Will Europe be able to “guide itself”?

28 min read MILLAN FERNANDEZ

MILLAN FERNANDEZ

In these turbulent times of the return of ghosts and as if it were a metaphor or a capricious echo of History and the evanescent collective memory, on November 26 he died in Zvonarevka (oblast from Saratov-Russia) the legendary centenarian Maria Limanskaya, iconic soldier of the Red Army in service during the last three years of the distant (or not so distant) Second World War. The international fame of the past was due to its conversion into a shared symbol of the Allied victory over fascism and Nazi Germany: she directed the traffic of the Brandenburg Gate On the morning after May 2, 1945 (the date of the memorable and definitive battle of that conflict in Europe) where the young defenders Hitlerites They finally surrendered the city of Berlin to the Soviet troops of, among others, Marshal Zhukov, one of those responsible for signing the capitulation acts of the once powerful and now destroyed and humiliated Wehrmacht as guarantor of the execution of so many crimes, including those of the abominable policy of extermination. Previously Maria participated in the bloody battle of Stalingrad and in the liberation of Crimea, Belarus and Poland.

Almost no one remembers all this in public discourse anymore, and many monuments erected to millions of heroes and heroines of the glorious deed are facing destruction or, at best, oblivion: from Ukraine to the Baltic republics, in almost all of Eastern Europe a programme persists that rewrites in crooked lines another History about the (lack of) good memory. This is undoubtedly due, to a large extent, to the excesses and end-of-the-century defeat of “real socialism”, but also to a thoughtless and consciously oriented position in the context of an EU that we judge to be self-absorbed, notably right-wing and tendentiously revisionist. Its leadership in Brussels also seems to be very involved today in the proposal to extend “freedom” and “democracy”. with cannon fire and other methods, around the world.

In 1945, 57% of French people believed that the USSR had contributed most to the defeat of Nazism, compared to 20% and 12% of the USA and the UK respectively. In 2015, only 23% attributed this merit to the Soviet people (who sacrificed more than 20 million citizens) compared to 54% who thought it was the work of the Americans, who have been masters of the “production of narrative” in recent decades. The role of Hollywood and the communication and digital consortia in mass culture do their thing. We assume here, as a hypothesis, that at the end of the year 2024 and after a multidimensional campaign of Russophobia (Glenn Diesen, 2023) inserted in the framework of a cognitive war If the genocide is unleashed intensely since 2022, these figures will be even more unexpected. In that case, that chapter was both horrendous and a succession of genocides in which the US president of the time (Harry Truman) left more corpses to his credit than Hitler himself or those attributed to Stalin, without forgetting what happened in Asian countries and especially with the launching of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even in today's Japan there is a current that truthfully maintains that it was a Soviet attack or, at least, tries to hide its real authorship. How important it is not to forget. And it would be even more important not to try to rewrite the past for political purposes of the present. Or of the future?

A multi-conflict in the heart of the continent

As if we were facing a matryoshka The reader will already know very well that the ukrainian conflict It presents multiple layers or levels of controversy dragged on at least since the crisis of the international relations system inherited from the bipolar world of the Cold War and the resulting bloc politics. Since 2008 and later, with the viral pandemic of 2020, previously brewing geopolitical processes and failures had been catalyzed, which already advanced the reality of an "emerging world" asking for a way and demanding to share the leading role in the 2001st century. There were also some symptoms of exhaustion of the aggressive US hegemony unleashed since XNUMX with the execution of the plans neocons of the “Project for the New American Century”, conceived under the intellectual baton of such bigwigs as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George and Jeb Bush and Francis Fukuyama, among others. It was the American general Wesley Clark who openly acknowledged in an interview that, following 11/XNUMX, they had planned to take over as many as seven Arab countries: Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finally Iran.

Apart from this, we should not go back to the 19th century and the fruitless attempts of Napoleon or to the First World War and the rapid Western siege against the emerging Bolshevik power, or to the Second World War itself with its Nazi supremacist project towards the undermensch Slavs, to conclude that the longed-for idea of dividing and subduing the Eurasian power (whatever its sociopolitical system) is not very new, which due to its idiosyncrasy, spatial characteristics and dominant mentality historically tends to strengthen the power already notable. Caesarism: Tsars of the Russian Empire, Stalinism or the new y restored Russian Federation (Rafael Poch, 2018) with the charismatic leadership of siloviki Vladimir Putin (2001-present) is a good example. The Russian people, due to political culture and tradition, do not reward or give continuity to “weak leaders” like Gorbachev or Boris Yeltsin who, in their time and circumstances, were seen as examples (in Russia) of what a leader should never represent. Today Putin enjoys excellent popularity there, and no less in other parts of the world.

