Michael Kuhn – Arguing about theories and political opinions

The EU at war in Ukraine – a turning point in EU policies?

Preliminary remark:

Anyone who, in full possession of his mental powers, supports a warring party, i.e. a war, on whatever side, even if it is only with his thoughts, i.e. anyone who gives up people’s lives for the sake of a political goal, and this even for such excesses of violence as for wars between states, can no longer be taken serious and can save himself from reading any further here.

No less obfuscating to the attempt to understand what is happening in and around Ukraine is the desire, in the face of war, to wish for the good old peace to return, since it was the peace that prevailed before the war that gave rise to the war. And it is only for the wishful thinking inspired by the desire for peace, i.e. the wishful thinking inspired by the absence of war, that prevents from thinking about what is happening in times of war but also what has happened up to the present day and what is currently happening. Those who are satisfied with the absence of war are the only ones who experience war, which, when else must have been initiated but in the beautiful times of peace, are those who experience any war as an unpleasant surprises. The explanations for these nasty surprises are then the progressive clouding of the mind with such childish nonsense as the invention of villains, usually on the side of the enemy, who burst the beautiful world of peace like soap bubbles. 


The EU claims that the war in Ukraine means a turning point for EU policy, i.e. that it fundamentally changes this policy. A look at the history of the EU may help to clarify what this turning point is all about


Peace after World War 2 begins with the construction of the world power project of the losers of World War II, the EU 

After the war is before the war, as far-sighted statesmen see it. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, when the rubble was still smoking, the far-sighted European statesmen De Gaulle and Adenauer, in the sight of the newly emerged super world power USA, which as a result of the war against Germany, which the German politician Hitler had launched with exactly the same aim of making this Germany the leading world power, had made the USA the super world power instead of Germany with their victorious war against Germany, in the sight of this post-war situation, the statesmen of these two largest European states had the idea, that their states, France and Germany, could once again play an elevated role in the world of states after the war, despite the results of the war, if they though not completely give up their quarrels among themselves but put them on the back burner a little, joined their forces and together conquered a position of power for the next round of power struggles among the powerful states of the world about the positions of power over the world of states. Initially, they did this in pairs and then developed the project of an EU, which could be imagined so well as a peace project because it had ceased hostilities among itself and, thanks to a lack of imperial means, could not initially interfere in the major violent issues of the post-war period, except as an auxiliary power of the USA for its violent projects in Europe. On the contrary, France, for example, was made clear by the USA in the Vietnam War, in which the world of the former colonies, who wanted to become states themselves like their colonial masters, were made aware that the attempts of the new states to do so with the support of the SU and with the prospect of joining its world empire would be punished with the eradication of their states, that for these new states there could only be a homeland in the West, in this war France was incidentally degraded to a second-rate world power. Something similar happened with the old world power UK, which later followed the EU project and in the meantime has left this world power project of the EU again, because for the UK the subordination to the EU led by France and Germany and to their world power projects limited its own global power ambitions, not least those towards France and Germany, too much. In the war against Germany, England had been assigned by the US the task of wearing out everything it had left at the end of the war in the war against Germany in the last years of the war, while the US held back a little, only to enter the war in earnest when the war was about establishing the hierarchy of states after the war.  England, like France, was then relegated to the second row and was allowed to play the role of an auxiliary imperialist to the USA, as it had during the war against Germany, and was then always torn between this role as an auxiliary sheriff to the USA and the unloved role of a player in the EU community project of the French and Germans. The story and how it ends is well known. The fact that Germany was given the chance to build up this new world power project called the EU together with France after and despite its defeat in the war, in which it wanted to become the number one world power, is due to the coincidence of its geographical location, which bordered on the country that the USA had already identified as the new main enemy of the USA during the war against Germany, and of course to its own determination to make a second attempt against the Soviet Union to bring this country down with the combined forces of the assembled West. Still in the war against Germany, the USA not only handed over the loss-making part of the core military work against the Germans to the British, but the USA had also very coolly balanced the course of the war in such a way that its military was spared and the military of the SU, which was envisaged as the future enemy, had to wear out its military potential for its victory over Germany, so that this war against Germany immediately created a fine starting point for the next war against a militarily weakened Soviet Union. Much to the annoyance of the English, the best conditions for the next war with the Soviet Union were built up along these lines during World War II, and Germany was then massively supported after the war in rebuilding its economy and rearming, while the English were thanked with much Anglo-Saxon brotherhood. 

From then on, the project of a European auxiliary world power only went upwards, or better still, only forward towards the East, even if all the successes, seen in the light of day, were always only side-effects of the successes of the USA in using the Europeans for its world power programme, even if, in reaping the side-effects of the successes of the USA, the world power EU, which was in the process of being built up and competing with the USA, knew how to use these side-effects for itself and, with all its successes, also thanks to the SU and then Russia with their common strategy of avoiding any conflict with the EU and thus keeping any hostilities of the EU towards Russia at bay.     


