As if two world wars born in Europe were not enough, an increasingly divided Europe is seeking unity through militarization and hyperbolic fear of Russia, writes Uroš Lipušcek.
Ruslan Stefanchuk, chair of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukrainie’s parliament, addressing a session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Feb. 11. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola on right. (European Parliament / Flickr / CC BY 2.0)
By Uroš Lipušcek
in Ljubljana, Slovenia
Special to Consortium News
The Russians are coming and Europe is preparing for war.
Hysteria has gripped the continent.
It is being spread by political elites who claim peace in Europe is no longer a given.
“Never again” is now a motto forgotten. As if two world wars born in Europe were not enough.
These are the only possible assessments to be drawn from the extraordinary March 5 European Union summit in Brussels at which rearmament and renewed militarization of Europe became the cause to unite an increasingly disunited EU.
Meanwhile, leading media are doing their part to whip up the cries of war. The Sun tabloid in Britain blared on Monday: “EUROPE ON EDGE: UK planning for boots in Ukraine ‘for years’ & France to ‘mobilise civilians’ as Putin lackey makes chilling WW3 threat.” The Daily Telegraph announced that joint opposition to Russia had brought back the Entente Cordial — the 1904 treaty that ended centuries of antagonism between Britain and France. And a Le Monde headline on Tuesday trumpeted: “Europe’s leading missile manufacturer, converts to the war economy.”
Even here in Slovenia, the front page of last Saturday’s DELO, a leading newspaper, claimed “it may be true that European rearmament under pressure from America and Russia will be the best thing that could happen to the [European] Union. It will become a force.”
History confirms that sheer force has never led to peace.
Neither the U.S. nor Russia are forcing Europe to rearm. Peace from a position of force produces a so-called forced or negative peace, which sooner or later degrades into war. This is the path clearly taken by the European elite who claim Russia threatens peace.
Europe, after World War II, at least outwardly propagated cooperation and peace. Now it chooses mobilization and war for the third time in the last hundred years as a way to achieve dominance, which in the latest version, is called “peace.”
To prevent actual peace, critical voices in the mainstream media are silenced. Instead, European statesmen are boisterously leading the continent blindly into war.
This is what happened before World War I, according to the assessment of the influential American historian Barbara Tuchman.
This danger seems to be recognized, as far the war in Ukraine is concerned, by the otherwise contradictory, unpredictable and often confrontational U.S. President Donald Trump.
Europe Does Not Need a Common Army
Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, chairman of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union — CDU/CSU — parliamentary group, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Brussels on March 5. (NATO / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
In contrast to his predecessor Joe Biden, he seems to be working for peace on the old continent. From this perspective, NATO is obsolete. It appears to be only a matter of time before the United States withdraws from the alliance it has used to control Western Europe throughout the post-war period.
NATO is already in the process of disintegration. Washington has decided that Article 5 of the organization’s founding charter on collective defense for potential European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine, if there is to be one, will not apply.
After NATO’s collapse with U.S. withdrawal, Europe does not need a new military alliance or a common European army.
The latter would presuppose the existence of a common European federal state.. Who would be the decision-making authority of a possible European army? Who would decide on war or peace? Who would command it and in what language? These questions could revive the Franco-German rivalry.
Already French President Emmanuel Macron is saying that this envisioned European army can deploy to Ukraine without Russia’s permission. It would not be a peacekeeping force then, which requires consent from both sides, but instead a co-belligerent with Ukraine, which Russia has warned would be fair game.
Independent States
Europe does not need a common European army. The EU must remain a union of independent states.
It needs a new security architecture, which will ensure peace and security for all countries based on mutual trust and coexistence. This will also include Russia, which was and remains a European country.
Had German politicians continued the foreign policy of the Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck from 150 years ago, (who proved through diplomacy that peace in Europe was possible only with stable relations with Russia) the history of the 20th century would probably have been significantly less bloody.
This is forgotten by the likely new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who forsees the revival of German militarism on an anti-Russian basis.
The fundamental security question for today’s Europe is whether Russia, after its increasingly likely military victory in Ukraine, is really preparing for a military campaign against Europe in several stages, as leading European politicians claim.
Some German generals, for example, say Russia will attack Europe within three years at most. European hawks are predicting that the Russian army would first march against the Baltic states, then on Poland and Romania followed by the former Soviet, now independent republics.
There is absolutely no evidence that Vladimir Putin is planning such a suicidal policy. Russia, which is facing a major demographic decline, has neither the human, military nor economic power to do so.
Protecting Russian Minorities’ Rights
The new states that emerged from the former Soviet Union, especially the Baltic states, should, on the other hand, ensure adequate protection and rights for Russian minorities in their countries, a prerequisite for normalizing relations with Moscow.
