“New Europe” versus “Old Europe” – The end of the illusion and the danger of a war

10:12 03.07.2023 •

The war in Ukraine divides Europeans more than unites them, thinks Riva Danielle, observer for ‘Defend Democracy Press’. The boundless and uncritical commitment of their leaders side by side with Ukraine and the "American friend" will be a heavy burden to influence the future of the emerging new military-political empire: the "New Europe". It is now known for certain that the EU, old or new, has officially fallen into the hands of NATO and Washington.

Biden offered this “new Europe” to Zelensky, who immediately defended it. The principle of the "New Europe" is to oppose this "Old Europe", dear de Villepin, then Foreign Minister, who refused to drag France into the American war against Iraq. The Yankees never digested this, and since then France has become in their eyes an "unreliable ally" that must be neutralized.

It does not matter, the White House has new allies, less fastidious in the principles of peace, completely loyal and rather vengeful to Russia, countries that joined NATO and the EU after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and under the influence of the United States: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia…

Old Europe thought it had made peace long ago, a peace wrested from Nazi Germany ‘thanks to the British, the Americans’, and ‘also’ the Soviets with their more than 25 million dead (soldiers and civilians). It was rebuilt during the "30 Glorious Years" (1990-2020) with the end of the colonial wars, an economy integrated with the euro, and more or less overcoming several economic and financial crises.

Today, the "Old Europe" of the West faces deep divisions on the issue of international relations, relations with the United States and Russia, with the world in general and the war in Ukraine in particular, which overturns the situation and its projects.

The EU had big plans. EU wanted, for example, to become an independent world economic and military power on a par with the United States, China and Russia. The French and Germans planned to create a European army, this old French project that eventually convinced Merkel of the usefulness of "strategic sovereignty".

The newcomers from the East did not think so, the Poles were in the lead, immediately placing themselves under the umbrella of NATO and the Pentagon.

Today, Germany itself is enamored with nuclear-capable American F-35 fighter jets and is committing $100 billion to upgrade its military. Remilitarized Germany? Who cares? But what bad memories!

Macron's France has tried some gestures of verbal independence – "we must maintain relations with Putin", "renounce close ties with the United States", "reconsider dialogue with China" and "find a new formula for an enlarged EU" – was immediately denounced by the Americans and forced to ‘join the ranks’, neutralized. What then is the point of its nuclear armament if it does not ensure its military independence?

In short, most European governments agree to war and refuse to consult with their peoples whether or not to participate in this war. Transatlantic solidarity, loyalty to NATO are becoming an insurmountable horizon that has been imposed on the entire EU.

The so-called "New Europeans" of the "East" have a completely different recent history. If in the West the Soviet intervention is praised as a liberation from Nazi occupation, then in "Eastern Europe" the situation is assessed differently.

After the invasion of Nazi Germany, which was generally hailed as a liberator from the Russian yoke, most of these countries, such as the Baltic countries or Ukraine, cooperated and actively participated in the slaughter of Jews (especially Ukraine, the Holocaust with bullets) and the hunting of communist or nationalist Resistance fighters. Ukraine, for its part, thanks to the collaborator Bandera, who has always been hailed as a hero, received from Hitler an ephemeral republic in 1941, which quickly resubmitted to Nazi domination.

Be that as it may, in these countries the arrival of the Soviets was perceived not as a liberation, but as an occupation.

When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the “eastern” countries formed the Visegrad group (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary). They joined NATO and the EU as such in 1999, the Americans kept them waiting, fearing the reaction of the Russians.

They were followed by a “Bucharest group of 9”. That is, the “Visegradskaya group”, plus Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, created in 2014 at the initiative of Poland and Romania to "support joint security projects", that is, fearing the EU's capacity to protect them and, therefore , went over to the side of a more secure NATO. This group is less known to the European public, but plays a very important role in the play of direct relations between these countries, NATO and the US, over the head of the EU.

Poland, dubbed the "51st state of the United States", has established itself as a leader in political dissent against European institutions and all-round support for Ukraine. Poland decided to buy American military equipment, preferring it to European weapons, with money received from the EU. Recently, Warsaw insists on dedicating 10 billion dollars over 3 years to the defense!

Hungary, the same dissident, on the contrary, does not want to sever relations with Russia because of the supply of Russian gas necessary for its economy. It is under EU sanctions.

Ukraine is the spearhead of American policy in Europe. The Ukrainians dispute with the Poles that they are a more important relay of Washington's anti-European policy. Ukraine wants to be: "the largest army in Europe." Cossacks guarded the borders of Christianity from Asian invaders; they continue their mission this time against "Russian barbarism", Slavs and close relatives.

Germany, although in recession due to the loss of cheap energy from Russian gas, is now turning the page on its friendly and economic relations with Russia, established by Schroeder and supported – at a distance – by Merkel, who, having come from the former GDR, had an excellent knowledge of the history of Russia, the leaders of the Kremlin and the Russian language.

