Hugo
Dionísio
And
out of the darkness came the light! If you didn’t want to see, you could argue
that the information circulating was overwhelmingly one-sided and very unclear
about the real intentions behind the warmongering maneuvers. With each passing
day, more and more elements emerge about the role that the conflict between
NATO and the Russian Federation has taken on in the business of arms,
intelligence, and security policies in general. As the press release issued by
NATO itself in 2003 shows, from 2014 onwards, there has never been a year in
which the evolution in national defense budgets has been negative.
From
2021 to 2023, the U.S. almost doubled the contracted value of arms sold to NATO
countries), assuming in this report that the countries were “spooked” by
Russia’s “large-scale invasion” of Ukraine.
As
can be seen from the phantasmagorical visions of North Korean soldiers episode,
only “verified” by sources linked to the Kiev regime, a regime that specializes
itself in the fabrication of “crypto-events”, used as justification for genuine
conflicts, the arms business is now made up of a “turnkey” process, which
incorporates: the production of the motive; the rationale for the solution; the
delivery of the equipment; and, depending on the price, its use. Therefore, the
“dollwar” business is based on even less substantial assumptions than the real
good “oil”, which justifies the existence of its “brother”, the “petrodolar”.
The
deal reached such a magnitude and raison d’être that, due to the “fear” of an
“invasion”, from Russia to all of Europe and its surroundings, Congress, made
up of greedy “dollwar” junkies, even ended up revising the legal process for
arms sales, and under the “AECA” (Arms Export Control Act). Under Biden’s new
regulations, the president’s notification to Congress for arms sales to NATO
countries and other vassals, only requires 15 days’ notice, instead of the
regularly required 30 days.
None
of this is a secret, everything is assumed with all clarity: the arms business
is seen as an accelerator of U.S. economic growth, and the Ukrainian conflict
is sold as the fuel that powered the vehicle set in motion, i.e. the European
arms purchase and manufacturing programs.
To
ensure everything runs smoothly and without hindrance, the best “Sales Manager”
money can buy, Ursula von der Leyen has been put in charge of the European
Commission. Not only does she guarantee the arms deal, but, in fairness, she is
also an expert in vaccines, since from Phizer, and LNG, since from Henry Hub.
Von der Leyen works like a first-class broker. In one fell swoop, she
guarantees the commitment of the entire European Union to the U.S. “national
interest”.
There
is no argument that she won’t use it, and it could be said that she has no
problem using the greatest of tricks to attract buyers to the product of his
favorite supplier. As she did most recently in Hungary when she proposed
swapping Russian LNG purchases for U.S. LNG because the latter is “cheaper” and
“lowers (our) energy bill”. Why buy “LNG” instead of pipeline gas and buy
Russian LNG, on the spot, instead of buying through long-term contracts, as
before the war, not a word did she provide. As the best European sales broker,
von der Leyen is thus already guaranteeing the submission of the entire EU to
Trump’s threat on tariffs. She did all this by deciding without consulting
anyone, lying, and manipulating without any trace of scruples. Just like in a
real liberal “democracy”!
The
most serious question that this process raises is that as well as denouncing
the transposition of NATO’s role into that of the European Union, this
situation demonstrates the usefulness of the Ukrainian conflict and the
importance of its continuation, not to satisfy any anxiety about sovereignty,
but to produce as many “dollwars” as possible. The kind of dollars that only
war can produce.
With
the whole circuit in place and their brokers and sales managers well ensconced,
von der Leyen and António Costa, surely mission-minded in taking European
“dollwar” production even further, have ended up guaranteeing everything and
its opposite: 1. They guarantee the final lottery to the U.S.
military-industrial complex, by determining that, from now on, funds linked to
the EU’s cohesion policy will be used to buy arms (EU changes the rules: Member
states will now use European funds to strengthen defense and security – CNN
Portugal); 2. They begin the destruction and process of collapsing the European
Union because the Cohesion Policy is one of the main nourishments of the
“European Dream” that brings together all these pieces we call “EU member
states”. In their eagerness to provide “dollwars” to their masters, they both
end up as potential EU gravediggers. From now on, we just have to wait. It will
happen, we just don’t know when and in what form.
