Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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.

March 25, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

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.”

March 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Full-Spectrum Psyop: US Whips Up Fear of Russian Bugaboo to ‘Subjugate Europe’

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.03.2024

From the French president’s threats to send troops to Ukraine to a series of media reports on alleged Russian plans to invade NATO, anti-Russian hysteria has reached a fever pitch in European capitals. Meanwhile, one world power has been able to sit back and quietly collect the dividends, says veteran foreign affairs observer Gilbert Doctorow.

European politicians are doing their best to continue ratcheting up tensions with Moscow, with French President Emmanuel Macron reiterating that he may send thousands of troops to Ukraine, Baltic politicians allying with Paris on the issue, and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski saying it’s an “open secret” that NATO soldiers are already in the country.

British and German media have done their part to add fuel the hysteria, citing a recent briefing to Bundestag lawmakers on purported plans by Russia to kick off a “full-scale ‘land, sea and air’ war” with NATO.

“We hear threats from the Kremlin almost every day… so we have to take into account that Vladimir Putin might even attack a NATO country one day,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned in an interview earlier this year.

This week, Polish President Andrzej Duda claimed it was a matter “of common sense” that “Putin, by putting his economy on a war footing, will have such military might that he will be able to attack NATO.” Meanwhile, his top general, Polish Armed Forces Chief of Staff Wieslaw Kukula, has alleged that Russia is actively “preparing for a conflict,” and urging Europe to do the same.

Europe’s defenses are in an unenviable state. Facing a major economic downturn and a $61 billion spending shortfall after giving roughly the same amount away to Kiev for NATO’s proxy war against Russia, European military leaders have warned that they could be left “throwing stones” within hours of a major conflict breaking out as arms and ammo stocks round dry.

But the question no Western officials or media have been able to answer is why Russia – which has over the past three decades expressed a preference for economic cooperation with Europe, rather than fighting its western neighbors, would be interested in invading NATO and almost certainly triggering World War III.

“The whole of NATO cannot fail to understand that Russia has no reason, no interest – neither geopolitical, nor economic, nor political, nor military – to fight with NATO countries,” President Putin said in an interview in December, emphasizing that Moscow and the bloc “have no territorial claims against each other” and could live peacefully.

Puppet Hands at Play

The problem may just be that Russia is taking the hysterical outbursts by NATO officials and Western media at face value, instead of searching for the ‘man behind the curtain’ seeking desperately to keep tensions in place.

“For the United States, the war in Ukraine has failed as a means of weakening Russia so that they can proceed with preparations to fight China. But it has succeeded spectacularly as a means of subjugating Europe. Washington now firmly has its knees on the neck of Europe,” veteran international relations and Russian affairs expert Dr. Gilbert Doctorow told Sputnik.

Economically and politically, the US has been able to extract major concessions from the Europeans over the past two years, plucking hundreds of manufacturers from the continent thanks to an energy crisis sparked by the bloc’s “suicidal” decision to cut off Russian energy supplies, forcing the EU to purchase American LNG at four times the cost, and even trying to saddle Brussels with economic and military aid to Ukraine as Congress remains deadlocked over a $61 billion aid package.

“Here in Europe, the war is now being used to whip up popular enthusiasm for war mobilization of the domestic economies and subjugation of the populace to authoritarian and unlimited powers of the ruling elite,” Doctorow said.

“What remains of free speech and other freedoms can be snuffed out in war hysteria. Moreover, the war fever is being used by [European Commission President Ursula] von der Leyen and the EU Commission in a bid to draw more power into Brussels at the expense of the national governments,” Doctorow warned.

“Some countries are resisting, for example Prime Minister [Mark] Rutte of the Netherlands and even the mealy-mouthed German Chancellor [Olaf Scholz, ed.] are publicly opposed to the proposal of a European debt issuance to finance subsidies to the military production companies, all in spite of van der Leyen. Meanwhile, Macron is on the other side, pushing for greater European centralization for which is the proposed common investment in defense is a nice instrument,” the observer added.

Poking the Bear

Russia’s military buildup “has been reactive to new challenges from the West,” Doctorow stressed, pointing out, for example, that “until the decision of Finland and Sweden to join NATO, Russia had almost no troops on its northwest border. Now, in response to new threats from the northern neighbors, that is being rectified by a big military build-up on the Russian side.”

Something similar can be said of defense budgets, with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recently estimating that Russia’s defense budget amounted to $65.9 billion in 2021 – a fraction of NATO spending of $1.16 trillion ($753.5 billion of that by the US alone) the same year. Even in 2024, with the proxy war with NATO in Ukraine raging and intensifying, Russia plans to spend the equivalent of $140 billion, still just a fraction of the Western bloc, which has again accounted for more than half of all military spending worldwide this year.

Ultimately, Dr. Doctorow emphasized, Western governments are following an old playbook.

“An aggressive foreign policy stand is almost always a convenient way of distracting attention away from domestic failures. And thanks to the boomerang of Western sanctions, European economies are doing very poorly as we go into the June elections” to the European Parliament, the observer summed up.

March 23, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

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.”

March 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Why Slovak Wildcard Robert Fico Could Bring EU House of Cards Crashing Down

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 21.03.2024

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has found himself in the crosshairs of Eurocrats worried that he may become the next Viktor Orban -a thorn in Brussels’ backside rejecting EU directives on everything from Ukraine to criminal justice reform. Sputnik asked Slovak politician Peter Marcek what it is about Fico that’s so unnerving to the establishment.

Slovaks will go to the polls Saturday for the first round of a highly anticipated presidential election, six months after a snap parliamentary vote in September saw veteran Direction – Social Democracy leader Robert Fico’s return to the prime minister’s chair.

While Slovakia’s presidency carries a largely symbolic function, the president does have the power to appoint key figures, including the prosecutor general, and can help the government in times of crisis, making the post an important one.

The latest polling shows Peter Pellegrini, a Fico ally from the offshoot Voice – Social Democracy party, and independent former ambassador to the United States Ivan Korcok running neck and neck with between 34 and 38 percent support each, guaranteeing a runoff between them in the second round of voting April 6.

Thelooming vote has spawned a spate of articles in European legacy media bashing Fico and his party, attacking him as a left wing populist analogue of Hungarian right wing populist Viktor Orban and the Fidesz party, and fearmongering about Slovak “democracy’s future,” Pellegrini’s supposed “Russia tilt,” and Bratislava’s alleged “democratic backsliding.”

All these reports have one thing in common: dread at the prospect that Fico and his allies will pursue an independent foreign and domestic policy which threatens the interests of Brussels and the United States.

Headache for Brussels

From Ukraine arms aid (which Fico halted last October) to Kiev’s NATO membership bid (which he has promised to block), to Bratislava’s defense pact with Washington (whose terms Fico has expressed dissatisfaction with) to the launch of an independent inquiry into the EU’s authoritarian pandemic policy, to criminal code reforms slammed by Brussels, Fico has already proven a major “headache” for the West. And that’s just for openers.

“Robert Fico has been in office for only four months, but he has begun to implement the right policies. He has begun to pursue policies for his people, for his country,” Peter Marcek, a former Slovak lawmaker, businessman and the chairman of the Slavic Unity party, told Sputnik.

“He refused to support Ukraine, stopped the supply of weapons to Ukraine, agreeing only to humanitarian assistance and saying that Slovakia would only provide such aid. Fico also doesn’t agree with many of the economic laws adopted by the European Union – which are adopted to benefit the EU itself, rather than its members,” the politician said.

Fico has already managed to get into trouble with the bloc in the course of his short time in office, Marcek said, pointing to Brussels’ threats to cancel the transfer of €1 billion in funds to Bratislava over the prime minister’s legal reform agenda. “They must give this money to Slovakia because it belongs to us. If they don’t… they will make people even more against the European Union. Fico has said that if they behave like this, the result can be only one thing – that Slovakia will exit the European Union, because economically our standard of living is getting worse and worse.”

“When sanctions were introduced against Russia, it did not kill the Russian economy, maybe only creating problems at the very start, but Russia was able to find other markets. We bought oil and gas from Russia at reasonable prices, now we pay the Americans four times more. Our standard of living has dropped significantly,” Marcek explained.

“If the European Union continues its current policy, we will soon leave it. Things simply cannot continue like this, and I think everyone sees it. For example, we have to pay €22,000 for each migrant that we did not accept into our country. What if they tell us that our quota for migrants is 300,000 people? Do the math: that’s 300,000 x €22,000. Instead of allocating this money to pensioners, children, families, will we give it to migrants? Why should we accept immigrants from Africa when we were never colonizers?” the politician asked.

Brussels’ self-serving policies have people from across the EU up in arms, Marcek said, pointing to the rising popularity of both right and left populist, Eurosceptic forces across Europe, and the “major farmer protests” in Austria, France, Germany and even Spain.

Amid the chaos, the EU will have to change its policy, “or the EU will collapse.” It’s as simple as that, the observer believes.

Marcek expects elections to the European Parliament in June to bring a new crop of leaders who seek greater national autonomy against EU institutions which don’t benefit their countries.

As for Slovakia’s upcoming presidential vote, Marceck says Pellegrini will be likely to defeat “pro-American Korcok,” and replace the current president, Zuzana Caputova, who “has created many problems for the government” and prevented its normal functioning. “She is a president that was installed by the US embassy,” the politician summed up.

March 21, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

EU Still Hooked on Russian LNG Despite Bloc’s Hardline Rhetoric

By Chimauchem Nwosu – Sputnik – 20.03.2024

Despite EU efforts to reduce reliance on Russian gas in the wake of the anti-Russian sanctions, recent data shows a surge in Russian LNG imports by France and Spain, suggesting that business is practically proceeding as usual.

Russian liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to France surged to an all-time high in 14 months (from November 2022 to late January 2024), amounting to €293 million, according to Eurostat data obtained by Sputnik.

Last December, French imports of Russian LNG exports were estimated to be €244 million, marking an increase of almost €50 million over the month. Spain’s LNG from Russia amounted to €274 million, 1.7 times higher than in December 2023, and a 12-month-high.

Additionally, other EU countries such as Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Sweden have also purchased Russian LNG. By the end of January, EU nations had collectively spent €684.3 million on Russian LNG.

Since the onset of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022, the EU has sought to cut its dependence on affordable Russian gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) while simultaneously implementing US-led sanctions against Moscow.

However, despite harsh anti-Russian rhetoric by EU member states like France, recent data by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) revealed that numerous European nations remain hooked on this energy source, while some, like Belgium, facilitate LNG transshipments through their import terminals.

Spain is at the forefront of EU countries importing Russian LNG, having purchased 5.21 billion cubic meters (bcm) between January and September 2023. Following closely behind are France, with 3.19 bcm, and Belgium, with 3.14 bcm. In 2023, the main EU terminals that received significant quantities of LNG shipments from Russia were located in Zeebrugge, Belgium; Montoir-de-Bretagne, France; and Bilbao, Spain, according to IEEFA.

By the end of 2023, Russia had delivered 5.24 billion cubic meters of LNG to Spain, 3.82 billion cubic meters to Belgium, and 2.1 billion cubic meters to the Netherlands. Spain received 40 percent of Europe’s imports, while Belgium accounted for 30 percent. It is worth noting that the supply to the Netherlands increased by 1.9 times compared to 2022.

European countries have not yet banned or restricted importing liquefied natural gas from Russia. The EU is contemplating such action, but there is division among its 27 members regarding the approach to be taken. Major importers of Russian LNG, including Belgium, France, and Spain, assert that severing ties with their Russian suppliers, with whom they have long-term contracts, would not be simple.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly criticized the EU for implementing sanctions against Russia’s oil and gas industry for purely political reasons. He believes that the decision was made under pressure from the EU’s Western allies, rather than being based on economic considerations. Putin has voiced concern about the potential negative impact these sanctions could have on the shared economic competitiveness of both Russia and the EU.

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Which European Countries are Most Dependent on US Gas?

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 18.03.2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier cautioned that the EU’s decision to stop the purchase of Russian energy supplies was “absolutely political” and would backfire on the bloc.

Every tenth cubic meter of gas used by the EU in 2023 was supplied by the US, with Lithuania the most dependent on the fuel, Sputnik research based on data from the UN platform Comtrade and the International Energy Agency has revealed.

According to the findings, the EU’s gas consumption stood at 330 billion cubic meters last year, 20% less than in 2021.

The US supplied 34.5 billion cubic meters of liquefied natural gas (LNG), or 10.4% of all gas consumed by the bloc in 2023, with Finland, which didn’t buy US gas in 2021, consuming 38,2% last year.

As for Lithuania, it consumed a record 40% of the American gas last year, against 22.3% in 2021.

The research also revealed that an array of other countries increased US gas supplies in 2023, including Croatia, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland, Italy and Germany. With 32%, Croatia proved to be the most dependent on US gas after Lithuania and Finland. The only countries that reduced American gas deliveries last year were Greece, Malta and Portugal.

The research comes after a previous Sputnik review of Eurostat data showed that EU countries had to pay some €185 billion ($201 billion) extra on natural gas over the past 20 months after cutting themselves off from cheap Russian pipeline gas.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin earlier warned that the EU’s “suicidal” and politically motivated decision to halt the purchase of Russian energy supplies as part of Western sanctions would come back to bite the bloc.

