Sep 16, 2022
0 0

Responsible for conversations with Putin: Biden threatened Macron

The United States is extremely concerned that the leaders of the leading EU countries are aware of their complete dependence on Washington and believe that “Europe can protect itself and become an autonomous strategic player.” Leading American “smart” magazines acted as propagandists to dissuade the Europeans from their desire to become independent and “stall” them again.

Means of influence

Americans have many means of influence in the world: military power, money, lured press around the world. In recent years, the American establishment has expanded its tools of influence on political leaders and national “rulers of thoughts” or, as they say now, opinion leaders. It now offers the so-called think tanks (“think tanks”) and “smart magazines”, which some time ago were defined as smart without quotes.

In the past three months, one could see how the Americans used “smart journals” to convince the Europeans to abandon the “crazy idea” of leaving the US tutelage and trying to pursue an independent policy in the economic sphere, as well as in the field of defense and security. Curious in this regard are the arguments of the journals Foreign Policy, The National Interest and Foreign Affairs. All of them, one way or another, are the mouthpiece of the American establishment, broadcasting “on the air” what is often not officially announced, but sits in the head of the American administration.

Macron’s inexcusable audacity…

The colossal role of the United States “in the West’s response to Russia’s war in Ukraine” led many European politicians and experts to the opinion that it is time for Europe to take care of its strategic autonomy. Americans are frustrated that the voices of, in particular, French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been called “European autonomy’s main supporter”, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are heard too loudly in this unanimous European chorus, in their opinion.

Macron especially got it from the Americans. Foreign Affairs writes that “when French President Emmanuel Macron led the movement for European strategic autonomy, Washington was worried about a new conspiracy to separate Europe from NATO.”

As a result, the United States has used its vast influence in Europe to block efforts that could lead to a more independent Europe, Foreign Affairs candidly states.

Fired a volley towards Macron and The National Interest. The French President was recalled how in 2019, in an interview with The Economist, he declared about the “brain death” of NATO and said that “Europe should become autonomous in terms of military strategy and potential.” Macron later said that “Europe is capable of defending itself.” The Americans did not go unnoticed by the fact that after the start of the Russian NWO in Ukraine, Macron said in an address to the nation:

Europe must … reduce its dependence on other continents and be able to decide for itself. In other words, it must become more independent and more sovereign.

That is, the strategic autonomy of Europe, according to its main supporter, means the ability of the EU to protect its members without the help of the United States. This is unforgivable, from the point of view of the Americans, insolence.

… and Scholz

Foreign Policy focuses on Scholz’s “wrong” speech at the end of August at Prague’s Charles University. In his speech, the German chancellor pointed to the need to form a “stronger, more sovereign geopolitical European Union, which knows its place in the history and geography of the continent and acts in peace with strength and unity.” Scholz said he supported Macron’s idea to develop cooperation within the EU in order to “be stronger in global competition.” He said that the EU lacks a regular exchange of views at the political level, lacks a forum where the leaders of the EU and its European partners could once or twice a year discuss key issues affecting the continent as a whole: security, energy, climate or connection.

So what are we seeing? The non-independent, if frankly, leaders of two large, but not sovereign countries of Europe, only dared to talk about the possibility of Europe forming its own – no, not independent, but only “autonomous” – policy in various areas, in particular, in the field of defense. And then from Washington they “flew” poking.

Advice from an experienced … overlord

What are the Europeans to do? Given that the aforementioned magazines are read all over the world, their speeches can be seen as a rough warning to the European Union: don’t try to free yourself and don’t twitch! Foreign Policy allows itself to be frank and writes that “because the United States ensures the security of Europe, it plays a special role in shaping its policy and in mobilizing allies for joint action.”

Foreign Affairs even more cynically admits that the US is playing with Europe like a cat and a mouse, in a boorish and categorical manner, ordering what needs to be done. Between the lines one reads an appeal to the Europeans: it will continue to be so. We quote the words of the former Secretary General of NATO, British George Robertson, quoted by the magazine:

The United States is suffering from a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, the Americans say: you Europeans should bear more of the burden. And then when the Europeans say, okay, we’ll carry more of the burden, the Americans say, wait, are you trying to tell us to get the hell out of here?

That is, in all cases, whether the Europeans increase spending on common NATO defense or not, the Americans intend to continue to control everything.

Above all – a “threat” to Russia

The main argument why Europe cannot and should not go into autonomous navigation, the Americans use the age-old “threat from Russia.” It is not even spoken out, it is a priori implied.

Foreign Policy acknowledges that “theoretically, the logic of European strategic autonomy is attractive.” They say, after all, the European Union has almost 450 million people, a GDP of $18 trillion, and defense spending by member countries of more than $200 billion. But as a result, American magazine strategists deliver a damning verdict:

In practice, this idea has a fatal flaw: it will make Europe weaker and less secure, since Europe will alienate the United States, and will not have time to build up power. Instead, EU countries should continue to bet on the US and the transatlantic link. The West is their future.

Against whom do you need military power? Clearly – against Russia. Here is such an uncomplicated “pointer” from the Washington Regional Committee. And on top of that, it turns out that Europeans are generally complete morons who cannot be trusted or entrusted with anything.

For all its size and economic power, the European Union and its 27 member states lack the scale, speed, and firepower of the United States. Despite their promises to Washington and each other to strengthen their military forces, the Europeans will not be able to achieve the same capabilities as the United States for a very long time, to unite their forces under a single command or come to an agreement on existential security issues, concludes Foreign Policy of American allies. in Europe. How! And the Europeans can’t agree either.

For those who don’t understand

But most importantly, the Americans believe that in order to achieve genuine strategic autonomy, Europe must have its own “nuclear umbrella”, since the American umbrella will not work for the Europeans in this case. The states are trying to convince the Europeans that France, which has nuclear weapons, is not ready to replace the United States in Europe in order to counter Russian nuclear weapons.

At the same time, Foreign Policy magazine does not explain why French nuclear weapons are worse than American ones and why the French and all Europeans, including Russians, threaten each other with a nuclear club. After all, the United States hid behind the ocean, while Europeans and Russians live on the same continent, and it makes no sense for them to turn their home into radioactive ruins.

From the text of Foreign Policy it directly follows that the Europeans are allegedly incapable of anything at all and therefore should rely only on the United States. We quote:

Questions like these are relevant to almost every other important security decision, because Europeans simply lack the experience of making decisions and waging wars. Who will run the EU army? Which country’s voters will tolerate their government handing over the life and death decisions of thousands of citizens to EU institutions? For all its imperfections, collective security through NATO…remains the best answer to these questions.

That is, the bureaucracy of NATO (read the US) is better than the bureaucracy of the EU? Great logic. Very convincing.

And, as they say, for those who do not understand, Foreign Policy without politeness sums up: “For the United States, the provision of a security umbrella in Europe gives it a special role in shaping policy on the continent and the opportunity to mobilize allies for joint action, which they otherwise do not would be enough.” That’s why a flexible military alliance like NATO, which can easily form shifting coalitions among its 30 members, is far more effective than the EU’s centralized military could ever be.

So what?

As for Russia, in the near future we cannot count on a meaningful dialogue with Europe, since it is a priori ineffective and useless due to the above reasons. It would make sense to speak only with the United States, which has not yet abandoned its role as master in the Western world. But the hegemon does not want to hear us. Therefore, Russia should rely only on its real friends – the army and navy.

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply