We are governed by an aristocracy elected by supranational powers, which uses states as expanded territories of the central interests to which they answer.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Europeans, don’t be surprised if one day we wake up to the sound of news like “the war has begun”. This foreshadowing is anything but fanciful and should be taken very seriously. In my ignorance, I even think that in human history, after the Second World War and considering the experience of the Cold War, we are perhaps at the moment when the risk of military confrontation is highest. In the absence of a unifying world architecture, solid democracies and stable, credible communication channels… anything becomes possible.

As part of yet another adaptation of the century-old “sword and shield” strategic doctrine, enunciated in 1917 by General Pershing, when he explained to his troops that they were not in Europe to defend Europeans, but to defend Americans, since European countries are a shield and the U.S. is a sword, over the last 30 years, the White House has been building an aristocratic administrative elite, which responds first and foremost to the interests of the American “sword”.

In any closed group, its internal cohesion is based on feelings of belonging, which, in this case, lie in the values of exclusivity, individuality (it’s not for those who want it) and inaccessibility (it’s only for those who can) to ordinary mortals. The great aim and success of the American strategy lies in creating a feeling that each member of the group is part of a chosen structure, which only very special people can join. This feeling is worked out using a variety of communication, suggestion and persuasion strategies aimed at creating a group identity, even when the respective members come from different countries, realities and educational backgrounds.

Let’s take a look at some exemplary, but also paradigmatic cases. Emanuel Macron went through the Institute d’Etudes Politiques de Paris — IEP, which is the seal of trust, the premise, according to which the neoliberal system sees in Macron someone prepared to manage its interests. In addition to the selective character with which this exclusive private institution presents itself, the conventions it maintains with Columbia University in New York and with the always highly reputable London School of Economics, or the master’s course in English for young world promises, represent a powerful contribution of this institute to the neoliberal monopoly cause. It is there that the ideological foundations and propaganda teachings, that are later rooted in political discourse, are created.

For anyone who doubts this description, names like Alain Juppé, Lionel Jospin, Dominique de Villepin, Jacques Chirac, François Hollande and François Mitterrand, all went through the Sciences Po. school at the IED. We can even say that studying at the very select IED is halfway to world stardom and, more importantly, to the public affairs of one of the engines of the EU.

However, this exclusivity is not restricted to the highest representatives of the Western aristocracy. Even the most barbaric and obscure wannabes are obliged to present some kind of connection. Such is the case with Kaja Kallas, the Estonian prime minister, who applies for anything that will get her a job and belongs to any board that will accept her. Kallas went through the necessary Estonian Business School, because business schools here play a fundamental role in the ideological framework of the elected, but, among many other things, Kallas also belongs to the Global Young Leaders organization, a private organization related to universities such as Stanford, of the Ivy League, essentially aimed at STEM training.

Deeply linked to training programs for young people, selected through American structures within universities and schools all over the world, the “lucky” ones chosen from their programs are awarded a whole range of exceptional insignia such as “Innovative”, “Business” or “Leadership”. In programs that range from elementary schools to universities, the “students” learn to move around in the circles of power from a very young age, developing skills linked to the creation of NGOs, companies, parties, how to intervene in governments, the UN and other structures.

Think of it this way: in a public school that purposely doesn’t train students for political life, which is a huge mistake in a democracy, the same elites who deny it to the general population, prepare their offspring to succeed them directly — like a hidden hereditary monarchy — in the adults’ jobs. As they say, in a land of the blind, he who has an eye is king. And the oligarchic elites know this better than anyone.

Another case is that of Rishi Sunak, the Indian who feels more American than English. No wonder. In 2006, for example, Sunak re-qualified for an MBA at Stanford University (almost ubiquitous) as a Fullbright scholar. Fullbright is another one of those programs that develops courses for supposedly bright young people. There it is, the exploitation of individualism, self-centeredness, the feeling of exclusivity, as pillars for building a sense of belonging, through positive reinforcement as an exceptional being. Everyone feels exceptional. Hence, their arrogance, their detachment.

No wonder, then, that Ursula herself is so fervently anti-Russian and Atlanticist. Of course, between 1992 and 1996 she lived at Stanford (again Stanford) in California, where she studied economics. Poland’s own Donald Tusk was part of an Independent Students’ Association set up in 1980, financed by the same people as before, which aimed to subvert Poland’s then socialist regime from within the academy. Later, it was members of this truly “independent” “association” who, on the ground, supported the organization of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. In other words, what we see in Ukraine today is the result of a wide-ranging project to break up and submit Europe to the neoliberal, hegemonic and imperial interests of the USA.

This European “shield”, as we can see, is built by a group that functions almost like a secret society, endowed with deep internal cohesion, based on the narcissistic feeling of election, exclusivity and belonging to an elite group, trained to lead, trained to manage the supranational interests of the monopolist state par excellence, the USA.

Now, imagine yourself in a group of people who, in addition to the fact that many belong to the wealthiest classes or the political aristocracy, are also inculcated, through the countless institutional resources at their disposal, with the idea that they are part of a restricted group, placed above the common man, destined to decide on behalf of the monopoly interests that hire them. Imagine that, belonging to such an elite, the common mistake, which normally costs a career, honor and even life, for these people is nothing more than a setback on the way to the top. Put in a position like this, how would they behave? With a sense of responsibility? Or with a total sense of impunity? If you knew that your power, status and legitimacy emanated from supranational interests, to whom would it be natural to show your loyalty? To the people?

