January
24, 2020
The
US Government, which had lied its way into invading
and destroying Iraq in 2003 (with a
little help from UK and Europeans), wants Europeans to pitch-in for more US-run
invasions. Europeans find this disturbing, but not repulsive enough to say,
flat-out, “No!” to it. However, only that “No!” can stop the
onrush toward a massive US war against both Iran and
Iraq, which would spread ultimately into a global nuclear war between US and
Russia.
On
January 6th, Barbara Wessel, a columnist for Germany’s Deutsche Welle (DW),
headlined a common European sentiment: “Trump has
Europeans caught in a trap: Europe is suffering under the way Donald
Trump makes political decisions on the fly. The only option left is to appeal
to Iran’s interest in self-preservation”. But Iranians can’t
stop the sanctions against itself, and can’t stop Trump’s other outrageous
aggressions. Wessel’s false underlying assumption was that Europe must lecture
Iranians. That’s like lecturing to Jews during WWII: “The only option left is
to appeal to Jews’ interest in self-preservation.” Victims already do
everything they can to stop their being victimized; they cannot stop the
victimizer from victimizing them. They don’t cause it. Europe must, at last,
say “No!” to US, the tyrant over the entire world — Bolivia, Venezuela, Syria,
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and more. Wessel, however, understood, at least, that
the dangerousness actually comes far more from the US, than it does from Iran.
So, she recognized that her thinking on this whole matter was confused. She
stated:
Any
illusions about the possibility of an even partially rational cooperation on
foreign policy with the government in Washington have long been shattered.
Cynical remarks by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who accuses the Europeans
of not giving enough support in the Middle East, underline their helplessness.
… Even experienced observers of US Middle East policy have been unable to
explain how this [Trump’s “bring American soldiers home”] fits in with the
strike against Soleimani. … Europeans find themselves in the trap of a kind of
US foreign policy that is marked by the emotional eruptions of an unpredictable
president and his power-drunk neocon supporters. … Basically, their [the
US Government’s] only explanation for killing Soleimani is: “Because we
can.” … Granted, Europe looks weak and helpless when, in joint statements,
Europeans call for de-escalation after their presumed partner, the US, has just
done everything it can to escalate the situation. … The new year will quickly
show how strong the current tendency to suicide is among all those involved. …
Germany,
France, Italy, Spain and all the rest of Europe, actually belong with all the
rest of the Eurasian Continent, rather than with the formerly democratic but
now fascist United States across the Atlantic Ocean. A federal Eurasia,
composed of free and independent states within a wider United States of
Eurasia, would have 4.618 billion population, almost half of the entire world,
and wealth to match that, and economic growth which far exceeds that of what
will then be left of the US-and-its-allied-countries: UK, Saudi Arabia, and
Israel. All other nations would ally either with Eurasia or with that US group
— American and those three core allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, and UK). NATO is
America’s aggressive alliance, which routinely invades countries that pose no
threat to either US or Europe (such as Iraq). America’s plan for NATO is to
expand it worldwide, so that the US will automatically have European allies for
invasions in places such as
Latin America. NATO needs to be replaced by a united Eurasian
defense force, which will be able to counterbalance, within its sphere, the
world’s largest military. The US has around 1,000 military bases, of which around 300 are inside US Though
officially the US spends 37% of the global military budget, it actually
spends around half of
all global military expenditures, but hides around one-third of its annual
military spending by listing those costs in other federal Departments, such as
the US Treasury Department, so as not to seem as militaristic as the US
Government actually is. It’s actually a global empire — the largest that the
world has ever known. Europe is, and can only be, vassals in that empire. The
alternative requires new thinking, and is not to spend more money on the
military, but to recognize that when Russia ended the Cold War in 1991, the
war secretly continued, and still does continue, on
the US side — and Russia and China recognize that this is
America’s intention. Europe must stop the Cold War, because only Europe can do
that.
