World
Eric Zuesse
September 11, 2021
© Photo: REUTERS Elias Marcou

If Europe wants stability, then why is it allied with the chief cause of its own refugee-influx, Eric Zuesse asks.

Why is there a refugee-influx into Europe from nations to the south and east that have been invaded by the U.S. and its allies? Is that question stupid? Is the correct answer to it, actually, obvious?

The nations that the U.S. Government targets for “regime-change” have governments that are friendly toward one or more of the three governments that the U.S. Government especially wants to be regime-changed (overthrown and replaced — conquered): Russia, China, and Iran. So, America sanctions, and tries subversion or coups against, or even outright invades, countries that are friendly toward Russia, China, and/or Iran. These various types of U.S. aggressions — in order to further isolate Russia, China, and/or Iran — are the chief cause that produced most refugees into Europe. These refugees are escaping civil wars and foreign invasions that were stirred or perpetrated by the U.S. and its allies. For the most part, the refugees came from countries which have good relations with Russia, China, and/or Iran — America’s main targets to conquer — and had been attacked by America and its allies for that reason.

What is the likelihood that Russia, China, or Iran — the three main targeted nations that the U.S. Government has (ever since 1945) been trying to first isolate, by removing the target-country’s allies, and, then grab and control — will actually, themselves, invade Europe? Is that likelihood near zero? (What would any of them gain by even trying to invade Europe? Would they likely be stupid enough to want to do it?) Then why does Europe participate in America’s aggressions (sanctions, coups, and invasions)? These are aggressions that create problems even within Europe itself.

If Europe wants stability, then why is it allied with the chief cause of its own refugee-influx?

Indeed, why are Europeans spending trillions of euros to arm, and to train, for war? Against what likely enemies? Are there any? Is this really just a scam, for the armament-manufacturing corporations and their owners — the people who profit from wars? Is it, in other words, a waste, if not being even a theft (by way of political corruption and lobbying) — a theft from the public, by the stockholders in those manufacturers of bombs and other weapons of (in the modern age) mass-destruction?

Is Europe now merely the sop for the many aggressions by the U.S. Government and its allies? Do we really want to continue to be allied with America’s coups, sanctions, and invasions? What good has any of these U.S.-and-allied aggressions actually done, for Europe?

Just to cite one example of this: anyone who doesn’t already know about “The American Invasion of Syria” should see that excellent and entirely accurate recent (September 2nd) 14-minute video summarizing this decade-long ongoing U.S. invasion and military occupation (about which I have written many articles, such as here).

The latest example of America’s creation of refugees, who will increasingly be seeking to come into the EU, is Lebanon.

It’s one target-nation after another. It just doesn’t stop. NATO’s arms-manufacturers need target-nations for their weapons, in order to be able to sell these products to their governments. Other than maybe nuclear weapons, regular bombs and missiles are made in order to be used — they need excuses in order for their governments to purchase and stockpile their products. Every invasion and military occupation needs excuses, because it has no honest reasons. (Defense has reasons; aggression has only excuses.) Excuses are essential in the war-business (the invasion-business). (That’s why imperialistic nations’ ‘news’-media are constantly providing excuses, instead of authentic explanations like this article is providing. Explanations are anathema to imperialisms, because imperialisms are always based on lies. Imperialisms need lies.)

Right after World War II, the U.S. Government created the Marshall Plan to provide U.S. funding for post-War reconstruction in anti-Soviet European countries, and to build them up so as to cause millions of people in Soviet-controlled European countries to want to move westward into the U.S.-dominated bloc. This turned out to have been one of the most effective tools that the U.S. Government used against the Soviet Union. And, of course, in the benefited countries, it produced enormous goodwill towards the United States Government. That goodwill wasn’t able to be much diminished by America’s coups in Latin America installing some of the 20th-Century’s most barbaric dictators, such as in Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and El Salvador. America’s invasion and occupation of Vietnam was, likewise, widely accepted, as if it were a necessity, which it wasn’t — but the propaganda for it was incessant; so, people thought that it was, somehow, necessary. (Propaganda works — and there was lots of it. For example, America’s National Public Radio, NPR, has even implied that the war in Syria was started by Russia, and they went so far as to publicize America’s OSCE’s scurrilous allegation that Russia bombs Syria in order to cause Syrian refugees to flow into Europe. But, actually, Russia’s forces came into Syria because Syria’s Government had requested them to, so as to help it overcome the U.S.-and-allied invasion.)