The “collapse” of the SU and its reaping by the EU

It was this idea with which the SU served up the East European parts of its dominion to the EU on a platter – and the EU gratefully accepted this offer, affirming that Russia, which had emerged from the end of the SU, had nothing to fear from the Europeans – while they had targeted the states of Eastern Europe, which had still been under the SU’s suzerainty at the time, for the expansion of their power.

The anti-capitalist political elite of the SU, instead of undermining with its project of anti-capitalism the new capitalist world empire of the USA, since then called the “West”, with an anti-capitalist uprising of the USA citizens against their exploitation and their instrumentalization for the creation of a capitalist world empire, allowed the USA, as a false conclusion of the Soviet Union’s successful belligerent measurement of state powers in the war against Germany – a success of the political power of the SU in which the anti-capitalist project had been already replaced by the battle over the question of who was in command in the world of states,  to pull the SU into a “cold war” called conflict about the question posed by the USA about the world power, carried out as an arms race that ate up all economic resources forcing the SU to direct all economic recourses and to consume all the economic recourses  for this arms race,  the SU political elite, facing the ruining effects this arm race had, not to the former subjects of its anti-capitalism, the workers, but on the economic performance of their new supreme revolutionary subject, their workers’ and peasants’ state, the anti-capitalist elite of the SU decided to try to get rid of this hostility from the USA by revoking its anti-capitalism and returning to capitalism.

And this, assuming that there was a capitalism without imperialism, this was a damned mistake, originating from their odd interpretation of anti-capitalism, which had the very long term historical consequences resulting in what we are facing today. The rediscovery of nations as the concern overriding all questions of society systems, that is of socialism versus capitalism, of a world order consisting of nation-states, which sprang from the successful war against Germany, as the concern that for these nationalist-inspired critics of capitalism had nothing to do with capitalism but was a kind of need of mankind turned towards its civilizational progress, this mistake opened with the transformation of the socialist states united in the SU into the same capitalist states as those of the West, the states of Nato, united in the West in an alliance of states, whose foundation was owed to the shared goal, under the supremacy of the USA, of taking away the power of the rest of the world of states beyond this alliance of states, and there above all those which with their means of power can dispute their alliance of states’ worldwide command over the world of states, i.e. first and foremost the SU, and later China, this mistake opened the West as the politically, economically and last but not least regarding their power means more efficient Capitalism the way towards the dissolution of their power means via building more efficient power means.

Giving up the opposition to the social system of the West, its capitalism, therefore not only not avoided for Russia any hostility from the capitalist West, thanks to its continuing means of power, but – to the later bitter disappointment of Russia’s politicians – allowed the capitalist West to celebrate this as a victory of the capitalist West, i.e. the USA and also of its European vassals over a world power rival; a victory that animated the victors to further victories in the direction of the state that had thrown its anti-capitalist system on the rubbish heap of history, but not its world power-suited weapons, so was now all the more rightly approached as a disruptive capitalist competitor in the struggle for supremacy over the world of capitalist states. And this too with success. 


The incorporation of Eastern Europe into the EU – the push-back of Russia 

From the idea of the Russian political leaders that if the world set up as a world of states is a realization of humanist ideas, that then it must be the task of the politics of states to serve the nationalism of the citizens of these states – not vice versa, that the nationalism of the citizens serves the states – from this idea of Russia something could be made for the EU, namely the incorporation of the states of Eastern Europe into the confederation of states of the EU and the military alliance of Nato, this always presented to Russia with the motto that it would not expand the sphere of influence of the EU and NATO as a whole, but would simply serve the need of state peoples for state nationality, a need for which the state peoples in Eastern Europe yearned – if Russia believed in this goal. Which it did, and although Russia always rejected the withdrawal of its means of force and the advance of those of the West, it reluctantly accepted the West’s advance towards its borders by pointing out that it had no intention of using its weapons against Russia. 

The less than squeamish purges carried out for this purpose among the political elites of the incorporated countries of Russia’s old friends under the title of incorrigible communists who stood in the way of the flourishing of nationalism, Russia did not see this either as liquidating its political following in these countries and, if not supporting it, somehow accepted it thanks to its twisted nationalism transformed from Soviet anti-capitalism to Russian anti-communism.  This is not surprising when one recalls how Russia has celebrated and continues to celebrate Russian patriotism within Russia itself, right into the Communist Party that still exists there; and this is even less surprising when one hears that the current leadership of Russia of 2022 does not want to be fooled by anyone, not even by the anti-communism of the nationalist ultras of Ukraine, when it comes to humanist nationalism.