The way in which the U.S., and the monopoly interests that make up its system of power, have subverted any idea of strategic autonomy for the EU, throwing us all onto a front line that is not designed to protect our interests, but their own, has consisted of handing over high politics, not to the most experienced statesmen, the most emerging leaders of the masses, or the most capable and competent public officials, but instead to a socially isolated Spartan strain (only in terms of organization, not customs), made up of careerists, incapable of distinguishing between public and private, national or international interests. For them, the interests of public affairs are confused with their own, and their own with those of their sponsors. They are one and the same, in a vicious cycle in which who wins and who loses is determined from the outset.

And if the actions of this privileged, elitist, segregationist and exclusivist group in terms of the European economy have the results in plain sight, when it comes to foreign policy, their actions also show what project their loyalties are expressed for. Victoria Nuland came to Europe to demand a show of support and received it in the form of a Macron who, summoning all the European leaders to the Elysée Palace, tried to discuss the possibility of sending European troops to Ukraine. If it weren’t for Robert Fico, who apparently doesn’t see himself in this select group of yuppies, we wouldn’t know that the leaders in whom the people of Europe are supposed to trust are discussing, behind closed doors and behind the backs of the very democracy with which they fill their mouths, something like the fuse that could ignite a third world war. In other words, they are discussing among themselves the use of Europe as a shield for the American sword, with total contempt for those they claim to govern.

Coincidence or not, it was also after the visit of the incendiary Nuland that we all learned that three high-ranking German soldiers wanted to prepare an attack on the bridge across the Kerch Strait, using Taurus missiles supplied by their country. Of all the ways in which loyalty was shown, the most hilarious could only come from Zelensky, when he, like Christ raising the dead, managed to turn the hundreds of thousands of soldiers he himself sent to their deaths into just 31,000 dead. So where do more than 500,000 soldiers end up?

The unwary then say that the West lacks “statesmen”, which they repeat over and over again without realizing the paradox. For “statesmen” to exist, there would have to be states. If, in this new geographical construction that is the “collective West”, there is no longer the figure of the nation-state, but rather territories of strategic interest, then, within the framework of this mode of organization, what we can expect here are missionaries and plenipotentiary envoys who serve above all the monopolistic interests of American hegemony. A kind of consul for a supranational imperial power. Today, any reading we make of the current political reality has to take into account that Europe, Japan, South Korea or Australia are, now, not only the U.S.’s defense “shield”, but also its “living space”. A vital space which, added to its own, enables the U.S. to compete fiercely with the more populous, productive and motivated Russia, China and Iran axis. It’s no longer just a question of “keeping Europe in” or “Germany down”, as NATO was intended to do, it’s more a question of making NATO territory coincide with U.S. vital territory, which raises profound questions about the role of the European Union in such a framework.

So, if the reality we are analyzing is not made up of nation-states, but of a supranational common space, led by the USA, waiting for “statesmen” is not realistic in the slightest, because the “statesman” is concerned with the state, as a collective organization that constitutes the summit of a given socio-political existence. They care about the nation, the people, its economy, its traditions and its identity. Are these the values that drive an Emanuel Macron, an Ursula Von Der Leyen or a Donald Tusk? Neither their performance nor their curriculum vitae would indicate that.

Thus, under the cover of the impunity that only an exceptional, but above all supranational, status can bring, we are witnessing a discussion about the officialization of the presence of European forces in Ukraine, particularly those assigned to “states” that are concluding, behind the backs of their peoples and without sovereign discussion, bilateral security agreements that could force them into a war, just as the United Kingdom inaugurated the Second World War by signing a bilateral security treaty with Poland. If this isn’t an issue to be discussed in depth in a democracy by a people, then I don’t know what is more important! Mixed bathrooms? Same-sex marriage? Backtracking on abortion laws? Without detracting from these issues, of course!

We know that such a discussion, at this very moment, is the result of yet another contingent maneuver aimed at preventing what they promised from the start would never be possible: a Russian victory! Never retracting and proving that the impunity they feel is matched by the power that legitimizes them, the so-called dominant “media”, which should be informing, scrutinizing, questioning and criticizing, is keeping quiet and saying today what it vehemently denied yesterday. As if to prove that both emanate from the same source of power.

The fact is that tomorrow, we could wake up to NATO forces officially stationed along Ukraine’s northern border with Russia and Belarus, and to the south, in the Odessa region, trying to save the country’s one remaining link to the Black Sea. From that day on, Vladimir Putin, Minister Shoigu or Medvedev will no longer have to pretend that there are no NATO troops on Russia’s doorstep! They will be there for all to see. On that day, we’ll find out what the national flags of EU and NATO member states are still used for. They only serve to mask the presence of the alliance with its chosen enemy, or to mislead the people of Europe that it is not NATO that will be there, but its states. Affirming NATO’s presence on the one hand and hiding it on the other.

When this happens, we will confirm in practice everything I said earlier: we are governed by an aristocracy elected by supranational powers, which uses states as expanded territories of the central interests to which they answer, and the concepts of nation-state only to legitimize the actions they aim to carry out under their guise.

And that’s the only way we can go to sleep, one night, in peace, and wake up, the next day, in war!