Barbara
Wessel’s commentary presumes, instead, that Europe’s leaders have no ability to
say no to the US That presumed passivity is only bad habit, inherited from a
Europe which was wrecked by WWII. That’s no longer the reality today. Instead,
Europe, joined with Asia, will be the global superpower that can finally end
America’s endless wars —simply by not joining them. Eurasia will be the
world’s dominant power, if Europeans want a future that is better than the
past, instead of catastrophic. Either way, the future won’t be much like the
past. Europe needs to wake up now, from its vassalage since WWII ended. Simply
continuing that would produce a horrible future.
Another
DW columnist on January 6th, Konstantin Eggert, headlined “Opinion:
Putin’s power games may get out of hand”, and he was even more
supportive of Germany’s vassalage to the US regime. He presented a strong case
that by murdering Soleimani, Trump had pulled the trump card in the
US-v.-Russia game by eliminating the key person upon whom Putin had been
relying in order to transfer dominance in the Middle East away from US and
toward, instead, Russia. Soleimani was that key individual for Putin’s success
in this. “According to sources in Moscow, Putin knew Soleimani very well: He
played a key role in creating the Russian-Iranian alliance that saved Bashar
al-Assad’s regime in Syria from what seemed in 2015 an imminent demise.” With
Soleimani now gone, Eggert predicted that regardless of what Iraq’s Government
might want, the US would refuse to terminate its occupation of that country,
and Iran would be in a much weaker position than before. He said that “Putin
has every reason to wish the Iranians backed off from confrontation with the
United States,” so as for Russia to avoid being drawn into World War III.
“Putin’s best chance to avoid this drama is to play peacemaker — not alone but in
the company of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Turkey’s Erdogan, who are
rushing to meet him in the coming two days. Berlin and Ankara do not want to
see the Middle East explode and will be asking Putin to use his close ties in
Tehran to hatch a deal and fend off confrontation.” In this sense, the missile
that hit Soleimani on January 3rd hit not only Iraq and Iran but EU and Turkey.
Eggert therefore advises America’s vassals to remain America’s vassals because
Russia now is trapped and Putin might not fold his hand and might not simply
let Iran become ultimately swallowed-up — Merkel etc. should urge Putin to fold
his hand, is the implication here. Eggert’s implication is that, in the final
analysis, might makes right, and that therefore any resistance against it (for
example, if Putin continues to resist) would only be harmful. Or, as he puts
it: “With the Iranian regime massively undermined or destroyed, Moscow’s
position in the Middle East and Vladimir Putin’s personal prestige as the
world’s topmost authority on stopping ‘regime change’ and someone who never
leaves allies in the lurch, will be badly hit and revealed as much weaker than
it seems.” Eggert sees Trump’s assassination of Soleimani as, in effect, a
master-stroke, which has severely weakened Putin. Of course, if Europe’s
leaders will act this way, then Eggert’s might-makes-right view will be
vindicated, by them.
Europe
is the US regime’s indispensable ally. If EU breaks away from US and joins with
the rest of the Eurasian continent instead, at least the possibility will
exist for avoiding a hellish future of continued and accelerating vassalage to
the US regime for the entire world. Passivity and might-makes-right slants such
as “Putin’s power games may get out of hand” (instead of “America’s
assassination of Soleimani places entire world in danger”) are choices — not inevitable
— and Europeans will ultimately be the individuals who will be making the
choices here. Europeans will decide whether the US is the world’s enemy; or,
instead, whether Russia, China, Iran, and, really, all the rest of Asia, will
be treated as if they were that (like the US regime wants). Ganging-up against
the victims — if that is to be the European response — would be a choice, not an
inevitability (such as DW implies). It will be up to Europeans
whether to order all US troops to leave, and to tariff all imports from
America, and to sanction and boycott US brands and increasingly replace them
with Eurasian ones instead. Trump can be trumped, but only Europe has the clout
to do it. The future will be decided by Europeans. The voices of passivity,
such as DW, are doing the bidding of Europeans’ enemy — not of
the entire world’s future: a Eurasian-led world.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.