The reconquest of the largest parts of Germany lost through defeat in the war, certainly against the will of France and against the will of England and against the will of Poland, but with the active support of the USA, but also of the SU, has promoted Germany to the strongest state in the EU, not least thanks to the SU – and with this promotion made Germany the main opponent of the SU, then of Russia. The German communist comrades of the SU in the anti-capitalist part of Germany at that time were served up by the SU to the anti-communist German enemies of the SU in order to pacify its relationship with capitalist Germany, and Germany did to these somewhat oblique German nationalist anti-capitalists, who considered themselves the true heirs of all Germanness, what Germany has done to them since time immemorial: banned and imprisoned them.

Germany thanked the SU for the leading position of power in Europe by advancing its military forces all the way to the Polish border, an advance during which the German military must have seen the tail lights of the retreating SU military, an advance of its military during which Germany, as with every further advance of NATO, declared as always that it did not want to do anything with its military where it had advanced. The full power of the position of power which Germany has acquired thanks to SU’s deep understanding, in particular, of the unity of nations and thus the recapture of its parts of Eastern Europe lost in the war, and how much the recapture of those of its parts lost to the SU has really given Germany a taste for a renewed attempt to conquer a position of world power, is probably best illustrated by the fact that this new old Germany has declared its renunciation of those parts of Germany which after the lost world war had founded the state of Poland – in other words, by this renunciation it has not only let Poland know that the real Germany is, of course, actually still quite a bit larger, namely that which was now Poland.   


The war in Yugoslavia – the end of the idea of neutrality 

The incorporation of the Balkans into the project of building a world power Europe was not hindered by Russia, but by the most powerful country in the Balkans, which was no friend of the SU, but did not want to adopt the West’s hostility to the SU as its own either: Yugoslavia under Tito. Here, too, the construction of the world power project of the EU made use of the re-sorting of the world of states by the USA for their common project of eliminating the SU as a world power. Yugoslavia, together with India, was the leading state of an alliance of states which, under the motto of neutrality, did not want to be instrumentalized for the world power projects of the USA and also not for those of the SU and was therefore liquidated by the USA with the help of the EU. For the USA, merely not participating in the USA’s world power project was not an option for any state in the world, after the attempt of a state to join the SU’s world power project as a protection against the West had been bombed away as an option of former colonial states, using Vietnam as an example.  For the destruction of the idea of neutrality and the sawing up of this strongest state in the Balkans into mini-states that could be commanded at will by their European commanders, Germany and France, the EU mobilized the local nationalisms of the Yugoslavian sub-republics, which were also cultivated there, for a civil war among themselves, equipped these civil war armies with weapons and steered these wars with their bombs in the direction of the construction of these small states, as the USA and the EU wanted them to be. Germany made a start by acknowledging Slovenia as an independent state and equipping it with military force. From the slaughter thus instigated by the USA and the EU, first and foremost Germany, among the nationalists gathered in Yugoslavia, the USA and Germany – France was less happy about the influence thus extended by Germany in south-eastern Europe, after the expansion of German power already in eastern Europe, – a cry for help, proclaimed and addressed to themselves, against the genocide they had instigated, was heard by them in order to intervene in the war by bombing the peoples of the states that did not want to accept the loss of their power in the Yugoslav state, very much in the nationalist and racist mindset guiding this war in Europe named “multi-ethnic states” , namely Serbia. As a result of the termination of this initiated genocide directed by the West for this purpose, mini-states were created by the EU and the USA, which were constructed strictly according to racist criteria, in the EU’s doctrine of values phrased as a matter of ethnicity, and were therefore given their permanent supervision over the racist hostilities thus established as a reason of state by EU military forces. The SU, which thanks to Yugoslavia’s neutrality had after all not received any hostility from Yugoslavia until it was divided by the EU into these ethnically constructed mini-states , received with this transformation of Yugoslavia and the subsequent purges of the political elites also in all the other Balkan states from all the old ex-communist friends of the SU were also been sorted out here as national aliens, with the exception of those aliens from the EU of course, the SU thus received the entire Balkan’ states as an enemy states. 


No imperialist nation state without its own world currency – in the EU with its internal imperialism regulating and financing its external imperialism

The idea of the EU, born out of its weakness vis-à-vis the ruling world powers and contradicting all laws of state sovereignty, to strengthen the sovereignty of the community of states vis-à-vis non-EU states by curtailing the sovereignty of all individual member states, is practiced by this community of states in such a way that it erodes the sovereignty of its weaker states within the community of states and builds it up in favor of its stronger member states with the consequence that the leading states of this strange construction of a community of states use this internal imperialism to make the rest of their member states the servants of their imperialism towards the world of states outside the EU. For this internal EU imperialism of the leading states of the EU, i.e. – after the withdrawal of the English, who wanted to get rid of this internal imperialism with this withdrawal and in return have acquired the full force of the external EU imperialism of this European peace power – for France and Germany, the EU has acquired a world currency, with which the leading members, by reigning in the national economies of their member states, procure their economic means of power internally for their economic and power-political projects in the competition of the world of states and vis-à-vis the states governing this world of states, i.e. the USA, China and the SU, respectively Russia. The use of this paradoxical construct of a national currency shared by several national sovereigns for the imperial ambitions of the EU, dictated by France and Germany, overtaxes the economic potential of some member states and brings them to economic ruin. Even in dealing with these self-created state victims, such as Greece and Portugal, which have recently been driven into national bankruptcy, the master countries of this EU-internal imperialism can pat themselves on the back for their successful handling of such costs of their world-imperial project, just as they can pat themselves on the back for their successful pushing back of their European arch-competitor SU/Russia. They have stated an example of their member states in the bankrupt countries of Greece and Portugal that the only way out of this trap of EU membership is either the complete ruin of such states or the further sell-out of their economic infrastructure and thus their transformation into a merely formally sovereign state without a national economy. The dictates of that infamous “Troika”, which imposed on Greece and Portugal, by means of a radical impoverishment of their inhabitants, their countries and the selling off of the remnants of their economic infrastructure, such as ports, airports, power plants and the like, making these countries thus for capital investors from those leading countries again am attractive resource for their investments, this is the economic price that the inhabitants of these countries have to pay for the concern of their political elites to have a bit of a world presence on the stage of imperialism via this imperialist project called the EU. 


The EU in the world power projects of the global powers

It is part of the course of events in a world constructed entirely from the same political entities, citizen states, all of which are committed to the same goal, an ever too low growth of their economies, that they clash now and then and call their existence into question. It is the pursuit of this goal that leads to the fact that the states that command this world of states are themselves the ones who, by pursuing their goal of commanding the world of states, build up for it the economic and military power of other secondary states for their superintendence over the world of states, which then challenge their own position of power in the world of states. 

For the growth of their economies, these imperial states use their power internally and for the extension of their power beyond their territories to capture markets for growth for the business world that does this business in the national currencies of these states. All these citizen states derive the means for their power from the business that the business world does in their national currencies, respectively in the currencies of the imperial states. For the conquest of the world markets they use the power of other states, which they have internally and externally, to make the territories of other states accessible to their business world. In this way they help other secondary states to the growth of business done in their currencies though mainly in the currencies of the imperial states and thus help these states to more power.  Where it is useful for the assertion of imperial power, i.e. power over other states, they provide other states with means of power in order to use this power of other states for their competition for markets and power. In this way, it is not impossible that states which are provided with economic means or directly with means of power, i.e. military, by the command states for their world power projects, confront the imperial states as competitors in their world power projects.

In this way or in this manner, all world power projects of the command states, including the EU, have arisen in this world of citizen states and have been carried out accordingly, as the permanent task of correcting the hierarchies of power in the world of states, carried out on the part of the EU in accordance with the foundations of its world power projects outlined above. 

The EU has then carried out its participation in its imperialism projects on the following bases, i.e. 

– making the European world power projects of the EU serviceable for the global world power tasks of the USA – most recently with attempts to emancipate itself from its superintendence by the EU offering itself as a more radical enemy of Russia to those political forces in the USA who, not like Trump, proclaim America first, but the enforcement of Western superintendence over the world of states worldwide first;

– for their world power projects within Europe through the ideological use of Russia’s paradoxical ideologies about the humanist mission of states and the nationalism of their citizens cultivated for this purpose and the paradoxical doctrine developed from these ideologies, a pursuit of state power interests without the tangent of state power interests, born from its nationalist anti-capitalism of the SU, further developed by the Russian neo-capitalists into the idea of an imperialism against that of another imperialism without imperialism, which the EU uses in all its imperialist projects, not only towards Russia;

– the reluctant acceptance, through the use of this ideology of Russia, of the pursuit of the imperial interests of the EU by the most powerful competing capitalist state power within Europe, by Russia, that is, the servicing of the idea, as typical as it is idealistic for Russian politics, of not pursuing the expansion of the power of the EU at the expense of the imperialist interests of Russia, which had discovered these imperialist interests in a capitalist world power after its transformation into a capitalist state,   

– making the states gathered in the EU serviceable for the imperialist projects of the EU command states France and Germany by means of its multi-state world currency and its European institutions created for this purpose.

Just a few examples of European imperialist projects:

– The war in Libya against the rule of Gaddafi, used by the West as a valued overseer over the oil wells, this West put an end to its rule after his successful reinterpretation of the mission of Libya, by means of the revenues from the business with oil to make Lybier a co-mixer in all states in the whole of Africa by means of all kind of infrastructure projects and thus Lybier’s interference especially in the African sphere of power of France, this reinterpretation of Libya was put to an end by the EU under the command of the USA with the bombing of the country. After England and France had begun the clarification of power positions in North Africa with their bombing of the Libyan military, the USA entered the war with its bombers and in turn clarified to the Europeans who defines world power positions in the world. The destruction of the country and the estimated 50,000 Libyans killed were presented by the West as a contribution to supporting the Libyan Arab Spring.

– The war against Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein followed the same script as the war against Libya under Gaddafi. Like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein was the US local ruler for overseeing the exploitation of oil there for US business. From these deals, in which the demanders and suppliers were US oligarchs, for whose surveillance services the local overseers were given the necessary power and sponsored with a bit of a share in the deals, from these deals and this borrowed power sprang the need for more in Saddam Hussein and gave rise to the desire in the local ruler in Iraq to expand his power in the oil-bearing region a bit and to rise from a power limited to the state of Iraq to a regional power. That Saddam Hussein would have been better off asking the okay of the USA for this project of a regional power was explained to Iraq with a war, after Iraq had proved to the USA with its invasion of Kuwait that it gives its own orders. Thus the man was dead, the country bombed and the inhabitants of Iraq paid for this career nonsense of their head of state with an “estimated” 115000 to 600000 dead.

– The Taliban in Afghanistan were born out of the best friendship with the USA, which, equipped by the USA with military, was supposed to prepare the SU for its “Vietnam”.  What was meant was a defeat in the last world power project of the anti-capitalist SU, a defeat that the Vietnam War was not at all for the USA, but very much so for the SU with the loss of the power of its nationalist-Islamic friends in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of its military; a defeat of the SU that was followed by the end of the SU’s rule in Europe, first in the GDR, and then by the end of its rule in Eastern Europe a few months later. It was this successful ejection of the SU from this model project of an Islamic state, thanks to the military support of the USA, that had given the idea of an Islamic-ruled world of states a taste for more, more Islamic state rule, which, however, was not at all the mission for which the USA had equipped the Taliban. This was followed by the demonstration of power of the Islamic State project with the attack in New York and the USA-typical rectification of the question of who in the world decides what is an approved state project and what is not.  With the subsequent seizure of power by the USA in Afghanistan and not only the hunt there for all Afghans suspected of being sympathizers of this Islamic State project, the USA presented the clarification to the entire Islamic world that if this project does not place itself at the service of the world domination of the USA, it will cost the existence of every state that joins this project, just like any other state project not approved by the USA, even if a state like Afghanistan only harbors those who carried out this attack. This clarification executed on Afghanistan is taken by the EU as an opportunity to set up an outpost in the Islamic world to interfere in this part of the world under the protection and in the service of the USA in the areas of the Middle East, i.e. also in the neighborhood of Iran. With the abrupt end of the USA’s mission, thanks to the discovery of new world power projects further east, in China, the EU’s mission to make the civilizational achievements of European values palatable to the Afghans, a need articulated by no Afghan except the EU, whose servicing by the EU the Afghans have paid for with an estimated 250,000 dead Afghans, has also suddenly come to an end.

– There are probably few other examples in the world of how a state is made the venue for various world power and regional power projects, with the consequence that the tangle of coalitions of enemies and friends is so confusing that one wonders how the parties manage to point their weapons at the right enemy: first of all, of course, the USA bombed against its former deputy Assad, who had been used to reject pan-Arabism, and this first with the help against Assad of the IS, which was then bombed away again by the USA because its successes in Iraq, which had been bombed by the USA, had made it too strong; helping the USA in precisely this, in the targeting of enemies in the complexity of friend and foe and the change from foe to friend and vice versa, was the contribution with which the EU wanted to get a foot in this turmoil of states for power in this region of the world, and then, thanks to the dwindling interest of the USA and the new entry of Russia into this turmoil of power, in the end came up rather empty, as in Afghanistan. Turkey, originally built up by the USA with the help of the EU as a watchdog over the Arab world, eternal candidate for membership of the EU, with its ambitions to rise as a regional power in the same area, is getting involved in the wars in Syria with a war against Assad and the Kurds there, who for their part have ambitions to place a new state in this turmoil of states at Turkey’s expense, a Kurdish state project sponsored by the US to keep Turkey’s ambitions down and to use the Kurds to do the dirty work for the US in bombing the Islamic State, and supported by Assad for his fightback against Turkey with the help of the Kurds until he regains his power over all of Syria with the help of Russia and Iran. Iran has intervened there to fight Saudi Arabia, also there to settle their dispute as to who is the first regional power in the Middle East. Israel was instructed by the US to stay out of this to a large extent, so as not to risk its efforts to crumble the Arab front against itself by instigating new Arab friendships, which, as one can see, worked. 

Finally, there is Russia: Russia, after having been made aware of the business interests of its capitalists, who in the West are called oligarchs, that it is involved in these worldwide skirmishes about who in the world is able to open up business for its businessmen, chose this hostile turmoil in Syria to interfere in this shooting to recapture a position of world power – and did so successfully. Because the USA had discovered other interests as more important to it, Russia succeeded in establishing an outpost of its world power there and has since become a number in these battles for worldwide state domination over state domination, to the great annoyance of the USA. That this above Syrian battlefield for worldwide state domination – by experts who count such things – has cost the lives of between 300,000 and 500,000 Syrians is a marginal note in this world, where the very big questions, the state’s battles, are at stake. And with that, with Russia’s entry into global imperialism, we are back to Ukraine.


Mission completed – arrived on Russia’s border fence

The further development of the absurd theory of the Soviet anti-capitalists, that the political ruling institution of capitalism, the state, is the revolutionary subject of anti-capitalism, to the idea of Russia purified of anti-capitalism and its return to capitalism, that states are a quasi natural human civilization product of mankind standing above all social systems, and from there the implementation of this state philosophy to the no less paradoxical political maxim that states do indeed extend their rule beyond their state territories, but that this idea of the expansion of one state power should be done without the restriction of another state power, this political maxim must also have been the spiritus rector of the treaties by which the West and Russia regulated their state power relations after the end of the Cold War, and on the basis of which the EU and the West as a whole managed to ensure that Russia accepted all the West’s steps towards the East in which the West regularly ignored the second part of these treaties, that the expansion of the West’s power should not be pursued at Russia’s expense. Even if always reluctantly, Russia has always accepted this approach until the West finally – as Putin put it – danced around on the Russian border fence in Ukraine, with the West’s failed attempt to also advance to the border fence with Russia in Belarus with a regime change a la the EU, in which it was briefly made clear that it is not any elections but NATO that decides who is legitimized to govern a country. This is how the advance of the West has worked successfully until now; under the regime of the treaties constructed in this spirit, the West and with it the EU have succeeded, against Russia’s will and with its acquiescence, in advancing with their means of force – with the exception of the border in Belarus – to Russia’s border in Europe. The advance of the West towards Russia on other, south-eastern borders of Russia completed the encirclement of Russia.

This advance, which Russia did not want to notice, always went like this: As before on its other stations towards Russia, the preparation of the states that formerly belonged to the domain of the SU and were now incorporated into the domain of the West was carried out by a procedure in which the West made use of Russia’s stupidities in matters of nationalism. In this procedure, the West denied that any annexation of states was an extension of its rule at the expense of Russia, or that it even had anything to with Russia; instead, this advance had nothing else in mind than to serve the national interests of the peoples of these states, and therefore all this was not an encroachment on Russia’s ruling interests. 

The script for the operations for this expansion of the rule of the West was conceived in terms of this maxim of expansion of power without an intervention of power cherished by Russia as nothing but servicing the nationalism cherished by Russia in the encroached countries and was always the same as far as its approach was concerned. Those who propagate nation states and nationalism need not be surprised that nationalism, which consists of nothing but demarcation from other nationalisms, will eventually lead to other states dancing on their own border fence. Because nationalism transfigures one’s own state into an existential foodstuff and is thus an ideology hostile to all other states, the West, thanks to Russia’s twisted sympathies for nation states and nationalism, has been able to make use of this Russian ideology in its conquests of other countries without Russia intervening and has acknowledged its stupidity by expelling Russia from these countries. Beginning with the instigation of nationalist uprisings of anti-Russian civil movements under the more or less discreet direction of Western organizations, these ended, by means of more or less violent coups d’état, with the end of the rule of the pro-Russian nationalist political elites, whose success, as in the case of Ukraine, was based on the fact that the Russia-friendly ruling political elites, for their part, thanks to their own nationalism, did not use the usual means of state violence against the insurgent nationalist pro-Western civic movements, because they, themselves soaked to the bone with their love for their homeland, considered these nationalist civic movements to be part of their nation and were only bothered by their preference for the West instead of their old preference for Russia.  

After the conquest of power in these states by anti-Russian nationalist movements, the subsequent purging of the party landscapes of pro-Russian nationalists, the new nationalist Western-sponsored political elites were legitimized through elections, which then pursued the membership of these states in NATO on the grounds that they did not want to be threatened by Russia because of their hostility to Russia; in other words, with the same logic of all European NATO member states, which, by uniting in NATO and the EU against Russia as the European world power in Eastern Europe, opposed their Western European alliance of states as an independent world power in Western Europe to the world power Russia, which, as this Western European regional power, is the European ally of the world power USA built up for this purpose by the USA after the end of World War II to support the USA in its contestation of the world power SU/Russia.

