El 1 de octubre, Mark Rutte, Primer Ministro de Países Bajos durante 14 años, tomará las riendas de la Secretaría General de la OTAN, un cargo a la medida para un mayordomo fiel a la presencia estadounidense en Europa.
“Mark es un verdadero defensor de las relaciones transatlánticas, un dirigente fuerte y un creador de consenso”, ha dicho su predecesor Jens Stoltenberg.
Como podrán entender, el secretario general de la OTAN no pinta nada. Basta con que hable bien ante los micrófonos y no meta a pata en las entrevistas. Por eso mientras tradicionalmente el cargo se asigna a un pelele europeo, el centro operativo y el mando militar se los queda el general estadounidense que esté al mando del Pentágono en Europa.
Preferiblemente el secretario debe ser centroeuropeo porque desde la salida de Javier Solana en 1999, los mediterráneos tampoco pintan nada. La elección de Rutte indica que la OTAN quiere contrarrestar a Rusia en el este y el Atlántico norte.
Nacido en 1967 en La Haya, Rutte es un hijo de la descolonización. Su padre trabajaba en comercio internacional en Indonesia y se vio afectado por la ocupación japonesa y luego por la independencia.
Después de ingresar en las juventides liberales, se puso al servicio del monopolio angloholandés Unilever y en 2002 alcanzó el puesto de director de recursos humanos de una de sus filiales, IgloMora Groep, especialista en alimentos congelados y conocida por su pescado empanado.
Dejó el cargo porque los liberales lo llamaron para nombarle viceministro de Asuntos Sociales y Empleo. En 2006 se convirtió en dirigente del partido liberal (VVD) y en 2010 ganó las elecciones, cambiando de discurso siempre que era necesario. Si tenía que gobiernar con la “extrema derecha” hablaba contra la emigración y Unión Europea. Pero si tenía que pactar con la socialdemocracia, el discurso era otro distinto.
Por eso Stoltenberg dijo que era un artista fabricando consensos.
Durante el confinamiento, Rutte dio ejemplo, a diferencia de Boris Johnson o Miguel Ángel Revilla: en 2020 dejó que su madre muriera en soledad a la edad de 96 años, cuando las visitas a los asilos de ancianos todavía estaban prohibidos.
Como buen monaguillo, mientras fue Primer Ministro siempre mostró su apoyo inquebrantable a la política estadounidense en Israel y Ucrania. Convenció a sus socios europeos de mejorar su relación con Washington y de hacer un esfuerzo presupuestario adicional para garantizar definitivamente la presencia del protector estadounidense en suelo europeo.
Tiene fama de austero, pero este año su gobierno ha cumplido el compromiso de 2014 de dedicar más del 2 por cien del PIB al gasto militar. Rutte también estuvo al frente del esfuerzo presupuestario en favor de Ucrania y firmó un cheque por valor de 3.000 millones de euros en ayuda militar a lo largo de diez años. Regaló aviones de combate F-16 a Kiev, una decisión calificada de “histórica” por Zelensky.
Paralelamente la compra de 52 F-35 a Lockheed-Martin acabó de convencer a sus amos de Washington que Rutte es su mejor hombre en la OTAN.
La candidatura rival del presidente rumano Klaus Iohannis, apoyada por Victor Orban hasta la primavera, fue sólo un señuelo. El Primer Ministro húngaro sacó partido de su derecho de veto, pero a cambio de apoyar la candidatura de Rutte, su gobierno quedó exento de apoyar económica y militarmente a Ucrania.
En tiempos de Trump le llamaron “whisperer”, el hombre que susurraba a Trump al oído, incluso en las condiciones más difíciles. Ahora le vuelven a poner en un cargo en el que, muy probablemente, deberá lidiar con Trump y reunir a los vasallos europeos bajo la bandera de las barras y estrellas.
Nous avons ici la démonstration que l’ONU est là pour servir exclusivement les intérêts de Washington puisque son représentant nie la présence de troupes américaines sur le sol syrien – mais également irakien et un peu partout dans le monde – alors que des blessés américains appartenant à l’armée ont été dénombrés ! N’est-ce pas merveilleux ! Il n’y a pas d’armée américaine sur le sol syrien mais des membres de cette armée sont blessés !
Ein junges Paar ist im Zillertal in Tirol trotz Unwetterwarnung zu einer Bergtour aufgebrochen und musste schließlich aus einer alpinen Notlage gerettet werden.
