationality required to see the world through the perspective of the “other” is vital for reaching mutual understanding, reducing tensions, and pursuing a workable peace.
Every successful peace process and reconciliation in history – from Northern Ireland to negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa – has been based on this.
We expect journalists to be objective in their reporting of reality, which is especially important during war. But this seems to be almost impossible, especially during conflicts. When human beings experience external threats, their herd instincts are triggered as society demands group loyalty and we punish those who deviate. The political obedience demanded during war time usually results in the weakening of freedom of speech, the role of journalism, and democracy.
Why did Russians vote for Putin?
So, how can we understand the reasons for President Vladimir Putin’s immense popularity in Russia and his landslide victory?
If we use our reason and resist our tribal instincts, it should not be difficult to understand the popularity of Putin. While the 1990s was a golden period for the West, it was a nightmare for Russians. The economy collapsed and society disintegrated with truly horrific consequences.
The country’s security also collapsed, as NATO expansion meant there was no chance to agree an inclusive European security architecture. This had been outlined in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and the OSCE founding documents.
A weakened Russia meant that its interests could be ignored, and NATO was able to invade Moscow’s ally Yugoslavia, in violation of international law.
When Putin took over the presidency on 31 December 1999, it was commonplace in the West to predict that Russia would share the fate of the Soviet Union. That is eventual collapse.
However, Russia has instead become the largest economy in Europe (by PPP), its society has healed from the disastrous 1990s, its military might has been restored, and new international partners have been found in the East and Global South, as evidenced by the growing role of BRICS.
Furthermore, most Russians believe it’s not a good idea to have major disruptions to leadership in the middle of a NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine that is deemed an existential threat. Don’t change horses in midstream as the American proverb, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, advises.
Speaking of the US, the late Mikhail Gorbachev – who was immensely popular there – did not shy away from criticising Putin, when he was still with us. However, he nevertheless argued that Putin “saved Russia from the beginning of a collapse”.
Today, any Western journalist repeating this would be immediately branded as a “Putinist” – implying a betrayal of the “us”. Western journalists cannot acknowledge the immense achievements of Russia since 1999 as it could be interpreted as lending legitimacy and signalling support for the “bad” side.
The price of self-delusion
Arguments are not judged by the extent they reflect an objective reality, rather they are assessed by how they are seen to express support or condemnation of Russia. Conformity to a narrative signals in-group loyalty, and the desire to deprive opponents of legitimacy limits what is allowed to be discussed.
Acknowledging Putin’s achievements over the past 25 years is treated as expressing support for him, which is tantamount to treason.
Meanwhile, journalists hardly ever discuss Moscow’s security concerns and the extent to which our competing interests can be harmonised. Instead, Russian policies are conveyed by referring to derogatory descriptions of Putin’s character.
As in our other wars, conflicts are explained by the presence of a bad man and if we could just make him go away, then the natural order of peace would be restored. Putin, the narrative contends, is our most recent reincarnation of Hitler and we constantly live in the 1940s where an adversary must be defeated and not appeased.
How can journalists then explain to their audience Putin’s popularity and the reasons for his huge personal vote when it is not allowed to say anything positive about the Russian president? Unable to live in reality and unable to place ourselves in the shoes of the opponent – how are we supposed to have sensible analysis and policies? As I always warned my students of international relations: Do not hate your rivals, it produces poor and dangerous analysis!
Making self-delusion virtuous comes at a high price. How can the West pursue diplomacy and work with Putin when he is presented as the embodiment of evil and an illegitimate leader? Even explaining Russian policies is condemned as legitimising Russian policies, which is deemed to be propaganda that must not be given a platform. People conform to the good versus evil mantra as it feels virtuous and patriotic to signal that they support the in-group and loathe the out-group. But how can we pursue our interests when we have committed ourselves to self-delusion and have banned reality from our analysis?
I have attempted to explain for two years why the anti-Russian sanctions were doomed to fail and why Russia will win the war, only to be told that it is Russian propaganda to undermine support for sanctions and to challenge the narrative of a pending Ukrainian victory. Reality be damned! Ignoring reality results in a distorted picture of Russia which predictably leads to miscalculations. How could Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country” defeat the most draconian Western sanctions and see its economy not only survive, but by some measures even thrive? Why would Russians unite under an existential threat when we cannot acknowledge the role played by NATO in that regard?
Sigmund Freud explored the extent to which instinctive group psychology could diminish the rationality of the individual. Freud’s ideas were further developed by his nephew, Edward Bernays, who became the father of modern political propaganda. Over a century ago, Walter Lippman cautioned group psychology, managed with propaganda, as it came with a heavy price. Yielding to the instinct of viewing conflict as a struggle between the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other” implies that peace requires defeating the adversary, while a workable solution becomes tantamount to appeasement.
What better explains the current failure of rational analysis and the resulting collapse of diplomacy?
Glenn Diesen is a Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal.
Featured Video
Matt Bracken: US Plans Massive MOAB Strike on Iran?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Confronting the Threat of Ethnic Bioweapons
By Tony Cartalucci – New Eastern Outlook – 29.11.2017
The United States Air Force’s 59th Medical Wing’s molecular biology branch recently was revealed to have been collecting specifically Russian RNA and synovial (connective) tissue samples, prompting fears in Russia of a possible US directed ethnic-specific bioweapons program. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Matt Bracken: US Plans Massive MOAB Strike on Iran?
- Russia accuses France of ‘piracy’ over tanker seizure
- Why Yemen Is Bombing Saudi Arabia’s Airports: The War Behind the Headlines
- Sally Rooney’s books pulled from UK over support for Palestine Action
- Bombs for Tel Aviv, Promises for Riyadh
- Israeli ad agency conducted vast global espionage campaign using online ads: Report
- Oct. 7 Forever Marks The Big Reveal: ‘We See You, Israel, We Revile You, We Reject You!’
- Meet the US generals and admirals advancing Israeli policy
- Israel’s Straw Widow Protocol: The Kill Zones Where Civilians Were Labelled ‘Terrorists’
- Leading Israeli Think Tank Publishes Psychotic Israeli ‘National Security’ Doctrine
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli firm used online ads to run vast spy operation, researchers say
- No, the world zionist movement is not an antisemitic conspiracy theory
- Hundreds of IDF investigations into killings still have no public outcome, BBC Verify finds
- After Ashley Moody Epstein Probe, Donors Linked to Him Poured Money Into her Senate Campaign
- Worried about Russian meddling in UK politics? Wait till you see what Israel is up to
- Israeli settlers attack West Bank center for disabled children, church leader calls for int’l action
- Pulling Out Teeth Just to Live: How Israel Has Devastated Dental Care in Gaza
- Gaza’s “ceasefire” death toll passes 1,500 – Daily Update
- Activists Abused By Israel Return to New Freedom Flotilla Mission
- 60 Minutes won’t tell the full truth about Israeli settler violence
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