Nor have they shown a renewed interest in incorporating modes of liberal political philosophy or in mimetically copying the “democratic model” predominant in the United Kingdom, the United States or Western Europe. The French sociologist Emmanuel Todd has reflected extensively on this whole issue and its profound transnational socio-anthropological implications in “The defeat of the West” (2024): obvious differences in civilizing projects, worldviews and political-economic systems are evident. Some try to preserve a certain humanistic foundation at high cost and others seem to have shed it in their relationship with the other. In some, the economic power of global ambition prevails over the State, projected in a Hyper-technological futurism, and in others, “mixed systems” are articulated where the former is still limited by the latter, among other interpretations about concepts such as sovereignty, freedom or the individual role in the community; about the lesser or greater presence of the religious or sacred fact and the social consideration towards the elderly or children. But also, of course, about different conceptions about sexual freedoms, “surrogate mothers” or patriotic sense.

Well, it was Vladimir Putin who, at least since 2007, insisted and warned his Western counterparts and colleagues of the danger posed by NATO's continued expansion to the East. He was not the only one, this was also done from West. This was publicly acknowledged by former Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as François Hollande and Gerard Schröder in their day. No one can attest that European diplomacy was not aware and on alert, since there is also audiovisual evidence to prove it. Few could also avoid acknowledging that, at least since Putin himself came to power and the similar cycle of wars of aggression promoted by the US, the political autonomy of the EU states was progressively blurred to its current comatose state. Perhaps that famous speech by Dominique de Villepin at the UN Security Council, showing the frontal opposition of France to the invasion of Iraq (2003), was the last great gesture of dignity discordant with the American “allies”. The revelations of the former CIA agent Edward Snowden showed the control and machinations of US intelligence over governments and political structures of the Old continent.

The smallest matryoshka He would tell us about the local conflict that had been dragging on and latent since the Ukrainian national independence with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which, like a wound in the soul of the peoples that made up that nascent plural State in ethnic, linguistic and national loyalties and memory/s, permeated civil and political life well into the 21st century with internal destabilization riding on the “Orange Revolution” and its final explosion channeled through the ultra-nationalist and Russophobic "“EuroMaidan” 2014, which was promoted and encouraged by Washington and the EU. To illustrate what Ukraine represented until then in the common imagination, it is enough to remember that Ukrainian political leaders headed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for more than half of the period (Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko or Gorbachev himself on his mother's side), which indicates the emotional and symbolic weight that Russia had and still has for millions of Ukrainians and vice versa, in addition to intense ties of all kinds. We assume that the reader is already well aware by now of the meaning and scope of the process of general degradation of the Ukrainian "hybrid" (undemocratic) regime and the emergence of internal war on a smaller scale in the rich "separatist" region of Donbass, as well as the subsequent return of the Crimean peninsula to the Russian Federation. Motherland with almost unanimous support from its population.

We will not go into detail in this article about the consequences since then: the appearance and official promotion of multiple armed groups with extremist neo-Nazi ideology with proven actions of organized and hybridized violence in oversized Armed Forces, in the militarization and anti-Russian ideologization, in the so-called "laws of “decommunization” and the illegalization of the media and a large part of left-wing or federalist political parties, in the legal pressure on Russian-speaking (and other) minorities, in school indoctrination or in the anti-political situation that led to kyiv coming to power in “Savior of the People” Volodymyr Zelensky and what it meant in terms of multilateral international commitments and institutional and economic reforms implemented. Also its consequences on demographics, which already since then expelled millions of citizens to Russia and to Western states. You can gather juicy information, for example, in some recommended publications such as “The struggle for the new international order” o “Ukraine: the road to war” from the collective of Spanish international analysts Deciphering the War.

That whole process of fascistization It is very well studied and reflected in the work “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine” (2024) by political scientist Ivan Katchanoski or, if you prefer, it can be briefly addressed by going to the documentary maker and filmmaker Oliver Stone “Ukraine in flames” (2016). Among others, the research work of contemporary professor Francisco Veiga could be considered more abundantly. “Ukraine 22: The Planned War” (2022) or the recent publication by Portuguese journalist Bruno Carvalho “War in the East” (2024), whose physical presence on repeated occasions in the hottest zone of the conflict before and after its resounding conflagration with the large-scale Russian intervention through the so-called Special Military Operation, provides a kaleidoscopic view that is far removed from the excessively partisan representation depicted in the major corporate media. Although a finding that only two and a half years ago would have been considered “heretical” is barely hidden: the character of proxy war o by delegation using the Ukrainians for a larger-scale confrontation in which Russian-Ukrainian “brothers” are basically killed and killed in order to wear down the rival superpower, as recently acknowledged by former British PM Boris Johnson, one of the main architects of the failure of the Istanbul negotiations in 2022 that could well have de-escalated the conflict and saved thousands of deaths. Today the majority of Ukrainians (52%) believe that dialogue should take place for a negotiated end to the war when almost three years ago the vast majority (72%) were in favor of it, according to what was published by the American demographic research company GallupZelensky's popularity plummets.

