Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In Portugal, as in most countries of the Collective West, the recent diplomatic developments regarding the Ukrainian conflict have left a very important sector of public opinion apoplectic, in fact the segment that has been the most prominent both in decision-making political circles and in the media. Among us there is, of course, a whole huge cohort of potential Christoph “Cry Baby” Heusgen. The difference is that in Portugal a certain residual cult of manhood persists (“a man does not cry”, etc.), preventing such pathetic scenes, at least in public. Our political life is decidedly very advanced in infantilization; but we have perhaps not yet reached the level of “gender fluidification” required by these things. I do not know whether we will continue to catch up with “Europe” or not, but that matters little now.

At the opposite extreme of these attitudes are those who conclude for a dry “realism” in matters of international relations, a “realism” understood most times as a simple cult of force. “Command those who can, obey those who ought to/must”, as the old saying goes. The power lies with the USA and Russia, which therefore decide. Europe, if it wants to have anything decisive to say, must grow before it dares to show up. Some sectors within this current (a minority, approximately late fans of Charles de Gaulle) infer from this the need to break with U.S. tutelage, but even these tend to the mythical notion of the unity of Europeans as an alternative. Other sectors (the majority, usually incensed by the media) conclude above all that we must start dedicating a far higher percentage of GDP to military spending. The TV talking heads – the same ones who for decades have been preaching “austerity” and cuts in public spending in education, health and social security – usually align themselves with this new “spendthrift” tune. There is nothing like militarism and Russophobia to make Portuguese political commentators suddenly shift to “Keynesianism”.

Somewhere in the vast mêlée between these positions, one hears and reads a lot of whining, coming from very varied quarters, regarding the alleged betrayal and misdoing that Trump’s USA would have practiced against “poor little Europe” and (even more) “poor little Ukraine”. In this regard, it is appropriate to remind all these Calimeros (Calimero – Wikipedia) of a certain number of elementary “facts of life”, only partially in line with “realistic” arguments. And I will say right away that no sir, I do not agree with the inference that we must spend a higher percentage of GDP on military build-up. We have much more urgent matters to deal with, namely an imperiled “welfare state” (public education, national health and social security system under menace of rupture), permanently threatened by the demands of the same “European” circles that now, with superlative hypocrisy and nauseating impudence, order us to spend more – but with armed forces, to protect us from “bad Russkies”.

Here are the facts we need to consider.

1 – NATO has always been an extension of the U.S. to Europe; never a “partnership”. It has always been a way to keep the “Americans in”, the “Germans down” (actually, all Europeans down), and the “Russians out”. It always has been, it is, and it will be that. And that’s all there’s to it. The “fight against communism” has always been no more than an imaginary crusade, to begin with because the USSR never wanted to expand, at least not in the “European theater”.

2 – After 1991, undeniably, all this became even more true, and above all much more obvious. It has always been obvious, I repeat, even shockingly obvious, at least since 1991.

3 – To accept NATO membership is to accept the idea that whatever the USA at a given moment deem convenient is convenient for us. If they shift into finding the same thing inconvenient, it becomes ipso facto inconvenient. End of conversation; or, at least, end of adult conversation.

4 – The “EU”, on the other hand, is basically a monstruous gear, a “satanic mill” aimed at imposing neoliberal economic policies on all European countries – and nothing more than that. There has not been, there is not, and there will never be concerted conduct by Europeans except for this line action, which is a line of action against themselves (in the sense of being contrary to the interests of each-and-every European people). The “EU” is not a multiplying device for the potentia agendi of the European peoples. Rather, it aims to increase the power of Europe’s transnational elites, at the expense of their peoples. It aims to remove democratic content from the political organization of each-and-every nation state that makes up the “EU”.

5 – It is not possible to make the “EU” better by democratizing it… for the simple reason that the “EU” is the mere result of actions that fall themselves within the sphere of diplomacy, hidden interests and powers, and secrecy, not publicity, rational debate and democracy. There is no European “public sphere”, for the simple reason that there is not even a coherent European “demos”. If we believe in democracy as a method for improving people’s lives, and if we want to democratize Europe, we must keep the various European nation states democratic, and leave the “EU”. As soon as possible. (On this, see Thomas Fazi here).

6 – If, in political analysis, we forget to start from what “things really are”, taking them for what we would like them to be, if we confuse the “factual truth” of things with what (in our opinion) they should be, we will live in a continuous “transfer”, from one old cognitive dissonance into one new cognitive dissonance. In this regard, all the commentators affiliated with “realism” have a huge advantage vis-à-vis the hysterical-demented group and its howling-at-the-moon of delusional and fatuous indignations. Those who fall into this second group risk coming out of the painful experience of this conflict without learning anything at all.

7 – As people sometimes say, “if you are not OK, move on”. The problem arises precisely when awareness of these elementary facts has already been erased from the minds and, therefore, the possibility of a “necessary divorce” is no longer considered – to use the expression of João Ferreira do Amaral, who however refers only to one divorce, when in the case of Portugal (a case of bigamy, in which both our spouses are abusive towards us, but one of them is also so vis-à-vis the other) two divorces are undeniably necessary: from NATO, of course; and also from the “EU”.

8 – There would obviously be much more to say, referring to the conflict in Ukraine. But I think these are the basic problems, the vices that generate all our other mistakes. Ukraine, most likely, is just a pretext.

In this regard, I would just add that I am obviously glad that the North Americans (that is to say, those who started by stirring all this up) have decided to talk to the Russians (instead of just insulting them) and listening to them seriously. Dialogue is always better – except for the cluster of the murderous psychos – than mutual assured destruction. The road to agreement is undoubtedly long and will be difficult to travel, but it is already, in essence, designed as a defeat for the Collective West, in a game where the bigger shark (the USA), after having already pushed the smaller shark (what is usually called “Ukraine”) to death, is now humiliating and will also end up condemning the mid-sized shark (aka “the Europeans”). They, the U.S., mostly concerned with China’s unstoppable rise, cannot indulge much longer into exercises of mythomania.

And besides, they have “better [or badder, depending on the perspective] fish to fry”…