“Rejection of Russian energy resources means that Europe will systematically become the region with the highest energy costs in the world… This will seriously – and according to some experts irrevocably – undermine the competitiveness of a significant part of European industry, which is already losing the competition to companies in other regions of the world,” Putin underscored.

March 18, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

European ‘Peace Fund’ Stoking War in Ukraine as Scheming EU Governments Take Advantage

By Dmitry Babich – Sputnik – 17.03.2024

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently vowed to procure more weapons for Ukraine at a meeting in Berlin.

“A new era is dawning,” claimed Macron, while Poland’s Tusk lauded: “We want to spend our money on Ukraine.” But a closer look shows that European taxpayers’ money “spent on Ukraine” will go to a scheme called the European Peace Facility, which since its inception has been promoting war instead of peace and enriched shady operators.

The problems bothering the three European leaders in Berlin seem clear. A $60 billion bill aimed at supporting Ukraine’s “war effort” has got stuck in the US Congress and $300 million worth batch of arms that the US recently sent to Kiev is obviously not enough to stop the gradual retreat of Zelensky’s troops.

So, Scholz, Macron and Tusk felt an urgent need to create the impression that “Europeans are ready to step in” and compensate for the military-industrial complex of the United States, with the EU sending deadly “gifts” to Ukrainians. This reimbursement is supposed to be done through the grossly misnamed and off-budget scheme European Peace Facility (EPF).

The Fund Worth Billions

The EPF fund was established in 2021 and was initially used to reimburse European producers of arms that were sent to “EU-friendly dictators in Africa” – an expression used by the fund’s critics in Western media. But from February 2022, the EPF started operating with billions and devoted itself entirely to arming Russia’s adversaries in Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries.

On the surface, the EPF’s operations make an impression: “The EU agrees to €5 billion in Ukraine military aid,” “EU cash for Ukraine” – such headlines were omnipresent in the Western media last week. The EU member countries’ envoys in Brussels recently indeed agreed to increase the EPF’s assets to €17 billion, of which €11 billion are meant for Ukraine. (So far, the EPF has already spent €6.1 billion of taxpayers’ money on supplying Zelensky’s regime with arms.)

However, the European Conservative, a Budapest-based media outlet, reports that “it is theoretically possible that no actual money reaches the EPF under the agreement.”
Why? The EU has become a victim of its own hypocrisy. According to the EU’s legislation, the European Union is a peaceful organization that cannot legally finance any war effort directly, despite member countries fighting in just about all the major wars since 1991 – from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Yugoslavia. Hence the need for this “peace” fund, which uses European money, but legally is not a part of the EU budget system with its strict regulations, the outlet writes.

Obligations – In Money Or Weapons

So, all 27 countries of the European Union are supposed to make contributions to the EPF, depending on the relative size of each country’s economy. However, there is a provision that makes it possible for every country to replace its share in the obligatory payment of €5 billion by “an in-kind donation.”

This means that instead of donating money, Estonia or Germany could just “donate” weapons (including old ones) to this venerable “peace” fund. This opens the door to schemes.
“The fine print specifies that for every $2 worth of military equipment donation member states can deduct $1 from their required money donation to EPF – with no limit on deductions,” The European Conservative writes.

So, if we read the fine print, the news about the €5 billion ‘sacrifice’ of EU member states for the Ukrainian Army is not quite accurate: Germany, for example, may not pay an additional cent to the fund. Here is why.

As Politico reports, Germany has been the largest donor for the Ukrainian military, having given €17.7 billion in military supplies. Now Germany is supposed to pay €1.2 billion a year into the EPF, but as long as it gives at least €2.4 billion in weapons to Ukraine in a year, Germany is free of any obligation to pay money to the fund.

Showing Them The Money, Getting Arms For Oneself

However, if Germany is the biggest donor, then Estonia is the smartest schemer.

Earlier this year, Politico accused Estonia of using a loophole in the rules that the European Council adopted for the EPF. The bureaucrats in Brussels forgot to specify how EU members should calculate the procurement price of the weaponry they send to Ukraine’s war machine via the European Peace Facility.

So, Estonia (followed by Latvia and Lithuania) vastly overestimated the value of the old Soviet weapons that it provided. However the EPF still gave Estonia the money, which the officials later used to satisfy their country’s defense and consumer needs.