Whereas in WW II, Europe was at war against itself, because of the fascist imperialism of Germany under Hitler, how is NATO, today — after the 1991 end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact against America’s NATO military alliance — anything but a relic that serves the interests only of the stockholders in America’s and Europe’s armaments-manufacturers? Is this just a racket, for them?

On 10 November 2016, Deutsche Welle headlined “Juncker calls for an EU army: Jean-Claude Juncker has insisted on closer military and security cooperation between EU member states. The EU Commission president insists the need for an European army is irrespective of Trump’s election victory.” It reported: “‘We have a lot to thank the Americans for… but they won’t look after Europe’s security for ever,’ Juncker said. ‘We have to do this ourselves, which is why we need a new approach to building a European security union with the end goal of establishing a European army.’” (But has there actually been even one single instance when, after WW II, the U.S. Government did “look after Europe’s security,” except in America’s — and its EU’s and other U.S. vassal-nations’ — mere propaganda-claims and fantasies? When did the U.S. last defend Europe against an invasion? What invasion? But America has gotten some EU nations into plenty of America’s wars, against nations that accept the present governments of Russia, China, and Iran. Therefore, that clause by Juncker (“Americans … won’t look after Europe’s security for ever”) was sheer poppycock, from a U.S. stooge.)

The same idea, that Juncker was putting forth there, of a “European army,” had originally been proposed on 13 March 1996, by French Prime Minister Alain Juppé (subsequently convicted of corruption); and, now, after yet another major military failure by the U.S. (in Afghanistan), it’s bound to be heard more often, but it is just a fall-back way of evading, not of addressing, the central defense-related questions for Europe and for Europeans, which are: (1) Is there actually an enemy; (2) If so, then who; and (3) What is “we — is it only our country, or is it instead traditional Europe, or is it instead the EurAsian Continent — or, is it, instead, the U.N. and the transformation of it into the global federal government of independent states all under international law from and enforced by agencies (yet to be created) at and by the U.N.? My proposed answers to these three questions would be: (1) Yes; (2) America; and (3) short-term the EurAsian Continent, but long-term a reorganized U.N. (Such a reorganized U.N. would be a reorganization carrying-out FDR’s intention for the U.N. when he came up with the name for the “United Nations” on 28 April 1942, and when the “United Nations” formally adopted that name at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in the Fall of 1944, but before Harry S. Truman became U.S. President on 12 April 1945 and quickly ditched FDR’s plan that the U.N. become the global federal Government over all international relations, which global international Government would possess the juridical and military means to enforce its international laws. In other words: this reorganized U.N. would be FDR’s U.N., instead of  the one that exists today, which is Truman’s U.N. — which Truman’s Administration designed so as to allow continuation of imperialisms, barely better than Wilson’s League of Nations was, which FDR considered to have been a failure. FDR had been designing a U.N. that would outlaw any and all empires.)

Ever since that proclamation from the appointed — not democratically elected — chief executive officer (Juncker) of the U.S.-Government-created-and-controlled anti-Soviet and now anti-Russian European Union, the ‘debate’ in Europe about ‘defense’-spending, has instead focused on whether to boost America’s NATO or else to create some new (NATO-affiliated) “European army”; but, all the while, the fake assumption has been accepted as real, that Europeans are being threatened not by America, but instead by Russia, and/or by China, and/or by Iran (the three countries that post-WW-II America has been aiming to conquer).This misconception is very convenient for America’s billionaires, who own controlling interests in their firms such as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, which basically depend upon governments and their decisions and their ‘defense’-policies and spending.

