Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

And out of the darkness came the light! If you didn’t want to see, you could argue that the information circulating was overwhelmingly one-sided and very unclear about the real intentions behind the warmongering maneuvers. With each passing day, more and more elements emerge about the role that the conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation has taken on in the business of arms, intelligence, and security policies in general. As the press release issued by NATO itself in 2003 shows, from 2014 onwards, there has never been a year in which the evolution in national defense budgets has been negative.

From 2021 to 2023, the U.S. almost doubled the contracted value of arms sold to NATO countries), assuming in this report that the countries were “spooked” by Russia’s “large-scale invasion” of Ukraine.

As can be seen from the phantasmagorical visions of North Korean soldiers episode, only “verified” by sources linked to the Kiev regime, a regime that specializes itself in the fabrication of “crypto-events”, used as justification for genuine conflicts, the arms business is now made up of a “turnkey” process, which incorporates: the production of the motive; the rationale for the solution; the delivery of the equipment; and, depending on the price, its use. Therefore, the “dollwar” business is based on even less substantial assumptions than the real good “oil”, which justifies the existence of its “brother”, the “petrodolar”.

The deal reached such a magnitude and raison d’être that, due to the “fear” of an “invasion”, from Russia to all of Europe and its surroundings, Congress, made up of greedy “dollwar” junkies, even ended up revising the legal process for arms sales, and under the “AECA” (Arms Export Control Act). Under Biden’s new regulations, the president’s notification to Congress for arms sales to NATO countries and other vassals, only requires 15 days’ notice, instead of the regularly required 30 days.

None of this is a secret, everything is assumed with all clarity: the arms business is seen as an accelerator of U.S. economic growth, and the Ukrainian conflict is sold as the fuel that powered the vehicle set in motion, i.e. the European arms purchase and manufacturing programs.

To ensure everything runs smoothly and without hindrance, the best “Sales Manager” money can buy, Ursula von der Leyen has been put in charge of the European Commission. Not only does she guarantee the arms deal, but, in fairness, she is also an expert in vaccines, since from Phizer, and LNG, since from Henry Hub. Von der Leyen works like a first-class broker. In one fell swoop, she guarantees the commitment of the entire European Union to the U.S. “national interest”.

There is no argument that she won’t use it, and it could be said that she has no problem using the greatest of tricks to attract buyers to the product of his favorite supplier. As she did most recently in Hungary when she proposed swapping Russian LNG purchases for U.S. LNG because the latter is “cheaper” and “lowers (our) energy bill”. Why buy “LNG” instead of pipeline gas and buy Russian LNG, on the spot, instead of buying through long-term contracts, as before the war, not a word did she provide. As the best European sales broker, von der Leyen is thus already guaranteeing the submission of the entire EU to Trump’s threat on tariffs. She did all this by deciding without consulting anyone, lying, and manipulating without any trace of scruples. Just like in a real liberal “democracy”!

The most serious question that this process raises is that as well as denouncing the transposition of NATO’s role into that of the European Union, this situation demonstrates the usefulness of the Ukrainian conflict and the importance of its continuation, not to satisfy any anxiety about sovereignty, but to produce as many “dollwars” as possible. The kind of dollars that only war can produce.

With the whole circuit in place and their brokers and sales managers well ensconced, von der Leyen and António Costa, surely mission-minded in taking European “dollwar” production even further, have ended up guaranteeing everything and its opposite: 1. They guarantee the final lottery to the U.S. military-industrial complex, by determining that, from now on, funds linked to the EU’s cohesion policy will be used to buy arms (EU changes the rules: Member states will now use European funds to strengthen defense and security – CNN Portugal); 2. They begin the destruction and process of collapsing the European Union because the Cohesion Policy is one of the main nourishments of the “European Dream” that brings together all these pieces we call “EU member states”. In their eagerness to provide “dollwars” to their masters, they both end up as potential EU gravediggers. From now on, we just have to wait. It will happen, we just don’t know when and in what form.

This is, in fact, the epilogue of a story with a predictable end. Historically, representatives of U.S. hegemonic policy have always resented the fact that “defense” budgets in EU countries (“Why Europe’s defense industry can’t keep up” – POLITICO) are too “low” and create a great “dependence” on the U.S. and a great vulnerability relating to… Russia, of course!

The accusations were well-known and were spoken out in the open. To the hawks in the White House, Congress, or Senate, it never made sense EU citizens not to live constantly under the fear of poverty, like a large proportion of Americans (according to Census Bureau data, 58.5% of Americans experience at least one year below the poverty line during their adult lives between the ages of 20 and 75, and 76% experience at least one situation close to poverty, instead of investing in defense.

