The Militarization Of Europe – JP
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble,Truth Social, Gettr, X , Youtube
While President Trump is conducting peace negotiations in Ukraine, a general hysteria and psychosis of war is emerging in Europe. Fear is slowly taking hold of citizens of the European Union who are used to ordinary “civilian life”, while wars were regularly fought elsewhere.
It should be emphasized that in this entire psychosis that is being created on the Old Continent, politicians are undoubtedly adding fuel to the fire. As a rule, those in power – liberal, while, interestingly, those in opposition – right-wing, who by vocation should be more warlike and ready for wars – seek a more sober approach to the problem and not hasty, emotionally motivated decisions, which are then presented as strategic and achievable. If they are achievable, the question is at what price? Will it end up being too expensive and harmful compared to the benefits that are to be achieved? What will happen to that pile of expensive weapons that should be produced if there is no war in Europe in the end (by the term Europe here I always mean the EU and NATO members)? And, what about the citizens who will be impoverished under the burden of accrued debts, which will be huge, given that the armament must be started “from scratch” and without cash? The money will have to be withdrawn from banks or from the budget that was intended for various social, infrastructural and other projects, which will negatively affect the standard of citizens.
In order for decisions of this type to be strategic at all, a prerequisite is that there are previous in-depth, precise calculations and projections by the state analytical institutes responsible. This is not the case. The agenda is simply hasty and forced, and is by no means the result of in-depth consideration – and all those who deal with it professionally know that, but it is not advisable to talk about it publicly.
Until now, the US has allocated about 80 percent of the total financial resources and about 75 percent of American weapons for the North Atlantic military-political organization for joint defense through the institution of the NATO alliance. That won’t happen anymore, and that’s why Europe is trying to increase its military spending. President Trump has repeatedly stated that it is necessary for all European states to allocate up to 5% of GDP for joint defense. However, most NATO members do not have that money.
It must be emphasized here that behind the militarization of Europe is not President Trump, but the EU, primarily France and Germany, while the role of Poland is secondary. The excuse is “aggressive Russian behavior” even though Russia has been calling and asking for an agreement against the expansion of NATO to its borders for more than two decades. The thesis that in the event that Russia succeeds in defeating Ukraine – perhaps by 2030 it can attack individual countries of the NATO alliance, meaning the EU, is completely unrealistic. Ukraine is Russia’s zone of interest, a country where a huge number of Russians live who were deprived of basic human rights, and it is a country that is strategically important for the defense of Russia. However, it is becoming clear that fear of Russia is an excellent excuse for France and Germany to impose militarization in which their military industrial sector, the strongest in Europe, would benefit the most.
Trump’s supposed abandonment of Europe in terms of protecting its security is not true at all. The USA will continue to remain the guarantor of European strategic security, and this will be guaranteed by the American “nuclear umbrella”, which will not disappear anywhere, nor can it be replaced by French nuclear arms that Emmanuel Macron talked about in recent weeks. The French “nuclear umbrella” is insufficient, even if Great Britain were to join to compensate. The farce is that everyone knows it well, but the narrative still goes on. The fact that it is impossible to implement (declaratively it can be done, but in terms of ensuring real security by no means) is indicated by Paris’ refusal (for the time being) to deploy French nuclear-armed aircraft on German soil (there are already American nuclear weapons there). Instead, they will be stationed at a French airbase not far from the border — deployed in its territory! For the Germans, and from a historical point of view, it is humiliating that their security is guaranteed by France – their main continental competitor until today.
That the Americans are not going anywhere is evidenced by the recent call of the Polish President Andrzej Duda that the USA transfer its nuclear weapons from Western Europe to Poland “as a protection against Russia”. Therefore, Duda knows very well that in the event of military chaos on the continent, it would be difficult for Poland to be saved by French nuclear capabilities. In other words, the ruling political elites now see turning the EU into a military fortress surrounded by barbed wire and dug trenches towards Russia almost as the meaning of their actions and existence.
The era of the “rules-based” world order (read globalist domination) is coming to an end, and the world is returning to a more traditional system of balanced great powers. Former Canadian Prime Minister (2006-2015) Stephen Harper announced this in his recent speech at the political science conference “Raisa Dialogue” in the Indian capital, New Delhi.
Great powers with spheres of influence and the dynamics of their relationships that determine issues of war and peace on a global scale are the norm of human history. I think we’re coming back to that.” — said the former Canadian official. In the same context of the revision of the international order, he marked China and Russia. “But now they are joined by the United States, which stood at the beginning of the formation of this world order,” said Harper.
The United States is changing its vision of its role as the center and main defender of the existing world system, and from now on it will proceed mainly from the logic of its interests and spheres of influence.
“The reason for these changes is that Washington realized the high cost and poor effectiveness of the old approach to protecting its interests. There is a steady trend in this regard and it is unlikely that the US will deviate from that path after the presidency of Donald Trump.” .
In his opinion, current international institutions such as the UN and other multilateral organizations will not disappear in this new world of great powers, but “will be needed to solve regional problems and small wars.” “However, the fate of major conflicts, such as those in Ukraine or the Middle East, will now be primarily determined by the balance of interests of the great powers,” said Harper.
As I wrote in a previous article, the Ukrainian war will hardly be finished quickly. Within Europe there are forces that, for their own interests, insist on the continuation of the war “until Ukrainian victory”, a “fair peace” and on “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. In reality, they only want to participate in the division of the “Ukrainian cake” according to their own interests, while they only care about the fate of the Ukrainian people during their media appearances.
This is precisely the reason why there are currently no European representatives at the American-Russian negotiating table. Both Trump and Putin do not want these people to “put pistons between their wheels”. Due to its exclusion from the game, Europe would most like for the Ukrainian war to continue, because, as it believes, this would once again lead to the previous state of solid symbiosis between it and the USA as it was during the Biden administration.
But betting on that option is an extremely risky game, as it could result in Trump simply saying “goodbye” to Europe and you can go to war against the Russians alone if you want to. Of course, the Europeans don’t want that. Europe is not in a position to raise even a sufficient number of soldiers for the alleged peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, and it does not want one without a prior agreement on a cease-fire and American security guarantees. That is why there is all this political nervousness. Simply put, Europe is not a military superpower to be able to dictate to Russia on the ground.
Even if the stated plans for mass armaments are realized by 2030, this big global game will have already been resolved without asking Europe too much about it. The conclusion is simple, if the plan on the militarization of Europe is implemented, the biggest winners of that plan will be France and Germany (partially Britain), while the biggest loser will be the rest of Europe.