America’s three main targeted countries — Russia, China, and Iran — have basically socialized their military manufacturers, instead of allowed them to become controlled by private investors and motivated by profits (such as in NATO countries). Unlike in the U.S. and its allied countries, those countries control their armaments-makers, instead of being controlled by their armaments-makers (such as in The West). For as long as Europe allies itself with America, instead of with countries — especially including Russia, China, and Iran — whose armaments-firms are controlled not by any private investors, but instead by those respective Governments, and not motivated by profits, but by each of those Governments’ authentic needs for its own effective self-defense, Europe will continue to be the sop for the many aggressions (including sanctions, etc.) by the U.S. Government and its allies, and will continue to draw refugees from countries that America (and its allies) attack. That can’t be a good future for Europeans.

The 21st Century is undergoing a switchover away from “the American Century” just past, now into the EurAsian Century, and Europeans will therefore be a part, of either the EurAsian rise, or else of the continuing American decline. Europeans are now in the driver’s seat, toward a marvelous future, or else toward a disastrous one (for Europe). Europeans will be the peoples who will mainly be making these choices, for the entire world. Europeans will decide which way the world will go — toward more of “forever war,” or else toward peace.

Certainly, the present EU must be replaced, and NATO must end. Europeans must be freed from their chains to their enemy, so that Europe can improve, instead of decline. Continued alliance with what has now long (especially after the Soviet Union’s 1991 break-up and end) been actually Europe’s chief (if not only) real enemy, is no constructive way forward, for anyone except America’s billionaires.

NOTE: “Europe” here has been referring to all of Europe except Europe’s largest country, which is Russia. According to even the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia, in its article “European Russia”, “European Russia is home to 80% or 4/5th of Russia’s total population. It covers an area of over 3,995,200 square kilometres (1,542,600 sq mi), with a population of 113 million — making Russia the largest and most populous country in Europe.” (It has by far the largest land-area of any country in the entire world.) The total land-area of Russia is 6,599,921 square miles, so that 77% of Russia is in Asia. Anyway, the total land-area of Europe is 3,931,000 square miles, so that the non-Russian part of Europe is 61% of Europe. (Russia is 39% of Europe.) Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe, at 232,951 square miles, which is 15% as large as is European Russia. All of non-Russian Europe is 2,388,400 square miles (1.55 times the size of European Russia); so, all of Russia is 2.76 times as large as is all of non-Russian Europe. (This is why one of Hitler’s two objectives — the other being to exterminate all Jews — was to enslave all Slavs and use Russia’s vast sparsely populated territory as “Lebensraum” for “Aryans” to occupy and reproduce-in so as to become sent out and take over the entire planet.) Consequently, for the EU not to include Russia is for the EU to be blatantly a vassal-nation, or collection of vassal-nations (such as Jean-Claude Juncker represented), in America’s empire. The EU is a U.S.-created stooge operation, which must be replaced, if there is to be any realistic hope for Europeans, in the future. Russia is more of Europe than is any other country; so, for the EU to exclude it is scandalous and based only on American-sponsored lies.

Please pass this information along to everyone you know.

America Is Europe’s Enemy

If Europe wants stability, then why is it allied with the chief cause of its own refugee-influx, Eric Zuesse asks.

Why is there a refugee-influx into Europe from nations to the south and east that have been invaded by the U.S. and its allies? Is that question stupid? Is the correct answer to it, actually, obvious?

The nations that the U.S. Government targets for “regime-change” have governments that are friendly toward one or more of the three governments that the U.S. Government especially wants to be regime-changed (overthrown and replaced — conquered): Russia, China, and Iran. So, America sanctions, and tries subversion or coups against, or even outright invades, countries that are friendly toward Russia, China, and/or Iran. These various types of U.S. aggressions — in order to further isolate Russia, China, and/or Iran — are the chief cause that produced most refugees into Europe. These refugees are escaping civil wars and foreign invasions that were stirred or perpetrated by the U.S. and its allies. For the most part, the refugees came from countries which have good relations with Russia, China, and/or Iran — America’s main targets to conquer — and had been attacked by America and its allies for that reason.

What is the likelihood that Russia, China, or Iran — the three main targeted nations that the U.S. Government has (ever since 1945) been trying to first isolate, by removing the target-country’s allies, and, then grab and control — will actually, themselves, invade Europe? Is that likelihood near zero? (What would any of them gain by even trying to invade Europe? Would they likely be stupid enough to want to do it?) Then why does Europe participate in America’s aggressions (sanctions, coups, and invasions)? These are aggressions that create problems even within Europe itself.