This
is, in fact, the epilogue of a story with a predictable end. Historically,
representatives of U.S. hegemonic policy have always resented the fact that
“defense” budgets in EU countries (“Why Europe’s defense industry can’t keep
up” – POLITICO) are too “low” and create a great “dependence” on the U.S. and a
great vulnerability relating to… Russia, of course!
The
accusations were well-known and were spoken out in the open. To the hawks in
the White House, Congress, or Senate, it never made sense EU citizens not to
live constantly under the fear of poverty, like a large proportion of Americans
(according to Census Bureau data, 58.5% of Americans experience at least one
year below the poverty line during their adult lives between the ages of 20 and
75, and 76% experience at least one situation close to poverty, instead of
investing in defense.
Concerns
about the investment in the social sphere and development meant fewer
“dollwars” for Wall Street, which was always seen and sold in Hollywood as a
bad European habit, responsible for the lack of “toughness” and
“entrepreneurial capacity” of European people. It was unacceptable to take just
a few hundred billion euros, out of a budget of more than a trillion euros, for
the European Defense Fund, even when this money, at least theoretically,
couldn’t be used to buy weapons. Just as it was unacceptable that, except for
the U.S., Greece and the UK, all the other member states were well below 2% of
GDP in defense investment, as proposed by NATO’s target. That was a lot of
“dollwars” escaping the clutches of the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Something had to be done and this is where Ukraine came in, from the Orange
Revolution onwards.
Thus,
and without taking into account the accusations of “old and new” Europe by Bush
and company, already at the beginning of the 21st century, in March 2014, the
“Nobel” Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama, the U.S. president, expressed concern
about the cuts in defense spending in European countries (as a matter of fact,
in 2014, investment by NATO countries had fallen), telling NATO members in
Brussels that “everyone must contribute” to defending the continent’s borders,
sovereignty and territorial integrity (Obama urges NATO to increase defense
spending | News | Al Jazeera ). Systematically following the script, in May
2017, U.S. President Donald Trump once again criticized NATO member states,
including the EU, for not spending enough on defense and urged them to increase
their contributions (Trump scolds NATO allies over defense spending | CNN
Politics ).
As
you can see, this pressure is common to both factions of the “uniparty” and,
from a very early stage, shared by Ursula von der Leyen, a German by birth, a
Ukrainian by heart, and a North American by soul. The fact is that the pressure
has been brutal over the years (here’s a chronology of U.S. harassment of
Ukraine since 1991), Ukraine which, due to its geographical position, has
always been one of the cornerstones of the EU’s strategy of accommodation to
the needs from Washington and Wall Street.
This
push towards militarism, resulting from an anachronistic vertigo that tries to
recreate the unrepeatable results achieved by the U.S. in the context of the
Second World War, has had the effect (and intention) of leading Europe into an
indirect conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation, which has worsened
to the point where those who demand peace negotiations, a simple ceasefire or
an end to the war are being persecuted. Instead of persecuting those who want
war, they are persecuting those who want peace.
To
get a clear picture of the significance of this issue for the U.S. arms lobby,
Trump’s victory was still warm and Blinken was already boarding a plane to
Brussels to ensure that “support for Kiev” was guaranteed until the last day of
the Biden presidency ( Blinken in Brussels as Trump win raises alarm over
Ukraine – The Frontier Post ). The objective is clear and ensures that this
time unlike Biden’s mandate, the European Union becomes “independent” and
increases its support for the war. The desired European “independence”, in this
case, means that the EU and its member states must prepare themselves to take
on the “support for Ukraine” and, above all, the continuity, in quality and
quantity, of “dollwars” flow, on their way to Wallstreet.
