Being willing to look at multiple sides of an issue is very unfashionable these days, kudos to you for taking the time and effort, and it can’t be easy to follow the liberal media without a knot in the stomach.
Forming your own opinions based on what the facts appear to be generally becomes isolating as people do love to purchase their ideas like vacations as a package plan.
It seems incontrovertible that if the US is going to stop providing military protection for Europe that they will have to attend to defense for themselves. It also seems unlikely that this group of incompetents are up to the task. Mass immigration has made it impossible to coherently explain what one would be defending, feminization has gutted effectiveness.
So far more heat than light is being generated on both sides.
''Forming your own opinions based on what the facts appear to be generally becomes isolating as people do love to purchase their ideas like vacations as a package plan.''
We tried to raise our children to think for themselves, but it has been isolating for them through adolescence and adulthood as group dynamics require full assent for acceptance and suspicion is the usual result of trying to be reasonable.
Very thought-provoking. Although I think many of us don't want to think too much about the situation, rather to put it out of mind and "Thank God Trumps back in power and nuclear war will be diverted". My fingers are firmly crossed.
As an aside it shows how far the current left have moved from what was, in my experience, the anti-war side of any debate to being very much in support of a pretty morally ambiguous state. Whereas the right are now the doves urging calm. This is a strange state of affairs particularly in America.
It simply defies credibility that, all of a sudden, Europe's leaders now want to defend Europe. Against what exactly? What could possibly be more of a threat to Europe than their policies of the last 80 years? When an army far larger than anything Putin could dream of mustering is arriving on Britain's beaches every year. When mass immigration is destroying our towns and making life unpleasant and downright dangerous for our people. When schools are trying to queer our kids. When to protest about any of this can land you with a death sentence in prison. I'm sorry, Morgoth, but if Putin did decide to invade Europe and rid it of its traitorous leaders, would you be taking to the streets to defend them or would you be cheering the Russians on?
To steel-man the Youtube geopol commentariat position, I think their concern centers over the "frothing at the mouth" rhetoric many EU leaders are leveling against Russia. Europe is still under Article 5 of the NATO treaty which would obligate the US to defend them even if they goaded an attack from Russia or other powers. It's not difficult to see how things might quickly escalate to direct armed involvement and God forbid a possible nuclear exchange if left unchecked. i.e. Starmer's statement of "boots on the ground and planes in the air".
While there might be some in the more isolationist/pro-Russian circles who want to "have their cake and eat it too" a la removing American influence/protection while at the same time criticizing European rearmament efforts, I think you correctly point out that it's the current crop of EU elites that's central to that problem. Obviously such a rearmament effort takes time and my suspicion is that we'll see a clear end to the conflict well before the EU has a chance to pose a serious deterrent to Russia. If Realpolitick returned to the zeitgeist after dispensing with the nonsense of the "international rules based order", I don't think many would be opposed to that idea in theory (excepting fringe voices like Scott Ritter). An interesting question that arises is whether such a rearmament effort and self-reliance on national defense will naturally compel more sensible national and EU leadership or if sensible leadership must be brought in to responsibly execute on those efforts to avoid destabilization of the Continent.
From Russia's perspective, I don't necessarily think they would relish the idea of the US withdrawing from NATO or even drawing down direct military support. The remaining NATO allies would then need to be dealt with individually or in blocs in the same mold of the "Great Game" era of European politics.
Rescinding or making obsolete Article 5 actually creates an incentive for Europeans to rearm. American assistance might also not amount to more than a crate of bottled water.
Agreed. Article 5 is really the lynchpin of the whole treaty. And the lynchpin of Article 5 is the nuclear umbrella. America has been duplicitous in previous international dealings to say the least. This isn't helped when every 4 years might signal a complete 180 turn in foreign policy depending on the Administration. I don't see Trump actually rescinding Article 5, but stranger things have happened I suppose.
I just want to see a prosperous and thriving Europe with remigrations of millions of foreigners free of all the fake and gay nonsense my government has foisted on them.
My position would be that if we had genuine leaders in Europe it would be good to rearm and try to create a more militaristic society, but as things stand its difficult to imagine. I don't know what the youtubers would think but McGregor at least would support nationalism in Europe I think.
I don't understand why Russia has to be an enemy. Maybe I'm too much of a content enjoyer but it seems like it doesn't have to be so confrontational. That largely it is the fault of the American empire and the elite indoctrination and ethnic hatreds that come with that that have put us on this path.
It doesn't really have much to do with the "American empire" (really, Liberal Empire — it only appears "American" because the U.S. provides most of the military power and has bases all over the place, but the EU is just as important, if you take Davos and other such things into account).
Russia "has to" be an enemy because, despite its faults, it's being run far better than the EU is right now. Not many people are aware that, on a purchasing power parity basis, its GDP per capita is now roughly equal to Japan. It's going up, while the EU and UK are going down. This is intolerable to the ruling elites of the EU and UK, so they're doing everything in their power to gaslight their captive publics about it. It's also, of course, one major motivation for fomenting the Ukraine war.
