Convincing analysis. Some key aspects could be added to better understand how the US "captured" a large part of the European political elites. The case of France is very telling. For a few decades after De Gaulle, there were mainstream parties that continued at least partially the goal of maintaining a high level of autonomy in foreign policy. But the gaullist mindset was gradually replaced by the kind of nationalism we find in the Rassemblement national. And the Rassemblement national is excluded, until now, from participating in government. So the goal of maintaining a large degree of sovereignty was effectively transformed from being mainstream to being a kind of pariah perspective that the center left and center right had a duty to exclude. We have to remember that this was a center goal of American politics towards France since the sixties. The US, helped by the French medias and "civil society", effectively participated a kind of "soft regime change" in France. Of course, this would need a detailed analysis to be fully convincing. The case of Germany should also be closely considered along those lines. And also the large shift of the balance of power inside Europe since the inclusion of Eastern and Central Europe. Poland was the leader in explicitly rejecting the Franco-German leadership over the continent, with the backing of the US. In fact, many Eastern Europeans seem to prefer to be satellites to the US instead of accepting any kind of Franco-German leadership. If we compare the era of Chirac-Schröder with Macron and Schölz, what a shift in attitude and quality of leadership ! I stop here but there could be a whole book written on how and why Europe was willing to be "captured" by Washington, and at the same time creating a kind of blind European project of expanding, in the east, the "garden" against the "jungle", even if this project has to be based on lies about the so called democratic values of Ukraine. / / / Too many undeveloped ideas in a small space, sorry !
"Or you can go further back. What would it have cost Hollande and Merkel to not help the Ukrainians sabotage Minsk II?
Minsk II was a short document but it had the UN behind it, as we all know. It was the best way out of this crisis and it was feasible. If the Europeans had said to the Ukrainians: "You want to cheat on this, not with us, we will withdraw all support from you." They had some leverage but they did the opposite.
Ultimately, I don't have an explanation for why the Europeans behaved so irrationally . . . so much not in Europe's own interests.
One thing that does occur to me more and more is that part of our leadership is heavily supported by the United States. I'm beginning to see them as comprador elites, that are basically not even interested in pursuing European interests. They're interested in something else."
What this "something else" might be is the focus of a recent piece by Hugo Dinisio:
"So, if the reality we are analyzing is not made up of nation-states, but of a supranational common space, led by the USA, waiting for “statesmen” is not realistic in the slightest, because the “statesman” is concerned with the state, as a collective organization that constitutes the summit of a given socio-political existence. They care about the nation, the people, its economy, its traditions and its identity.
Are these the values that drive an Emanuel Macron, an Ursula Von Der Leyen or a Donald Tusk? Neither their performance nor their curriculum vitae would indicate that."
It was quite a while ago, and it was before I started copying newspaper articles because they would later be changed. It was a little after the US military moved into Poland from Germany - and the US had forgotten a rather important detail.
This was amended when the Polish parliament voted to pay for the US military bases in its country.
AS mentioned, this news is no longer to be found on the internet and few people recall these events. Should the US leave Germany, it will also lose the funding that it receives from the German government for its "protection".
Convincing analysis. Some key aspects could be added to better understand how the US "captured" a large part of the European political elites. The case of France is very telling. For a few decades after De Gaulle, there were mainstream parties that continued at least partially the goal of maintaining a high level of autonomy in foreign policy. But the gaullist mindset was gradually replaced by the kind of nationalism we find in the Rassemblement national. And the Rassemblement national is excluded, until now, from participating in government. So the goal of maintaining a large degree of sovereignty was effectively transformed from being mainstream to being a kind of pariah perspective that the center left and center right had a duty to exclude. We have to remember that this was a center goal of American politics towards France since the sixties. The US, helped by the French medias and "civil society", effectively participated a kind of "soft regime change" in France. Of course, this would need a detailed analysis to be fully convincing. The case of Germany should also be closely considered along those lines. And also the large shift of the balance of power inside Europe since the inclusion of Eastern and Central Europe. Poland was the leader in explicitly rejecting the Franco-German leadership over the continent, with the backing of the US. In fact, many Eastern Europeans seem to prefer to be satellites to the US instead of accepting any kind of Franco-German leadership. If we compare the era of Chirac-Schröder with Macron and Schölz, what a shift in attitude and quality of leadership ! I stop here but there could be a whole book written on how and why Europe was willing to be "captured" by Washington, and at the same time creating a kind of blind European project of expanding, in the east, the "garden" against the "jungle", even if this project has to be based on lies about the so called democratic values of Ukraine. / / / Too many undeveloped ideas in a small space, sorry !
Immensely important topic.
Fwiw , here are a few thoughts from a tweet back in March.
https://x.com/ingolfeide/status/1770429075460657171
@TarikCyrilAmar on the counterproductive behaviour of many of the European governing elites (on @TheDuranReal).
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-duran-podcast/id1442883993?i=1000649728760
"Or you can go further back. What would it have cost Hollande and Merkel to not help the Ukrainians sabotage Minsk II?
Minsk II was a short document but it had the UN behind it, as we all know. It was the best way out of this crisis and it was feasible. If the Europeans had said to the Ukrainians: "You want to cheat on this, not with us, we will withdraw all support from you." They had some leverage but they did the opposite.
Ultimately, I don't have an explanation for why the Europeans behaved so irrationally . . . so much not in Europe's own interests.
One thing that does occur to me more and more is that part of our leadership is heavily supported by the United States. I'm beginning to see them as comprador elites, that are basically not even interested in pursuing European interests. They're interested in something else."
What this "something else" might be is the focus of a recent piece by Hugo Dinisio:
"So, if the reality we are analyzing is not made up of nation-states, but of a supranational common space, led by the USA, waiting for “statesmen” is not realistic in the slightest, because the “statesman” is concerned with the state, as a collective organization that constitutes the summit of a given socio-political existence. They care about the nation, the people, its economy, its traditions and its identity.
Are these the values that drive an Emanuel Macron, an Ursula Von Der Leyen or a Donald Tusk? Neither their performance nor their curriculum vitae would indicate that."
https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/03/07/europe-is-in-danger-of-falling-asleep-in-peace-and-waking-up-in-war/
I am thinking along the same lines.
Thanks for the link!
It was quite a while ago, and it was before I started copying newspaper articles because they would later be changed. It was a little after the US military moved into Poland from Germany - and the US had forgotten a rather important detail.
This was amended when the Polish parliament voted to pay for the US military bases in its country.
AS mentioned, this news is no longer to be found on the internet and few people recall these events. Should the US leave Germany, it will also lose the funding that it receives from the German government for its "protection".
Hi
Welcome to substack.
Ah, the Arrogant West are a bunch of broken dope fiends.
When I ran for mayor of SF killafornia against Gruesome Gavin Gruesome Newsom, mister care not cash we got neither now...
Ms ScKamala kamalalala put me in jail, six months mostly solitary isolation.
They shut down my Grasshopper taxicab business forevermore.
So you are correct I had no first amendment without their approval, to say
To Impeach is Patriotic.
Regards
G
Please get the fk out of Europe, we do not want you.
🙂👍
The issue is that the war in Ukraine is not winable and the fact that in Gaza civilians are killed (and in a very high number, not by accident).