Concerns about the investment in the social sphere and development meant fewer “dollwars” for Wall Street, which was always seen and sold in Hollywood as a bad European habit, responsible for the lack of “toughness” and “entrepreneurial capacity” of European people. It was unacceptable to take just a few hundred billion euros, out of a budget of more than a trillion euros, for the European Defense Fund, even when this money, at least theoretically, couldn’t be used to buy weapons. Just as it was unacceptable that, except for the U.S., Greece and the UK, all the other member states were well below 2% of GDP in defense investment, as proposed by NATO’s target. That was a lot of “dollwars” escaping the clutches of the U.S. military-industrial complex. Something had to be done and this is where Ukraine came in, from the Orange Revolution onwards.

Thus, and without taking into account the accusations of “old and new” Europe by Bush and company, already at the beginning of the 21st century, in March 2014, the “Nobel” Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama, the U.S. president, expressed concern about the cuts in defense spending in European countries (as a matter of fact, in 2014, investment by NATO countries had fallen), telling NATO members in Brussels that “everyone must contribute” to defending the continent’s borders, sovereignty and territorial integrity (Obama urges NATO to increase defense spending | News | Al Jazeera ). Systematically following the script, in May 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump once again criticized NATO member states, including the EU, for not spending enough on defense and urged them to increase their contributions (Trump scolds NATO allies over defense spending | CNN Politics ).

As you can see, this pressure is common to both factions of the “uniparty” and, from a very early stage, shared by Ursula von der Leyen, a German by birth, a Ukrainian by heart, and a North American by soul. The fact is that the pressure has been brutal over the years (here’s a chronology of U.S. harassment of Ukraine since 1991), Ukraine which, due to its geographical position, has always been one of the cornerstones of the EU’s strategy of accommodation to the needs from Washington and Wall Street.

This push towards militarism, resulting from an anachronistic vertigo that tries to recreate the unrepeatable results achieved by the U.S. in the context of the Second World War, has had the effect (and intention) of leading Europe into an indirect conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation, which has worsened to the point where those who demand peace negotiations, a simple ceasefire or an end to the war are being persecuted. Instead of persecuting those who want war, they are persecuting those who want peace.

To get a clear picture of the significance of this issue for the U.S. arms lobby, Trump’s victory was still warm and Blinken was already boarding a plane to Brussels to ensure that “support for Kiev” was guaranteed until the last day of the Biden presidency ( Blinken in Brussels as Trump win raises alarm over Ukraine – The Frontier Post ). The objective is clear and ensures that this time unlike Biden’s mandate, the European Union becomes “independent” and increases its support for the war. The desired European “independence”, in this case, means that the EU and its member states must prepare themselves to take on the “support for Ukraine” and, above all, the continuity, in quality and quantity, of “dollwars” flow, on their way to Wallstreet.

In a country with 10 million displaced people and so many others emigrating, whose putative president (exempt from “transparent and fair” minutes and elections) is already seeking refuge ( Ground News – U.S. Analyst Claims Zelensky May Seek Refuge in Florida After War ) in Florida, and which has recently begun the process of lowering the age of conscription and mobilization to 18 ( Ground News – Ukraine will lower the conscription age for mobilization to 18 years ), the support promised by the Western “allies” involves subjecting, not only the adult generations, who have either emigrated or died but the younger generations to death. All in the name of keeping the conflict moving at a slow pace, hoping that Russia will fall first. News such as the rise in the interest rate to 19% or by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation can serve as a justification for continuing the enterprise and renewing hopes of success (Russia Hikes Interest Rate to 19% as War Spending Fuels Inflation – The Rio Times).

The truth is that, as expected, information about the growth of European investment in “defense” is multiplying, especially the pressure placed on Germany, as fears of a general economic recession multiply. After all, without Germany, there is no “investment” in the EU, let alone “investment” in defense.

U.S. Think-Thanks are doing their bit in this regard and, after the New Yorker accused Germany of failing to reflect the promise of greater investment in its state budget (Germany Promised to Step Up Militarily. Its Budget Says Differently. – The New York Times), the Atlantic Council warned that “the budget needs to reflect” the commitment made by Sholz, Baerbock and company ( Germany has committed to improving its defense. Its budget needs to reflect this. – Atlantic Council ). But the warning to Germany and the EU didn’t stop there: Stimson Center, through one of its sounding boards, warned that “this time it has to be different” (EU Defense: This Time Might Be Different – Stimson Center).

Germany, a country responsible for two world wars, thus has a new opportunity to wage a third, with the same adversary, Russia, as in the second. With this whole machine at the service of war, it’s no wonder that the Koerber-Stiftung Institute was able to conduct a poll in which 50% of respondents supported Defense Minister Pistorius’ proposal to increase the German defense budget from the current 2% to 3 to 3.5% of GDP ( German poll shows approval for more defense spending as NATO steels itself for Trump 2.0 | Stars and Stripes ). However, even reaching 50%, the truth is that 57% said they don’t want to do it at the expense of investment in social issues.