“They [Estonians and other EU members] are sending their scraps to Ukraine and later buying brand new war materials for themselves, using EU money,” Politico writes.
According to EU inspectors quoted by The European Conservative, the behavior of the Estonian government led by Prime Minister Kaja Kallas was a “particularly blatant case.” Estonia “topped the charts” of the EPF’s abuse schemes, demanding 91% reimbursement for the old weapons donated and raking in €135 million last year alone. New NATO members Finland and Sweden also demanded huge refunds, and Macron’s France insisted on 71% plus an obligation to operate only with European-made weapons.

“All in all, this is an unseemly story – Western countries pride themselves on their supposedly selfless military aid to Ukraine, just like they boasted of their aid to the insurgents in Syria. As a result, Syria and Ukraine were badly damaged largely by Western-made weapons,” commented Sonja van den Ende, a Moscow-based international affairs analyst with experience covering the wars in the Middle East. “But in reality this military aid is not selfless. We see at the example of the EPF how this aid actually helps to fill the pockets of big arms producing companies and of Western government officials.”

March 17, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The EU adopts a ‘Media Freedom’ law, where ‘freedom’ doesn’t mean what you think it does

By Rachel Marsden | RT | March 16, 2024

The EU’s new Media Freedom Act has now been voted into law, with 464 votes for, 92 against, and 65 abstentions.

There are some news outlets whose coverage of the vote I’d like to see. Like RT’s, where you’re reading this right now. But anyone who’s viewing this from inside the European Union’s bastion of democracy and freedom is likely doing so via a VPN connection routed through somewhere outside the bloc, to circumvent its press censorship.

Nothing in this new law suggests that this will change, or that there will be increased access to information and analysis for the average person. Such improved freedoms might lead to people making up their own minds rather than having various flavors of a similar narrative served up for mass consumption. As has become par for the course in so-called Western democracies, inconvenient facts and analysis will still be dismissed as “disinformation” and criticism of the establishment still qualified as an effort to sow division – as though dissent itself wasn’t supposed to be proof of a healthy and vibrant democracy.

So, now that we’ve gotten out of the way any hope of lifting the EU’s top-down censorship in the absence of due process, exactly what kind of lip service does this new law pay to the lofty notion of media freedom?

No spying on journalists or pressing them to disclose their sources. Well, unless you’re one of the countries that lobbied to be able to keep doing this – like France, Italy, Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, and Finland – so basically, a quarter of EU countries. Oh, but they have to invoke national-security concerns in order to do so. Which, as we know, they’re very discerning about. Like, they didn’t at all implement a virtual police state and extend its powers under the guise of fighting a virus with which French President Emmanuel Macron kept saying they were “at war.” Nor did Amnesty International point out the sweeping “Orwellian” trend across Europe, at least as far back as 2017, of exploiting domestic terrorist attacks to permanently embed what were supposed to be extraordinary powers into criminal law, via measures like “overly broad definitions of terrorism.” So, no doubt they’ll be equally reasonable when slapping the “national security threat” label on a journalist whose work they want to peek at.

At least now, under this new law, they do have to fully inform any targeted journalist of the steps being taken against them.

Another thing that changes is that there’s to be a centralized database into which “all news and current affairs outlets regardless of their size will have to publish information about their owners,” according to an EU press release. May we propose a first candidate for that? The NGO Reporters Without Borders has praised this new law as a “major step forward for the right to information within the European Union.” The same NGO also just launched a “Svoboda” (Russian for “freedom”) satellite package eventually consisting “of up to 25 independent Russian language radio and television channels” aimed at Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltics. The launch took place at the EU parliament, in the presence of EU “values and transparency” commissioner (yes, that’s a real title), Vera Jourova, who has said in support of the new media law that “it is a threat to those who want to use the power of the state, also the financial one, to make the media dependent on them.” But she has also said about this new Russia-targeting initiative that the EU state needs to “use all possible means to ensure that their work, that facts and information can reach Russian-speaking people.” This is the same person who advocated in favor of banning Russia-linked media outlets in the EU.

Anyway, you first, guys. Show everyone else how it’s done. Also, does this mean that all financial interests in the form of advertising spending will also have to be declared by corporate media? Because state-backed media platforms are already transparent; it’s the much more discretionary interests underpinning the more commercial platforms that tend to be much less obvious to audiences. Audiences may not know or understand, for example, why a particular corporate media outlet might focus on a particular nation state with softball interviews, travel pieces, and fluffy documentaries, and treating it with kid gloves in news coverage, when in reality the same country is pumping a ton of ad revenues into the place.