In Latvia, citizens of Russian origin are refused official travel documents and must travel with international documents. This is undoubtedly unacceptable discrimination.
The war in Ukraine, however we interpret it, is primarily a consequence of NATO expansion and an attempt by American neoconservatives, the majority of whom are in the Democratic Party, to strategically weaken Russia.
Trump has realized that continuing such a policy would lead to World War III, so he is attempting to radically change U.S. foreign policy. China has replaced Russia, in the eyes of the U.S. political establishment as America’s main adversary.
Having damaged their own economies by going along with the Biden administration’s economic war on Russia, the leaders of Germany, France and Great Britain (which sneaked back into the EU through a side door), are trying to solve their economic and political problems by beating on military drums.
German Leopard tanks will replace Volkswagen cars because the German car industry has given in to Chinese competition. In this way, Germany is supposed to restore its declining economic power much the way the United States emerged from the Great Depression only when its war industry was in full swing during World War II.
The incoming German Chancellor seems intent to implement this prescription. Great Britain, which is facing rapid economic decline, is on the other hand trying to extract massive profits from Ukraine by prolonging the war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and still current Chancellor Olaf Scholz at a ceremony at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 15 marking their unity and cooperation. (Courtesy MSC, Steffen Boettcher)
This is the why the British Government signed a 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine. Macron meanwhile tries to buy domestic political peace by diverting attention to the bogus Russian threat to Europe and France.
Belonging to this group of nations is the increasingly radical Poland, which is trying to create the most powerful army in Europe that will lead to inevitable friction with Germany.
Instead of a new militarization in the wake of a radically changed NATO without American participation, European countries should turn to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which was established during the Cold War to prevent conflicts such as Ukraine from happening.
The OSCE had neutral observers in Ukraine but is today almost forgotten, or rather, has no serious influence. Diplomacy and peaceful resolution of conflicts are forgotten matters.
No contacts or dialogue between Moscow and Brussels or other European capitals has existed for more than three years. The EU’s foreign policy representative, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen are the main European warmongers.
Kallas, von der Leyen and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at an artificial intelligence meeting in Paris in February. (European Union / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY 4.0)
The EU Commission for example, decided that the EU would invest as much as 800 billion euros in militarization, instead of development, as proposed by the Italian financier Mario Draghi in his recent report. The EU is increasingly becoming an autocratic formation run by unelected officials at odds with the foundations of democracy.
Europe will become an autonomous strategic power only by renewing dialogue with Russia, not by begging American politicians to include it in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.
According to the well-known American economist and peacemaker Jeffrey Sachs, diplomacy and geopolitics in the EU have sunk to an infantile level. If the EU wants to become an autonomous political power, it must first renounce NATO (before the U.S. leaves it), reestablish political dialogue with Russia and renew cooperation with China.
Only in this way will it maintain strategic autonomy in a future global system. Otherwise, Europe will become the object of a new division of spheres of interest between the great powers, which would spell the end of the EU.
The collapse of NATO would also be an ideal opportunity to declare Europe a nuclear-weapon-free zone, which means that France and Great Britain would have to give up their nukes.
This is at present mere illusion. Within the framework of the OSCE, after the war in Ukraine is over, Europe should first establish at least a minimum level of trust between countries, and then begin negotiations on the reduction of conventional weapons (such negotiations were already underway in Central Europe years ago).
Both Russia and the USA should cancel plans to place intermediate-range missiles in Germany next year and re-establish cooperation in the military field.
Today’s European political elites are unfortunately not capable of such a radical turn. Europe urgently needs a new Willy Brandt or even Helmut Kohl, and a new East policy.
At home here in Slovenia, politicians, should act in accordance with the peace policy written into the Slovenian Constitution and adopt a neutral position, rather than blindly following European hawks into the abyss.
Uroš Lipušcek, a Slovenian TV correspondent, was a “peace candidate” in the European Parliamentary elections in June.
Views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Europe is the epicenter of stupidity in the world.
Isn’t there a saying along the lines of…’all good things come in three’??? Two world wars…one more to go. What a future.
Are there any sane politicians in the world? I can only think there is a small percentage of them and none are in western hemisphere.
The latest Global Times daily bulletin from China has an interview with a translater of Xi Jinping’ s new book on democracies.
China’s is based on three Cs
Cooperation Consultation Consensus
The West has also three Cs
Competition Confrontation Conflict
I find this a marvellous way to explain our situation today
Who benefits from war fever and from Russophobia itself? That would be the ruling political establishment that might otherwise be thrown out of office and, of course, the military-industrial complex. The peoples of Europe would do well to turn their backs on the warmongers and send them packing. My fear is that their minds have already been conditioned to accept the notion that war is inevitable, because Russia wants it, which is a pernicious lie. Do the people actually understand what it will be like to have Russian hypersonic missiles raining down on their cities? Of course they don’t.
Never assign a positive motive for anything Trump says or does. He’s always about fleecing anyone for money and/or shoring up his toddler ego. I suspect he’s setting up the EU and the UK to come groveling at his feet and kiss his a— for support. Biden has already weakened much of the EU economy when he separated it from its affordable energy source and then “ put a period” to the separation when he carried out the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline. Unbelievable that even the Germans were stupid enough to go along. But they are probably trying to wreak some revenge for the USSR’s huge role in the defeat of the Third Reich 70 years ago.
But always recognize any unintended good outcomes from any of Trump’s self-serving actions.
Great points here. The Politics of Fear is always a strong mobilization tool for politicians. It serves many other functions as well: it distracts from the declining economic conditions in most EU states and other domestic problems. It serves the arms industries of UK, Europe and the US. It serves to further alienate western Europe from Russia. It serves the western oil giants as well by forcing them to buy more expensive LNG from the USA. There are multiple reasons why the “madness” has gripped the vassals of Europe. Rabidly Russophobic countries like Poland have delusions of grandeur of becoming a major military power and punish Russia, but they don’t have the economic base in order to do so. In short, the EU is a basket case and may not last much longer if the nonsense keeps up.
Where is all the money going to come from? Declining social services and health outcomes?
“…Both Russia and the USA should cancel plans to place intermediate-range missiles in Germany next year and re-establish cooperation in the military field…”
I agree, but it was the DT1 regime that dissolved the INF treaty in 2019, not Russia. Let’s give credit where due here. The reasons given by the DT1 regime were complete BS, as usual. Some friend of Russia eh? The US does not want “peace”, and the historical precedent is clear.
“This will also include Russia, which was and remains a European country.” – Good to see someone is aware of this, even if the article conflates Europe with the EU (and UK) throughout.
“Kallas, von der Leyen and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at an artificial intelligence meeting”
Those three could only be in a meeting about artificial intelligence, as they clearly lack natural intelligence.
“War Fever Grips Europe.”
Is this perhaps the ultimate in dog-bites-human headlines? Or, ask yourself, would it not be easier to list the times in history when “war fever” did not grip Europe? Back when the Greeks were on top? But, surely times when “war fever” did not grip Europe have been rare since the Roman Empire?
“The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
— James Madison, a leader of the Constitutional Convention and a President of the USA with a much lower number than 47.
The idea of the West versus the East dates back to when the ancient Greeks were fighting the Persians.
Yes, then later, the Roman Empire distinguished the Latin-speaking west, and the Greek speaking east; then later empire split between east and west. In 1054, there was the Great Schism, between the Latin, Roman Catholic west, and the Greek Byzantine (East Orthodox). This religious/cultural dividing line still roughly still valid. The “backward, violent, autocratic” East, and the “civilised, liberal, democratic” West is still the assumption of many. The west has been hostile to the East for a long time. (see: Orientalism) This has been a very convenient collective misconception to draw on to rekindle the negative depictions and highlight the political hypocrisy.
Unfortunately they were not neutral but allegedly provided Ukraine with targeting data. So while the OSCE as an organisation is seriously damaged, one could still build on it’s principles, especially the 1990 Charter of Paris. hxxps://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/6/39516.pdf
So is this the beginning of the end? I would have thought that the U.S. and their ignorant, stupid, brainwashed and arrogant people -or like minded Israel would have been the ones to blame.
Jeffrey Sachs says that “EU diplomacy has sunk to an infantile level”. No-one could say it better. I truly am astonished at the incompetent people the “Democracies” in Europe have elected/appointed during the past five years. I’m going to throw in just a few, of many, names that could be listed. Von der Leyen, Stoltenberg, Rutte, BoJo, Truss, Sunak, Starmer, Scholtz, Macron, Kallas. One half crazed warmonger after another.
And all with WEF and/or BlackRock connections.
Yes, agreed. Looking back, there were recent genuine political alternatives in Britain and the US, Jeremy Corbin and Bernard Sanders that in times past might have provided some measure of sanity and counterbalance. However, these and others like them were destroyed – artificially, systematically and in short order by an organized, heavily monied right wing forces. Corbin by weaponized “antisemitism” and Sanders by the US Democratic Party, who would rather have Trump in the White House. Such is the corrosive effect of money and corruption over time. Any hope for mankind looks as though it will come from the East, not the West.