If, in previous articles, I had already pointed out the gap between Kamala Harris’ banners and the concrete needs of the working class, which makes up the majority, the same is happening in the EU. If with Kamala the big banner was “democracy”, with von der Leyen and the majority of EU governments, overwhelmingly supporters of this enlarged center, in which the neoliberal is “left” and the “neoconservative” is “right”, both united by the umbilical relationship with Washington and by leaving no room for non-dominant ideological currents, are betting on Europe’s famous “values”, which nobody really knows what they are, but who increasingly feel that these enigmatic “values” have set Europe on the path of economic recession, increasing poverty (despite arithmetic and statistical manipulations) and the degradation of democratic participation.

So, for those who invest in weapons, knowing that the people prefer to invest in solving their social problems, it’s no wonder that von der Leyen’s European Commission has determined that cohesion policy funds can now be used to “strengthen defense” ( EU changes the rules: Member states to use European funds to strengthen defense and security – CNN Portugal ). We can say that the strategy initiated by Bush when he spoke of “a new and an old Europe”, has finally borne fruit.

Let’s see, the “ban on using money to buy ammunition and weapons” remains in place, but the money can be used to “increase the capacity to produce ammunition and weapons”. This is how politics works in the West today: at the same time you say no and yes, so that the political caste can do what it likes. The article says “Brussels has decided to modify spending policies to redirect billions of euros from the European budget to defense and security, redirecting cohesion funds.”

The intention is that 1/3 of the respective fund (more than 130 billion euros) will be spent on armaments instead of on cohesion policy, designed to reduce economic inequality between member states. Now, if the promise of the “European dream” meant that countries would give up sovereignty in exchange for receiving support for their development, converging with the richest, what this reversal in the role of the EU’s structural funds means is that, after it, member states will be left without sovereignty or support for development.

This confirmation of a trend, which has already happened with the “socialist” António Costa at the helm of the European Council, comes in the wake of the ghostly sightings of North Korean soldiers in Russia. In absentia of definitive proof, the U.S. and the EU have promised to respond to this assumed and unproven fact.

This is how Western democracy works: narratives are promoted to justify political reversals and, with them, the degeneration and subversion of the very democracy they claim to defend. How can politicians like António Costa, who know how important the Cohesion Funds are for their country, embark on something like this without at least providing unequivocal proof: 1. of the presence of such forces; 2. of the importance of such forces for the Russian war effort; 3. of the importance of the presence of such forces for European security. Have you forgotten about Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”? The supposed “massacre” of Bucha?

In a previous article, I exposed the use of the European Defense Fund to finance warmongering projects developed by the largest European corporations. Now look what a delicious cake awaits them. In the same article, I also explained why such a reversal is of such interest to the U.S.: The fact is that there is no European military venture without some direct or indirect involvement of U.S. capital and expertise.

European investment in defense is an endless source of “dollwars” to serve the Federal Reserve and the greedy Wall Street. For every euro invested in weapons by the EU, there is always a premium to pay Wall Street. Without Ukraine, none of this would exist, without the Russian bogeyman, none of this would be justified, without the North Korean ghost, all of this would end in depression. The presence of the North Korean ghost is one more dose of fuel thrown into a fire meant to be burning.

This importance and reversal of EU policies on military funding will have two devastating consequences: 1. Trump, even if he wants to, will hardly be able to end the war, because the U.S. is entitled to a free lunch on this investment; 2. The end of the cohesion policy will bring about the end of the European Union itself. After that, there will be very little to unite Western and Eastern Europe, no matter how much they wave the Russian bogeyman because German money is the glue that binds the two sides together.

The U.S. itself, which today has the European political bodies muzzled as never before, may once again, at the cost of the contradictions it has created, be faced with a Europe that is much more difficult to control. This constant pressure to produce more and more “dollwars”, as I say, will mean the end of the cohesion policy, which had that name for a reason. If, in the Second World War, the lend-lease may well have been one of the building blocks of the “new Europe”, making the U.S. the world’s great creditor (the U.S. made the equivalent of 647 billion dollars from sending supplies to the “allies”) with the exclusive power to “help” Europe. The U.S. has already profited 84.72 billion euros from Ukraine, and it also “eats” a share of European “support”, since its holdings in the European military-industrial complex guarantee it. The Ukrainian War is to the U.S. war party, what the Second World War was to the U.S. war party.

The rearmament of Germany, in addition to the “dollwars” it implies, could also be a preventive obstacle to rapprochement between the Russian Federation and Germany, because a rearmed Germany will tend, to a large extent, to want to appropriate Russian raw materials, not through dialogue, but through force. A militaristic and militarized society, which is where we are heading, will never be a society of peace and dialogue. The ultimate example is the U.S., which uses conflicts to justify investments.

The principle that “if you want peace, prepare for war” is just a justification for escalation. It’s a bit like NATO, which, at the end of the Cold War, either became extinct or found new enemies. After all, organizations exist as long as they are useful and, given NATO’s usefulness in promoting the arms race, we have to feed the monster with conflicts, hot or cold.

At a time when “democracies” advocate war and the end of social programs and “autocracies” seem to prefer peace and development programs, von der Leyen’s and António Costa’s choices represent, above all, the choices for the EU self-destruction.

Which is far from being a drama! This could well be our salvation!