The ruling elites are running the EU and UK exactly how they want to ideologically, and they do understand that the rest of the world is making things better for their populations, while they're making things worse in Europe. But they're evil. Rather than even think of reform, which would require an abandonment of their ideology, they'd rather burn down everyone else, starting with Russia using Ukraine.
Great and entirely correct analysis. It should surprise no one in our circles that the people from The Duran, as much as I appreciate them for providing us with more accurate information during a time when we were flooded with the most blatant of lies and propaganda, are not exactly in our camp on all issues. There are numerous divisions within the ranks of the "geopolitical dissidents". Take for example Messrs Mearsheimer and Sachs. Both did and continue to provide invaluable geopolitical analysis and are relentless in their critique of the powers that be in the field of geopolitics. And yet it is pretty safe to say that they do not see eye to eye on the question of America´s relationship to China.
So yes, "our guys" should _in principle_ welcome a rearmament of Europe and, as far as I can tell, "our guys" in my neck of the woods actually do (as said, in principle). Deep _practical_ suspicions do persist, however, (and understandably so), for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it is not clear that any such rearmament will lead to more independence from the United States. What if basically all arms are purchased from the United States, perhaps with ultimate control by the United States? According to my understanding, that is already the case with numerous weapon systems which are basically unusable without American permission. Secondly, why is there such strong Anti-Russian rhetoric associated with the rearmament? Would it not be possible to rearm _and_ extend an olive branch of sorts to Russia? The NATO double-track decision of yore was called thus because it combined arms deployment with an offer for negotiations. In other words, IMO legitimate reasons exist to remain skeptical, even from our perspective.
They may have to to get the recruitment numbers they need as they now have the numbers showing migrants do not sign up and the military is already understaffed for it's current size let alone attempt to try expand
An excellent piece, as always, Morgoth. Please take my comment in the spirit I intend; not as a critique of your post, but as a gentle note of caution.
A shooting war between Russia and the EU would be a disaster for Europeans, even if the EU technically won - Pyrrhically. Britain technically won both World Wars, but lost almost everything in the process.
War can happen because the fox sees a weakened rabbit and finds the temptation to strike irresistible. But it can also happen through accident, miscalculation, or fear of something apparently worse. In 1914, Germany feared that a modernising Russia would only grow stronger. So better to fight now, while victory was still possible, than face inevitable defeat a decade later. If mishandled, an EU arms build-up could lead Putin’s Russia to draw the same conclusion in the 2020s.
Britain went to war in 1914 partly because it feared its empire was unraveling. A virtuous war against Germany, it was thought, might bind the Empire together in a common purpose. In reality, it had the opposite effect. Some in the EU might be thinking the same way - that war with Russia could forge a more unified Europe, accelerating its transformation into the US-style federation they’ve long dreamed of.
That might happen - but at an unimaginable human cost. It could just as easily backfire. If young Spanish men from A Coruña are conscripted to fight and die in Belarus and the Suwałki Gap, will they feel, “We’re all European brothers, in this fight together”; or will they ask, “What the hell am I doing here?”, as many Australians and New Zealanders did at Gallipoli?
I get your point but even in the 2000s New Zealand was loyal to Britian, we were abandoned, we didn't leave.
Most of the empire that left was the result of active interference by the US and pressure to dismantle it. Like the Suez crisis where the US nearly declared war on Britian.
It’s not simply loyalty and kinship. From the 1880s and into the 1900s, Joseph Chamberlain was trying to create an Imperial Federation, with an Imperial Parliament. The self-governing colonies all opposed this. They were genuine friends of the mother country, but they still wanted their autonomy. Why wouldn’t they? I think there were some in Britain who saw a righteous war against Germany as a lever to bind the colonies more firmly back to the metropolitan centre. This is the parallel I’m making with the EU federalists of today - the Guy Verhofstadt types.
There’s a complicated connection between Chamberlain’s ideas of Imperial Federation and Jean Monnet’s ideas of European Federation. Monnet’s friend Arthur Salter seems to have moved from believing in one to believing in the other. Of course Monnet was a mere cognac salesman whose influence over Europe’s destiny was entirely the product of US patronage; the State Department put him in charge of administering Marshall Aid in France.
I mean the EU if not explicitly an American project, has been clearly corrupted by the US from early on as it cares more about racism and green energy then any form of autonomy or economic performance. Without GAE money buying out EU politicians it would have fallen apart already as everything it's doing is against the will of pretty much every member country's own populus.
Speaking for myself, I stopped listening to The Duran (and others of the same ilk) more than a year ago, as it became obvious to me that they were not only pro-Russian, but actively anti-European/anti-Western. Looking into the background of many of them and others in their circles, it's not hard to find motives for why they seemingly resent the "rest of us" so much. But again - that's me.
Still nice to see others - especially those of your caliber, noticing that they may not have Europeans as a whole and our welfare and security as their highest priority, and that they may also invoke a defaistist worldview in Europeans and sour Western brotherhood/kinship. You can already see the wedge being hammered in between USA and Europe, and one has to wonder who the man behind the curtain who wants this to happen is, so to speak. They are not our friend. Especially not if they don't want us to arm up for our own security's sake.
