For the EU, fake crises like the Russia threat and Trump abandoning NATO mean more giveaways to (mostly US) weapons companies. They mean more neoliberalism through more social spending cuts and privatizations due to lack of funds and more war on the working class.
Any threat posed by Trump (and the Biden administration or whoever comes after Trump) is the result of the very real crises of Europe’s overdependence on the US and energy prices hurting industry, but those are deemed necessary to deal with the fake crises.
Has the reemergence of the bad orange man caused any rethink about the EU strategy to “de-risk” from Russia and China and put itself at the mercy of Washington? Or are Europeans falling over themselves with pledges to increase defense spending? It’s the latter.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as usual, takes the cake. She managed to come up with a plan that would shoot the EU in both feet with her idea to buy even more gas from the US. This would increase dependence on the US while simultaneously doing even more to wreck the economies of EU states. Here’s Politico with the details:
Stressing that the EU still buys significant amounts of energy from Russia, von der Leyen asked: “Why not replace it by American LNG, which is cheaper for us and brings down our energy prices? It’s something where we can get into a discussion, also [where] our trade deficit is concerned.”
During the first Trump term, Juncker avoided more tariffs by assuring the U.S. president that Europe would facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas (and more American soybeans.) In fact, the European Commission has no real power in determining European companies’ purchases of LNG and soybeans, but Trump was happy to accept the political theater of parading data that European purchases were going up.
There is no evidence that American LNG is cheaper, as von der Leyen is quoted as saying. It’s actually a lot more expensive than the pipeline Russian gas Europe used to get. And the European Commission does have some power in determining European companies’ purchases of LNG through its sanction powers. And the Commission doesn’t have the power to dictate purchases yet. Due to recent crises, EU member states added new instruments to Ursula’s toolbox during her first five-year term, such as the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, International Procurement Instrument, an Anti-Coercion Instrument, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and the EU Critical Raw Materials Act. Maybe the latest Trump crisis will add another tool to her toolbox.
One gets the feeling that Ursula is intentionally trying to do economic damage to bloc nations in order to increase the odds she gets her coveted eurobonds. If there’s another crisis — or series of crises — she might get the chance. Countries having to throw more money at the energy crisis and shrinking GDPs could struggle to pay more for defense, which would lead to more calls for joint borrowing. Some background on the idea from Euractiv:
This miracle happened during the eurozone crisis when the EU created a legal instrument, the European Financial Stability Facility, able to issue bonds and with a lending capacity of €440 billion. And with the COVID pandemic, the miracle was repeated as the EU adopted a recovery fund with a firepower of €750 billion, financed through common debt issuance.
The same line of thinking has inspired politicians to imagine defence bonds – to finance a major boost of the EU’s defence capabilities, after years of neglect when it was assumed that war was a thing of the past or that Uncle Sam would always come to the EU’s defence…
Speaking at the European Defence Agency annual conference on 30 November, [European Council President Charles] Michel said EU member states should pool what could amount to €600 billion in defence investment over the next 10 years…
A couple of weeks later, French President Emmanuel Macron returned to the topic, telling investors at the World Economic Forum in Davos that Europe should resort to joint debt to finance its priorities, including defence.
In the ensuing months the argument for joint debt has come to include remedies for other EU problems. European heads of state met in Budapest last week with a focus on competitiveness. That’s the buzzword these days. Europe isn’t competitive enough. Mario Draghi was there pushing his sham solutions from the standard neoliberal playbook. Just consider the following. If you are worried about competitiveness do you:
- Cut off cheap and reliable energy, the lack of which makes your industry uncompetitive.
- Pursue neoliberal policies like austerity and financialization that makes your industry uncompetitive.
- Escalate a trade war with one your largest export destinations in China while being wholly unprepared for the fallout as many products the EU relies on from China like certain drugs, chemicals and materials currently have no substitutes.
Of course none of this was discussed in Budapest. National leaders instead opted for minor measures and slogans like “ensuring industrial renewal and decarbonization,” “increasing preparedness and defence capabilities,” and “putting Europe at the forefront of global research and innovation.” They’re all empty phrases without the money and some semblance of a strategy to back them up.
The EU is, however, planning to redirect billions to defense from its social cohesion funds. How much remains to be seen, and there are tradeoffs.
That money used to be earmarked to reduce economic disparities and promote development. EU capitals will now have more “flexibility” to spend the funds to support their defense industries and military projects. According to the FT, only about five percent of the 392 billion euros allocated for 2021-2027 has been spent to date.
While Ursula and company didn’t get common EU debt yet, the crises are only picking up steam. And it should be noted that redirected social cohesion funds is considered one of the final emergency steps before turning to the joint EU debt. Ursula is unlikely to let it go as it’s the top goal of her second term.
It was only in March of this year that the idea of joint borrowing for defense was considered “radical.” Now surrounded by fake crises and self-inflicted real ones, the idea is gaining trans-Atlantic traction.
Let’s not forget that international finance is a big fan of the joint debt for defense plan. Since member states are running into budgetary constraints, investors are using the fiscal rules imposed by Brussels to push for an EU-wide bond program that would bring them big-time profits while allowing the bloc to ramp up military spending without individual nations incurring more debt. Much of Europe supports joint borrowing because in theory, there could be benefits to common debt, especially for countries like Italy which face higher borrowing costs, but going down that road to pay for the US empire ain’t it.
The two staunchest opponents to joint debt are Germany and the Netherlands. Are they prepared to withstand the pressure from financial powers, the Trump administration, and much of Europe? The signs aren’t encouraging.
The Dutch are currently killing Europe’s most valuable tech firm at the behest of the Americans for some pyrrhic and temporary victory against China.
Germany might soon be led by a former board member of BlackRock, Friedrich Merz, which will be a nebulous plus, according to Politico:
Scholz’s woes may have a silver lining for some: In Budapest, some diplomats suggested that the collapse of Germany’s ruling coalition and Merz becoming chancellor might not be a bad thing. Merz “is a former MEP so more engaged on European affairs,” said one EU diplomat who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “He’s also from the EPP, so the same family as the dominant force in [the European] Parliament, also the same family as von der Leyen, which can help at a time like this.
The Logic Behind More Defense Spending
As the FT notes, and all the media stories do the same, ‘Trump warned Nato allies earlier this year that as president he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” if alliance members failed to meet their defence spending target.’
Yet even if Moscow wanted to invade Europe (there’s no sign it does nor any reason it would want to) what are all these extra billions going to do that all the billions and all the West’s military hardware in Ukraine couldn’t do?
So the EU argument is as follows: Trump says we must spend more, there’s nothing we can do because orange man bad and we need the US because we cut ourselves off from Russia and China.
Meanwhile real economies are imploding, and more forced austerity coming — although there has been talk about a carve out in the spending limits for defense spending.
It was always going to end this way due to a political class that sees themselves as faithful servants to the US empire and transnational capital and have nothing but scorn for the local peasants.
They’re all groveling now before Trump. It’s easy to see why:
Two percent of GDP on defense spending isn’t enough, says German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock.
President Duda said in his Independence Day speech that all NATO states must increase their military spending to a minimum 3%, an increase from the 2% spending target agreed on in 2014.
Trump recently also said that 3% is needed for NATO.
Poland will spend 4.7% next year 🇵🇱🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/CuWDaGWPNf
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) November 12, 2024
The thing is Europe has been spending more. In many ways Europe’s bureaucracy has already changed in small but fundamental ways in order to redirect money towards the military-industrial complex. From Equal Times:
“In 2023, there was a very significant increase in military spending worldwide, but especially in Europe. In Spain, for example, it grew by 24 per cent and in Finland by 36 per cent. If we compare it with 2013, the European countries in Nato are spending 30 per cent more,” says Pere Ortega, a researcher at the Barcelona-based Centre Delàs for Peace Studies, which is critical of measures adopted by the European Commission to promote military spending, such as the VAT exemption for the purchase of armaments or the change in the regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to allow it to finance industrial projects in the military sphere.
And according to the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), the number of countries meeting the two percent target has risen from 3 to 23 since 2014:
IN Germany, much has been made about the government’s scaling back of support for Ukraine, and how the cabinet’s approved military budget only increased by 1.25 billion euros to 53.25 billion this year but as WSWS points out:
…the government is actually spending far more on armaments and war. A government overview of the budget states that “taking into account the relevant shares of other individual plans,” the NATO target of military spending of at least 2 percent of gross domestic product will be achieved. With a GDP of €4.122 trillion, this means at least €82.4 billion in military spending.
The sum is probably even higher, as Scholz has already boasted of defence spending of €90 billion to NATO. In addition to the central defence budget, the government has already announced “defence-related expenditure” of €14 billion from other budget areas in the current year. Further projects totalling €20 billion will be paid from the Bundeswehr “special fund,” which totals €150 billion…In 2028, when it is expected the Bundeswehr special fund will be exhausted, the defence budget is set to rise by a huge increase of almost €30 billion to around €80 billion.
Where has it gotten them? In the case of Germany, not much, at least according to a September report from the Kiel Institute:
… the build-up of German capacities is progressing slowly. We document Germany’s military procurement in a new Kiel Military Procurement Tracker and find that Germany did not meaningfully increase procurement in the one and a half years after February 2022, and only accelerated it in late 2023.
Given Germany’s massive disarmament in the last decades and the current procurement speed, we find that for some key weapon systems, Germany will not attain 2004 levels of armament for about 100 years. When taking into account arms commitments to Ukraine, some German capacities are even falling.
The Plan All Along?
The funny thing about all the gnashing of teeth over Trump and the danger he poses to NATO, is Europe shouldering more of the American empire’s load in the Russian periphery has long been the stated goal.
If we look at what neocons, the real movers and shakers in the plutocrats and their think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic, and European politicians say, this was the plan.
Here’s a September report from the Munich Security Conference, commonly referred to as “Davos with guns”:
Russia’s aggressive revisionism has underscored NATO’s primacy in European defense. However, the real possibility of Donald Trump returning to the White House means that Europeans may soon have to seize a much larger share of the burden, both in supporting Ukraine and deterring Russia. A strong European Defence Union, based on the EU’s regulatory powers, ability to pool resources, and large single market, can become an important enabler of a more robust European pillar within NATO.
Here is a team from the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) writing earlier this year in Foreign Affairs about how Europe must lead in the fight against Russia so the US can focus on China:
That complicated reality requires U.S. allies, especially in Europe, to take on a larger share of directing the containment of Russia. Europe has shown its political and economic resilience in the face of Russian aggression. Yet militarily, the continent remains dependent on the United States. This dynamic must change, in part because the United States must commit more of its resources to Asia. The growth of European defense spending since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is an encouraging step. In 2023, 11 NATO members hit their spending target, allocating at least two percent of GDP to national defense, up from just seven members in 2022. The rest need to follow suit.
Europe must also resolve the problem of coordination. Right now, the United States coordinates more than 25 militaries in Europe. While it must continue to do this in the short term, it must push individual European countries and the European Union to take over this role and to create a stronger European pillar in NATO.
The Centre for European Policy Studies with more:
Against this backdrop, the EU’s true ‘Hamiltonian moment’ in defence would be a decision to issue joint debt to properly fund the ambitions set out in its Defence Industrial Strategy.
Based on Art. 122 TFEU and implemented in accordance with Articles 173-174 TFEU, such bonds—possible under the EU’s Financial Regulation—could provide the backbone for grants to Member States to bolster the Union’s defence production capacity if paired with existing incentives for joint capabilities research, development, production, and procurement. This would avoid the two-speed logic and weaker conditionalities surrounding proposals to use the European Stability Mechanism (excluding key countries such as Poland, Sweden and Denmark) to issue loans to EU Member States for defence spending.
Like how the Covid-induced Recovery and Resilience Facility stabilised European markets and sustained demand during and after the pandemic, Euro-defence bonds are a potential game-changer for the EU’s defence ambitions due to the potential speed and scale of resource mobilisation, and the potential impact on market de-fragmentation. And, fortunately, the German Constitutional Court should have nothing to object to this time around.
And you can read the same in Scholz’s Zeitenwende, and in the speeches by Baerbock that Germany will lead the fight in Europe for the “rules-based order” while the US focuses on China.
So what’s the problem with Trump telling them to get a move on?
That they actually need to do it now rather than just talk? That Trump is more crass where someone like Biden would extol the trans-Atlantic alliance while shoving the knife in?
Whatever Trump’s motivations, the faction of ascendant neocons who favor an American exit from Ukraine while making the Europeans spend more so that Washington can focus more on Iran and China are following a path long laid out.
This is part and parcel of the neocon plan to use European vassals in an effort to preserve and expand the US empire. And the European political class is so far more than happy to go along. They don’t have much of a choice anymore:
How much longer will the bloc’s citizens cooperate? To say Europe is in free fall would be an insult to gravity. And yet despite the endless stream of awful economic news, the political class’s complete detachment from reality, the embarrassing servility to the US, there isn’t yet a major threat to Europe’s willful vassalage. Germany’s upcoming election will be interesting to see how the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) perform. The two parties come at it from different angles, but both oppose bending the knee to Washington. They are currently polling at around a combined 24.5 percent, and barring an improvement, are likely to remain out of any ruling coalition.
Until someone like the AfD or BSW can take charge, all the “crises” will continue working to the advantage of the few. Over the turbulent past few years in which real wages plummeted and deindustrialization took hold, the wealthiest added to their fortune and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen amassed more power that she uses for interests of the Western plutocrats centered in the US.
With this being what the EU leaders of the “center” want and with the big bad orange man insisting upon more, they seem to compliment each other quite nicely.
Many thanks for this article. Over the last day (following the temporary goods news about Haley and Pompeo) the Trump transition team have announced what has been arguably the most astounding list of cabinet level appointments in US history. They would appear to mark a total rout of the Carlson wing of the GOP by the Likudnik wing, with the most ‘advanced’ neocons taking control of the diplomatic, military and security levers of what we must now presumably call the Adelson/Musk Administration.
As others have noted, a pathologically deluded Europe is going through a Morgenthau moment, and is almost anxious to help the US press it towards geostrategic perdition. It therefore seems to me that Ukraine, and most especially the Ukraine reconstruction bill, will be passed to the Europeans, but this is presumably chiefly so that the US can concentrate its fire upon the embers of Palestine (by proxy), and more especially upon Iran and China. If so, it would seem that Trump and his acolytes sincerely believe Russia can still be separated from China and/or Iran. Do they want another 1914 moment, this time with nuclear weapons, simply to prove the point that separating Russia from China may not now prove possible? Or is it that they wish to use nuclear brinkmanship to prise Russia from China?
Or am I just being totally hysterical?
There was a saying in Germany towards the end of WWII: enjoy the war, peace will be terrible. That is were our leaders are now. Not the nitwits like Baerbock and her green comrades. They are to stupid to understand that the war was lost from day one. But opportunists like the leading politicians from the legacy parties. They understand very well what beckons once the war is over. People will ask what it was all for? And why did it not end sooner? They will also have to somehow come to terms with Russia again. They are all in the same boat with Selensky in that they want this terrible day as far off as possible. And if this day will come at least they want it to be at a time when there are no elections soon. I believe that is why the German government finally disintegrated. They know very well that the end is nigh and they want it to happen after the elections when they have four more years for people to forget this disaster. As to Washington I follow Doug Mcgregor who evidently believes the new DefSec will finally acknowledge reality. Reality being that the US is way over its head militarily. The only conclusion can then be that the Ukraine war must be wount down. There´s fear and loathing at the prospect in the EU but it can´t be helped. The big question is whether the political system in Western Europe can survive this moment of truth. To me it feels like 1989 just before the break of the Berlin wall.
The above sounds like what Tuchman called The March of Folly. The revival of oligarchy means they are back to a “whose is bigger” competition between owners of Dreadnoughts. The fact that a century after WW1 Europe is in the same antagonistic mess merely shows that human events revolve around competition between biological beings rather than economic algorithms. Only when the disaster becomes severe enough will we revert to another Age of Reason.
However I’d say we need to wait and see what happens before assuming Trump is onboard with this. It could be he is indeed transactional and merely playing the part of the strongman to sweeten The Deal. I haven’t read his book so maybe it is all in there.
Thank you and well said.
I note your quip about the “likudnik wing”.
Likud organises in the UK and has done since the 1940s. At first, it was called Herut until Herut and Likud merged four decades later. This is quite separate from the Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel.
Modi’s BJP and RSS are beginning to organise in the UK and ally with Likud and CFI and LFI. The Zionist formations welcome such organisation as a means of beefing up numbers and influence.
Great introspection into the false choices chicken hawks present to expand and continue their profitable wars and sanctions.. Vietnam, Iraq, Afgan, Ukraine, Israel, Syria. etc.