In any case, Queen Ursula von der Leyen’s battalion of bureaucratic desk jockeys is set to grow in ranks now with a new “European Board for Media Services” coming online as a result of the new law. Because freedom isn’t going to police itself, pal.

The name itself Media Freedom Act really is the first clue that it’s probably not all that much about freedom. Kind of like how the “European Peace Facility” fund is used to buy weapons, or the “election” of the handpicked EU Commissioner is really just what any normal country would call a confirmation vote.

It’s a pretty safe bet that whenever the EU kicks the virtue-signaling into overdrive, using feel-good language to sell it, the reality is probably the opposite of what’s advertised.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

March 16, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Orban urges supporters to ‘occupy Brussels’

RT | March 16, 2024

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that he and his supporters are ready to march on Brussels to defend their country’s sovereignty within the EU.

Orban gave the warning on Friday in a fiery speech dedicated to an anniversary of Hungary’s unsuccessful revolution of 1848 against the rule of the Austrian Empire. “Brussels is not the first empire that has set its eyes on Hungary,” he stressed.

The conservative prime minister told a crowd of around a thousand of his supporters that he’s ready to do everything to protect Hungary from what he described as attempts by the EU to “force” the country into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, to make it accept migrants, and to “re-educate” its children by imposing an LGBTQ agenda on them.

Powers in the Western world, of which the EU is a part, “start wars, destroy worlds, redraw countries’ borders and graze on everything like locusts,” Orban told his audience. “We Hungarians live differently and want to live differently,” he pointed out.

“If we want to defend Hungary’s freedom and sovereignty, we have no other choice but to occupy Brussels,” the PM said. “We will march all the way to Brussels, and will orchestrate change in the EU ourselves.”

Orban stressed that he and his supporters are experienced people who know what needs to be done in order to properly restructure the bloc, of which Hungary has been a member since 2004. It’s time for the EU leadership to “start trembling,” he said.

In power for 14 years now, Orban is being criticized by Brussels over allegedly undermining the rule of law, infringing on press freedoms and clamping down on gay rights. The EU has been withholding funds from Hungary for years over these and other issues.

Brussels is also unhappy about the stance taken by Budapest on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, a neighbor to which it has refused to provide arms, unlike other fellow EU member states, while at the same time maintaining economic and political ties with Moscow. Orban insists that there’s no military solution to the crisis and that it should be settled through diplomacy.

During his speech, he reiterated that “Hungary can only benefit from peace, we do not want war.” However, Brussels has brought the conflict to its doors, he said, referring to the ongoing fighting. “We have been deceived, it is time to rise up,” he stated.

March 16, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU to use Russian assets to buy arms for Ukraine – Scholz

RT | March 16, 2024

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said that interest accrued from Russian assets frozen in the EU will be used to purchase weapons for Ukraine.

Soon after Russia launched its military operation against Ukraine in February 2022, Western countries froze approximately $300 billion of funds belonging to the Russian Central Bank. Of that sum, the Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear holds around €191 billion ($205 billion), which has accrued nearly €4.4 billion in interest over the past year.

Speaking at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Berlin on Friday, Chancellor Scholz said: “We will use windfall profits from Russian assets frozen in Europe to financially support the purchase of weapons for Ukraine.”

The German leader also announced plans to establish a “new capability coalition for long-range rocket artillery,” with procurement to take place “on the overall world market.”

The German chancellor did not provide specifics, and it remains unclear whether he was referring to an entirely new initiative, or to a “long-range” scheme announced by President Macron in February.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last month suggested using the interest from frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine. However, Politico, citing an anonymous EU official, reported on Thursday that Malta, Luxembourg and Hungary had “expressed reservations” about the plan earlier this week.

Moscow has repeatedly warned that any actions taken against its assets would amount to “theft.” It has stressed that seizing the funds or any similar move would violate international law and undermine Western currencies, the global financial system, and the world economy.

March 16, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The big lie behind the Western narrative on Russia is leading us to World War III

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 15, 2024

The current situation in the conflict between Ukraine – serving (while being demolished) as a proxy for the West – and Russia, can be sketched in three broad strokes.

First, Russia now clearly has the upper hand on the battlefield and could potentially accelerate its recent advances to achieve an overall military victory soon. The West is being compelled to recognize this fact: as Foreign Affairs put it, in an article titled “Time is Running Out in Ukraine,” Kiev and its Western supporters “are at a critical decision point and face a fundamental question: How can further Russian advances… be stopped, and then reversed?” Just disregard the bit of wishful thinking thrown in at the end to sweeten the bitter pill of reality. The key point is the acknowledgment that it is crunch time for the West and Ukraine – in a bad way.