In
a country with 10 million displaced people and so many others emigrating, whose
putative president (exempt from “transparent and fair” minutes and elections)
is already seeking refuge ( Ground News – U.S. Analyst Claims Zelensky May Seek
Refuge in Florida After War ) in Florida, and which has recently begun the
process of lowering the age of conscription and mobilization to 18 ( Ground
News – Ukraine will lower the conscription age for mobilization to 18 years ),
the support promised by the Western “allies” involves subjecting, not only the
adult generations, who have either emigrated or died but the younger
generations to death. All in the name of keeping the conflict moving at a slow
pace, hoping that Russia will fall first. News such as the rise in the interest
rate to 19% or by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation can serve as a
justification for continuing the enterprise and renewing hopes of success
(Russia Hikes Interest Rate to 19% as War Spending Fuels Inflation – The Rio
Times).
The
truth is that, as expected, information about the growth of European investment
in “defense” is multiplying, especially the pressure placed on Germany, as
fears of a general economic recession multiply. After all, without Germany,
there is no “investment” in the EU, let alone “investment” in defense.
U.S.
Think-Thanks are doing their bit in this regard and, after the New Yorker
accused Germany of failing to reflect the promise of greater investment in its
state budget (Germany Promised to Step Up Militarily. Its Budget Says
Differently. – The New York Times), the Atlantic Council warned that “the
budget needs to reflect” the commitment made by Sholz, Baerbock and company (
Germany has committed to improving its defense. Its budget needs to reflect
this. – Atlantic Council ). But the warning to Germany and the EU didn’t stop
there: Stimson Center, through one of its sounding boards, warned that “this
time it has to be different” (EU Defense: This Time Might Be Different –
Stimson Center).
Germany,
a country responsible for two world wars, thus has a new opportunity to wage a
third, with the same adversary, Russia, as in the second. With this whole
machine at the service of war, it’s no wonder that the Koerber-Stiftung
Institute was able to conduct a poll in which 50% of respondents supported
Defense Minister Pistorius’ proposal to increase the German defense budget from
the current 2% to 3 to 3.5% of GDP ( German poll shows approval for more
defense spending as NATO steels itself for Trump 2.0 | Stars and Stripes ).
However, even reaching 50%, the truth is that 57% said they don’t want to do it
at the expense of investment in social issues.
If,
in previous articles, I had already pointed out the gap between Kamala Harris’
banners and the concrete needs of the working class, which makes up the
majority, the same is happening in the EU. If with Kamala the big banner was
“democracy”, with von der Leyen and the majority of EU governments,
overwhelmingly supporters of this enlarged center, in which the neoliberal is
“left” and the “neoconservative” is “right”, both united by the umbilical
relationship with Washington and by leaving no room for non-dominant
ideological currents, are betting on Europe’s famous “values”, which nobody
really knows what they are, but who increasingly feel that these enigmatic
“values” have set Europe on the path of economic recession, increasing poverty
(despite arithmetic and statistical manipulations) and the degradation of
democratic participation.
So,
for those who invest in weapons, knowing that the people prefer to invest in
solving their social problems, it’s no wonder that von der Leyen’s European
Commission has determined that cohesion policy funds can now be used to
“strengthen defense” ( EU changes the rules: Member states to use European
funds to strengthen defense and security – CNN Portugal ). We can say that the
strategy initiated by Bush when he spoke of “a new and an old Europe”, has
finally borne fruit.
Let’s
see, the “ban on using money to buy ammunition and weapons” remains in place,
but the money can be used to “increase the capacity to produce ammunition and
weapons”. This is how politics works in the West today: at the same time you
say no and yes, so that the political caste can do what it likes. The article
says “Brussels has decided to modify spending policies to redirect billions of
euros from the European budget to defense and security, redirecting cohesion
funds.”
The
intention is that 1/3 of the respective fund (more than 130 billion euros) will
be spent on armaments instead of on cohesion policy, designed to reduce
economic inequality between member states. Now, if the promise of the “European
dream” meant that countries would give up sovereignty in exchange for receiving
support for their development, converging with the richest, what this reversal
in the role of the EU’s structural funds means is that, after it, member states
will be left without sovereignty or support for development.
This
confirmation of a trend, which has already happened with the “socialist”
António Costa at the helm of the European Council, comes in the wake of the
ghostly sightings of North Korean soldiers in Russia. In absentia of definitive
proof, the U.S. and the EU have promised to respond to this assumed and
unproven fact.
This
is how Western democracy works: narratives are promoted to justify political
reversals and, with them, the degeneration and subversion of the very democracy
they claim to defend. How can politicians like António Costa, who know how
important the Cohesion Funds are for their country, embark on something like
this without at least providing unequivocal proof: 1. of the presence of such
forces; 2. of the importance of such forces for the Russian war effort; 3. of
the importance of the presence of such forces for European security. Have you
forgotten about Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”? The supposed “massacre”
of Bucha?
In
a previous article, I exposed the use of the European Defense Fund to finance
warmongering projects developed by the largest European corporations. Now look
what a delicious cake awaits them. In the same article, I also explained why
such a reversal is of such interest to the U.S.: The fact is that there is no
European military venture without some direct or indirect involvement of U.S.
capital and expertise.
European
investment in defense is an endless source of “dollwars” to serve the Federal
Reserve and the greedy Wall Street. For every euro invested in weapons by the
EU, there is always a premium to pay Wall Street. Without Ukraine, none of this
would exist, without the Russian bogeyman, none of this would be justified,
without the North Korean ghost, all of this would end in depression. The
presence of the North Korean ghost is one more dose of fuel thrown into a fire
meant to be burning.
This
importance and reversal of EU policies on military funding will have two
devastating consequences: 1. Trump, even if he wants to, will hardly be able to
end the war, because the U.S. is entitled to a free lunch on this investment;
2. The end of the cohesion policy will bring about the end of the European
Union itself. After that, there will be very little to unite Western and
Eastern Europe, no matter how much they wave the Russian bogeyman because
German money is the glue that binds the two sides together.
The
U.S. itself, which today has the European political bodies muzzled as never
before, may once again, at the cost of the contradictions it has created, be
faced with a Europe that is much more difficult to control. This constant
pressure to produce more and more “dollwars”, as I say, will mean the end of
the cohesion policy, which had that name for a reason. If, in the Second World
War, the lend-lease may well have been one of the building blocks of the “new
Europe”, making the U.S. the world’s great creditor (the U.S. made the
equivalent of 647 billion dollars from sending supplies to the “allies”) with
the exclusive power to “help” Europe. The U.S. has already profited 84.72
billion euros from Ukraine, and it also “eats” a share of European “support”, since
its holdings in the European military-industrial complex guarantee it. The
Ukrainian War is to the U.S. war party, what the Second World War was to the
U.S. war party.
The
rearmament of Germany, in addition to the “dollwars” it implies, could also be
a preventive obstacle to rapprochement between the Russian Federation and
Germany, because a rearmed Germany will tend, to a large extent, to want to
appropriate Russian raw materials, not through dialogue, but through force. A
militaristic and militarized society, which is where we are heading, will never
be a society of peace and dialogue. The ultimate example is the U.S., which
uses conflicts to justify investments.
The
principle that “if you want peace, prepare for war” is just a justification for
escalation. It’s a bit like NATO, which, at the end of the Cold War, either
became extinct or found new enemies. After all, organizations exist as long as
they are useful and, given NATO’s usefulness in promoting the arms race, we
have to feed the monster with conflicts, hot or cold.
At
a time when “democracies” advocate war and the end of social programs and
“autocracies” seem to prefer peace and development programs, von der Leyen’s
and António Costa’s choices represent, above all, the choices for the EU
self-destruction.
Which
is far from being a drama! This could well be our salvation!
No comments:
Post a Comment