Huge tons of Western money and weapons (initially only “defensive”) flowed into what was considered, before the height of this conflict, the country with one of the highest corruption rates in Europe. Business and direct interests of the “democratic elite” in kyiv also hover over a Biden mandate that has been one of the most bellicose and pro-government. military-industrial complex that are remembered. That de facto power that General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about shortly before his death. Of those most imbued with messianism and in the most deep-rooted tradition of wilsonian idealism as an “evangelizing” and “exceptionalist” doctrine.

A matryoshka “Intermediate” would refer to the area of continental controversy, given that a crucial part of the Federation (25%) belongs to the European geographical area, where the majority of its population lives. In reality, this part of Russia constitutes 40% of the European territory and contributes 15% of its population. Its historical capitals have always been fixed in Europe and its emotional, cultural, economic and political ties have not been able to completely detach themselves from reciprocal influences with France, Germany or the extensive Slavic space. The presence of Russians is noticeable in states such as Moldova, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia and vice versa. Russia's participation in the continental development was decisive on many occasions and, although more than 160 nationalities, a hundred languages and several religions coexist there, the predominant faith is Orthodox Christianity. Something also broken in Ukraine by an ecclesiastical schism that complicates the conflict. It is in fact unthinkable and materially impossible to ignore all this shared baggage, but it also turns out that common security vitally depends on a reasonable understanding given the nuclear nature of powers. in contention: France, Great Britain or Russia, beyond the American weapons on German soil. The same thing was happening in the energy field in an equation in which the central European states, and as is already quite obvious today, had and have much more to lose than to gain.

To put it bluntly, it is worth clarifying that the clash between Russia and a “West” led by the US under the supposed “protective cloak” of NATO is the premeditated result of a concatenation of decisions methodically taken in matters of strategic security under different US administrations since the collapse of the USSR and in which “gas geopolitics” plays a certainly notable, although not exclusive, role. The blowing up of critical German-Russian infrastructure in the Baltic Sea in 2022 and its geoeconomic consequences (end of the Ostpolitik) has been sufficiently eloquent, having repercussions on other points: the “constructive chaos” (Carter Doctrine, 1980) that we see applied radically now in the Middle East is related.

The last and greatest matryoshka It refers to the conflict of global scope and ideological and geopolitical visions that disconcert, because they are "distant", the majority of the population. This gives rise to a whole series of interpretations (especially in the EU) of different kinds. Some of them, delirious. This is how they try to find easy answers to complex and long-term phenomena and processes: for some, Putin would be something like a cryptofascist; for others an insatiable imperialist and for many others a cryptocommunist which aims to restore the USSR and beyond. Perhaps it would be much worse, given the worst of the three options due to the militarism and nationalism of the resurgent power, its traditionalism and conservatism, a past in the KGB or for its active role in weaving and establishing military, political and commercial alliances on all continents. It is also disconcerting in West an extremely rational diplomacy. Moscow's leadership in the attempt to build an alternative financial architecture to the one dominated by Washington does not help either: perhaps that is why NATO insists on the narrative of the Russian "imperialist danger" and even Donald Trump now threatens with 100% tariff discipline those countries that abandon the so-called "dollar dictatorship" known to many. The best representative of imperialism describes systemic rivals as "imperialists."

The above hides a widespread confusion resulting from several decades of misunderstanding and neglect about the direction or role that the EU should play in a scenario that had already mutated almost since the beginning of the millennium with the growing rise of the People's Republic of China, the political processes of the Latin American progressive cycle, the conflict in sub-Saharan states or the emergence of new international actors that had been shaping an interpretation and models of alternative understanding to the dominant one, led by the G-7 and contemplated (without adaptation) by dysfunctional institutions mediated by the outdated logic of the unipolar world The most recent example of the world's economic and social development is the "world based on rules" rather than on international public law. This was nothing more than a mirage in the face of the reality of other powers that are increasingly developed and, logically, assertive. Several countries and regional powers are warning of the need to adapt these structures to the new, changing realities, such as Lula da Silva's Brazil. And there are already some proposals that have been coming from academia, such as that of the Nicaraguan professor of International Law and International Relations Augusto Zamora in “Multipolarity and decolonization of the United Nations” (2024)

The emergence of actors such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or the gradual expansion and influence of the BRICS+ establishes, de facto, a reality with several centers of power and In transit geoeconomic and geopolitical shift towards Asia. If we want to understand the new reality well (especially with regard to the takeoff of the Tigers Asians or the spectacular development of China) we have a lot of good published by two Galician specialists in the matter such as Xulio Ríos or Javier García in “China, threat or hope” (2022). The right of other non-Western peoples to development, the concern about climate change accelerated by human action in the current socio-economic system, the crisis of the democratic-liberal model resulting from the emancipation of the oligarchies or the breakdown of elementary conventions on humanitarian law and the manifest impunity of an unbridled Israel protected by the majority of Western states push the world into a disorder where international law is only observed at convenience and exclusively if it benefits a small group of powers led by the US and "allies" (or vassals). This would indicate more than a rearmament of moral force or legitimacy, a palpable demonstration of loss of confidence and credibility of “Western values” (what exactly are these?) that precedes the beginning of the end of a century-old era of colonial and neocolonial domination and would hint at a slow or abrupt process of “decline”. We see some examples of this in the rise of neo-fascist populisms, in the disorientation and contradictions of the “left” (pro-imperialist) in the face of various world conflicts, in the discourses of hate and irrationality, in the distrust of broad popular sectors in science and education or in the dismantling of the welfare state; but also, for example, in consumption and entertainment models or when clear symptoms of “reverse selection” of political elites appear. In the EU, it even goes so far as to annul the result of elections if the results do not satisfy the strategy Atlanticist, as in the recent case of Romania. Russian interference, it is said. As if the QatarGate, MoroccoGate or the hegemon's discourse did not have sufficient presence in the press, radio, television or on social networks and its rigged algorithm.

Momentum Oreshnik: “Checkmate,” “missile crisis,” negotiations or a path to a bigger war?

In the early hours of November 21, a brutal impact reverberated through the Ukrainian city of Dnipro-Dnipropetrovsk: the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation had launched an intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile from Astrakhan and destroyed a missile factory in the Ukrainian military-industrial complex. This system (which until now was unknown to exist in Ukraine) West) has an estimated range of 3.000 to 5.500 km and is capable of reaching a maximum speed of Mach 10. With just the kinetic energy released, its destructive capacity is immeasurable. Specially designed to reach underground or bunkers, could carry conventional or nuclear explosives and be equipped with a multiple warhead system that can be individually directed and that also have up to six submunitions each. "Hazel" It is a strategic weapon that was used for the first time in a conflict on that day and NATO apparently has no countermeasures capable of stopping it. Russia announced that it would begin mass production of it.

This fact implies a significant change in the Eastern European theatre of operations and responds to the official “authorization” of the use of missiles ATACMS Americans, Scalp French and Storm Shadow British controlled by Western military technicians to attack the Federation in depth using Ukraine as a “launching platform”, converted de facto in a large weapons depot in the heart of Europe and in a training camp from which technical and human resources come to intervene both in the Middle Eastern conflict (Syria) and in the sub-Saharan states of the Sahel that have decided to break away from French military supervision (Mali, Niger, Burkina-Faso, etc.). The Russian high command warns of the possibility of using Oresik out of Ukraine against those who facilitate the arrival of heavy weapons to strike their country, together with a review of the nuclear doctrine. And this would imply a change in the nature and danger of the conflict, although after more than 300.000 billion dollars invested, NATO's defeat on the ground seems already irreversible.

This whole mess is taking shape in the context of the final weeks of the administration of the defeated Joe Biden, who has “stepped on the accelerator” in Venezuela (recognizing the far-right candidate Edmundo González as the winner of the elections), in Georgia (promoting a color riot, something that takes us back to the EuroMaidan Ukrainian), through the patent defense of direct interests in Asia-Pacific (Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea...), which has strained different regions of the planet and put most of the world's foreign ministries and armies on alert. According to some hypotheses, Trump's coming to power embraces the prospects of a "trade card" Syria-Ukraine where even an official document has been leaked Kellogg Plan (referring to an advisor trumpist) consisting of a “freezing of the conflict” if the dialogue prospers in the coming months. It remains to be seen whether this “deal” will be acceptable in Russian decision-making centres. And its consequences for the European and world order remain to be seen. American neoconservative political scientist Robert Kagan (husband of Victoria Nuland: “fuck EU!”) supports the thesis of the “two Wests”: one “strong” and the other “weak”, since the role reserved for the latter is at the service of the interests of the former. It is unnecessary to clarify who is who. The “international liberal order” can only be sustained under this premise from the American point of view: in short, Western Europe as a whole must assume a good part of the costs and its role of backyard or the price could be very high. But the opposite is also true.

Much of that rimland conceptualized by Professor John Spykman (1893-1943) is now in full swing. And as “geography determines destiny” Western Europe cannot, even if it wanted to, ignore this. This raises the question of whether the appearance on the scene of Oresik represents a kind of "checkmate" in the Eastern theatre (at the risk that such devices could hypothetically be directed against NATO targets in Europe in a few minutes) or it projects us into a dangerous escalation that leads to a scenario of tension similar to that of the "missile crisis" of 1962 with the possibility of arbitrating reciprocal concessions such as solution without risking the worst. Another possibility would be to embark on the path of no return to a conventional war of greater scope, extension and destructive power and with more actors directly involved. But with the disinterest of Washington, now focused on other objectives.

And then what? Europe: dilemmas today and in the future

Without a coherent voice of its own, facing Russia and a large part of the Global South in the political and energy fields (and at the risk of doing so at some point directly in the military field), blessing Netanyahu's wild and supremacist strategy from October 2023 (which brings us back to the Brandenburg Gate, now recurrently adorned with the flag of Israel) and celebrating, without many reservations, the coming to power in Syria of a version postmodernized de Al Qaeda which promises to apply the Sharia with unprecedented general connivance; With the threat that Trump will finally disengage from the “umbrella” that NATO theoretically provides (or use it as an element of coercion as seen with regard to Canada and Greenland) and in the context of the rise of right-wing populist movements…what will be its evolution in the medium and long term? Community diplomacy in recent years has had major errors (the garden and jungle or arrows and archers These were some of the unfortunate metaphors used by the Spanish talkative Josep Borrell, which demonstrated a high level of Eurocentrism and neo-colonialist mentality) and it does not suggest, at this time, that the path will be corrected. When we listen to these "representatives" we cannot help but think of the work of the historian Christopher Clark “Sleepwalkers. How Europe went to war in 1914”, where the author narrates in an original way and based on a huge number of sources the chain of decisions that led to that terrible world war.

If the EU has renounced active diplomacy for peace and has uncritically submitted to the US; if it has shamelessly promoted revolts and interference in the Caucasus or ignored results ranging from Romania (EU) to Venezuela or if, in short, it only aspires to impose a vision and a “democratic model” that is not very democratic, what is left of its founding spirit and values? Does it make sense to try to expand it through wars, destabilizations and the promotion of coups d’état? Or has it become, to a large extent, only the technocratic mask of a strategic project designed thousands of kilometers away to expand American influence in the world? If it prioritizes security and militaristic policies over the Welfare State (as announced by the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte) and maintains its bellicose attitude, confusing a strong and firm voice with a submissive attitude towards the US (and unfriendly and intolerant towards others) making a cynical and hypocritical use of “universal values”, its authority will be progressively reduced. And there are no abundant sources of energy at affordable prices either.

The internal convulsions of the two central actors (France and Germany) and the interest in making ambitious Poland a third node of political and military power announce the possibility of difficult times for the group. Many of the governments that have presented Russia with such a degree of confrontation have had or are having notable problems, which are also mixed with the discontent and discomfort that official coverage of Palestinian ethnic cleansing produces in many social sectors: in France or Germany, governments behave severely with protesters who oppose the crimes of Israeli colonialism and, however, tolerate others of more or less explicit support for the new Syrian fundamentalist government. Without the need for Russia to have violated even a single centimeter of the EU, it became “the greatest enemy”; now that Trump threatens the sovereignty of a member state like Denmark, they agree to a greater or lesser degree. Paradoxical and striking.

The “detached” United Kingdom, preeminent subject Atlanticist, has already known three cabinets since March 2022 but almost always throughout history it has won in the game of weakened continental powers or even in conflict with each other: in this sense, the rise of ultra-nationalism (Le Pen, Orbán, AfD, VOX...), spurred by the conflict in the East, is therefore another serious cloud on the horizon for social and political stability since it could be a focus of intra-community competition. I would say that sThere are few certainties and too many threats looming over the future of their economies, over the social model or over the relationship of the States with the EU and between them. How will the relationship be approached with a new US administration that does not hide its intentions? In my opinion, and in that of many, a doubt now arises: will Europe be able to guide itself? But, and I think even more important, taking into account history and some echoes of it in our present: will Europe be able to trust itself?