Second, notwithstanding the above, Ukraine is not yet ready to ask for negotiations to end the war on terms acceptable to Russia, which would be less than easy for Kiev. (Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, reiterated in an important recent interview that Moscow remains principally open to talks, not on the basis of “wishful thinking” but, instead, proceeding from the realities “on the ground.”)

The Kiev regime’s inflexibility is little wonder. Since he jettisoned a virtually complete – and favorable – peace deal in the spring of 2022, President Vladimir Zelensky has gambled everything on an always improbable victory. For him personally, as well as his core team (at least), there is no way to survive – politically or physically – the catastrophic defeat they have brought on their country by leasing it out as a pawn to the Washington neocon strategy.

The Pope, despite the phony brouhaha he triggered in Kiev and the West, was right: a responsible Ukrainian leadership ought to negotiate. But that’s not the leadership Ukraine has. Not yet at least.

Third, the West’s strategy is getting harder to decipher because, in essence, the West cannot figure out how to adjust to the failure of its initial plans for this war. Russia has not been isolated; its military has become stronger, not weaker – and the same is true of its economy, including its arms industry.

And last but not least, the Russian political system’s popular legitimacy and effective control has neither collapsed nor even frayed. As, again, even Foreign Affairs admits, “Putin would likely win a fair election in 2024.” That’s more than could be said for, say, Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Olaf Scholz, or Emmanuel Macron (as for Zelensky, he has simply canceled the election).

In other words, the West is facing not only Ukraine’s probable defeat, but also its own strategic failure. The situation, while not a direct military rout (as in Afghanistan in 2021) amounts to a severe political setback.

In fact, this looming Western failure is a historic debacle in the making. Unlike with Afghanistan, the West will not be able to simply walk away from the mess it has made in Ukraine. This time, the geopolitical blowback will be fierce and the costs very high. Instead of isolating Russia, the West has isolated itself, and by losing, it will show itself weakened.

It is one thing to have to finally, belatedly accepted that the deceptive “unipolar” moment of the 1990s has been over for a long time. It is much worse to gratuitously enter the new multipolar order with a stunning, avoidable self-demotion. Yet that is what the EU/NATO-West has managed to fabricate from its needless over-extension in Ukraine. Hubris there has been galore, the fall now is only a matter of time – and not much time at that.

Regarding EU-Europe in particular, on one thing French President Emmanuel Macron is half right. Russia’s victory “would reduce Europe’s credibility to zero.” Except, of course, a mind of greater Cartesian precision would have detected that Moscow’s victory will merely be the last stage in a longer process.

The deeper causes of EU/NATO-Europe’s loss of global standing are threefold. First, its own wanton decision to seek confrontation instead of a clearly feasible compromise and cooperation with Russia (why exactly is a neutral Ukraine impossible to live with again?) Second, the American strategy of systematically diminishing EU/NATO-Europe with a short-sighted policy of late-imperial client cannibalization which takes the shape of aggressive deindustrialization and a “Europeanization” of the war in Ukraine. And third, the European clients’ grotesque acquiescence to the above.

That is the background to a recent wave of mystifying signals coming out of Western, especially EU/NATO elites: First, we have had a wave of scare propaganda to accompany the biggest NATO maneuvers since the end of the Cold War. Next Macron publicly declared and has kept reiterating that the open – not in covert-but-obvious mode, as now – deployment of Western ground troops in Ukraine is an option. He added a cheap demagogic note by calling on Europeans not to be “cowards,” by which he means that they should be ready to follow, in effect, his orders and fight Russia, clearly including inside and on behalf of Ukraine. Never mind that the latter is a not an official member of either NATO or the EU as well as a highly corrupt and anything but democratic state.

In response, a divergence has surfaced inside EU/NATO Europe: The German government has been most outspoken in contradicting Macron. Not only Chancellor Scholz rushed to distance himself. A clearly outraged Boris Pistorius – Berlin’s hapless minister of defense, recently tripped up by his own generals’ stupendously careless indiscretion over the Taurus missiles – has grumbled that there is no need for “talk about boots on the ground or having more courage or less courage.” Perhaps more surprisingly, Poland, the Czech Republic as well as NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg (i.e., the US) have been quick to state that they are, in effect, not ready to support Macron’s initiative. The French public, by the way, is not showing any enthusiasm for a Napoleonic escalation either. A Le Figaro poll shows 68 percent against openly sending ground troops to Ukraine.

On the other side, Macron has found some support. He is not entirely isolated, which helps explain why he has dug in his heels: Zelensky does not count in this respect. His bias is obvious, and his usual delusions notwithstanding he is not calling the shots on the matter. The Baltic states, however, while military micro-dwarfs, are, unfortunately, in a position to exert some influence inside the EU and NATO. And true to form, they have sided with the French president, with Estonia and Lithuania taking the lead.

It remains impossible to be certain what we are looking at. To get the most far-fetched hypothesis out of the way first: is this a coordinated bluff with a twist? A complicated Western attempt at playing good-cop bad-cop against Russia, with Macron launching the threats and others signaling that Moscow could find them less extreme, at a diplomatic price, of course? Hardly. For one thing, that scheme would be so hare-brained, even the current West is unlikely to try. No, the crack opening up in Western unity is real.

Regarding Macron himself, too-clever-by-half, counter-productive cunning is his style. We cannot know what exactly he is trying to do; and he may not know himself. In essence, there are two possibilities. Either the French president now is a hard-core escalationist determined to widen the war into an open clash between Russia and NATO, or he is a high-risk gambler who is engaged in a bluff to achieve three purposes. Frighten Moscow into abstaining from pushing its military advantage in Ukraine (a hopeless idea); score nationalist “grandeur” points domestically in France (which is failing already); and increase his weight inside EU/NATO-Europe by “merely” posturing as, once again, a new “Churchill” – whom Macron himself has made sure to allude to, in all his modesty. (And some of his fans, including Zelensky, a grizzled veteran of Churchill live action role play, have already made that de rigueur if stale comparison.)

While we cannot entirely unriddle the moody sphinx of the Elysée or, for that matter, the murky dealings of EU/NATO-European elites, we can say two things. First, whatever Macron thinks he is doing, it is extremely dangerous. Russia would treat EU/NATO-state troops in Ukraine as targets – and it won’t matter one wit if they turn up labeled “NATO” or under national flags “only.” Russia has also reiterated that it considers its vital interests affected in Ukraine and that if its leadership perceives a vital threat to Russia, nuclear weapons are an option. The warning could not be clearer.

Second, here is the core Western problem that is now – due to Russia undeniably winning the war – becoming acute: Western elites are split between “pragmatists” and “extremists.” The pragmatists are as Russophobic and strategically misguided as the extremists, but they do shy away from World War Three. Yet these pragmatists, who seek to resist hard-core escalationists and rein in at least high-risk gamblers, are brought up short against a crippling contradiction in their own position and messaging: As of now, they still share the same delusional narrative with the extremists. Both groupings keep reiterating that Russia plans to attack all of EU/NATO-Europe once it defeats Ukraine and that, therefore, stopping Russia in Ukraine is, literally, vital (or in Macron’s somewhat Sartrean terms “existential”) to the West.

That narrative is absurd. Reality works exactly the other way around: The most certain way to get into a war with Russia is to send troops to Ukraine openly. And what is existential for EU/NATO-Europe is to finally liberate itself from American “leadership.” During the Cold War, a case could be made that (then Western) Europe needed the US. After the Cold War, though, that was no longer the case. In response, Washington has implemented a consistent, multi-administration, bipartisan, if often crude, strategy of avoiding what should have been inevitable: the emancipation of Europe from American dominance.

Both the eastward expansion of NATO, programmed – and predicted – to cause a massive conflict with Russia and the current proxy war in Ukraine, obstinately provoked by Washington over decades, are part of that strategy to – to paraphrase a famous saying about NATO – “keep Europe down.” And the European elites have played along as if there’s no tomorrow, which, for them, there really may not be.

We are at a potential breaking-point, a crisis of that long-term trajectory. If the pragmatists in EU/NATO-Europe really want to contain the extremists, who play with triggering an open war between Russia and NATO that would devastate at least Europe, then they must now come clean and, finally, abandon the common, ideological, and entirely unrealistic narrative about an existential threat from Moscow.

As long as the pragmatists dare not challenge the escalationists on how to principally understand the causes of the current catastrophe, the extremists will always have the advantage of consistency: Their policies are foolish, wastefully unnecessary, and extremely risky. And yet, they follow from what the West has made itself believe. It is high time to break that spell of self-hypnosis, and face facts.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

March 15, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »