De ironie dat de Amerikaanse president Joe Biden nu poseert als een vriend van Oekraïne, in het huidige conflict met Rusland, kon alleen met de eerdere hulp van Trump.

Zonder dat Trump de Europese NATO-lidstaten dwong meer te gaan besteden aan hun defensie was de huidige crisis niet mogelijk geweest. En dat terwijl Trump politiek nauwelijks of niet in Europa was geïnteresseerd – tot woede van onze lokale hotemetoten. Diezelfde hotemetoten die jegens de USA een steeds onafhankelijker rol gingen spelen, en ook dat ligt mede ten grondslag aan de huidige crisis: de USA heeft er groot belang bij dat de Europese bondgenoten Rusland weer als bedreiging gaan ervaren, en niet als een potentiële partner. Het Amerikaanse verzet tegen de aanleg van gasleiding Nordstream2 is hier kenmerkend voor.

De gehele crisis van dit moment kenmerkt zich door een USA die te keer gaat als een gillende keukenmeid die een wolf door de achtertuin ziet sluipen. De Europese NATO-leden scharen zich nu weer braaf achter Ome Joe en zijn Amerikaanse troepen, die Europa binnen stromen. Dat alleen Macron dat door heeft is daarom niet vreemd – de Fransen zijn altijd al kritisch geweest over Amerikaanse bemoeienis met Europa. Deze crisis zal daarom nog wel een paar jaar aanhouden,

Macron in a remarkably frank interview with a French Journal put his finger on the main structural problems facing the EU: He lambasted the fact that the EU Council (and other EU states) had vetoed the earlier French-German proposal for a Russia-EU summit. The consequences to this omission, he said starkly, was that: ‘Others’ were talking to the Russians on the behalf of the EU. It’s not hard to surmise that he is implying that U.S. ‘interests’ (whether directly or via NATO ventriloquism) were the ones doing the talking. And that ‘Europe’ had lost its voice.

Dat lijkt in lijn met gewonde Franse trots, maar het gaat wel wat verder dan dat:

This is not simply a case of wounded amour propre by the French Jupiterian leader. It is rather, that some West European leaders (ie. the Carolingian Axis), belatedly have awoken to the realisation that the whole fake artifice of the ‘imminent Russian invasion’ of Ukraine is about corralling European states back into bloc (NATO) discipline. Macron – to give him his due – showed by his remarks at the Moscow press conference that he understood that silence at this crucial moment could define Europe for the next decades – leaving it bereft of the autonomy (let alone any modicum of sovereignty) that Macron so much wants for Europe.

Dat betekent niet dat er geen risico’s zijn, maar bovenal zijn dit risico’s waarover de Europese lidstaten geen macht en weinig invloed hebben.

The account of Macron’s press conference after his long tête-à-tête with Putin represents the contortionism of a French President unable to explicitly diss the dominant Anglo-American narrative on Ukraine, whilst saying – in barely coded language – that he was at one with Russia on all its complaints about the failed European security architecture, and the real risks of its toxicity for Russia that could lead to war in Europe.

De Franse observatie dat er een nieuwe veiligheidsarchitectuur in Europa noodzakelijk is, is daarom correct:

Macron explicitly said that new security arrangements in Europe are absolutely needed. (In spite of his care not to poke the U.S. in the eye, he was clearly signalling a non-NATO ‘new’ arrangement). He also flatly contradicted the Washington narrative, saying that he did not believe Russia had an intent to invade Ukraine. Adding that in respect to NATO expansion, mistakes had been made.

Het gevolg is dat Macron op een heel ander beeld uitkomt dan de USA en de NATO:

Macron, in short, came out at complete odds with the Biden narrative of imminent war. He clearly risks an outpouring of Anglo-U.S. and some European wrath for unreservedly taking on board Putin’s ‘not an inch’ stance of full Kiev compliance with Minsk, and a complete settlement for Donbass, as his own. The French President subsequently travelled to Kiev to shore up the ceasefire on the Contact Line. Predictably, the Anglo press is now hailing Minsk II as a weapon being held to the head of Kiev – precisely loaded to fracture the state and trigger a civil war.

Dat me er in China ook al zo naar kijkt zien we in Europa doorgaans niet zo goed”:

Macron, from his comments, seemingly understands that the Ukraine crisis – through posing grave risks war inside Europe – paradoxically does not lie at the heart of the Carolingian fears.
Strikingly, China is saying the same explicitly: The authoritative Global Times in an editorial warns that the U.S. is instigating conflict in Ukraine in order to tighten bloc discipline – to corral European States back into the U.S.-led fold. No doubt, China makes the connection that Ukraine provides the perfect pivot for shepherding Europe towards America’s next stage of requiring a united front with the U.S. for the later task of barricading-in China, behind her borders.

Het belang hiervan mag niet onderschat worden:

In play, therefore, are key decisions that will define Europe for the future. On the one hand,, “the goal of Russian and Chinese policy is to recruit Germany into a triple alliance locking together the Eurasian land mass à la Mackinder into the greatest geopolitical alliance in history – switching world power in favour of these three great powers, and against Anglo-Saxon sea power”.
And on the other hand, NATO was conceived, from the outset, as a means of Anglo-American control over Europe and more precisely for keeping Germany ‘down’, and Russia ‘out’ (in that old axiom of western strategists). Lord Hastings (Lionel Ismay), NATO’s first Secretary General, famously said that NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.

This mindset lingers on, but the formula has acquired today a greater import, and a new twist: To keep Germany ‘down and price uncompetitive’ versus U.S. goods; to keep Russia ‘out’ from being Europe’s source of cheap energy; and to keep China ‘fenced out’ from EU–U.S. trade. The aim is to contain Europe firmly within America’s narrowly defined economic orbit and compelled to forgo the benefits of Chinese and Russian technology, finance and trade – thus helping towards achieving the aim of barricading China within its borders.

Herinnert u zich nog van vorige week, dat Biden tijdens het bezoek van Bondskanselier Scholtz vrolijk opmerkte dat de USA in staat is elke levering door Rusland van gas via Nordstream2 aan EU-landen te stoppen? De plannen daarvoor liggen derhalve al klaar, en dat dat tot gevolg zou hebben dat half Europa doodvriest zal; de Amerikanen worst zijn. Het gevolg is een situatie waarin de Europese staten machteloos zijn:

Yet, the moment he gives that undertaking, Germany’s little slice of sovereignty is gone – Scholtz yields it to Washington. Moreover, Macron’s aspiration to some wider euro-autonomy is gone too, for without French and German policy alignment, EU ‘pretend sovereignty’ is gone. Moreover, if Nordstream is binned, EU energy security is blown away. And with little real alternative supply, the EU is nailed for good to expensive U.S. LNG dependency (with the likelihood of gas price crises at home, too).
It is not clear (and a likely source of anxiety for Macron), whether Germany’s refusal to give Biden his desired Nordstream ultimatum represents any meaningful reserve of Euro-sovereignty at all. What would happen were Washington to incite the Ukrainian militia ‘crazies’ into some outrage, or into a false flag attack that triggers mayhem?

De situatie wordt nog gecompliceerd door de binnenlandse situatie van de USA: de nadering van Midterms2022 laat zich al voelen.

Biden needs a foreign policy achievement for his campaign into the Midterms. And 63% of Americans say they would support massive sanctions imposed on Russia, were Moscow to invade Ukraine. Biden is known to believe in the adage that ultimately all politics – including foreign policy – is subservient to domestic electoral needs. Heavily sanctioning Russia – with Europe acting in lockstep – is just the step that would likely be seen in the White House as giving his ratings a needed fillip. (And not unprecedented: Recall Bill Clinton, under pressure over the Lewinsky exposé, triggered the Balkan war to distract from his personal predicament).
Not surprisingly, President Putin is cautious.

De strategie achter de Russische reactie is nu essentieel:

The most significant point to grasp from the Putin–Macron episode is that it gave the lie to the idea that Moscow is somehow hoping to open negotiations with the West on secondary issues, as a possible gateway to Russia’s existential concerns. Russia is open to negotiations, but only in respect to Putin’s three red lines: No NATO (including stealth NATO) in Ukraine; no strike missiles on Russia’s border; and the roll-back of NATO to the lines of 1997. Putin did not give an inch on the latter; he gave not an inch either on Minsk as the only solution in Ukraine. Putin did not give at all the impression of a man liking negotiating for the sake of negotiating. Bottom line: No easy fixes.

De ontkenning in het westen van de realiteit van Russisch ongemak over het opdringen van de NATO is nu esentieel:

Even if conflict is frozen or paused over the short term, it will not hold longer-term, as the West refuses to acknowledge that Putin means what he says.

---

Meer over Oekraïne en de gebeurtenissen in dat land leest u hier.