None of the choices are peace. Trump may be forcing Britain and Europe (and of course Russia) to settle their own problems of security, terrorist attacks and mass killings.
With those Eurobonds there will be a kicker. They just can’t be created out of thin air but will need to be backed by something as a form of collateral. And according to the guys at The Duran, this will be a EU tax that will be levied across every member state in the EU. All that money will be siphoned out of all those countries where it will be sent to Brussels where we can assume that it will be wisely spent and none of it pilfered. Maybe at first it will only be a very small tax but if there is one thing about taxes we know it is that it always goes up. And typing this I wonder if this might be turned into another tool in that “favoured” countries may get a rebate (Germany? France?) while everybody else has to pay full freight (Hungary? Slovakia?). The opportunities here for corruption are endless.
Most of that money will end up in the US, to buy US weapons systems, LOL.
Ursula’s plan, particularly the next 6 year budget proposal has not yet been disclosed so IMO it is too early to say what is at stake. EU budget is just 1% of EU GDP and most of it goes to the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). If it is true that part of the CAP and cohesion funds are to be reduced and diverted to defence spending i believe the political discussion is going to be fierce. Also, the EC having no competence in defence, as per the treaties, i believe that finding those “holes” in the treaties for the EC to have its own defence budget would need a lot of overstretching of EU rules to the brink of rupture. IMO, it is almost certain this would require modifications of the treaties signed by each and all EU members. I might be mistaken but this has the same probabilities as the Eurobonds (null). Not to mention that the potential amounts to be directed to defence spending would not have probably any meaningful effect in defence capabilities in the EU to start with. So, this, I believe, so far doesn’t go beyond neocon dreams aired in loud voice by the neocon FT and balloon probes to test the waters.
No covering any particular defence objective, if there is any it is only bureaucratic, risking disputes and discontent, what is the point here?
I think the “road” to EU defense spending is through NATO. The likely story is that the EU and NATO will blend informally at first and more formally eventually. I believe the future belongs to militarism and permanent war (a cheap way to “unite” subject populations, i.e., the Europ public). It has worked in the USA despite losing every war every decade. The point is never to “win” but to keep the movement towards the ruling-classes dream of a neo-Orwellian world order. We’ll just have to see if that works–but that’s the agenda in my view.
A big reason why I like ‘Naked Capitalism’ is that the comments are usually, not always, intelligently stated even if I don’t agree and which is a big difference compared to other sites so thanks much, Mike Liston
Thanks for the kind words!
Thank you!
And your colleagues.
Excellent piece, thanks!
>”How much longer will the bloc’s citizens cooperate?”
For another 2 decades for sure.
Until critical wealth has been spent on trash.
Right now German society is still too rich to experience a revolutionary moment.
How much expense on 9/11 wars and social rollback were necessary for the GOP under Trump to be able to take WH & both houses with a popular vote?
And considering that top 50% of US income starts at $100,000 annual wage – that´s still a rich country.
The antisemitism resolution passed German parliament without a peep.
Most educated will not vote for BSW because they are too anti-immigration.
Putin & Xi are dictators and the Uyghurs are forced into camps and there is an Axis of Evil.
As long as such narratives hold sway you won´t get political change.
I’m not sure about “two decades” but you are, more or less, correct. As long as Western intel is in charge of the news media (IMHO) Europeans who are becoming as befuddled as North Americans with the “too much information age” are looking for narratives that work and that they can follow without disordering their lives with thinking for themselves and can continue to pursue empty lives of radical materialism (Euro people are prone to this). People who are confused crave meaning and crave to be ruled rather than rule themselves.
Great comment Chris!
Are you thinking of this USA election as a revolutionary moment?
In true spirit of these times, I’ll bet the inequality continues to expand. It’s revolutionary times for billionaires…still.
“Revolutionary,” as the word is often applied to the turmoil in the late Roman Republic. The oligarchy had become split into two main factions, the boni and the populares. These rivals were mostly drawn from the same class (Caesar, Clodius, Catiline were all aristocrats), but the populares appealed to the poorer citizens in order to gain an edge.
When the boni were finally defeated, there was little fundamental change in the class structure of Roman society. Nevertheless, there was a considerable turnover in terms of the actual
personnel composing the dominant class; a lot of Darwin Awards got handed out.
Is there a parallel to the declining Romans “allying” with the Goths?
Potential heirs to empire?
Does the EU population want ascendant Germans? Russia and China are watching.
My later observations about the PRC naval challenge is: how can the US Navy be more relevant and get some ships*? Resurgent Plan Orange, and Alfred Thayer Mahan’s thesis! A major naval force engagement concentration and mass!
The US Navy needs 16 aircraft carriers, while they extend the lives of DDG (aegis destroyers) bc can’t get new ones out of build.
*After squandering years and billions on the little crappy ships (LCS).
Of course I’m just an simple peasant, but it seems to me that an investment in a ‘Manhattan Project,’ or a ‘moon shot’ of diplomacy around the world to resolve the issues that facilitate this destructive militarism, would be magnitudes cheaper, and much better for the planet and it’s inhabitants than the continual flogging of the ‘peace through strength’ strategy which historically has been quite counterproductive. In the words of the immortal Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along.”
There is no interest in the Western Empire for “peace” because the need by the oligarchs is to maintain and enhance their control over their subject populations. How else are they going to maintain the rule of the corrupt and the ideology of hedonism and radical materialism? War is the answer to all their dreams and peace the major threat to the Imperial regime.
Especially since the current concept of ‘western style democracy,’ has evolved into a system where the ability of politicians to get their name on a ballot, is primarily determined by which candidate is able to raise the most money by the advance selling of favors to billionaires whose interests don’t align with the majority of the electorate.
Yup, that about sums it up. I feel like Matthew Modine in Altman’s “Short Cuts”, forced to sit through a dinner party with a vapid couple minutes after an argument with my wife in which she confessed a casual adultery like it was nothing. Sheer madness and I must endure. Sigh.
Sometimes the simple ideas are always the best.
George Orwell’s character in 1984–Emmanuel Goldstein–gave the best explanation for perpetual war: “The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink), is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.”
The European people are our last hope. Putin may have overestimated his military capabilities when he attacked Ukraine. He certainly understands now that he could not invade Europe with any hope of victory or profit. However, the Russians may feel it necessary to fight in self-defense. The US has been lost now to militarist factions and ideology. Our only hope for the future seems to be European alliances, economic and military, with Russia as equals. What other hope is there. Europe cannot fail.
Good idea, but it does it Exclude lid the US view of its importance?
Which Would make it fail,or more accurately, forced onto failure .
Definitely agree, we (UK and Europe) would be well rid of the US and their bullying. However they have so much printed money to spend and we know how greedy people are…
Putin doesn’t have any military capability, unless you can count some judo by +70 year old. Russia, on the other hand, has one of the most powerful and capable military on Earth.
That said, many (real) experts and commentators have stated that it will take a generation or two until Russia will even bother to piss on the rest of Europe* if it was on fire. EU and NATO have build a new Iron Curtain and it’s those two who will have to tear it down to have any significant role in the world. Or even survive.
* Russia covers 40% of Europe, it’s the biggest country of the subcontinent.
This smells a bit of western centrism. There are other modes. China is not doing too bad, nor Japan… This doesn’t meen europeans need to become Chinese…
Does Europe intend to get into a hot war with Russia? Is that the purpose of the increased military spending? If not, it all seems silly from a capitalist perspective. Acquiring tens of billions of dollars of military hardware and then not using it means lots of expensive items collect dust and, more importantly, the arms merchants don’t have repeat sales which is anathema to capitalists everywhere. Europe is playing a very dangerous game arming up. The temptations to use the weapons will increase, and so will the risk of nuclear confrontation. There are lots of nice cultural icons across Europe. It would be a shame to lose them all.
This extra ‘American LNG’ will also be Russian except bought via America. (They haven’t enough of their own fracked gas and it’s expensive for them.)
Anyway, They dropped their own sanctions against Russian gas last week in preparation for a nice deal with Russia where they both profit.
The Euros are such suckers!
Why at least Germany does not sign a peace deal with Russia and turn on the remaining Nordstream is beyond me. Are you saying EU elites are DUMBER than the American voters? Yeah, well, I guess that’s not surprising, American elites (say about 90%) are dumber than American voters too.
I’ve never seen a whole subcontinent of elites stick their head in the oven and turn on the gas this way. Crazy to watch. Sorry the rest of the EU gets to go along for the ride.