Redaktion14. September 2024
Symbolbild.GETTYIMAGES/no_limit_pictures
Eine 28-jährige Deutsche und ihr 29-jähriger Lebensgefährte brachen am Freitag, trotz der allgemeinen Unwetterwarnung, zu einer Bergtour auf die Gerlossteinwand im Zillertal auf. Bereits auf halber Strecke wurden sie laut Polizei von den massiven Neuschneemengen überrascht. Dennoch setzten sie ihre Wanderung fort und erreichten den Gipfel (2.166 m). Aufgrund ihrer leichten Bekleidung, des Schneefalls und der unzureichenden Ausrüstung waren sie gezwungen, später einen Notruf abzusetzen.
Rinder auf einer Almweide im Kalser Ködnitztal, Tirol, aufgenommen am Freitag, 13. September 2024. Oberhalb von 1.500 Metern Seehöhe kann es bis zu ein Meter Neuschnee geben.APA/EXPA/JOHANN GRODER
Trotz der starken Schneefälle und etwa 50 Zentimetern Neuschnee hatten die beiden Wanderer zunächst vorgehabt, über das sogenannte Heimjöchl abzusteigen. Als sich jedoch die Wetter- und Geländebedingungen weiter verschlechterten, entschieden sie sich, zur Gerlossteinwand zurückzukehren und Schutz in einer nahegelegenen, verfallenen Berghütte zu suchen. Dort wurden sie schließlich von der Bergrettung Zell am Ziller aufgefunden und leicht unterkühlt ins Tal gebracht.
Guten Morgen aus dem tiefverschneiten Obertauern, wo seit gestern fast ein halber Meter Neuschnee gefallen ist! Im Laufe des Samstag dürfte die Schneedecke hier auf über einen Meter anwachsen #schnee#österreichpic.twitter.com/jPN2Pvu19H— Unwetter-Freaks (@unwetterfreaks)
The “sanctions disease” has normalized an unprecedentedly unhealthy lifestyle and policy.
We can be sure: one day not too far in the future, psychologists and psychiatrists will recognize a social pathology that has afflicted the governments of western countries in the period 2022 – year 20xx, a disease whose symptoms are madness, senseless actions, masochism and a euphoric exaltation of self-harm. This disease will be remembered as the ‘sanctions disease’, a fad that has normalized an unprecedentedly unhealthy lifestyle and policy.
A pointless economic war without end
When the European Union, in concert with the United States of America and the NATO General Secretariat put forward the proposal for the first sanctions package, shortly after the start of the Russian-Ukrainian SMO, many analysts were concerned because it was clear even then that Russia’s economic projections were nowhere near as bad as those of European countries that were already in recession and with heavy inflation. The media loudly echoed the words of the politicians on duty, who rushed to comment on geopolitical events and said they were ready to ‘break Russia in two’.
The chosen instrument was sanctions, i.e. political decisions restricting economic trade. If we read on the European Council website, we find it written that ‘Sanctions enable the EU to respond to global challenges and developments contrary to its objectives and values’. So, true to these words, the intention of the West would have been to promote global successes and limit obstacles to them. Well, this is what has happened… but to the detriment of the West itself.
The sanctions, in fact, turned out to be an unprecedented boomerang, a disaster. None of the countries that imposed sanctions benefited from them. They all came out devastated. The only ones who benefited were the other countries in the world that did not adhere to the sanctions and started, within the last two years, to think according to different market logics: new trade routes, transactions with national currencies, de-dollarization, multilateral agreements, multipolar perspectives. This is not rhetoric, it is a fact.
An instrument of deterrence and soft power such as an international economic sanction makes sense as soon as it is effective; effectiveness is calculated in advance but must then be empirically verified; if the sanction works, those who have been sanctioned will have suffered damage and will be forced to review their choices in order to recover; if, on the other hand, the damage has not been enough, then it means that the sanctions have not worked. Simple as that.
The data from several analytical institutes are all consistent in stating that the sanctions have harmed the mandated states and not Russia, which, on the other hand, has adopted a partial war economy, with protectionism and an autarkic turn in some sectors, as well as opening up new routes to the East and the Global South, and has managed to grow with an even greater trend than in previous years, which proves that it does not need Europe. It is Europe that needs Russia, for raw materials, for energy, for imports, for strategic security. Nothing that was predicted by government bureaucrats has come true.
An incalculable amount of demonstrations, protests, talk shows, articles and research have been produced to highlight the failure of the sanctions. And yet, as if that were not enough, in June 2024 the European Union launched its 14th sanctions package, not content with the damage it had done to itself. It sounds like a joke, but it is not.
Sanctions are the new black, the new colour that goes with everything and never goes out of fashion. When the EU, or the U.S., or NATO don’t know what to do, they impose new sanctions, which translated into real economic terms means inflicting damage on themselves and then blaming the adversary. Nothing could be more stupid and risky.
The Dragon Plan
A key role in all this was played by Mario Draghi, the man from Goldman Sachs, former president of the European Central Bank and former Italian prime minister. It was he who devised the sanctions as an instrument of soft power, he was one of the architects of the Euro as a currency and one of the destroyers of the economies of Greece and Italy, as well as a great speculator in the world of Big Pharma and armaments, and the first supporter of the war against Russia.
A few days ago, Draghi presented the European Commission with a competitiveness plan – as it was ironically called – for European countries, asking for 800 billion euros of liquidity per year to stem Europe’s rapid decline. Where this money will be taken from, we do not know: perhaps from the current accounts of the citizens of the EU states, perhaps from new secret deals for some pandemic, perhaps from speculation by armament companies. What is certain is that every time Draghi comes into play, something obscure happens in the West.
The Brussels bureaucrat’s rhetoric during his speech was chilling. He spoke of the need to invest twice as much as was done with the Marshall Plan after World War II, focusing mainly on telecommunications, artificial intelligence, climate change and defense, in order to support the U.S. and stem the growth of China and eastern countries. An ‘existential issue’, he called it. If the plan fails, Europe will have to ‘give up its model of life’.
In a nutshell, for Draghi, a balanced budget must be enshrined in the constitution and the EU’s stakes must only apply to small business, while there must be no brake on war. Better still, small businesses must disappear and everything must be centralized as much as possible in private monopolies of foreign multinationals, linked to big investment capital funds and Anglo-American holding companies. Woe betide investments in the welfare of the citizens, because one must choose ‘between the air conditioner or peace’, as he said in the spring of 2022. The urgency of establishing a common defense body, under NATO directives, to overcome the resistance of individual states – perhaps by strengthening Eurogendfor, the European military police with total immunity – is also emphasized. Very amusing is the chapter on energy and its exorbitant costs, about which Draghi complains… guiltily omitting that the sanctions were imposed by European countries and that he was the first promoter.
And this is where we need to reflect: sanctions have really become a kind of psychological disease. First they are imposed, then the same Western governments complain about them because they have produced disastrous effects, but instead of removing them and changing strategy, they complain about the problem and to solve it they propose to impose more sanctions.
The banality of evil? Perhaps not, because European bureaucrats are well aware of the epoch-making disaster they have thrown the continent into.
The world goes on without the West
It may sound cruel and brutal, but it has to be said: the world can go on even without the West. These words are not meant to be a definitive sentence, but they must give us the measure of the political and economic disaster that Western governments have undertaken and for which they now blame the rest of the world. This childish schizophrenia will have no way of continuing.
The proverbial Asian patience and Russian determination have meant that in the two and a half years of sanctions, markets have changed their geometry, moving eastwards and southwards, with the effect of significant global growth and the opening of new projects over long periods of time, capable of gradually defusing the hegemony of the dollar and the centrality of the American market, which, hard facts in hand, is becoming increasingly dangerous for investors, not only because of the imminent elections that generate instability, but also because there is no longer any stability and no guarantees.
What does the Anglo-American-led West offer the rest of the world today? Aggressive and overbearing diplomacy, cultural and military colonialism, violence and depravity of values, and the black dress of sanctions. What else? The logical consequence to this degradation is estrangement, going in search of better partners.
Since the beginning of the Special Military Operation, Russia has done its utmost to strengthen strategic alliances and extend its hand to emerging countries, while China has rewritten the guidelines of entire market sectors, launching multi-year proposals for entire decades, repeating that the shared will is that of a multipolar world characterized by peace and stable and secure international cooperation.
Russia and China are leading a new world market order that can do without the West.
Until this truth is understood, there will be no change. And there is a risk that by the time they realize it, it will be too late.
9/11 is a phenomenon which can be called an illness, when you pause to consider how it came about and how it has succeeded in never being examined or properly investigated
It came and went almost unnoticed. Given that 9/11 is without any doubt the biggest travesty of U.S. justice in the history of this young country – and perhaps its greatest betrayal of its own people – this was not surprising. While Harris and Trump made their respects and a few articles were written which just re-hack the same talking points, an entire nation bleeds. 9/11 is a phenomenon which cannot be compared really to anything. It can almost be called an illness when you pause to consider how it came about and how it has succeeded in never being examined or properly investigated to protect George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Condo Rice and possibly scores of secret service agents who were in on it. Yes, 9/11 is really an illness which has no cure. Only the very few lunatics in white jackets who created it are immune from it.
How do most Americans cope with dealing with terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Centre in New York City? And then having to grasp the mere notion that it was conducted entirely with the knowledge and support of their own elite? The answer is they don’t. Most Americans simply close their eyes and ears and refuse to see and hear anything such is the extent of their adoration of their own country and their stoic refusal to face a reality which they have indulged themselves for over 300 years in refusing to believe: that the ruling elites of Europe in the 17th century who manipulated the working classes for their own rotten needs simply transferred the business model via the Pilgrim Fathers when America was built. The idea that America was built as a ‘solution’ to the depravity of Europe is a farce. It is literally a sick joke.
On the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, the two scenarios that the very, very few Americans embrace, if they care to, are equally appalling. Either George W Bush and his cronies became aware of an imminent terrorist attack and simply let it happen; or worse they were part of its planning from the beginning and spent months preparing each and every detail.
Whoever it was who planned it, made sure of one thing meticulously: that the American people would never even get close to finding the truth about the day where commercial airliners killed over 2,500 people. Not one American journalist working for Fox or CNN, or the Times or the Post would even waste a day’s work in the office digging away at the mere residual traces of evidence left – largely anecdotal from individuals – and face a baptism of persecution, financial destitution, prison or even assassination.
What we are left with are the ‘truthers’ an endearing but condescending name given to the thousands of Americans who don’t accept the narrative presented to them by the 9/11 Commission NIST report and who turn to the internet to produce amateur or semi-professional documentaries – which are all tarnished with the same ‘conspiracy theory’ brush by the establishment press.
But conspiracy theory operators still ask the pertinent questions and point to the incendiary evidence which still exists today. And unlike the JFK assassination, the 2,500 9/11 families were robbed of their loved ones in a government plot which profited those who were in a position of power at that time which makes the case unique on a number of levels. If Americans believe in democracy as a birth right, then they deserve to know what really happened on that day, certainly the families who have been left with an official version which is so far from the truth that it is barely credible.
We tend to think of America as a pretty whacky place. The internet is full of mad, stupid, weird and hilarious stunts that Americans carry out every day captured on film. What we haven’t seen though is anyone go to an abandoned steel frame building and flood its upper floors with gasoline and set it alight. If someone were to do that in the name of democracy how would CNN and Fox report that fire when, ultimately it would become apparent that the building was not going to fall down? Steel frame buildings don’t fall down due to fires. The level of heat generated by burning gasoline isn’t anywhere near enough to bend or break the vertical columns which hold them together. This is 3rd grade science class stuff.
And despite planes being sent to the 13 graveyards – or ‘boneyards’ as they are called – in the U.S. every day, no one in America has yet to fly one of these planes into an empty steel framed skyscraper as part of an experiment – not the deep state, not private individuals. No one.
If either of these experiments were to be carried out, the American people who hunker down and refuse to be drawn into the conspiracy theory zone would have no choice but to face their most ghoulish demon.
Planes did not bring down the Twin towers. Nor the fire which they created. The evidence to prove it is pretty over-whelming as there has never been a single steel framed building before 9/11 to burn down. And not one since.
The most extraordinary aspect of 9/11 is the sheer extent of the cover-up. Those who carried it out made sure no genuine investigation could be carried out. Within days of Bush standing on the rubble and posing for photos with firemen, the steel beams which held the building together and which gave it is characteristic unique strength were removed from the site and sent to China on boats. It was critically important that investigators could not take them and examine them as part of an investigation.
The steel beams could not break at the low temperatures that aviation fuel burns at, particularly starved of oxygen. Those beams needs to burn at a much, much higher temperature of around 1300 degrees Celsius before they finally buckle and then break. To get to this temperature and to break the main vertical support beams, thermite is needed which was found on the site in abundance. There was literally tones of it in the dust. And as the hundreds of architects and engineers have all said, to achieve the ‘freefall’ of the building, a certain ‘zero resistance’ from each floor has to be mastered, which can only be done by a controlled demolition on each floor timed perfectly. This is not conspiracy theory. These are facts proven by history, supported by professionals all around the world.
But the mainstream media isn’t going to get anywhere close to acknowledging these points. Nor even for that matter the scores of accounts of firefighters who spoke of hearing explosions shortly before the towers came down. Most Americans believe otherwise and that suits the mainstream press and the elite which controls it. Americans believe in the collapsing pancake theory which is that one floor collapsed onto the other as the support beams buckled and could no longer hold them. And the compounded weight alone made them all fall in perfect succession.
And most Americans chose to believe that an act of terrorism so horrific couldn’t have had the fingerprints of George W Bush and his cronies on it, despite the fact that he secured a second term easily and the ambitions of his father were realized: get into Iraq and Afghanistan where you will loot and plunder everything. Iraq had a lot of oil. Afghanistan was ripe for a 5 trillion dollar gas pipeline deal which had been a blueprint of a Californian energy company which the Bush family was connected to. Who masterminded it though? The Israelis can’t be ruled out as they also stood to gain by using 9/11 as a way of fuelling western hatred against Muslims – something which has worked very well since the U.S. invasion of Iraq lead to the creation of ISIS which then spurned a number of terror attacks in western countries. Indeed, the Israeli genocide of today possibly could not have been carried out if it weren’t for the number of horrific killings in Europe by terrorists their seeking an allegiance to the group. Join up the dots.
But historical context is not on offer by western media on the 9/11 anniversary. Media knows that we are possibly decades away from even being close to exposing the tawdry truth about the twin towers attacks. And possibly even 50 years away from getting what Americans really need to heal what is probably the most traumatic experience they have had since Pearl Harbor: a second investigation.
The U.S. has made sure that, via Brussels, Europe remains in its hands. The Draghi Report will change nothing about that!
In “The Future of European Competitiveness”, the report that the former President of the ECB handed to the current President of European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen, among a profound diagnosis and extensive recommendations aimed at “reforming Europe”, organized in two parts, which will deserve a more in-depth critical reading from me in the near future, Mario Draghi proposes a whole strategy, Macro and Micro, which aims to raise the productivity and innovation levels of the European economy and, with them, its competitiveness.
The factors identified as being at the root of the European economy’s loss of competitiveness to the two main rival blocs identified in the report, China and the U.S., are diverse and profound. Among other things, they point to factors such as: the inability to generate investment cycles capable of leveraging the policies considered to be of the highest priority; the lack of a venture capital market that generates private investment opportunities without the need to recourse to banks; gaps in policy coordination at EU level (examples of single markets that have failed to materialize); very high energy prices; bureaucracy imposed by the EU itself and the erratic nature of political action by member states that act without coordination.
One of the most pressing examples used to describe this mismatch is in security and defense policy, referring to the profusion of national industries and the inability to create a true European-level military industrial complex. 800 billion euros have been put forward as the remedy for this situation. It’s worth noting that the 2030 multiannual financial framework and REACT-EU (recovery from the Covid-19 crisis) together have more than double this amount and the result is plain to see. According to Draghi, Europe would need 1 to 2% of European GDP every year in public investment! Public, like in China! But also like in the USA, although the propaganda says that it’s only in China!
According to the report, the EU is missing out on around 10% of GDP growth, simply because it is unable to scale up its single market, especially in energy, technology and defense. This inability puts the EU at a great disadvantage when compared to the U.S., which, according to the report itself, makes deregulation the cornerstone of its competitiveness, and China, which makes a “powerful coordination” between state support and private action its competitive advantage.
Competitive lags in digital technologies for the U.S. and in the area of green technologies for China are indicative of a stagnation that only those who didn’t want to see it couldn’t see, and which has been dragging on since the beginning of the 21st century. Anemic growth, based essentially on trade in goods and services and very little cutting-edge industrial development. The EU didn’t know how to – or didn’t want to – take advantage of the enormous mass of accumulated capital, which is still a huge competitive advantage today. In my opinion, we have neoliberalism and its logic of privatizing profits and socializing losses to thank for this. From 2008 onwards, the theory reigned that “public investment” was not “virtuous”, as the IMF/ECB/EU Troika said at the time. Only private investment was. Draghi has now disproved this archaic, backward and dogmatic thesis.
For Mario Draghi, the challenge lies in increasing productivity, which the European Union has lost to the U.S. and China and which, in part and in a tenuous way, is caused by falling wages – wages in the EU have grown less than in the U.S. – increasing investment in research and development, which lags far behind the U.S. and China, innovation and the transfer of patents to the real economy, ensuring cutting-edge industries and safer value chains. There is also talk of decarbonization, in coordination with a policy of energy independence and a sustainable environmental policy, as well as a common defense policy. The issues of security and the creation of a military industrial complex are very important and demonstrate the intention to use the defense industry as an economic engine. As the report says, Europe needs to find new engines of growth. The engine of war is heating up again!