Russia has then once the countries had been taken over by the West always protested at all steps towards the march of the West towards the East and the West, assembled in the EU and Nato, has expanded its power vis-à-vis Russia with reference to the first half of that absurd treaty philosophy of a permitted expansion of power territories, i.e. limited it, thus the actually absurd limitation of this treaty philosophy, that this expansion of power must not mean any restriction of the power of others, and always provided this ignorance with the treacherous assertion that by restricting Russia’s power it was not affecting its power interests, but only obeying the national wishes of the countries they conquered, which consisted of nothing other than eliminating Russia’s previous power over these parts of Europe. A rather brain-dead game, but one that has been practiced since the end of the SU – and accepted just as brain-deadly by Russia in protest.

Then, once the power of the state had been transferred into the hands of the new members of the European community of states and its military alliance, the NATO which was aimed at nothing other than contesting Russia’s power, the West took the next step and turned the states into military bases for Russia and turned the economies of these states and their inhabitants into service providers for the EU, that is mainly for Germany and France, after all.

The result of this history of EU and NATO expansion into Ukraine is well known:

– Russia, looking at its border fence, states its military encirclement with the direct neighborhood of the West and its programme, ready for final implementation, of contesting its world power ambitions, which have grown since the return to capitalism, and tells the West in no uncertain terms that it no longer accepts this situation, demands the West’s withdrawal and threatens war in just as unmistakable terms if the West does not engage in negotiations with Russia to reverse this situation;

– The West rejects Russia’s calls for negotiations on its goals as non-negotiable; the West’s domination of the world of states is for it nothing that can be negotiated, in other words can only be changed by war. The USA announces the time of the beginning of the war, that is, it announces that it is ready for war and tells the world that it is very shocked when Russia begins the war.

– Russia starts this war with the declared intention of revising the balance of power between Russia and the West, which the West has rejected as non-negotiable, in order to force this revision now with military force and supplements its first belligerent step, the invasion of Ukraine, with the threat of its nuclear means of war in case the West interferes in this war.


With the turn of the times towards World War III – what the EU has changed and what it has not changed

The West is joining the war by supplying Ukraine with all kinds of military equipment and is supplementing its military interference in the war with daily increased economic attacks on Russia’s economic foundations, with the declared aim of destroying Russia’s economic existence – as a German Green Economics Minister literally put it. The West denies that this is an intervention of the West into the war, with the hint that their practical war ally, the Ukraine is formally not a member of the NATO, meaning that they are prepared for other ways of joining this war – and the EU declares that all this to be a turn of times in EU policies.

Turn of the times? The epochal transformation of the EU within a few days from a club of states oriented only towards economic interests to a world power at war with another world power?  How can one imagine this?  Since its foundation, the EU has brought all of Europe except Russia under its control, and in this conquest of that part of Europe which belonged to the empire of the SU under the leadership of Russia until the end of an era known as the “Cold War”, in this conquest of Eastern Europe, it has not interfered with anyone’s ruling interests, but has always acted only as that union of values and economics? It is, by the way, noticable how much violence must be involved in economic relations between states when one considers how easily economic relations can be reprogrammed into means of war that can be used to destroy the economies of other states. So much for the EU as a non-violent world power.

Then came this turning point in time, because for completely inexplicable reasons Russia had attacked with war a country, Ukraine, which was the next to be incorporated into this peaceful union of values and which, for its part, was said not to have had the slightest thing against Russia.  Quite by chance, in this very country, i.e. in Ukraine as in all the countries conquered until then, the war equipment of the EU and its big brother in values, the USA, was standing around, which was needed for a war against a world power like Russia, so that from one day to the next the EU is supposed to have turned from the noble peaceful economic and values union into nothing less than a war party, equipped with all the war equipment at exactly the right place at the right time for a war with the world power Russia, which had become an enemy through Russia itself? The USA and with it the EU were exactly where they wanted to be and the war with Russia has the goal of contesting Russia as a world power and Russia’s goal is not to have its position as a world power disputed by the West. In case of the usual objection: The deliberate confusion of the question of who wants to contest whose world power and the question of who fired first is pure war propaganda for the mobilization of hostilities of all kinds against the enemy, i.e. proof of the determination to fight out this hostility in a war with the enemy. Turn of the times?

1. Pushing Russia back from its old territories, that has always been the very special mission of the EU, especially with its scam of exchanging the political rulers from Russia-friendly to Russia-hostile political elites as support for the nationalistic needs of the respective state peoples and thus to manage the military advance of the USA into these countries without many military actions, above all without military actions against Russia, in order to build up all the more weapons around the enemy completely undisturbed by Russia. This has worked. The USA secured this approach of the EU with its means of force against Russia, and when the countries were cashed in with this strategy, and the military harvest of the USA was reaped with the installation of its weapon systems directed at Russia, the economic harvest was allowed to be cashed in by the Europeans.

Nothing has changed in the contributions to this division of labour, how could it, given the means of power that the US has and the Europeans do not, and given who is in command in this orchestra.  

2. What did not work was to perfect the idea of peace, to force the enemy to stretch its weapons without war, to surround Russia with so many and such weapons with which Russia could be rendered defenseless. It was not the EU that turned the times with the war in Ukraine, but Russia, which, after its transformation into a capitalist state, discovered that interfering in the politics of the world of states was a task of its politics and therefore did not want to accept the monopoly claimed by the West for this interference in the world of states. Russia has then accomplished a turning point with the war in Ukraine, in that it has redefined its role as a world power, which it also wants to be in practice, by taking the step from tolerating the denial of its world power, which was accompanied by its permanent protest, to forcibly enforcing its acceptance with its war in Ukraine. This war is directed against Ukraine, but it is aimed at much more, namely the forcible enforcement of its recognition as a world power by those who consider their world power indivisible. 

3. Certainly, the ideal of any contestation of the power of the other state is that it should voluntarily surrender in the face of the adversary’s weapons. Russia has not done that, and now that Russia has accepted the power question with the war in Ukraine, Europe, having achieved its goal of using this war to challenge Russia’s world power position, can tick off its previous tour, its expansion of power at Russia’s expense as not directed against Russia, and openly admit its hostility to Russia. Even if this change in the EU’s self-portrayal from a nice neighbour that does not want to harm anyone with its increase in power at Russia’s expense to an avowed enemy and warrior against Russia’s insubordinate claims to world power has not changed the policy that has always practised this enmity, but with the avowal of enmity the portrayal of the EU’s policy towards Russia has actually changed, this is not a turning point in the goals of this policy, but something is changing with the proclamation of the EU as an avowed war party in the war with the world power Russia.

Political messages are not seminar wisdom, but practical politics. The first new political message is that the times in which war was presented by those who prepared this war as something that nobody wanted are in the past and that from now on war and the military necessary for it are no longer a necessity, but that war is the only right instrument for asserting political interests against other states and that the military necessary for it is no longer something that nobody wants to use, but that the military is the only means for it, which must therefore be of such a nature that it guarantees to decide wars for ones own state. With this ideological turning point towards a positive image of war and of the military, the entire ideological apparatus at the disposal of state politics is set in motion for this commitment to war as a decisive means of politics. In the current case of conflict, this means that the entire ideological keyboard is being reprogrammed for the ideological execution of hostility towards Russia. The population of the EU is pumped full of enemy images 24 hours a day from all channels of the media, their readiness for war is demanded and every question mark that anyone raises is branded as propaganda for the enemy and beaten down with bans up to and including punishment. All the details of the whole range of states in war mode, reproaching the other side for what it is doing, are known because they have been made part of everyday life. By means of the glorification of Ukraine’s war, above all the participation of Ukrainian citizens, enthusiastically called “Volkssturm” by the German Nazis and so far branded as a typical fascist war crime, the European citizen receives enlightenment about what kind of citizens his EU values after this turning point in time: people who, with their enthusiasm for war, a European “Volkssturm” giving their lives for their fatherlands and want to be revered as national heroes for it.

Prospects 1: 

The President of the USA has warned of a Third World War, according to the latest news. Remarkable prospects that the world power which put the cause of the Third World War on the agenda of world politics is worried about preventing the world from the Third World War, accompanied by speculations of all sorts of experts about any conditions under which the use of nuclear weapons might be inevitable –  addressed to the citizens of the EU.

Prospects 2: All these final conflicts of states for their power are carried out in wars between states, not by the political elites who instigate them, but by the citizens who, at their command, are then allowed to fight their wars at the sacrifice of their lives at the final climax of these conflicts between states – just as the citizens in Ukraine who are revered as heroes are already doing. In Europe, the USA as well as in Russia, it is part of war everywhere, in equal measure, to drive out from the citizens objections to the carrying out of conflicts over their power with all the means of domestic power and to make war propaganda the all-dominant topic of public debate – obviously not only since that turn of time with success, otherwise these conflicts would not have come to this finale and all states on both sides would have had to struggle with conflicts with their citizens over their citizen’s affairs instead of their conflicts over questions of world power, who have other concerns than war. They would not even have had time to prepare for their wars.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *