1. Europe is weak and divided and few would waste their lives to confront Russia’s 5000 Nukes … 2.The 800 billion would have to go for inferior US Arms 3.Without US Satellite Net and Elon’s Starlink Europe would last 3 days.

on March 16, 202 by DANTE BARONTINI at Obsadmin via thefreeonline at https://wp.me/pIJl9-GkY Telegram.. t.me/thefreeonline/2598

Leer en Castellano: Rearmar Europa”. Un juego peligroso, casi suicida

What kind of “strategic autonomy” can a group of 27 countries with often divergent objectives that depend on a private satellite network and the nuclear cover of a “reluctant ally” have?

Nothing cuts through the chatter and power like war. Are you for or against it? Do you vote for “war credits”—as the social democratic parties of the Second International did in 1914—or not? Are you going on the streets to demand an extension of the war or to say “enough is enough” ?

As everyone knows, Ursula von der Leyen launched her €800 billion “ReArm Europe” plan because “ something fundamental has changed.” Our European values—democracy, freedom, and the rule of law—are under threat. We see sovereignty being called into question, but so are ironclad commitments. Everything has become transactional. “The pace of change is accelerating, and the actions needed must be bold and decisive .”

A demonstrator is holding a placard depicting a skull that reads ‘Russians burn in hell’ in Warsaw, Poland

A tangle of falsehoods and lies that “Anonima Maltese” handles masterfully , while here we try to explain what is happening.

Let’s also ignore for a moment the curious contradiction according to which one would want to rearm to “defend democracy” but, to do so, circumvents democratic institutions and proceeds “autocratically” (the “plan” will not be voted on by either the useless European Parliament or the 27 national parliaments). Translated: in whose name are we rearming ?

It’s also clear that these €800 billion are largely a three-card game, because in reality—with the exception of a portion consisting of new debt issued by both the European Union and individual nation states—a large part of them are transfers of funds intended for European “cohesion funds.” That is, the financial instruments created to ” reduce economic, social, and territorial disparities between EU Member States and regions ,” with the aim of ” promoting harmonious and sustainable development by strengthening economic, social, and territorial cohesion within the Union .”

In practice, Rearm Europe will authorize individual states to take these funds and, instead of spending them on building better infrastructure, wind or solar farms, modernizing water and sewage systems, or providing vocational training for the unemployed or young people, use them to buy weapons.

A vile game, but generally simple, like any low-budget hack.

The real problems, however, begin when you move from “finding the money” (it’s very easy to get into debt) to what to do. 

‘The deranged European “elites” will fail, one way or the other. Their perception of reality is distorted by delusions, their resources – military and also intellectual – are far too small, and their aims make no sense. But the problem for the rest of us is that they may yet cause enormous damage on their way down the rubbish chute of history’.

“Rearming” means placing new and old weapons in the hands of combat-ready military personnel. This is generally possible within a state—of any size or regime—where unity of political command ensures that the military moves to achieve the objectives set by the government.

No matter how much Kallas and the EU preach European unity and freedom, their actions typically just end up being a masterclass in self-sabotage. One that Europeans didn’t sign up for but are forced to endure.

First problem. There is no such thing as a “European” army, only national armies. Forming an interstate armed force is more complicated (and dangerous, in the medium term) than entrusting a commissioner with control of the budgetary policies of several countries. Existing armies have different weapons, some produced by national companies under careful public control (Leonardo in Italy, etc.), some purchased from the most technologically advanced ally (the United States).

Conventional weapons are, above all, important, but not decisive. The true “deterrence” against potential external enemies is provided by the possession of nuclear weapons. And in the European Union, only France has them. But there aren’t many (290), nor are there any of the latest type.

In any case, Macron immediately became an “atomic rooster” and declared himself available to eventually replace the “American umbrella” with his own small one. But so far, only Poland has shown any signs of interest.

Even adding the 225 British warheads – non-EU, in any case – we would have a worrying supply (515 bombs), but infinitely inferior to the Russian one (6,000), which today can count on uninterceptible hypersonic missiles that no one else has at the moment.

It’s already clear that the effective “political command” over the potential military command is quite unbalanced (one EU country and one non-EU country), while the rest of the Union should follow suit. Perhaps this is also why Friedrich Merz, the newly elected but not yet installed chancellor, has opened the door to the hypothesis that Germany could, sooner or later, acquire nuclear weapons .

As can be seen, “European rearmament” is already underway, but each on its own and according to different plans. Starmer, the self-proclaimed Labour Party, wants to reintroduce compulsory military service; the “pro-European” Polish Tusk Party also wants to reintroduce it (but in the form of “annual training” for the entire population); neo-fascist Italy is considering increasing troop numbers, and so on.

For everyone, however, there’s the limit of an aging population, which no longer generates “cannon fodder” in large numbers. And asking immigrants to do it for us, while we throw them into the sea or wherever, doesn’t seem very realistic…

Centuries of intra-European wars, interrupted just 80 years ago by the vassalage imposed by the United States, serve to remind us that without political unity—a single currency and restrictive treaties are not enough—armies can easily become “variables” once again on the table when things aren’t going too well.

Second problem. Modern warfare between roughly “symmetrical” powers (with equivalent equipment)—such as the one that has been raging for three years in Ukraine between NATO and Russia—requires satellite coverage that guarantees not only knowledge of the “enemy’s” position and movements, but also the ability to guide any type of aerial weapon (fighters, drones, missiles, etc.) toward targets.

Here, “Europe” is clearly visible. The only reliable Western network right now is Elon Musk’s Starlink, as well as the part controlled by the Pentagon. That is, a private individual who, for the past month and a half, has also been a quasi-minister in the Trump administration. A man who is now reminding us that without his network, Kiev’s military capacity would have lasted a few days instead of three years.

A thesis “objectively” shared by the entire media and political apparatus—which cried “betrayal” when Trump “suspended” the exchange of intelligence and satellite data with kyiv—thus confirming what had been denied for three years: NATO, the “collective West” (and therefore Italy as well) are fully involved in the conflict, even at the military level. Information is a weapon, even more so today than cannons…

More than thirty years of triumphant neoliberalism—since the fall of the Wall—have not put an “end to history” but have created a situation never seen before. In the capitalist West, “the private sector” has hollowed out the powers of the state, not only at the economic level (forcing it to renounce any form of “public intervention” inconsistent with its own interests), but also at the strategic level (satellites, missiles, etc.).

Senator Lindsey Graham calls for Putin’s assassination

And it may be true that the Starlink satellite network, once a “service” contract is signed with any state, generates data traffic under the full control of the “tenant” (first and foremost the United States), but ownership and control of the hardware (even if only for maintenance) remains firmly in private hands.

In short: those who rely on Starlink are in their hands. A bit like the F35s, the futuristic—but extremely delicate—US fighters that can be “jammed” at any time by the Pentagon, even if they are sold (and paid for handsomely) to “allied” countries.

Big question: What kind of “strategic autonomy” can a group of 27 countries with often divergent objectives have, and which must rely, for quite some time, on a private satellite network and the nuclear cover of a “reluctant ally”?

None, of course. And this, paradoxically, might even reassure us, because such a device will hardly be capable of making ” irrevocable decisions ,” marking the “hour of destiny ,” and other synonyms for a potentially global declaration of war. A dangerous device for small countries on the coasts of Africa or the Middle East, certainly, but not a trigger for nuclear darkness.

Unless you want to be stupid enough to try sending “peacekeepers” to Ukraine…

But heavily arming a highly unstable device, with different specific weights (economic, political, military, etc.) and often divergent interests, is a form of playing with fire. After all, it takes a moment to move from the elimination of each country’s individual veto power to “democratic interference” in the domestic politics of others…

Published in: Articles , Home

US President Donald Trump wants to sideline and destroy the European Union, Politico has claimed in an article published on Thursday. ‘Trump will sideline the EU and play divide-and-rule with national leaders‘. Of course Biden was no better, even declaring beforehand that the US would destroy NordStream, leaving Europe dependent on US Fracked Gas at double the price, and making them donate all their NATO armaments to Ukraine, only replaceable via the US Industrial Complex. Trump has also targeted the bloc’s trade practices, describing them as “an atrocity” and announcing plans to impose a 25% tariff on EU goods. He also claimed that the bloc was “formed to screw the United States.”

*****************

Europe: Why do the elites want to lead us to war?

on March 16, 2025 by Germán Gorráiz López at prensabolivariana via thefreeonline

The European elites were uneasy with the first protests from a once submissive and uncritical population. Thus, the high cost of living, the economic recession, and the collapse of the welfare state’s house of cards shook the socioeconomic framework they had worked so hard to build.

Then Trump got back in and destroyed NATO by advocating PEACE with the Russian Devil, and threatening to militarily seize 2 NATO countries-Canada and Greenland.

Hysterically Terrified of their own propaganda and public, and still maybe suffering Covid Vaccine Brain Fog 0ur Politicians went apeshit.

Finally they decided to abandon any democracy, rearm to the teeth and declare war on Russia, in the hope of militarizing public life, stopping any protests, and of course, boosting their shares in the Arms industry.

A History of Infamy

On the first day, the elites said: “Let us create a new religion with Hedonism as its god and Nihilism as its prophet, and let us establish a universal language to ensure instant communication between the citizens of the world.”

On the second day, the elites said: “Let’s inoculate the population with compulsive consumerism of material goods and unleash economic globalization to satisfy their consumption and dependence.”

On the third day, the elites said: “Let’s proceed with unbridled consumption of raw materials and fossil fuels to maintain the productive machinery and promote the use of anxiolytics, antidepressants, and various stimulants to keep the citizenry drugged.”

On the fourth day, the elites said: “Let’s end the emotional ties of the family structure by severing the parent-child communion by placing the elderly in nursing homes.”

On the fifth day, the elites said:”Let’s create social media to provoke individualism and lack of solidarity, and fake news to disorient them and plunge them into existential doubt.”

On the sixth day, the elites said: “Let’s implement cyber manipulation to monitor citizens’ communications through their metadata, and AI to prevent the awakening of the masses’ political consciousness.”

On the seventh day, the elites saw everything they had done and realized that it was all good for their interests, so they decided to rest and enjoy their creation.”

But the European elites were uneasy with the first protests from a once submissive and uncritical population over the high cost of living, the economic recession, and the collapse of the welfare state’s house of cards.

Consequently, they decided to rearm to the teeth and declare war on Russia with the secret goal of militarizing public life and ending the rights of expression and demonstration.

♦♦♦

‘Nothing but the Clouds Unchanged: Artists in World War I’