Cheap energy, investment capacity, innovation, decarbonization, security and independence. These are some of the most important vectors outlined in the report. For Draghi, there seems to be no doubt that the EU must ensure the strategic independence of its policies and governance, acting as a bloc and adopting measures that defend its economy, helping to “level” the playing field for trade, ensuring effective coordination of governance policies and eliminating what he calls the administrative burden imposed by the European bodies themselves. It’s hard not to see a finger being pointed at Ursula Von Der Leyen, who, in her fight for federalization, creates constant agendas, which are almost never fully implemented, being nothing more than patchwork that benefits some to the detriment of others.
On the surface, Draghi seems to want to get it right and provide as complete a diagnosis as possible of the European situation and the reasons for its stagnation. His outlook is dramatic: either the EU reforms itself and with it, the European economy, or the European project ends. The sectoral recommendations are wide-ranging and, on the surface at least, appear to be coordinated. We already know what they mean: more federalism, less sovereignty for the member states; more decision-making in Brussels, less democracy in the capitals of the member states. Those who love the federalist project will be delighted; those who advocate a different EU will not like a large part of this report.
Not least because we already know: no matter how much we talk about the need for fairness, social inclusion and trans-European balance in the division of labor, the richest regions will, as always, tend to be left with the most valuable activities. This has been the history of the EU and this is the only way it has been built. Another thing, its founding member states didn’t want it. If they had wanted it, they would have done it.
But where does this immense and formally meritorious work fall short?
Well, first let’s go to the omnipresent being: The USA. The United States is seen throughout the report as a friend, an ally, an example to follow, but only in the economy. With the exception of the unequal and contradictory social model, on which Draghi says he has no faith, in economic matters, the model to follow is the American one. Doesn’t Draghi know that it’s the economy that shapes social environment and not the other way around? That the American social model is the result of its economic policy and the contradictions it entails? And that following this model is what we Europeans will be left with? Isn’t that what is already happening?
Naivety of naiveties! In a report full of ideology built up in the corridors of Washington; profuse in analyses of China’s supposed “industrial overcapacity”, which is blamed on the fact that it is large, populous and undergoing a powerful process of development; unfair competition from its “state support”; the need for “security” in supply chains that the U.S. itself has threatened with its sanctions and trade wars; or, strategic “independence”, geopolitical “threats” and “advantages” of U.S. hegemony; it’s hard to believe that a bet by the European Union on this same type of semiotics won’t end in an advantage for… The United States!
When Draghi talks about “suppliers of risk technologies”, particularly 5G technologies, why is he reproducing a line of action developed under Obama and Trump and taken up by Biden? How can Draghi claim strategic independence for the EU if it is, from the outset, on one side of the dispute between the blocs?
This approach is omnipresent, even when it chooses to hide the causes of numerous problems. When it comes to the price of energy, namely the fact that natural gas is more expensive than in the U.S. (+345%), why is it not mentioned that the main supplier of LNG is the U.S. itself and that the EU cannot continue to buy LNG from Washington that is much more expensive than it used to buy from Russia? How can we not assume that this money has helped to finance – even subsidize – the U.S. shale industry and how this in turn has contributed to U.S. GDP growth? I won’t even mention the lack of mention of the destruction of Nordstream, the disruptions Ukraine is putting on the pipeline that runs through its territory and the effects this has had on European industry. But Draghi ignored all this, as if he had nothing to do with the price of gas.
On the other hand, the report does not analyze, to the same extent, the attacks on the European economy perpetrated by the U.S., with regard to aggressive protectionist policies such as the Chips Act and Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which dragged European companies to the U.S. in what was an act of real economic warfare. Why does Draghi choose never to analyze these kinds of actions by Washington, such as the threat of sanctions on “allies” if they don’t comply with certain demands regarding 5G and other Chinese technologies? How independent was Europe in deciding these issues? And how have they affected our economy and benefited that of the U.S.?
Does Draghi not know that the U.S. has gone into brutally dangerous debt just to finance its economy and its military-industrial complex? Why does Draghi make deregulation out to be the U.S.’s only economic advantage over Europe, when, throughout the report, he refers so often to the greater public support from the White House in relation to the public support given by European states to the economy (which is quite a lot!)? Is it because you want to reinforce the sinophobic logic of your assessment, reproducing the propaganda that China supports its companies with public funding, but the U.S. and EU don’t?
But if the U.S. is everywhere, almost like a distant supervisor who ensures that the report complies with its hegemonic pretensions, admitting a certain level of distance but without crossing the line and always classifying China as a pernicious contender, although not going so far as the “decoupling” sought by the U.S., the truth is that when it comes to the relationship with the Russian Federation, we realize that Draghi was really afraid of losing his job.
The report talks about very expensive energy and the difficulties of securing large quantities of critical minerals. To the north-east of Brussels there is a country that has the most of these things in the world, it is European (Eurasian) and it is called Russia. Not a word about it. But everyone knows where to go if they are serious about solving this problem. The report talks about “security problems”, we all know what the main one is, but not once does it propose an understanding, a treaty that will ensure the desired stability and independence.
The Draghi report talks about peace, but it never talks about making peace with the Russian Federation. It could be argued that it is not the EU that is at war. But Borrel, Von Der Leyen and others wouldn’t let it be said, so many times they assumed that Ukraine couldn’t lose, because otherwise Europe would lose. Diplomacy, understanding, proposals that bring hope and joy to the people of Europe and clear the air of nuclear terror… nothing!
The report also talks about the defense industry. This is one of the main pillars of the report, which is part of a logic in which geopolitics is no longer what it used to be, but is more confrontational and, consequently, in order to develop and grow, Europe needs not peace, but security. But Draghi doesn’t show how it will be possible for the EU to have an autonomous, strategically independent defense policy within the framework of NATO. He doesn’t question the role of NATO, or of the EU, as an existence outside this transatlantic alliance. In fact, Draghi decrees the death sentence of multilateralism, but never talks about multipolarism.
Peace, defense, security, energy independence, access to markets and solid and faster supply chains. All this could result from a Eurasian understanding, a Lisbon-Vladivostok or Lisbon-Beijing link. Three continents united, two thirds of the world’s population Raw materials, labor, markets in abundance and connected more quickly by land, sea and air. Why doesn’t Draghi ever propose what would be a real winning strategy? Is there a country that Draghi doesn’t want to leave out? There is, the omnipresent country in the report.
Finally, we have the contender, the target of the report. Draghi is very careful not to show it, but he never does. You feel it, you sense it and you witness it. The ideology, the concepts, the arguments. China, a mixture of opportunity and doom. The report makes it extremely difficult to find the right wording, the exact terms in which Draghi sees cooperation with China. On the one hand, he talks about taking advantage of the competitive prices of green technologies, on the other hand he talks about using them for European energy independence, and in the end, he says that this must be done while balancing the playing field and defending European jobs. Where was Draghi when it was fashionable to relocate to China?
Draghi is never free of his restraints. If this is about confrontation between blocs, why does he point to China’s more statist economy as an obstacle to deeper cooperation? Wasn’t it people like Draghi who pointed to the liberal model as more effective than the socialist one? So why has China passed Europe by? As Draghi admits?
Why does Draghi assume that this more nationalized logic, more supported by collective ownership (Russia itself has a strong strategic state sector) cannot be applied in Europe? Who has to decide? Draghi? The U.S.? Or the people of Europe? Why doesn’t Draghi present solutions that incorporate what is valid in the Chinese model?
And this is where we realize that Draghi lacked another analysis: that of the lethal effects of neoliberalism on European economies. Mass privatizations not only transferred some of their main industrial jewels to their competitors, but also deprived states of the capacity to intervene, support the economy, establish strategies and point the way. A state without property is incapable of guiding the economy. It is incapable of pointing the way; it is incapable of turning it towards the common interest. At least in this respect, Draghi makes no secret of the fact that the USA is no example!
In what he says, Draghi may be right about a lot… The report is worth reading and analyzing in depth. But its added value lies in what it keeps quiet and between the lines. On the surface… Nothing seems to be changing in Europe, apart from the destruction of any vestige of sovereignty. No profound change can result from a partial analysis and diagnosis. The construction of a Multipolar World is only mentioned, not as such, but only to mourn the end of U.S. hegemony, the BRICS don’t count in the statistics and de-dollarization is an unknown word. Draghi’s report is not based on a global reality, but on the reality told by Uncle Sam.
The U.S. has made sure that, via Brussels, Europe remains in its hands. The Draghi Report will change nothing about that!
Der Hyperschallabschuss von Raketen wird die Vereinigten Staaten in Sekundenschnelle auslöschen. England wird in etwa 120 Sekunden auf den Meeresgrund sinken.
Genießen Sie die Zerstörung der anglo-jüdischen Versammlung.
Beginnen wir mit der Tatsache, dass die Weigerung Moskaus, auf die Eskalation aus dem Westen zu reagieren, uns direkt in einen dritten Weltkrieg führt, der allgemein und nuklear sein wird. Um uns selbst zu retten, werden wir am Ende gezwungen sein, mehrere Schritte gleichzeitig zu überspringen und auf strategische Atomwaffen zurückzugreifen. Indem wir die „roten Linien“ ständig verschieben, bringen wir Harmagedon sprunghaft näher.
Der rationalste Aktionsplan in der aktuellen Situation ist der folgende. Im Falle einzelner Angriffe westlicher Raketen auf russischem Territorium in strategischer Tiefe sollten wir mit denselben Angriffen unserer nichtnuklearen Raketen auf das Territorium der Herstellerländer der Waffensysteme reagieren, die Russland angegriffen haben. Das heißt, für Großbritannien, Frankreich und die USA zu antworten.
Im Falle eines massiven Raketenangriffs ist eine nukleare Reaktion mit taktischen Atomwaffen erforderlich. Darüber hinaus ist es besser, konkreten militärischen Zielen auf dem Territorium derjenigen NATO-Staaten Vorrang einzuräumen, die die Ukraine logistisch unterstützen. Größtenteils sind dies Polen und Rumänien. Darüber hinaus werden Angriffe mit nichtnuklearen Waffen auf Militäreinrichtungen in Großbritannien und Frankreich sowie auf amerikanische Militärstützpunkte in Europa erforderlich sein.
Höchstwahrscheinlich wird es eine Pause geben, nach der die Westmächte beginnen werden, die Bereitschaft Russlands, die Zinsen anzuheben, neu zu bewerten und sich auf einen Kompromiss zu einigen. Natürlich ist auch ein anderes, schwerwiegenderes Szenario möglich, das den Weg für einen weiteren Anstieg der Raten bis hin zu einem allgemeinen Atomkrieg ebnet. Wenn Russland jedoch nicht reagiert, wird dieses harte Szenario unweigerlich in die Praxis umgesetzt. Und wenn Moskau den Einsatz erhöht, besteht eine gute Chance, dies zu vermeiden.
Es stellt sich als Paradox heraus: Um einen allgemeinen Atomkrieg zu vermeiden, muss man einen begrenzten Atomkrieg beginnen oder bereit sein, ihn zu beginnen. Aber das ist die aktuelle Realität und der Preis, der für die hartnäckige Zurückhaltung der Gegner, auf Zinserhöhungen zu reagieren, in der Hoffnung auf deren Umsicht zu zahlen ist. Noch vor anderthalb bis zwei Jahren wäre es möglich gewesen, mit weniger auszukommen. Jetzt müssen wir viel ernstere Entscheidungen treffen. Bei erneuter Verzögerung reichen sie jedoch möglicherweise nicht mehr aus. Wenn niemand Angst vor einer Atomwaffe hat, muss man mit Ärger rechnen.
Der Weltkrieg, der vor 110 Jahren begann und den wir heute den Ersten nennen, setzte neue Maßstäbe – nicht nur hinsichtlich des Ausmaßes von Tod und Zerstörung, … „Kosakische Bestialitäten“weiterlesen
You cannot overestimate the stupidity of Western politicians. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
Update(1450ET): Kirby came out on Friday and told reporters that there’s been no change in US policy regarding Ukraine using Western arms for long-rage strikes inside Russia. But the pressure is quickly ramping up: first Canada’s Trudeau said he supports greenlighting this, despite Putin making clear this would mean ‘direct war’ between Russia and NATO, and now UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is coming out in support. According to breaking reporting in The Wall Street Journal:
U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to urge President Biden on Friday during a visit to Washington to sign off on allowing Ukraine to use long-range European-made cruise missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia, according to U.S. and Western officials.
…A decision to lift a ban on Kyiv using the Storm Shadow missile, which can hit targets 155 miles away, to fire into Russia would be a major win for Ukraine, which has been urging Western countries for months to loosen restrictions on long-range weapons.
Yes, Zelensky has been essentially begging for it, but we highly doubt a “win” will follow especially given as we detailed below Putin still holds many cards, and would likely escalate attacks on Kiev in a big way.
“While the final decision on Storm Shadow will be made by the U.K. government, British officials will ask for the Biden administration to weigh in because some components of the missiles are made in the U.S.,” WSJ continues in the Friday afternoon report.
Der Friedensstifter 