If Europe wants stability, then why is it allied with the chief cause of its own refugee-influx?

Indeed, why are Europeans spending trillions of euros to arm, and to train, for war? Against what likely enemies? Are there any? Is this really just a scam, for the armament-manufacturing corporations and their owners — the people who profit from wars? Is it, in other words, a waste, if not being even a theft (by way of political corruption and lobbying) — a theft from the public, by the stockholders in those manufacturers of bombs and other weapons of (in the modern age) mass-destruction?

Is Europe now merely the sop for the many aggressions by the U.S. Government and its allies? Do we really want to continue to be allied with America’s coups, sanctions, and invasions? What good has any of these U.S.-and-allied aggressions actually done, for Europe?

Just to cite one example of this: anyone who doesn’t already know about “The American Invasion of Syria” should see that excellent and entirely accurate recent (September 2nd) 14-minute video summarizing this decade-long ongoing U.S. invasion and military occupation (about which I have written many articles, such as here).

The latest example of America’s creation of refugees, who will increasingly be seeking to come into the EU, is Lebanon.

It’s one target-nation after another. It just doesn’t stop. NATO’s arms-manufacturers need target-nations for their weapons, in order to be able to sell these products to their governments. Other than maybe nuclear weapons, regular bombs and missiles are made in order to be used — they need excuses in order for their governments to purchase and stockpile their products. Every invasion and military occupation needs excuses, because it has no honest reasons. (Defense has reasons; aggression has only excuses.) Excuses are essential in the war-business (the invasion-business). (That’s why imperialistic nations’ ‘news’-media are constantly providing excuses, instead of authentic explanations like this article is providing. Explanations are anathema to imperialisms, because imperialisms are always based on lies. Imperialisms need lies.)

Right after World War II, the U.S. Government created the Marshall Plan to provide U.S. funding for post-War reconstruction in anti-Soviet European countries, and to build them up so as to cause millions of people in Soviet-controlled European countries to want to move westward into the U.S.-dominated bloc. This turned out to have been one of the most effective tools that the U.S. Government used against the Soviet Union. And, of course, in the benefited countries, it produced enormous goodwill towards the United States Government. That goodwill wasn’t able to be much diminished by America’s coups in Latin America installing some of the 20th-Century’s most barbaric dictators, such as in Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and El Salvador. America’s invasion and occupation of Vietnam was, likewise, widely accepted, as if it were a necessity, which it wasn’t — but the propaganda for it was incessant; so, people thought that it was, somehow, necessary. (Propaganda works — and there was lots of it. For example, America’s National Public Radio, NPR, has even implied that the war in Syria was started by Russia, and they went so far as to publicize America’s OSCE’s scurrilous allegation that Russia bombs Syria in order to cause Syrian refugees to flow into Europe. But, actually, Russia’s forces came into Syria because Syria’s Government had requested them to, so as to help it overcome the U.S.-and-allied invasion.)

Whereas in WW II, Europe was at war against itself, because of the fascist imperialism of Germany under Hitler, how is NATO, today — after the 1991 end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact against America’s NATO military alliance — anything but a relic that serves the interests only of the stockholders in America’s and Europe’s armaments-manufacturers? Is this just a racket, for them?

On 10 November 2016, Deutsche Welle headlined “Juncker calls for an EU army: Jean-Claude Juncker has insisted on closer military and security cooperation between EU member states. The EU Commission president insists the need for an European army is irrespective of Trump’s election victory.” It reported: “‘We have a lot to thank the Americans for… but they won’t look after Europe’s security for ever,’ Juncker said. ‘We have to do this ourselves, which is why we need a new approach to building a European security union with the end goal of establishing a European army.’” (But has there actually been even one single instance when, after WW II, the U.S. Government did “look after Europe’s security,” except in America’s — and its EU’s and other U.S. vassal-nations’ — mere propaganda-claims and fantasies? When did the U.S. last defend Europe against an invasion? What invasion? But America has gotten some EU nations into plenty of America’s wars, against nations that accept the present governments of Russia, China, and Iran. Therefore, that clause by Juncker (“Americans … won’t look after Europe’s security for ever”) was sheer poppycock, from a U.S. stooge.)