Germany today: end of cooperation with Russia. The government, the SPD, the Greens and the Liberals, advocated the development of a modern army, forgetting their original desire "never again" after the Hitler episode and the 1939/45 war.

At the head of this aggressive policy is the environmentally friendly Foreign Minister Annalena Burbock, a ‘deadly Valkyrie’ who is actually restoring the policy adopted some thirty years ago by Joschka Fischer, also Green (the former founder of the "revolutionary struggle" in 1969. Daniel Cohn Bendit, ex German left-winger converted to "single market democracy") called on German youth to "break with pacifism" and support the NATO war in the Balkans (1991/2001) and the war in Afghanistan against the presence of the Russian army, designed to support a poorly elected communist government.

The circle is closed, we are witnessing the end of a "demilitarized" Germany, which is moving with great strides from the pacifism of the European basis (the Paris Treaty of 1951) to the restoration of influence and prestige in its former "inland states", i.e. before the Second World War and its German diaspora in the East.

Disunited, but arrogant Europe, seems as ‘huge Balkans’ from History to forever. Therefore ‘State of war” is a European kind of existence, a struggle over territories and resources that Europe does not have. It is impossible to deceive geography – and Europe is a peninsula of Eurasia. Not more…

Support for the war in Ukraine is varied.

First, don't believe the Americans when they say, "We don't support attacks on Russian territory with our weapons" (but with the EU's weapons, right?), nor the EU leaders' pseudo-reassuring mockery of "We're not allies." Hypocrisy and lies go hand in hand: everyone actively participates in the war, without the consent of their citizens or with their silence or with their silence.

The United States found a loophole that opened up to them the unprecedented opportunity to "weaken Russia" that it had been seeking since 1945. Of course, in the interests of its military-industrial complex, which recycles its weaponry, more or less obsolete due to the speed of technological development, resells it to Ukraine and frees its hands to create a new generation of deadly weapons designed for the coming war between the US and China.

England, having left the EU, plays a key role in this transformation: “Last year, shortly after the start of the war, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed to Kyiv – probably on instructions from Washington – apparently warning of the nascent peace talks with Moscow. Around the same time, the Biden administration signaled that it favored an escalation of hostilities, not an end, as an opportunity to “weaken” Russia. Since then, the UK has been at the forefront of European efforts to deepen the conflict by helping push for the provision of arms, training and military intelligence to Ukrainian forces. It has supplied tank shells enriched with uranium, which forbidden in principle.

Britain, as the war activist, has actively positioned London against the EU. Having taken off, it invested in the revival of a strictly "Anglo-Saxon" ensemble (Australia, Great Britain, USA) not only cultural, bagpipes and whiskey, but also dangerous with "AUKUS", (military "defense pact" against China.

France with a president Macron (photo) who says everything and ‘vice versa’.

Macron I: Wants peace by discussing with Putin and defending Russia's right "to the security of its territory", while participating in the shipment of weapons, heavy military materials, several billion and sanctions that the EU voted for, and since "nothing is prohibited". Perhaps fighters coming soon…

Macron II: Repeats in the US at all times a very Gaullist desire for independence that would make you laugh if the situation was not so dramatic, especially when he goes on tour in Africa to say: “Russia wants to enslave you and take away your wealth”. Wasn’t it the French colonial empire for Africans and North Africans? So, Russia now remains a friend who supported the independence movements in their struggle against the colonialists, trained their elites and their liberation armies. This is how one should understand their refusal to sanction and condemn Russia!

Macron III: Keeps spinning and says these days that he refuses to support the "security of Russian space" – the old demand of the Russians since 1991, a question addressed to the Americans, in the face of development, the installation of NATO and American bases on all their borders, and in…

The peoples of "Old Western Europe" do not want war with Russia, except for hotheads who confuse Russia and the USSR, Putin and Stalin, Putin and Hitler, 2000s and 1939/1945. In general, they want to maintain good neighborly relations with Russia. They fear a dangerous fire that could lead to the use of ‘nuclear freeze’ of a large part of Europe. While the "number one" belligerent power, the United States, will be protected by thousands of miles of Ocean, away from the conflict zone!

With this war, we are witnessing the end of the European Union as it was envisioned at the end of World War II. Replace war with peace, friendship, culture, and renounce rivalry between peoples. EU leaders are digging its grave by wholeheartedly supporting the Ukrainian nationalist war. This stupid war, which can be resolved before any military action, by diplomacy.

We have come to a historical period when we have all the means to solve the problems of our planet: environmental, social, new materials, more and more effective medicines, etc. Should we put up with this regression to the barbarian age, all for the sake of a conflict that can be resolved through diplomacy by agreement between the two belligerents alone, under the control of the UN? – asks Riva Danielle.


read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs