ecogitar

Trump's election is sparking discussions, debates, and opinions for all palates, particularly regarding the Ukrainian war.

In my opinion, Trump does not necessarily intend to end the proxy war between the US/UK/EU/NATO and Russia using the Ukrainians as cannon fodder.

It was Trump who withdrew the US from the Open Skies Treaty in 2020, the nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, alleging that Russia was not fulfilling its part.

Most probably, Trump will pressure the Europeans to assume the costs and the reins of a war that the new American administration might want to freeze.

Trump wants to pivot to Asia and focus on China and the Middle East.

Nobody holds a crystal ball to predict the future. However, Western citizens need to realize that we have the responsibility of doing whatever we can to prevent the war from escalating.

We need to understand that what drove Russia to militarize was the relentless advance of NATO expansion, and the same playbook applies to China, which is encircled by US military bases. The War You Don't See: Why Propaganda Hides the True Face of War by John Pilger is an eye-opener for those who haven't watched it yet.

Many might not admit it (which doesn't change the reality). Still, the evidence shows that it was the behavior of the "globalist" bully that made Russia and China have no choice but to take the menace seriously and prepare for war, not the other way around.

Many might not know it, but the world's second-largest (17 hectares) embassy is in Lebanon, a small country with 5 million people. What is the real purpose of all those facilities so close to Israel?

Biden gave Volodymyr Zelenskyy the green light to use cruise missiles, such as Atacams, Storm Shadows, and Taurus (which have the most extended range, 500 km). Scholz categorically opposed sending the Taurus missiles, but for how long will he keep the promise?

Although this type of weaponry may not be enough to trigger a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO, it is a dangerous escalation.

Russia is going to intensify the bombing of Ukrainian strategic infrastructures, such as energy systems and military facilities. In case the situation escalates, there is also the possibility that military installations of NATO countries responsible for the operability of these weapons systems will become a target for the Russian ICBMs.

Some claim that the Biden/Harris Administration will do everything possible to complicate Trump's life in an attempt to force the US to keep the Ukrainian flame alive.

Either way, the theater of war is on European soil, which makes it a European problem. This requires European citizens to reflect on whether we can continue passively watching the ongoing geopolitical nightmare as if it were happening overseas, as we are used to. This is ruining the European economy and can lead to a dead end.

I suspect that many of the braggarts who believe that we have to teach the Russians a lesson and support the EU political elite on the campaign to prepare Europe to go to war with Russia will (too late) regret their braggadocio.

The nonstop propaganda barrage demonizing and dehumanizing the Russian state and people so far is achieving its purpose; I hope that it won't be too late when enough of us realize that our enemies are not in the Kremlin but in Brussels and our governments.

American neoconservatives and their loyal European allies see us as disposable pawns and cannon fodder who must be ready to defend Western hypocritical values.

The real objective of the Ukraine project was to weaken, destabilize, and divide Russia (for further information, please consult Victoria Nuland).

Zbigniew Brzezinski's followers wanted to use Russia as a partner to contain China. However, Putin never agreed that Russia should accept a junior role in a possible partnership with the West. That is the real reason why the neoconservatives concluded that Ukraine should be used as bait, being aware that Russia repeatedly warned that Ukraine would never become a NATO member. Russia has insisted over the years that Ukraine should have a neutral status. By the way, neither Ukrainians want to be part of NATO; that was shoveled down their throats by their neocon friends.

American hegemony has been maintained based on the fusion of two complementary political ideologies, neoliberalism and neoconservatism, through economic neocolonization, financial enslavement, and military intimidation. It turns out that this strategy is starting to wear out.

Globalization aimed to build an interconnected economic, financial, geopolitical, and military network with decision-making power centralized in Washington and Wall Street. The goal of the globalist project was not to establish a world government but rather to dictate world governance.

The idea was to substitute conventional colonialism by setting up a global network system that could bully most countries into adopting economic, financial, and geopolitical policies and guidelines controlled by a centralized system of power and command.

Obstinate governments would be overthrown and replaced by favorable regimes, countries would be invaded, and leaders murdered. Prolonged sanctions and economic embargoes would be used as economic warfare that sometimes manages to cause more victims than a conventional war.

One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is the separation of powers: executive, legislative, and judiciary. However, economic interests and the permanent bureaucracy have long usurped this principle. Thus, the rituals associated with democracy maintain the illusion of a long-gone reality.

Oligarchs and plutocrats choose, approve, and control electable politicians. These two groups do not necessarily form a cohesive unit but share a similar vision of what good governance is, and the concept of democracy (the power of/to the demos) is not part of the equation.

The so-called democratic alternation was transformed into a process of choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Permanent policies such as the worsening of austerity, job insecurity, and social inequality were normalized, and foreign policy was transformed into a hunting game of autocrats and dictators who want to steal our resources that unfortunately exist in their countries.

What role is reserved for the members of the useless class (a concept I first heard from Yuval Harari)? Unite and organize to prevent the Ukrainian war from turning into a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO (although I believe that many countries will refuse to participate, that is, they will not comply with Article 5), or shrug our shoulders and be driven like cattle to the slaughterhouse. Western hegemony is doomed, and it is not worth dying to defend it. In addition to all wrongdoing worldwide, it is also destroying the fabric of Western societies.

If we (Europeans) still have any common sense left, we should use it to prevent a nuclear exchange. It is interesting to observe how the same people who want to shut down nuclear plants are not afraid of a nuclear war, and some even believe that it is possible to win it!

The likelihood of a conventional war between NATO and Russia having a thermonuclear outcome should be obvious to anyone with a functional mind.

The European Commission is imbued with excessive powers that are impossible to monitor democratically.

The EU is controlled by Neocons and Neolibs, which means that the MIC and Wall Street (finance capital and the death industry) rule the place and are committed to implementing a war economy to enable Europe to confront Russia—a geopolitical strategy of self-annihilation based on narratives contradicting the facts and distorting reality.

Wouldn't it be more rational to demand and support a geopolitical strategy based on diplomatic negotiations to design a common security architecture to guarantee peace and prosperity for Europe and Russia?

Since the end of the USSR, Russian leaders have sought to get closer to the West. The USA never welcomed a close relationship between Europe and Russia, particularly with Germany. Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay (NATO's first Secretary General) became famous for saying at the beginning of his political career that NATO had been created to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

With the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO should have been dissolved or, as promised, not advanced one inch to the east. In addition to its military objectives, the US realized that NATO's expansion could prevent rapprochement between Russia and Europe.

The Russians protested against the expansion of NATO. Still, the protests were always dismissed, despite having warned the Western powers that the expansion of NATO represented an existential threat to Russia and that they would never allow Ukraine to have nuclear warheads that could reach Moscow in less than ten minutes.

The Maidan Coup

In May 2013, Victoria Nuland was promoted to Under-Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, tasked with organizing the Maidan Revolution and managing the subsequent fall of the government and the civil war between the ultranationalists and the Russophile populations of Dombass. On February 22, 2014, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was forced to relinquish his executive duties.

Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda), was involved in the Maidan coup. After the coup, Svoboda members were appointed to key government positions, including defense minister, head of the prosecutor general's office, and deputy prime minister.

Poroshenko described the Azov fighters as "our best warriors."

Vadim Troyan, an Azov veteran, was appointed Deputy Minister of the Interior, placing a neo-Nazi in command of the Ukrainian National Police.

After the Russian invasion in 2022, Azov was integrated into the Ukrainian military.

European media outlets such as Deutsche Welle, the BBC, and others that had previously described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment began to spread that the allegations of neo-Nazism were Russian propaganda.

The West's objective was to destabilize, weaken, and, if possible, dismember Russia. Ten years after the Maidan coup, Ukraine was transformed into a battlefield where the fate of the Western hegemony is being written chiefly with Ukrainian blood.

The Chinese headache

Nothing gives neoconservatives more sleepless nights than the rise of China.

President Xi Jinping launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013. This massive infrastructure project, led by China, aims to spread worldwide. China's colossal infrastructure investments are ushering in a new era of trade and growth for the economies of Asia, Latin America, Africa, Oceania, and, eventually, Europe.

John J. Mearsheimer (https://www.mearsheimer.com/), a well-known professor of political science who analyzes international relations through the lens of the realist school, believes that great powers compete with each other for economic, military, and geopolitical dominance at the global level.

Mearsheimer analyzes the current international geopolitical crisis from the Great Power Competition (GPC) perspective, which, in my opinion, is a reductive framework for studying international relations as if the struggle for supremacy were a kind of inevitable fate for all countries that reach a certain level of economic, technological and military development.

Firstly, nations have significant civilizational, cultural, and religious differences.

Secondly, Chinese expansionist policy aims at mutual economic development because the only way to promote international trade is to increase the purchasing power of the countries with which we want to maintain trade relations.

Thirdly, the modernization and expansion of the Chinese armed forces are not due to the intention of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to invade and conquer the USA but to make sure it can avoid being subjected to a new century of humiliation.

I would not characterize the power struggle between the USA and China as a Great Power Competition (GPC) but rather as a situation in which a hegemonic power that took advantage of the unipolar moment to try to control the world (declaring the end of history) is unable to cope with the reality of a multipolar world. Faced with the emergence of a new world order not foreseen in the neoconservative Project for the New America Century (PNAC), the USA neocons cannot cope with the reality of a multipolar world.

We cannot and should not fall into the reductive idea that humanity must be trapped in the Great Power Competition (GPC) paradigm. This Western mindset of framing international relations is wrong and dangerous. It needs to be debunked and challenged, which is what is happening.

A great transition is underway, and we should focus on being active partners in this new international architecture instead of trying to cling to a world order whose pillars are crumbling. The madness has to stop.

US bases positioned for war against China https://solidarity.net.au/highlights/us-bases-positioned-war-china/.

The delusional hubris of American neoconservatives and European allies is endangering humanity in their vain attempt to prolong the American imperialist hegemony.

These people are insane enough to believe that the West can win a nuclear war.

The only solution to avoid disaster is to free Europe from the yoke of American neoconservatives and European acolytes.

Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea abide by American foreign policy to strengthen Western hegemony, aka the American Empire. All onboard to keep the USA as the leader of the free world! How cool is that?

Trump may try to freeze the neoconservative war agenda for Ukraine, but the Russians won't fall for it. Putin knows that the only way to keep the neoconservatives at bay is to force Ukraine to accept a neutral status.

For some decades, the US and Europe have been governed by a mix of neoliberal and neoconservative policies in varying proportions depending on the governments in power.

Neoliberal macroeconomic, fiscal, and monetary policies are based on austerity, deregulation, relocation, precariousness, financialization, destruction of public services, privatization of infrastructure, companies, and other state assets, elimination of social and labor rights and public-private partnerships (privatization of profits and rents) and (socialization of costs and losses) no sacrifice is too much to appease the greed of the sacrosanct financial markets.

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism have transversally colonized the structural institutions of representative democracy, including traditional and emerging parties such as Die Grünen, institutes and universities, NGOs, Think Tanks, media outlets, big high-tech, etc...

European political elites live in a parallel reality dominated by herd mentality bubbles.

Economic and technological development policies, such as the green transition and the so-called fourth industrial revolution, are doomed to failure unless the current geopolitical strategy is profoundly changed.

On the other hand, green capitalism will not reduce social inequality or the ecological footprint (overshoot).

Freedom of expression, cancel culture and self-censorship

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” - Alexander Butcher.

The European Court of Human Rights enshrines the rights to offend, shock, and disturb as part of freedom of expression.

Insults should not replace criticism, nor should we react to criticisms as if they were insults. Slander is a serious problem because it circulates false information that has the power to assassinate the character of those targeted beyond repair.

Cancel culture is increasingly used to limit freedom of expression.

Academia is being transformed into "safe spaces" to avoid disseminating inconvenient opinions on "controversial" topics.

The "democratic" elites are concentrating on themselves the monopoly on virtue, intellectual acceptability, and omniscient truth.

Academics, authors, activists, journalists, and anyone who dares to express opinions divergent from the official truth are boycotted, slandered, fired, etc.

The powers that be have a strong ally in common sense. Most people choose political correctness to avoid losing jobs, careers, social status, friends, and family.

When free and open debate of ideas, opinions, facts, and worldviews of considerable public relevance is avoided for fear of retaliation, self-censorship becomes the default behavior (whether people admit it or not is irrelevant).

Academia, a supposed bastion of free speech, is being transformed into a place of censorship, conformity, and cancel culture (the act of boycotting something or someone based on values and assumptions that are perceived as wrong or offensive).

Cancel culture is a way of removing “problematic” people from mainstream academic, political, and cultural circles and social media; that is, a way of arbitrarily and summarily silencing dissenting voices.

Political, social, and cultural cancellation is one of the byproducts of neoliberal ideology.

Academic freedom was established to prevent the government and other political actors from interfering in academic life.

It is evident that academic freedom is never completely immune to the influence of governments, private philanthropy, and business lobbies; the problem is when that influence becomes direct interference to silence dissenting voices.

Neolibs and neocons running the show

Neoliberalism is based on the principle that freedom is more important than security. According to neoliberal ideology, freedom means removing legal barriers that impede the circulation of capital, suppressing national sovereignty, and freeing capitalism from the shackles of the state.

The security that neoliberals want to be removed is the legal protections that allow governments to protect sovereign interests and the collective good.

Any human being who does not have sociopathic, psychopathic, megalomaniac, and narcissistic tendencies wants to enjoy freedom and security. The government's role is to balance the scales to prevent capitalists from running amok and destroying the real economy.

The economy exists to satisfy the needs of society; it does not exist to be an incubator for sociopathic billionaires.

Economic and social security are essential to ensure that all citizens can exercise freedom of expression without fear of reprisals. A society in which fear reigns is a fascist society, even if it continues to maintain the democratic façade.

The absolute freedom preached by market fundamentalists guarantees neither liberty nor security to ordinary citizens. On the contrary, it allows oligarchs and plutocrats to arbitrarily impose their will, ultimately leading ordinary people to suppress the right to freedom of expression.

Fundamentalism must be countered with analytical skepticism to protect ourselves against idolatry of authority. Admiring people or institutions that were or are intellectual, ethical, and moral references is expected and recommended, but we should not idolize them. Idolatry is not a good counselor, nor does it help us discover the truth or enjoy the freedom and justice we all value.

All human beings (without exception) have flaws, blind spots, and prejudices. Those who develop some form of intellectual refinement are aware of this, except those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder.

The fate of Europe is in the hands of people of the caliber of Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell (who will be replaced by Kaja Kallas.) Borrell at least expresses some sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

A lethal mix of neoliberal and neoconservative policies dominates European institutions and national governments, led by opportunistic, mediocre, and ignorant politicians (which makes them particularly dangerous).

The European political elite is dissociated from the will of European citizens who wish to end the Ukrainian war and stop the genocide in Gaza.

A recent Gallup poll revealed that over 50% of Ukrainians want the war to end.

However, we should not give up politics. The behavior of most political actors is despicable and irresponsible, which should motivate us to be more politically active, not less.

The far-right knows how to take advantage of popular discontent despite having no intention of shaking the structures of financial capitalism, which is the cancer of the real economy that is destroying the fabric of society.

On the other hand, voting for liberals, social democrats, Christian democrats, center-left, and center-right will not get us out of the neoliberal and neoconservative matrix.

Many workers unhappy with mainstream politics are voting for the far-right without realizing that it is like shooting themselves in the feet.

The so-called radical left is receiving more attention, but not enough. Many citizens do not vote for left-wing parties because they do not identify with a left that is unable to understand that immigration can be felt as a threat, that woke culture has gone too far, that people have the right to have doubts about vaccines, and mandatory masks, or being against abortion, etc.

Although we must draw limits, we must also be open to compromises to focus on what matters: political economy and class consciousness.

Many people feel uncomfortable, fed up, and repelled by the pseudo-progressive cultural fundamentalism that many so-called left-wing parties use as their main banner. Fundamental freedoms, economic equality, and social justice do more for people than any woke politics.

From imperialist civilizational supremacy to geopolitical irrelevance

Europe is doomed to economic decline and geopolitical irrelevance if the current political status quo continues in power.

A war with Russia fueled by hatred, based on delusional arrogance and couched in the hypocritical language of defending European values, human rights, and the rules-based international order, is a shortcut to military disaster and potential nuclear annihilation.

If European geopolitical strategy were to defend democracy and long-term European interests, we would not be at war with Russia to maintain an obsolete hegemonic order.

No matter how much people believe in the supremacy of Western civilization, its decline is inevitable.

The most sensible attitude is to accept reality instead of siding with the ruling elites who want to impose a war on us that we cannot win. It is a pure illusion to believe that we will continue to impose a hegemonic order that the rest of the world is no longer willing to tolerate.

Supporting the hegemonic order is siding with the neoconservatives and neoliberals responsible for the destruction of Western economies, with the financialization of the economy, the growth of parasitic rentier capitalism, imperialist expansion, wars based on lies with millions of victims, and trillions wasted (many of which are unaccounted for).

The last Council on Foreign Relations of Borrel's term

At the last Council on Foreign Relations of Borrel's term (11/18/2024), he reminded those present that in 2017, Europeans should take their destiny into their own hands.

Borrell made a statement that I agree with. "Europeans need to be more realistic in their approach to the rest of the world."

He also noted "that we need to increase efforts to achieve greater unity among Europeans, among Member States and between Member States and the institutions of the European Union." Europeans should indeed unite to change Europe's current course.

Rehabilitate diplomatic relations with Russia, lay the foundations for serious peace talks, and put an end to the slaughter of Ukrainians and Russians.

Borrel continued talking about Iranian drones and missiles, North Korean soldiers in Russia, and China's role as the largest supplier of "dual-use" goods and "sensitive items" that support Russia's military-industrial base.

Borrell also said that the time has come for Europe to step up and assume its strategic responsibilities towards Ukraine: more money, weapons, and sanctions.

In Borrel's opinion, Trump represents an opportunity to awaken in Europeans the ability to have a clear voice on the world stage.

Europe must develop its security and defense by becoming a war economy. Great!

He also mentioned the alleged irregularities in the elections in Georgia, the crisis in the Horn of Africa, Somalia, and Sudan, and the EU's unity in not recognizing Maduro's legitimacy as a democratically elected leader (which justifies maintaining sanctions). The Palestinian crisis was also addressed, but in my opinion, nothing was said that was really relevant.

For those who feel like reading the document, it can be found here: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/foreign-affairs-council-press-remarks-high-representative-josep-borrell-after-meeting-17_en

Either we end imperialist civilization, or it will be the end of us

We should not feel pride, nor should we feel guilt or shame about our colonial and imperialist past. We cannot change the past, but we can end the prejudice of civilizational superiority that persists in Western societies.

The 21st century has to be a century of radical change in the civilizational paradigm. Imperialist civilization has a history of violence, genocide, plunder, dehumanization, and pathological megalomania.

We need to build a holistic civilization based on a social and ecological political economy for the sake of humanity's survival. Scientism and technofixism, instead of saving us, might pave the way for humanity's self-destruction.

What we need at the moment is diplomatic dialogue and an international security strategy against the arms race.

Europe's place in the world is not to chase past glories or participate in third-party hegemony games (as a junior partner) but to play a constructive role in a new multipolar international order.

I wonder if we are condemned to be governed by arrogant, mediocre, and ignorant politicians convinced that we can continue to impose the imperialist will on the rest of the world with impunity.

The events of the next few years, or perhaps months, will dictate the future of humanity.

Europeans and Americans alike should be able to understand that we have a crucial role to play in the unfolding of history before our eyes. The ruling elites are insulated from our direct influence, and the public relations apparatus can successfully manipulate our perception of reality. Still, we have a crucial role to play.

We (Europeans) must understand that American geopolitical strategy for Europe has always meant to prevent Europeans from establishing strategic relations with Russia.

In 1996, President Clinton called on former Warsaw Pact countries and post-Soviet republics to join NATO as part of American foreign policy. Russian leaders, such as Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, vehemently opposed the enlargement of NATO.

I have heard Jeffrey Sachs state more than once that he tried to offer the Russians economic aid conditions similar to those offered to Poland. To his dismay, the American establishment rejected these conditions. Sachs later concluded that the Americans were not genuinely interested in helping Russia.

Russia's transition to a market economy was tragic for the Russian population. Between 1991 and 1997, the Russian economy contracted by 50%!

Putin realized that the US was not interested in helping Russia regain full sovereignty but precisely the opposite, as with many countries where the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs (SAPs) are applied.

The neoconservatives never forgave Putin for having the nerve to build an autonomous Russia.

The fact that too many people continue to believe the propaganda of unprovoked war and Putin's intention to resurrect the Soviet empire makes the insane idea of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia acceptable. Most politicians who describe Putin as the incarnation of the devil on earth are seeing themselves reflected in a mirror. Unlike many Western politicians, Putin is not a lunatic but a cautious politician aware of limits. The invasion happened because neoconservatives did not accept limits. All the red lines drawn by the Russians were repeatedly ignored, being aware that this behavior would have consequences.

Putin is described as an irrational and bloodthirsty psychopath, but his speeches and interviews indicate otherwise. It is not Putin but the Western warmonger leaders and media pundits who behave in ways that range from inappropriate to despicable.

Bill Burns (current CIA director) wrote in his book The Back Channel: "When I left Moscow after my first tour, in early 1996, I worried about the eventual resurgence of a Russia stewing in its own grievances and insecurities. I just had no idea that this would happen so quickly, or that Vladimir Putin—then an obscure bureaucrat—would emerge as the embodiment of that peculiarly Russian combination of qualities."

“You Americans need to listen more,” "President Putin said as I handed him my credentials as ambassador, before I had gotten a word out of my mouth. “You can’t have everything your way anymore. We can have effective relations, but not just on your terms.” It was 2005, and in the ensuing years I would hear that message again and again,..."

"Putin had been president for five years then. He seemed in many ways the anti-Yeltsin—younger, sober, fiercely competent, hardworking and hard-faced. Surfing on high energy prices and the benefits of some smart early economic reforms, as well as the ruthlessly successful prosecution of a second Chechen war, he was determined to show that Russia would no longer be the potted plant of major-power politics."

“Saakashvili is nothing more than a puppet of the United States,” Putin said sharply. “You need to pull back on the strings before there’s trouble.” The fireplace exchange eventually ratcheted down, but tensions over Georgia and Ukraine never did. Putin kept up the pressure. Concerned about the Russian reaction when the Bush administration launched an end-of-term, legacy-defining campaign to open the door to Ukraine’s and Georgia’s membership in NATO, I warned of train wrecks ahead."

The pro-war status quo continues at the helm of EU politics

After four decades of “globalist” policies embraced by the mainstream parties alternating in power, we are witnessing the rise of the far right, which presents itself as an alternative to preserve national sovereignty, defend cultural identity, and restore institutional dignity.

The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL https://left.eu/ has 46 MEPs, adding a few more in the NI (non-attached) group. With little over 50 MEPs, the left cannot do much in a Parliament composed of 720 members (MEPs).

The triumph of neoliberalism led many parties of the so-called democratic left, such as the Spanish PSOE or the Portuguese PS, to put socialism on the shelf. The radical left has been vilified and highly penalized by the relentless anti-communist propaganda that has prevented many citizens from forming their political views through the lens of class struggle, which, in my opinion, is fundamental to understanding how society really works.

In the last voting for the European elections, the war in Ukraine, due to its danger and impact on the European economy, should be a determining factor in the political choice for the EU Parliament.

We indeed got used to politicians saying one thing and doing another, but when it comes to the Ukrainian war, this does not seem to be the case, which makes the choice easier.

The so-called moderate parties are, paradoxically, filled with rabid warmonger validated by their ineffable morals.

It is obvious that nobody votes for a party just because they are for or against a war, but this is not just any war (none is). It is a war with the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict.

Even though the far right has grown, the status quo prevailed, which means that the majority of the electorate voted for the warmongering parties.

I believe that many of those who are against the escalation of the war are among those who do not vote, which also makes them complicit.

Not voting is starting to be a real existential threat, which leads me to believe that parties on the so-called radical left must change their strategy and that new parties based on an ecosocialist manifesto need to be created.

A recent Gallup poll shows that Half of Ukrainians Want Quick, Negotiated End to War https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-quick-negotiated-end-war.aspx

The Ukrainian war exposed what most of us already knew: the anti-democratic essence of the European Commission.

Governments that legitimately question European policies (which are destroying the European economy and pushing Europe towards a potential nuclear confrontation) are attacked, and their countries are targeted with fines, as is happening to Hungary.

The European Commission is led by a woman who aspired to become NATO's Secretary General. This detail may be irrelevant to many people, but not to me.

It is impossible to know how the Ukrainian war will actually evolve. Still, for as long as the current European political elite controls the levers of power, the war has the potential to escalate, with greater or lesser American support.

Russia will agree to sit at the negotiating table if Ukraine commits to accepting a neutral status and puts aside the aspirations to join NATO and that Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson belong to Russia.

If we want to be intellectually honest, it was NATO that wished to incorporate Ukraine into its sphere of influence, not the other way around.

For reasons of geopolitical agenda, Trump may try to reach a compromise with Putin and pressure Brussels to sign a possible peace treaty, but I have great doubts that the negotiations will be successful; the Russians are not interested in merely freezing the conflict.

We have a bleak future ahead of us if the European elites continue to escalate the conflict based on their delusional assumption of winning the war.

The European Commission does not have the political legitimacy to escalate the war to an uncontrollable level.

Not to mention the lies and distortions used to buy our compliance, like the North Korean soldier's narrative, a textbook case of perception manipulation to manufacture consent.

Escalating the war with total disregard for human life with the excuse that it was Putin who started the war. A war that, by the way, was desired by the neoconservatives to use the opportunity to weaken, divide, and destroy Russia.

The Russian invasion did not happen earlier because Putin tried to avoid it, not the other way around, until he concluded that he could not let the situation deteriorate any further.

Call me a Putin apologist because that really helps Europeans understand the truth.

Trade relations between the US and the EU will likely deteriorate during Trump's presidency, worsening the European economic situation.

Imagine the following scenario: a hot war with Russia, an economic war with China, unconditional support for Israel so that it can continue the genocide of the Palestinian people and go to war against Iran (the fact that some countries have chosen to support the ICC decision does not mean they stop sending weapons to Israel.) That is the perfect scenario to trigger World War III.

The point to retain is that those who support the warmongers must understand that it is not "just" the lives of Ukrainians and Russians that are at risk; It's the lives of all of us.

We have the "patriotic" duty to debunk official warmongering narratives and support political initiatives to negotiate a multipolar international order. Supporting those who want to maintain Western hegemony at all costs means supporting warmongering efforts that could lead to nuclear war. This is not a mere probability but an avalanche rolling downhill towards us.

The Ukrainian war and the genocide of the Palestinian people are widening the gap between the West and the "Global South." A mediocre, arrogant, and delusional political class is pushing Europe towards geopolitical irrelevance and, at the same, pushing the world closer to a nuclear Armageddon.

The European institutions, instead of focusing on establishing constructive relations with the countries of the Global South, participate as junior partners in US imperialist war games, doomed to failure or the annihilation of humanity.

It is likely (and imperative) that more European governments challenge the intention to perpetuate the Ukrainian war.

Left-leaning European citizens who have been caught in the fog of unprovoked war propaganda should make sure they are not being used in a game that could get us all killed.

The USSR was formally dissolved as a sovereign state and subject to international law on December 26, 1991. After 33 years, the anti-communist prejudices persist due to never-ending demonizing propaganda.

Ecosocialism is an alternative to our civilizational challenges for those not identifying with “traditional” communist and socialist parties.

Don't feel ashamed to defend anti-capitalist policies; far-right parties feel no shame in defending fascist-leaning forms of governance presented in the form of nationalist populism.

Ordinary workers who support parties whose structural values include the uncompromising defense of private property, unlimited wealth accumulation, cuts to social security, and the elimination of universal basic services are being deceived by skillful manipulators who exploit the genuine grievances caused by capitalist policies.

European elites believe in the superiority of European civilization as a reference for humanity. However, remaining attached to memories of a glorious past will not prevent the reality of a rapidly changing world from leaving the West behind. Most countries want to have good relations with the West; they just want the West to move on. Everything has an end, and Western imperialist colonialism is on its way out.

The garden can turn into a jungle sooner than many imagine due to the incompetence of the gardeners.

What does the EU have to gain by antagonizing China?

What does Europe want with the Global Gateway project at a time when countries in the Global South are repudiating the West?

If China had not launched the Belt and Road Initiative, European leaders would never have implemented the Global Gateway project. These people are pathetic.

The Global South recognizes Russia and China as more reliable economic and geostrategic partners than the West.

After World War II, the USA put its vast economic and military resources and the recently created CIA (1947) into the glorious mission of disrupting the advance of communism.

Wars, overthrows of democratic governments, and false-flag operations became the modus operandi of American foreign policy.

During the subsequent decades, many governments of the so-called third-world countries were encouraged to take out loans from the World Bank to invest in infrastructure projects that facilitated extracting and exporting natural and mineral resources, raw materials, and commodities with low-added value, benefiting the Western corporations while keeping the national economies underdeveloped.

This “development” model did not allow underdeveloped countries to pay off debts contracted in dollars with foreign institutions. This has been the reality until now, and it is one reason why the global South is repudiating the West.

Europe's industrial decline (Germany, Europe's economic engine, is losing steam) and high-tech underdevelopment accumulated due to dependence on American tech giants should be enough to make EU leaders rethink Europe's strategic geopolitical economic policy.

Despite the high carbon taxes—Carbon Taxes in Europe, 2023 (https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/carbon-taxes-in-europe-2023/)- Europe relies heavily on fossil fuels. The European economy's decarbonization is due to deindustrialization, not a decrease in dependence on fossil fuels. The substantial increase in the import costs of LNG and petroleum derivatives contributes to the European economy's loss of competitiveness.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Imports_of_selected_energy_products,_EU,_1990-2022_Petajoule_(PJ).png

The mysterious explosion of the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline cut the energy umbilical cord between Russia and Germany. The US has opposed the project since its inception. In 2019, Richard Grenell, then US ambassador to Germany, wrote letters to German companies involved in the Nord Stream project, threatening them with sanctions.

Trump told reporters at a White House meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda: "We are protecting Germany from Russia and Russia is receiving billions and billions of dollars from Germany. Germany is making a tremendous mistake".

Biden answering a journalist': "if Russia invades Ukraine again there will be no longer a Nordstream 2, we will bring an end to it..."

Mission accomplished.

The European elites seem committed to placing Europe at the forefront of irrelevance.

Green Transition: business as usual or political economy paradigm shift

The green transition promised by Green Capitalism is not the panacea that many imagine because it is not based on a structural change in the political economy but on the “greening” of some capitalist economic sectors.

Without a genuine shift in the political economy paradigm, systemic vices will prevail, ensuring that some things change so that everything stays the same.

It is also true that the shift to a social and ecological political economy paradigm would require agreement between a considerable number of countries for it to work.

There are tremendous economic-financial, infrastructural, technoscientific, and development asymmetry between countries; transitioning to a social and ecological economy would have to be phased and based on programs adapted to each country, group of countries, or region.

A social and ecological political economy primarily focuses on meeting people's essential needs with policies to develop the real economy, such as increasing food sovereign production and universal basic services, including social housing and a job guarantee program, as advocated by the proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

What we need is an economy for a post-imperialist holistic ecological civilization, not the empty promises of the green growth strategy to make the European economy efficient, competitive, and modern. The European Green Deal aims to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050, using third-party territories (climate colonization) as carbon sinks, waste importers, and resource suppliers. This is greenwashing, not realistic policies.

The green technologies will help to reduce certain types of pollution while increasing others.

A growth economy depends on a constant flow of raw materials and virgin resources, which will continue to increase; improvements in recycling technologies will not be enough to keep up with the amount of waste produced by the green transition.

The Green Transition will not work as planned. What can we do instead? - Professor Simon Michaux

The amount of raw materials necessary to materialize the energy transition is mind blogging.

Capitalism transforms crises into business opportunities. In this case, the new lode to explore is the financialization of nature, turning nature into a market asset.

Debt is the foundation and lever of the dominant economic system, so the economy must grow indefinitely to cope with the interests.

The financialization of nature is just another instrument of speculation added to a hyper-financialized economic system looking for more sources of rent.

Those who believe that the green transition is humanity's lifeline should also consider that the success of this transition depends on our ability to design and implement a post-imperialist ecological civilization because war and the arms race are the fastest way forward for collective annihilation.

When politicians elected to promote a greener economy and a fairer society become rabid warmongers like Annalena Baerbock of the Die Grünen party, humanity's "salvation" is in the wrong hands.

Some see Trump's return to power as an opportunity to end the Ukrainian war. For others, the Ukrainian war is a kind of existential cause that gives meaning to their lives, even if it means destroying Europe.

Whether the initiative comes from Trump or any other party, what matters is that we choose the negotiating table.

It should be up to the Ukrainians to decide whether they want the war to continue or end.

If it is the US/UK/EU/NATO deciding on behalf of the Ukrainians whether the war should continue or not, then Ukraine is not a sovereign state but a colony without political autonomy to determine what is best for itself. Which, unfortunately, is the truth.

Volodymyr Zelensky's five-year term ended on May 20, 2024, but as the country is under martial law, he remains in power. Zelenskyy must remain in power to fulfill the administrator role of the ongoing proxy war.

If the Western "allies", instead of being committed to keeping the Ukrainian war to the last Ukrainian, were interested in helping Ukraine and if they believed in democratic values and free decision-making, they would organize a referendum to give Ukrainians a voice about what they want for their country.

They must fear that the Ukrainians understand better than we do, that the real enemies are the American and European neoconservatives, who year after year have pushed the Russians against the wall and forced them to choose between passively accepting Ukraine as a member of NATO, where it would be installed nuclear ballistic missiles pointing at Moscow or they (the Russians) would have to launch an operation to de-Nazify and demilitarize Ukraine.

The West financed, armed, and trained Ukraine for war against Russia, including the infamous Azov regiment. The war began after the 2014 Maidan coup with attacks on Russian-speaking Ukrainians living in eastern Ukraine.

It is important to understand that Russia had legitimate security concerns that the US/UK/EU repeatedly ignored, despite being aware that Russia would eventually take a drastic decision, which the West intended to exploit to its benefit, painting Putin as the incarnation of evil.

Furthermore, an invasion by Russia would justify the imposition of sanctions capable of paralyzing the Russian economy and turning Russians against Putin.

Both choices would place Russia in a delicate position in the eyes of American neoconservatives and European allies. However, What was supposed to be a brilliant plan failed on the ground.

The plan did not go as expected, and now Europe is at a crossroads: accept reality and sit at the negotiation table or escalate an unwinnable war.

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." ― George Orwell,1984.

Whether we attribute the quote to Senator Hiram Warren Johnson (1918), Dr. Samuel Johnson (1758), or the Greek playwright Aeschylus, around 550 B.C. “The first victim of war is the truth.”

Propaganda leads us to support the wrong people and causes with severe consequences.

Those who care about the intrinsic value of truth must be open to revising long-held assumptions when confronted with new facts.

Contrary to common belief, those who live in liberal democracies are more influenced by propaganda than those who live in so-called autocracies.

Pushing Europe Towards Irrelevance

"ESPAS – at the heart of EU foresight"

The European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) is an inter-institutional EU process promoting foresight and anticipatory governance. It brings together nine EU institutions and bodies committed to thinking longer term about the challenges and opportunities facing Europe and, through foresight, supporting policy-makers in making the right policy choices.

The report https://espas.eu/files/espas_files/about/ESPAS-Global-Trends-to-2040-Choosing-Europes-Future.pdf defines the centrality of geopolitics as a transversal trend, given the ongoing change in an era of cooperation to an era of competition, as well as the deepening fragmentation of the international system and the acceleration of major global transitions. The report highlights how the boundaries between the EU's domestic and foreign policy are blurring today and are likely to blur further in the future. The primacy of geopolitics is outlined in the various trends identified in the report: from economic challenges to demographics, from the environmental and climate crisis to the energy transition, from the quest for equality to technological acceleration, and including health, democracy and the broader changes in how we live. Source:

https://espas.eu/

The ESPAS Choosing Europe's Future report highlights that

- division and discord are increasing in international relations and the global economy.

- this reality affects the diffusion of new technologies.

- internal divisions are increasing, risking the polarization of society.

- geopolitical conflicts can undermine economic prosperity and delay the green transition.

-Advances in energy technologies can accelerate the green transition, restore economic prosperity, end geopolitical tensions, and boost international collaboration on new technologies.

According to the report, Europe is warming faster than any other continent, and by 2040, the EU will lose 17 million working-age people.

And if the global women's health deficit were eliminated, the world economy would be $1 trillion richer by 2040.

The Maastricht Treaty

The Maastricht Treaty, officially known as the Treaty on European Union, laid the foundations of the European Union as we know it today.

The Treaty introduced European citizenship, allowing citizens to reside and move freely between the Member States.

The Treaty established a common foreign and security policy.

The Treaty developed close cooperation in justice and home affairs to ensure the security of European citizens.

The agreement gave the EU broader authority, including formal control over EU development, education, public health, and consumer protection policies. It also strengthened the EU's role in environmental protection, social and economic cohesion, and technological research.

Twelve countries signed the Treaty on February 7, 1992: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. The treaty officially entered into force on November 1, 1993.

The Maastricht Treaty laid the foundations for creating a single European currency, the euro, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the European System of Central Banks.

The economic-financial integration to the creation of the single currency was divided into three phases:

Phase 1 (from 1 July 1990 to 31 December 1993): introduction of free movement of capital between Member States.

Phase 2 (from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1998): strengthening cooperation between national central banks and greater alignment of Member States' economic policies.

Phase 3 (from 1 January 1999 to today): gradual introduction of the euro and implementation of a single monetary policy, for which the ECB is responsible.

The Treaty established the criteria that countries were required to meet to join the euro and the rules for how the currency would work.

The convergence criteria aimed to keep price stability in the euro area.

Member States were required to have annual budget deficits not exceeding 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), public debt less than 60 percent of the GDP, inflation rates within 1.5 percent of the three lowest rates of inflation in the EU, and exchange rate stability to be able to join the Euro.

European leaders agreed on additional measures to promote greater integration between European states, such as:

The Stability and Growth Pact agreed in 1997 to ensure that countries followed sound fiscal policies.

The European Stability Mechanism was created to provide financial assistance to euro-area countries threatened by serious financing problems.

The Single Supervisory Mechanism and the Single Resolution Board were created after the financial crisis to improve the safety of the European banking system and increase financial integration and stability.

The Maastricht Treaty was considered a giant leap forward for European integration.

However, the 2008 financial crisis, COVID-19, and the last three years of war in Ukraine should be enough to remind us that more integration means less democracy and less sovereignty.

Does it matter? Probably it does.

The Maastricht Treaty obliged Member States to transfer part of their national sovereignty to European institutions, to cooperate in the fields of justice and home affairs and at an intergovernmental level through common institutions, with supranational characteristics and the involvement of the EU Commission.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)

The EU defines and implements the common foreign and security policy. Member States have a duty to support this policy actively and without reservation, in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity, to safeguard the Union's shared values, fundamental interests, independence, and integrity.

Cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs covers the following areas:

- rules and exercise of controls when crossing the Community's external borders

- combat terrorism, serious crime, drug trafficking and international fraud

- judicial cooperation in criminal and civil matters

- creation of a European Police Office (Europol) with an information exchange system between national police forces

- control illegal immigration and the common asylum policy

The European Commission is the politically independent executive arm of the EU. It is responsible for drafting proposals for new European legislation and implementing decisions of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.

The European Commission sets the EU's spending priorities, prepares annual budgets for approval by Parliament and the Council, and oversees how money is spent under scrutiny by the Court of Auditors.

The EU Commission enforces EU law together with the Court of Justice, ensuring that EU law is applied correctly in all member countries.

It represents the EU internationally, speaks on behalf of all EU countries in international bodies, especially in the areas of trade policy and humanitarian aid, and negotiates international agreements for the EU.

The European Commission comprises a College of Commissioners (1 from each EU country) and a President.

Based on the existing treaties, the EU concentrates too many powers in the European Commission.

Instead of defending European interests, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, represents US/NATO interests in the EU.

The European Commission and NATO (institutions exempt from public scrutiny), both located in Brussels, work in unison to force Member States to accept a manufactured unity concerning issues of vital importance for the present and future of Europe.

The European Commission is placing the American foreign policy priorities and the neoconservative geopolitical agenda above the collective European interest, putting Europe on a collision course with Russia. Is it written in stone that we have to live with our backs turned to Russia? Or even worse, pushing for direct war.

The only path to peace is peace – not the rotten peace of frozen conflicts, but peace strengthened by economic cooperation, shared prosperity, and the guarantee of mutual security.

Europe without Russia is a lame Europe.

European politicians who behave as if they were foreign agents, putting the interests of a foreign power ahead of European interests, should be required to register as foreign agents in the EU. The name that immediately came to mind was Ursula von der Leyen, who did not deserve to see her mandate renewed. It would have been more congruent to have awarded her the Secretary General of NATO post.

This political elite is putting European collective security and well-being (present and future) at risk by behaving as foreign agents out of conviction, interest, or both. They must be debunked in every possible way.

Journalists, academics, activists, politicians, and ordinary citizens who dare to criticize the official narratives and policies, in addition to being censored and canceled, are often accused of being Putin's puppets.

Meanwhile, politicians in positions of high political responsibility and the permanent bureaucracy that defend openly foreign interests are supposed to be revered.

The so-called "radical" left has to become more assertive, not only in presenting alternatives to official EU policies but in debunking the permanent bureaucracy (the European deep state). The anti-imperialist left is crucial to helping Europe find the place it deserves in the emerging international order.

The time has come to say enough to the

US feudal lord.

We will regret to keep supporting neoconservative politicians with a Western-controlled view of the world.

The kind of courage and unity that European citizens and politicians should value requires putting European interests first.

However, the solution is not to replace American neoconservatives with European equivalents but rather to support politicians, movements, and organizations that dare to confront the powers that be and challenge the current political status quo and geopolitical strategy.

Economic cooperation with BRICS+ and the Global South is vital.

A Europe committed to becoming irrelevant must, out of pure pragmatism, discard anachronistic prejudices of civilizational superiority.

The neoconservatives on both sides of the pond will not hesitate to push us into World War III, using us as cannon fodder without any remorse. Anyone who believes that neoconservatives have more regard for our lives than for the lives of Ukrainians and Russians is deeply deluded.

Sitting on the fence is not an option anymore.

ecogitar

sábado, 5 de julho de 2025

Why does the plutoligarchy always win the class war?

quinta-feira, 3 de julho de 2025

Meritocracy, entitlement, frustration and fascism

domingo, 29 de junho de 2025

Individualism, collectivism and realism

sexta-feira, 23 de maio de 2025

Class struggle, inequality and power politics

domingo, 4 de maio de 2025

Economics of sufficiency is economics of justice

terça-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2024

EU, Ukrainian war and the fate of Europe

sábado, 5 de outubro de 2024