The same idea, that Juncker was putting forth there, of a “European army,” had originally been proposed on 13 March 1996, by French Prime Minister Alain Juppé (subsequently convicted of corruption); and, now, after yet another major military failure by the U.S. (in Afghanistan), it’s bound to be heard more often, but it is just a fall-back way of evading, not of addressing, the central defense-related questions for Europe and for Europeans, which are: (1) Is there actually an enemy; (2) If so, then who; and (3) What is “we — is it only our country, or is it instead traditional Europe, or is it instead the EurAsian Continent — or, is it, instead, the U.N. and the transformation of it into the global federal government of independent states all under international law from and enforced by agencies (yet to be created) at and by the U.N.? My proposed answers to these three questions would be: (1) Yes; (2) America; and (3) short-term the EurAsian Continent, but long-term a reorganized U.N. (Such a reorganized U.N. would be a reorganization carrying-out FDR’s intention for the U.N. when he came up with the name for the “United Nations” on 28 April 1942, and when the “United Nations” formally adopted that name at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in the Fall of 1944, but before Harry S. Truman became U.S. President on 12 April 1945 and quickly ditched FDR’s plan that the U.N. become the global federal Government over all international relations, which global international Government would possess the juridical and military means to enforce its international laws. In other words: this reorganized U.N. would be FDR’s U.N., instead of  the one that exists today, which is Truman’s U.N. — which Truman’s Administration designed so as to allow continuation of imperialisms, barely better than Wilson’s League of Nations was, which FDR considered to have been a failure. FDR had been designing a U.N. that would outlaw any and all empires.)

Ever since that proclamation from the appointed — not democratically elected — chief executive officer (Juncker) of the U.S.-Government-created-and-controlled anti-Soviet and now anti-Russian European Union, the ‘debate’ in Europe about ‘defense’-spending, has instead focused on whether to boost America’s NATO or else to create some new (NATO-affiliated) “European army”; but, all the while, the fake assumption has been accepted as real, that Europeans are being threatened not by America, but instead by Russia, and/or by China, and/or by Iran (the three countries that post-WW-II America has been aiming to conquer).This misconception is very convenient for America’s billionaires, who own controlling interests in their firms such as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, which basically depend upon governments and their decisions and their ‘defense’-policies and spending.

America’s three main targeted countries — Russia, China, and Iran — have basically socialized their military manufacturers, instead of allowed them to become controlled by private investors and motivated by profits (such as in NATO countries). Unlike in the U.S. and its allied countries, those countries control their armaments-makers, instead of being controlled by their armaments-makers (such as in The West). For as long as Europe allies itself with America, instead of with countries — especially including Russia, China, and Iran — whose armaments-firms are controlled not by any private investors, but instead by those respective Governments, and not motivated by profits, but by each of those Governments’ authentic needs for its own effective self-defense, Europe will continue to be the sop for the many aggressions (including sanctions, etc.) by the U.S. Government and its allies, and will continue to draw refugees from countries that America (and its allies) attack. That can’t be a good future for Europeans.

The 21st Century is undergoing a switchover away from “the American Century” just past, now into the EurAsian Century, and Europeans will therefore be a part, of either the EurAsian rise, or else of the continuing American decline. Europeans are now in the driver’s seat, toward a marvelous future, or else toward a disastrous one (for Europe). Europeans will be the peoples who will mainly be making these choices, for the entire world. Europeans will decide which way the world will go — toward more of “forever war,” or else toward peace.

Certainly, the present EU must be replaced, and NATO must end. Europeans must be freed from their chains to their enemy, so that Europe can improve, instead of decline. Continued alliance with what has now long (especially after the Soviet Union’s 1991 break-up and end) been actually Europe’s chief (if not only) real enemy, is no constructive way forward, for anyone except America’s billionaires.

NOTE: “Europe” here has been referring to all of Europe except Europe’s largest country, which is Russia. According to even the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia, in its article “European Russia”, “European Russia is home to 80% or 4/5th of Russia’s total population. It covers an area of over 3,995,200 square kilometres (1,542,600 sq mi), with a population of 113 million — making Russia the largest and most populous country in Europe.” (It has by far the largest land-area of any country in the entire world.) The total land-area of Russia is 6,599,921 square miles, so that 77% of Russia is in Asia. Anyway, the total land-area of Europe is 3,931,000 square miles, so that the non-Russian part of Europe is 61% of Europe. (Russia is 39% of Europe.) Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe, at 232,951 square miles, which is 15% as large as is European Russia. All of non-Russian Europe is 2,388,400 square miles (1.55 times the size of European Russia); so, all of Russia is 2.76 times as large as is all of non-Russian Europe. (This is why one of Hitler’s two objectives — the other being to exterminate all Jews — was to enslave all Slavs and use Russia’s vast sparsely populated territory as “Lebensraum” for “Aryans” to occupy and reproduce-in so as to become sent out and take over the entire planet.) Consequently, for the EU not to include Russia is for the EU to be blatantly a vassal-nation, or collection of vassal-nations (such as Jean-Claude Juncker represented), in America’s empire. The EU is a U.S.-created stooge operation, which must be replaced, if there is to be any realistic hope for Europeans, in the future. Russia is more of Europe than is any other country; so, for the EU to exclude it is scandalous and based only on American-sponsored lies.

Please pass this information along to everyone you know.

If Europe wants stability, then why is it allied with the chief cause of its own refugee-influx, Eric Zuesse asks.

Why is there a refugee-influx into Europe from nations to the south and east that have been invaded by the U.S. and its allies? Is that question stupid? Is the correct answer to it, actually, obvious?

The nations that the U.S. Government targets for “regime-change” have governments that are friendly toward one or more of the three governments that the U.S. Government especially wants to be regime-changed (overthrown and replaced — conquered): Russia, China, and Iran. So, America sanctions, and tries subversion or coups against, or even outright invades, countries that are friendly toward Russia, China, and/or Iran. These various types of U.S. aggressions — in order to further isolate Russia, China, and/or Iran — are the chief cause that produced most refugees into Europe. These refugees are escaping civil wars and foreign invasions that were stirred or perpetrated by the U.S. and its allies. For the most part, the refugees came from countries which have good relations with Russia, China, and/or Iran — America’s main targets to conquer — and had been attacked by America and its allies for that reason.

What is the likelihood that Russia, China, or Iran — the three main targeted nations that the U.S. Government has (ever since 1945) been trying to first isolate, by removing the target-country’s allies, and, then grab and control — will actually, themselves, invade Europe? Is that likelihood near zero? (What would any of them gain by even trying to invade Europe? Would they likely be stupid enough to want to do it?) Then why does Europe participate in America’s aggressions (sanctions, coups, and invasions)? These are aggressions that create problems even within Europe itself.

If Europe wants stability, then why is it allied with the chief cause of its own refugee-influx?

Indeed, why are Europeans spending trillions of euros to arm, and to train, for war? Against what likely enemies? Are there any? Is this really just a scam, for the armament-manufacturing corporations and their owners — the people who profit from wars? Is it, in other words, a waste, if not being even a theft (by way of political corruption and lobbying) — a theft from the public, by the stockholders in those manufacturers of bombs and other weapons of (in the modern age) mass-destruction?

Is Europe now merely the sop for the many aggressions by the U.S. Government and its allies? Do we really want to continue to be allied with America’s coups, sanctions, and invasions? What good has any of these U.S.-and-allied aggressions actually done, for Europe?

Just to cite one example of this: anyone who doesn’t already know about “The American Invasion of Syria” should see that excellent and entirely accurate recent (September 2nd) 14-minute video summarizing this decade-long ongoing U.S. invasion and military occupation (about which I have written many articles, such as here).

The latest example of America’s creation of refugees, who will increasingly be seeking to come into the EU, is Lebanon.