I wish to see a strong Europe but most particularly one that has the political will to re-emigrate every one of the diversity. They should never have been here in the first place.
However, if by some miracle it gets its act together and suddenly turns into a world military power, I dread to think what the consequences of that would be for the ordinary folk of all European countries and especially the likes of readers here. The bloviating of incompetent managerial women (of whichever sex) would be the least of it.
So my thinking is that realistically Europe needs to get a bloody nose. Sufficiently bloody to wake it up hard from this ridiculous and dangerous globalist fantasy. That is what I have come to believe underlies the Judge Nap/Duran boys position re Russia.
The rearmourment will fail if they don't as they are already short men and they know that women and immigrants aren't signing up. The whole thing makes no sense, the UK can barely staff it's own aircraft carrier. It's all delusional and the attempt to enlarge the army will just further fall a foul of targets if the politics don't change. Those that support Ukraine are the least likely to be the fighting type.
We really are stuck in the middle when it comes to the narratives. The hysterical mainstream, which appears mostly detached from reality. Everything is Russia's fault, any information contradicting this is enemy propaganda or 'disinformation'. On the other side we have a story which sounds far more reasonable, but I hesitate to fully trust.
Recently listening to Mercouris' videos has become part of the daily routine. Despite him being so verbose, smug and with an obvious bias I like the guy, and appreciate the information he provides (usually from sources on both sides). Still have to take what he says with a healthy dose of salt.
I often question if myself and others of a dissident viewpoint are guilty of bestowing too much benevolence on to Russia and its government - could the British establishment be right? For now I conclude that though we shouldn't see them as some completely benevolent power, they are people you can deal with. In fact it appears Putin was intent on making deals, until he reached the point when he decided our elite were too unreasonable to be negotiated with. A conclusion I also reached in regard to domestic politics. On the flip side it's clear to me that Ukraine and its supporters poked the bear and made it inevitable the bear would flex its muscles and intervene in the conflict there.
But then another aspect of all this is how much us normal people in far away blighty can really know or care about the minutiae of Ukrainian politics? Like how many people in Donbass or the rest of that country really do wish to be part of the Russian Federation instead? Unfortunately our elite have made it an issue by inserting the public into that conflict and telling us we must unconditionally support the blue yellow team. The dissident reflex is to support the other team, but like you I would prefer not be on either side.
PS have you seen The Gaggle with Peter and George on Youtube? Kind of like the Duran in their outlook but more disagreeable, the two hosts do argue with each other. But equally Peter Lavelle is an American living in Moscow who worked for RT.
Talking about Europe vs Russia is EU propaganda. Russia is just as European as France, 40% of European territory is in Russia. I support individual European countries reaming themselves but the EU is the new Soviet Union so I don't support some kind of a collective EU military which then can be used against individual EU countries. Some people say an EU army would be like the National Guard in the US which was used against US citizens in internal conflicts (in desegregation and forced racial integration).
“Instead, European nations should wriggle free of the liberal elites and collective interests and deal one-on-one with countries such as Russia”. Russia is a European nation. So – from a nationalist perspective – why not ally with Russia and deal with degenerate anti-White and neo-Marxist countries like France collectively?
Russia can't even control Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova. The idea that Russia, not the GAE, is the enemy to be feared, is, I think, based on a complete misreading of where power lies in the international system.
The GAE can still, to this day, with all their incompetence and insanity, overturn far-flung governments at a whim. Even when those governments are on the periphery.
Pakistan. Bangladesh. Syria. Brazil. Just in the last few years!
In what universe is Russia the country which is going to vassalize Europe? It can't even control its immediate neighborhood.
The same goes to a slightly lesser extent for China. Chinese propaganda is laughable, their sway in the field of ideas and philosophies is nonexistent, and to the extent that they have any effect in this realm, it happens when the more left wing faction of the GAE deigns to amplify them.
I was answering a hypothetical question, not stating my own position.
But I think your views on the GAE being the hegemonic force in the West are dating by the day. We are having these conversations precisely because America is changing track.
We have the beginnings of some changes. A very few of them have even penetrated the skin. But I think it's early days to judge how much deeper they will go and what kind of staying power they will have.
Russia, minus Ukraine, is Eurasian--Oriental. A lot of Russians aren't even Slavic; they are Asian. Peter the Great moved the capital closer to the West (St Petersburg), shaved off Russian beards, and imported Western European craftsman and architects. etc., in an attempt to turn Oriental Russians into Occidential Europeans.
Putin is rumored to be involved in shamanism, bathing in deer antler blood, and participating in Oriental shamaistic rituals--allegedly And there is much, much more going on in Putin's private life that points to shockingly degenerate behavior on his part...
I have been following The Duran (and their individual channels) for long before the current US/Russia proxy war began. They have covered mass-immigration extensively, and have consistently described it as damaging for Europe.
The reason this important factor (along with others) has disappeared from their coverage is simply because the US/Russia proxy war is a bit of a big deal. There isn't any sleight of hand going on here, or blind eyes being turned away. The real risk of Europe descending into a third industrial continental scale war is temporarily overshadowing the ongoing damage resulting from mass-immigration.
Fortunately for all of us Europeans, given that the Russian Federation has won that US/Russia proxy war without it spreading and/or escalating, eventually this will fade as the dominant European geopolitical event, and the focus will return to subjects such as mass-immigration.
I've often enjoyed commentary from the Duran, but to a point, for exactly this reason. Their own Russophilic tendencies can let narrative override frank analysis, and post war they'll be in dire need of new material. For either genuine or cynical reasons, they're locked into a frame in which the Euros running the show presently are out of touch Lefty Fudds, whether or not they are making sound decisions from
a European perspective. I think Eugyppius' perspective on European security is a more sound one to follow, but the Alexanders have their place in the ecosystem.
"... and post war they'll be in dire need of new material ..."
The subject matter focus of their three channels is geopolitics.
The unipolar world order under US hegemony has been dismantled by the US/Russia proxy war in Ukraine. The multipolar world order has emerged in its place. History has started again.
If anything, The Duran will be spoiled for choice when it comes to geopolitical material.
There's nothing wrong with Europe remilitarizing in and of itself. Heck, it's at least obstensibly what Trump & co. have been pushing for for years.
The problem is Europe remilitarizing under *this leadership* - the unholy combination of ultra NeoLib, ultra Neocon. Why on earth would we want to see *them* having command over powerful armies?
It's been clear for years that the real meaning of Transatlanticism is that Europe , and especially the UK (and associated Anglo lapdogs like Canada), is a home away from home for the GAE. (Jim refers to them as the GAE-in-exile). A stronghold fortress to which they can retreat whenever they face obstacles in the U.S. proper. They have other such redoubts, such as NY, LA, blue cities and states, but the EU is by far their most formidable castle outside of DC itself.
As just one example of how this works, consider how the GAE has often outsourced aggressive censorship efforts to the EU and various other client states.
Why exactly should we be happy "Europe" is remilitarizing so long as "Europe" is just the GAE's left arm?
Well, it looks like the GAE is leaving Europe to its own destiny. The question is what will come next, and whether Europe, under the current abysmal leadership, is better off entirely passive and defenseless.
I think Trump, or more broadly MAGA, would certainly like to disentangle from Europe, not least because it is an enormous castle in the hands of their rivals.. But MAGA isn't the GAE, it has barely begun the process of capturing some of its nodes at home in DC, and is not the dominant faction. It's unclear to me that even if they had the will to accomplish this disentanglement (they have the desire, but that's not enough ), that they would be able to make it happen outside of speeches and alt-media articles.
The GAE, meaning the NeoLibCon blob, doesn't have any plans to leave Europe to its own destiny, much more the opposite; that strengthened control over the European branch of empire is pretty much the point of the whole EU project.
Until the EU project collapses, or is somehow transformed entirely, it would be hard to believe the GAE proper (not MAGA) will "leave Europe to its destiny".
Let's imagine a scenario where MAGA, after a furious and protracted struggle, vanquishes the NeoLibCon blob as the dominant faction of the GAE. (At that point, the G largely goes away and we have the AE).
Let's also indulge ourselves in imagining the resulting collapse of the EU project, the rise of truly based right-wing nationalist governments from the UK and France through Poland.
In this world, I (all of us here) would staunchly support these liberated nations in their remilitarization.
Is this military going to deter the empire that's *currently* vassalizing them, and flaying them alive in the process? ( see: the skin suit that is "Ireland" for how quickly this can work).
Perhaps if the military-security complex was built for, and was actually used for, guarding the border, expelling the existing invasion of Europe, and crushing any sign of GAE subversion? Do we really think the military is for deterring that?
Or is it just for deterring the current overlord's rivals?
You have it backward, Europe is demilitarized because of its vassal status. The more independent Europe becomes militarily the less it will be a vassal.
This is why France has an independent Nuclear deterrent and Britain does not.
But the point stands: better able to defend yourself is better than not, regardless of domestic policies.
"Europe" doesn't exist in based-world. European nations do. As long as this is an EU project, it is not independent.
Also, this question remains about the purpose of re-armament.
"Perhaps if the military-security complex was built for, and was actually used for, guarding the border, expelling the existing invasion of Europe, and crushing any sign of GAE subversion?"
If a rebuilt military-security state cannot perform these functions, then it is not an ally, and is (given the track record) a hostile power.
Being willing to look at multiple sides of an issue is very unfashionable these days, kudos to you for taking the time and effort, and it can’t be easy to follow the liberal media without a knot in the stomach.
Forming your own opinions based on what the facts appear to be generally becomes isolating as people do love to purchase their ideas like vacations as a package plan.
It seems incontrovertible that if the US is going to stop providing military protection for Europe that they will have to attend to defense for themselves. It also seems unlikely that this group of incompetents are up to the task. Mass immigration has made it impossible to coherently explain what one would be defending, feminization has gutted effectiveness.
So far more heat than light is being generated on both sides.
''Forming your own opinions based on what the facts appear to be generally becomes isolating as people do love to purchase their ideas like vacations as a package plan.''
Very well put, and true.
We tried to raise our children to think for themselves, but it has been isolating for them through adolescence and adulthood as group dynamics require full assent for acceptance and suspicion is the usual result of trying to be reasonable.
Very thought-provoking. Although I think many of us don't want to think too much about the situation, rather to put it out of mind and "Thank God Trumps back in power and nuclear war will be diverted". My fingers are firmly crossed.
As an aside it shows how far the current left have moved from what was, in my experience, the anti-war side of any debate to being very much in support of a pretty morally ambiguous state. Whereas the right are now the doves urging calm. This is a strange state of affairs particularly in America.
It simply defies credibility that, all of a sudden, Europe's leaders now want to defend Europe. Against what exactly? What could possibly be more of a threat to Europe than their policies of the last 80 years? When an army far larger than anything Putin could dream of mustering is arriving on Britain's beaches every year. When mass immigration is destroying our towns and making life unpleasant and downright dangerous for our people. When schools are trying to queer our kids. When to protest about any of this can land you with a death sentence in prison. I'm sorry, Morgoth, but if Putin did decide to invade Europe and rid it of its traitorous leaders, would you be taking to the streets to defend them or would you be cheering the Russians on?
I would not cheer if Russia invaded, say, Sweden, I find the idea repulsive.
Yes, I stated so over and over again in the article. We know that.
To steel-man the Youtube geopol commentariat position, I think their concern centers over the "frothing at the mouth" rhetoric many EU leaders are leveling against Russia. Europe is still under Article 5 of the NATO treaty which would obligate the US to defend them even if they goaded an attack from Russia or other powers. It's not difficult to see how things might quickly escalate to direct armed involvement and God forbid a possible nuclear exchange if left unchecked. i.e. Starmer's statement of "boots on the ground and planes in the air".
While there might be some in the more isolationist/pro-Russian circles who want to "have their cake and eat it too" a la removing American influence/protection while at the same time criticizing European rearmament efforts, I think you correctly point out that it's the current crop of EU elites that's central to that problem. Obviously such a rearmament effort takes time and my suspicion is that we'll see a clear end to the conflict well before the EU has a chance to pose a serious deterrent to Russia. If Realpolitick returned to the zeitgeist after dispensing with the nonsense of the "international rules based order", I don't think many would be opposed to that idea in theory (excepting fringe voices like Scott Ritter). An interesting question that arises is whether such a rearmament effort and self-reliance on national defense will naturally compel more sensible national and EU leadership or if sensible leadership must be brought in to responsibly execute on those efforts to avoid destabilization of the Continent.
From Russia's perspective, I don't necessarily think they would relish the idea of the US withdrawing from NATO or even drawing down direct military support. The remaining NATO allies would then need to be dealt with individually or in blocs in the same mold of the "Great Game" era of European politics.
Rescinding or making obsolete Article 5 actually creates an incentive for Europeans to rearm. American assistance might also not amount to more than a crate of bottled water.
Agreed. Article 5 is really the lynchpin of the whole treaty. And the lynchpin of Article 5 is the nuclear umbrella. America has been duplicitous in previous international dealings to say the least. This isn't helped when every 4 years might signal a complete 180 turn in foreign policy depending on the Administration. I don't see Trump actually rescinding Article 5, but stranger things have happened I suppose.
I just want to see a prosperous and thriving Europe with remigrations of millions of foreigners free of all the fake and gay nonsense my government has foisted on them.
Well said, I think you are right there.
My position would be that if we had genuine leaders in Europe it would be good to rearm and try to create a more militaristic society, but as things stand its difficult to imagine. I don't know what the youtubers would think but McGregor at least would support nationalism in Europe I think.
I don't understand why Russia has to be an enemy. Maybe I'm too much of a content enjoyer but it seems like it doesn't have to be so confrontational. That largely it is the fault of the American empire and the elite indoctrination and ethnic hatreds that come with that that have put us on this path.
It doesn't really have much to do with the "American empire" (really, Liberal Empire — it only appears "American" because the U.S. provides most of the military power and has bases all over the place, but the EU is just as important, if you take Davos and other such things into account).
Russia "has to" be an enemy because, despite its faults, it's being run far better than the EU is right now. Not many people are aware that, on a purchasing power parity basis, its GDP per capita is now roughly equal to Japan. It's going up, while the EU and UK are going down. This is intolerable to the ruling elites of the EU and UK, so they're doing everything in their power to gaslight their captive publics about it. It's also, of course, one major motivation for fomenting the Ukraine war.
The ruling elites are running the EU and UK exactly how they want to ideologically, and they do understand that the rest of the world is making things better for their populations, while they're making things worse in Europe. But they're evil. Rather than even think of reform, which would require an abandonment of their ideology, they'd rather burn down everyone else, starting with Russia using Ukraine.
Great and entirely correct analysis. It should surprise no one in our circles that the people from The Duran, as much as I appreciate them for providing us with more accurate information during a time when we were flooded with the most blatant of lies and propaganda, are not exactly in our camp on all issues. There are numerous divisions within the ranks of the "geopolitical dissidents". Take for example Messrs Mearsheimer and Sachs. Both did and continue to provide invaluable geopolitical analysis and are relentless in their critique of the powers that be in the field of geopolitics. And yet it is pretty safe to say that they do not see eye to eye on the question of America´s relationship to China.
So yes, "our guys" should _in principle_ welcome a rearmament of Europe and, as far as I can tell, "our guys" in my neck of the woods actually do (as said, in principle). Deep _practical_ suspicions do persist, however, (and understandably so), for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it is not clear that any such rearmament will lead to more independence from the United States. What if basically all arms are purchased from the United States, perhaps with ultimate control by the United States? According to my understanding, that is already the case with numerous weapon systems which are basically unusable without American permission. Secondly, why is there such strong Anti-Russian rhetoric associated with the rearmament? Would it not be possible to rearm _and_ extend an olive branch of sorts to Russia? The NATO double-track decision of yore was called thus because it combined arms deployment with an offer for negotiations. In other words, IMO legitimate reasons exist to remain skeptical, even from our perspective.
As a europoor, fine I'll row in with a euro army, if they'd first remigrate all the bastard Ns and A-rabs.
They may have to to get the recruitment numbers they need as they now have the numbers showing migrants do not sign up and the military is already understaffed for it's current size let alone attempt to try expand
An excellent piece, as always, Morgoth. Please take my comment in the spirit I intend; not as a critique of your post, but as a gentle note of caution.
A shooting war between Russia and the EU would be a disaster for Europeans, even if the EU technically won - Pyrrhically. Britain technically won both World Wars, but lost almost everything in the process.
War can happen because the fox sees a weakened rabbit and finds the temptation to strike irresistible. But it can also happen through accident, miscalculation, or fear of something apparently worse. In 1914, Germany feared that a modernising Russia would only grow stronger. So better to fight now, while victory was still possible, than face inevitable defeat a decade later. If mishandled, an EU arms build-up could lead Putin’s Russia to draw the same conclusion in the 2020s.
Britain went to war in 1914 partly because it feared its empire was unraveling. A virtuous war against Germany, it was thought, might bind the Empire together in a common purpose. In reality, it had the opposite effect. Some in the EU might be thinking the same way - that war with Russia could forge a more unified Europe, accelerating its transformation into the US-style federation they’ve long dreamed of.
That might happen - but at an unimaginable human cost. It could just as easily backfire. If young Spanish men from A Coruña are conscripted to fight and die in Belarus and the Suwałki Gap, will they feel, “We’re all European brothers, in this fight together”; or will they ask, “What the hell am I doing here?”, as many Australians and New Zealanders did at Gallipoli?
I totally agree, I’m not in the least bit pro war.
I get your point but even in the 2000s New Zealand was loyal to Britian, we were abandoned, we didn't leave.
Most of the empire that left was the result of active interference by the US and pressure to dismantle it. Like the Suez crisis where the US nearly declared war on Britian.
Everything you say is correct.
It’s not simply loyalty and kinship. From the 1880s and into the 1900s, Joseph Chamberlain was trying to create an Imperial Federation, with an Imperial Parliament. The self-governing colonies all opposed this. They were genuine friends of the mother country, but they still wanted their autonomy. Why wouldn’t they? I think there were some in Britain who saw a righteous war against Germany as a lever to bind the colonies more firmly back to the metropolitan centre. This is the parallel I’m making with the EU federalists of today - the Guy Verhofstadt types.
There’s a complicated connection between Chamberlain’s ideas of Imperial Federation and Jean Monnet’s ideas of European Federation. Monnet’s friend Arthur Salter seems to have moved from believing in one to believing in the other. Of course Monnet was a mere cognac salesman whose influence over Europe’s destiny was entirely the product of US patronage; the State Department put him in charge of administering Marshall Aid in France.
I mean the EU if not explicitly an American project, has been clearly corrupted by the US from early on as it cares more about racism and green energy then any form of autonomy or economic performance. Without GAE money buying out EU politicians it would have fallen apart already as everything it's doing is against the will of pretty much every member country's own populus.
Splendid article.
Speaking for myself, I stopped listening to The Duran (and others of the same ilk) more than a year ago, as it became obvious to me that they were not only pro-Russian, but actively anti-European/anti-Western. Looking into the background of many of them and others in their circles, it's not hard to find motives for why they seemingly resent the "rest of us" so much. But again - that's me.
Still nice to see others - especially those of your caliber, noticing that they may not have Europeans as a whole and our welfare and security as their highest priority, and that they may also invoke a defaistist worldview in Europeans and sour Western brotherhood/kinship. You can already see the wedge being hammered in between USA and Europe, and one has to wonder who the man behind the curtain who wants this to happen is, so to speak. They are not our friend. Especially not if they don't want us to arm up for our own security's sake.
Interesting article. Well argued, as always.
I wish to see a strong Europe but most particularly one that has the political will to re-emigrate every one of the diversity. They should never have been here in the first place.
However, if by some miracle it gets its act together and suddenly turns into a world military power, I dread to think what the consequences of that would be for the ordinary folk of all European countries and especially the likes of readers here. The bloviating of incompetent managerial women (of whichever sex) would be the least of it.
So my thinking is that realistically Europe needs to get a bloody nose. Sufficiently bloody to wake it up hard from this ridiculous and dangerous globalist fantasy. That is what I have come to believe underlies the Judge Nap/Duran boys position re Russia.
The rearmourment will fail if they don't as they are already short men and they know that women and immigrants aren't signing up. The whole thing makes no sense, the UK can barely staff it's own aircraft carrier. It's all delusional and the attempt to enlarge the army will just further fall a foul of targets if the politics don't change. Those that support Ukraine are the least likely to be the fighting type.
We really are stuck in the middle when it comes to the narratives. The hysterical mainstream, which appears mostly detached from reality. Everything is Russia's fault, any information contradicting this is enemy propaganda or 'disinformation'. On the other side we have a story which sounds far more reasonable, but I hesitate to fully trust.
Recently listening to Mercouris' videos has become part of the daily routine. Despite him being so verbose, smug and with an obvious bias I like the guy, and appreciate the information he provides (usually from sources on both sides). Still have to take what he says with a healthy dose of salt.
I often question if myself and others of a dissident viewpoint are guilty of bestowing too much benevolence on to Russia and its government - could the British establishment be right? For now I conclude that though we shouldn't see them as some completely benevolent power, they are people you can deal with. In fact it appears Putin was intent on making deals, until he reached the point when he decided our elite were too unreasonable to be negotiated with. A conclusion I also reached in regard to domestic politics. On the flip side it's clear to me that Ukraine and its supporters poked the bear and made it inevitable the bear would flex its muscles and intervene in the conflict there.
But then another aspect of all this is how much us normal people in far away blighty can really know or care about the minutiae of Ukrainian politics? Like how many people in Donbass or the rest of that country really do wish to be part of the Russian Federation instead? Unfortunately our elite have made it an issue by inserting the public into that conflict and telling us we must unconditionally support the blue yellow team. The dissident reflex is to support the other team, but like you I would prefer not be on either side.
PS have you seen The Gaggle with Peter and George on Youtube? Kind of like the Duran in their outlook but more disagreeable, the two hosts do argue with each other. But equally Peter Lavelle is an American living in Moscow who worked for RT.
Talking about Europe vs Russia is EU propaganda. Russia is just as European as France, 40% of European territory is in Russia. I support individual European countries reaming themselves but the EU is the new Soviet Union so I don't support some kind of a collective EU military which then can be used against individual EU countries. Some people say an EU army would be like the National Guard in the US which was used against US citizens in internal conflicts (in desegregation and forced racial integration).
“Instead, European nations should wriggle free of the liberal elites and collective interests and deal one-on-one with countries such as Russia”. Russia is a European nation. So – from a nationalist perspective – why not ally with Russia and deal with degenerate anti-White and neo-Marxist countries like France collectively?
I'm dealing with the world as it is, not as it ought to be or how I want it to be.
''why not ally with Russia and deal with degenerate anti-White and neo-Marxist countries like France collectively?''
You would not be an ally, you would be a Russian vassal. That's not a nationalist position either.
Russia can't even control Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova. The idea that Russia, not the GAE, is the enemy to be feared, is, I think, based on a complete misreading of where power lies in the international system.
The GAE can still, to this day, with all their incompetence and insanity, overturn far-flung governments at a whim. Even when those governments are on the periphery.
Pakistan. Bangladesh. Syria. Brazil. Just in the last few years!
In what universe is Russia the country which is going to vassalize Europe? It can't even control its immediate neighborhood.
The same goes to a slightly lesser extent for China. Chinese propaganda is laughable, their sway in the field of ideas and philosophies is nonexistent, and to the extent that they have any effect in this realm, it happens when the more left wing faction of the GAE deigns to amplify them.
I was answering a hypothetical question, not stating my own position.
But I think your views on the GAE being the hegemonic force in the West are dating by the day. We are having these conversations precisely because America is changing track.
We have the beginnings of some changes. A very few of them have even penetrated the skin. But I think it's early days to judge how much deeper they will go and what kind of staying power they will have.
Ukraine is European--Occidential.
Russia, minus Ukraine, is Eurasian--Oriental. A lot of Russians aren't even Slavic; they are Asian. Peter the Great moved the capital closer to the West (St Petersburg), shaved off Russian beards, and imported Western European craftsman and architects. etc., in an attempt to turn Oriental Russians into Occidential Europeans.
Putin is rumored to be involved in shamanism, bathing in deer antler blood, and participating in Oriental shamaistic rituals--allegedly And there is much, much more going on in Putin's private life that points to shockingly degenerate behavior on his part...
I have been following The Duran (and their individual channels) for long before the current US/Russia proxy war began. They have covered mass-immigration extensively, and have consistently described it as damaging for Europe.
The reason this important factor (along with others) has disappeared from their coverage is simply because the US/Russia proxy war is a bit of a big deal. There isn't any sleight of hand going on here, or blind eyes being turned away. The real risk of Europe descending into a third industrial continental scale war is temporarily overshadowing the ongoing damage resulting from mass-immigration.
Fortunately for all of us Europeans, given that the Russian Federation has won that US/Russia proxy war without it spreading and/or escalating, eventually this will fade as the dominant European geopolitical event, and the focus will return to subjects such as mass-immigration.
I've often enjoyed commentary from the Duran, but to a point, for exactly this reason. Their own Russophilic tendencies can let narrative override frank analysis, and post war they'll be in dire need of new material. For either genuine or cynical reasons, they're locked into a frame in which the Euros running the show presently are out of touch Lefty Fudds, whether or not they are making sound decisions from
a European perspective. I think Eugyppius' perspective on European security is a more sound one to follow, but the Alexanders have their place in the ecosystem.
"... and post war they'll be in dire need of new material ..."
The subject matter focus of their three channels is geopolitics.
The unipolar world order under US hegemony has been dismantled by the US/Russia proxy war in Ukraine. The multipolar world order has emerged in its place. History has started again.
If anything, The Duran will be spoiled for choice when it comes to geopolitical material.
And ill be looking forward to that pivot when it comes, as I said I do like their coverage generally.
title is fucking brilliant man
There's nothing wrong with Europe remilitarizing in and of itself. Heck, it's at least obstensibly what Trump & co. have been pushing for for years.
The problem is Europe remilitarizing under *this leadership* - the unholy combination of ultra NeoLib, ultra Neocon. Why on earth would we want to see *them* having command over powerful armies?
It's been clear for years that the real meaning of Transatlanticism is that Europe , and especially the UK (and associated Anglo lapdogs like Canada), is a home away from home for the GAE. (Jim refers to them as the GAE-in-exile). A stronghold fortress to which they can retreat whenever they face obstacles in the U.S. proper. They have other such redoubts, such as NY, LA, blue cities and states, but the EU is by far their most formidable castle outside of DC itself.
As just one example of how this works, consider how the GAE has often outsourced aggressive censorship efforts to the EU and various other client states.
Why exactly should we be happy "Europe" is remilitarizing so long as "Europe" is just the GAE's left arm?
Well, it looks like the GAE is leaving Europe to its own destiny. The question is what will come next, and whether Europe, under the current abysmal leadership, is better off entirely passive and defenseless.
I think Trump, or more broadly MAGA, would certainly like to disentangle from Europe, not least because it is an enormous castle in the hands of their rivals.. But MAGA isn't the GAE, it has barely begun the process of capturing some of its nodes at home in DC, and is not the dominant faction. It's unclear to me that even if they had the will to accomplish this disentanglement (they have the desire, but that's not enough ), that they would be able to make it happen outside of speeches and alt-media articles.
The GAE, meaning the NeoLibCon blob, doesn't have any plans to leave Europe to its own destiny, much more the opposite; that strengthened control over the European branch of empire is pretty much the point of the whole EU project.
Until the EU project collapses, or is somehow transformed entirely, it would be hard to believe the GAE proper (not MAGA) will "leave Europe to its destiny".
Well, GAE literally means American Empire. But lets just assume Euro-Globalists remain in charge.
How is it beneficial for Europeans to live without any military deterrent?
Let's imagine a scenario where MAGA, after a furious and protracted struggle, vanquishes the NeoLibCon blob as the dominant faction of the GAE. (At that point, the G largely goes away and we have the AE).
Let's also indulge ourselves in imagining the resulting collapse of the EU project, the rise of truly based right-wing nationalist governments from the UK and France through Poland.
In this world, I (all of us here) would staunchly support these liberated nations in their remilitarization.
Is this military going to deter the empire that's *currently* vassalizing them, and flaying them alive in the process? ( see: the skin suit that is "Ireland" for how quickly this can work).
Perhaps if the military-security complex was built for, and was actually used for, guarding the border, expelling the existing invasion of Europe, and crushing any sign of GAE subversion? Do we really think the military is for deterring that?
Or is it just for deterring the current overlord's rivals?
You have it backward, Europe is demilitarized because of its vassal status. The more independent Europe becomes militarily the less it will be a vassal.
This is why France has an independent Nuclear deterrent and Britain does not.
But the point stands: better able to defend yourself is better than not, regardless of domestic policies.
independent of whjo?
"Europe" doesn't exist in based-world. European nations do. As long as this is an EU project, it is not independent.
Also, this question remains about the purpose of re-armament.
"Perhaps if the military-security complex was built for, and was actually used for, guarding the border, expelling the existing invasion of Europe, and crushing any sign of GAE subversion?"
If a rebuilt military-security state cannot perform these functions, then it is not an ally, and is (given the track record) a hostile power.