It’s one target-nation after another. It just doesn’t stop. NATO’s arms-manufacturers need target-nations for their weapons, in order to be able to sell these products to their governments. Other than maybe nuclear weapons, regular bombs and missiles are made in order to be used — they need excuses in order for their governments to purchase and stockpile their products. Every invasion and military occupation needs excuses, because it has no honest reasons. (Defense has reasons; aggression has only excuses.) Excuses are essential in the war-business (the invasion-business). (That’s why imperialistic nations’ ‘news’-media are constantly providing excuses, instead of authentic explanations like this article is providing. Explanations are anathema to imperialisms, because imperialisms are always based on lies. Imperialisms need lies.)

Right after World War II, the U.S. Government created the Marshall Plan to provide U.S. funding for post-War reconstruction in anti-Soviet European countries, and to build them up so as to cause millions of people in Soviet-controlled European countries to want to move westward into the U.S.-dominated bloc. This turned out to have been one of the most effective tools that the U.S. Government used against the Soviet Union. And, of course, in the benefited countries, it produced enormous goodwill towards the United States Government. That goodwill wasn’t able to be much diminished by America’s coups in Latin America installing some of the 20th-Century’s most barbaric dictators, such as in Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and El Salvador. America’s invasion and occupation of Vietnam was, likewise, widely accepted, as if it were a necessity, which it wasn’t — but the propaganda for it was incessant; so, people thought that it was, somehow, necessary. (Propaganda works — and there was lots of it. For example, America’s National Public Radio, NPR, has even implied that the war in Syria was started by Russia, and they went so far as to publicize America’s OSCE’s scurrilous allegation that Russia bombs Syria in order to cause Syrian refugees to flow into Europe. But, actually, Russia’s forces came into Syria because Syria’s Government had requested them to, so as to help it overcome the U.S.-and-allied invasion.)

Whereas in WW II, Europe was at war against itself, because of the fascist imperialism of Germany under Hitler, how is NATO, today — after the 1991 end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact against America’s NATO military alliance — anything but a relic that serves the interests only of the stockholders in America’s and Europe’s armaments-manufacturers? Is this just a racket, for them?

On 10 November 2016, Deutsche Welle headlined “Juncker calls for an EU army: Jean-Claude Juncker has insisted on closer military and security cooperation between EU member states. The EU Commission president insists the need for an European army is irrespective of Trump’s election victory.” It reported: “‘We have a lot to thank the Americans for… but they won’t look after Europe’s security for ever,’ Juncker said. ‘We have to do this ourselves, which is why we need a new approach to building a European security union with the end goal of establishing a European army.’” (But has there actually been even one single instance when, after WW II, the U.S. Government did “look after Europe’s security,” except in America’s — and its EU’s and other U.S. vassal-nations’ — mere propaganda-claims and fantasies? When did the U.S. last defend Europe against an invasion? What invasion? But America has gotten some EU nations into plenty of America’s wars, against nations that accept the present governments of Russia, China, and Iran. Therefore, that clause by Juncker (“Americans … won’t look after Europe’s security for ever”) was sheer poppycock, from a U.S. stooge.)

The same idea, that Juncker was putting forth there, of a “European army,” had originally been proposed on 13 March 1996, by French Prime Minister Alain Juppé (subsequently convicted of corruption); and, now, after yet another major military failure by the U.S. (in Afghanistan), it’s bound to be heard more often, but it is just a fall-back way of evading, not of addressing, the central defense-related questions for Europe and for Europeans, which are: (1) Is there actually an enemy; (2) If so, then who; and (3) What is “we — is it only our country, or is it instead traditional Europe, or is it instead the EurAsian Continent — or, is it, instead, the U.N. and the transformation of it into the global federal government of independent states all under international law from and enforced by agencies (yet to be created) at and by the U.N.? My proposed answers to these three questions would be: (1) Yes; (2) America; and (3) short-term the EurAsian Continent, but long-term a reorganized U.N. (Such a reorganized U.N. would be a reorganization carrying-out FDR’s intention for the U.N. when he came up with the name for the “United Nations” on 28 April 1942, and when the “United Nations” formally adopted that name at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in the Fall of 1944, but before Harry S. Truman became U.S. President on 12 April 1945 and quickly ditched FDR’s plan that the U.N. become the global federal Government over all international relations, which global international Government would possess the juridical and military means to enforce its international laws. In other words: this reorganized U.N. would be FDR’s U.N., instead of  the one that exists today, which is Truman’s U.N. — which Truman’s Administration designed so as to allow continuation of imperialisms, barely better than Wilson’s League of Nations was, which FDR considered to have been a failure. FDR had been designing a U.N. that would outlaw any and all empires.)

Ever since that proclamation from the appointed — not democratically elected — chief executive officer (Juncker) of the U.S.-Government-created-and-controlled anti-Soviet and now anti-Russian European Union, the ‘debate’ in Europe about ‘defense’-spending, has instead focused on whether to boost America’s NATO or else to create some new (NATO-affiliated) “European army”; but, all the while, the fake assumption has been accepted as real, that Europeans are being threatened not by America, but instead by Russia, and/or by China, and/or by Iran (the three countries that post-WW-II America has been aiming to conquer).This misconception is very convenient for America’s billionaires, who own controlling interests in their firms such as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, which basically depend upon governments and their decisions and their ‘defense’-policies and spending.

America’s three main targeted countries — Russia, China, and Iran — have basically socialized their military manufacturers, instead of allowed them to become controlled by private investors and motivated by profits (such as in NATO countries). Unlike in the U.S. and its allied countries, those countries control their armaments-makers, instead of being controlled by their armaments-makers (such as in The West). For as long as Europe allies itself with America, instead of with countries — especially including Russia, China, and Iran — whose armaments-firms are controlled not by any private investors, but instead by those respective Governments, and not motivated by profits, but by each of those Governments’ authentic needs for its own effective self-defense, Europe will continue to be the sop for the many aggressions (including sanctions, etc.) by the U.S. Government and its allies, and will continue to draw refugees from countries that America (and its allies) attack. That can’t be a good future for Europeans.

The 21st Century is undergoing a switchover away from “the American Century” just past, now into the EurAsian Century, and Europeans will therefore be a part, of either the EurAsian rise, or else of the continuing American decline. Europeans are now in the driver’s seat, toward a marvelous future, or else toward a disastrous one (for Europe). Europeans will be the peoples who will mainly be making these choices, for the entire world. Europeans will decide which way the world will go — toward more of “forever war,” or else toward peace.

Certainly, the present EU must be replaced, and NATO must end. Europeans must be freed from their chains to their enemy, so that Europe can improve, instead of decline. Continued alliance with what has now long (especially after the Soviet Union’s 1991 break-up and end) been actually Europe’s chief (if not only) real enemy, is no constructive way forward, for anyone except America’s billionaires.

NOTE: “Europe” here has been referring to all of Europe except Europe’s largest country, which is Russia. According to even the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia, in its article “European Russia”, “European Russia is home to 80% or 4/5th of Russia’s total population. It covers an area of over 3,995,200 square kilometres (1,542,600 sq mi), with a population of 113 million — making Russia the largest and most populous country in Europe.” (It has by far the largest land-area of any country in the entire world.) The total land-area of Russia is 6,599,921 square miles, so that 77% of Russia is in Asia. Anyway, the total land-area of Europe is 3,931,000 square miles, so that the non-Russian part of Europe is 61% of Europe. (Russia is 39% of Europe.) Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe, at 232,951 square miles, which is 15% as large as is European Russia. All of non-Russian Europe is 2,388,400 square miles (1.55 times the size of European Russia); so, all of Russia is 2.76 times as large as is all of non-Russian Europe. (This is why one of Hitler’s two objectives — the other being to exterminate all Jews — was to enslave all Slavs and use Russia’s vast sparsely populated territory as “Lebensraum” for “Aryans” to occupy and reproduce-in so as to become sent out and take over the entire planet.) Consequently, for the EU not to include Russia is for the EU to be blatantly a vassal-nation, or collection of vassal-nations (such as Jean-Claude Juncker represented), in America’s empire. The EU is a U.S.-created stooge operation, which must be replaced, if there is to be any realistic hope for Europeans, in the future. Russia is more of Europe than is any other country; so, for the EU to exclude it is scandalous and based only on American-sponsored lies.

Please pass this information along to everyone you know.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

See also

September 25, 2021

See also

September 25, 2021
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.