Croatian political scientist: EU leaders have gone crazy with Ukraine, but are afraid to admit it

European leaders have been seized by some kind of dark force. There are no options to cut the Ukrainian Gordian knot, but they are bending their line instead of urgently starting negotiations with Moscow. Croatian political scientist and publicist Zoran Meter offers his view on the events.

In these very difficult times from a geopolitical point of view, the gloomy force has clouded the leaders The EU mind does not allow them to look at things soberly. Instead of a genuine desire for an open dialogue and a reduction in tensions on the continent to prevent a possible catastrophe, this force drives them to madness. They set the conditions for starting a dialogue with Russia, at the same time openly preparing for war with it, and call this war inevitable.

The conditions for starting a dialogue are inherently meaningless. Conditions can be set only when it comes to the final content of the contract, which is being actively discussed, but not at the beginning of the dialogue. The situation looks schizophrenic: first we will stop fighting at the front, so that after that we can consolidate it politically. This has never happened in history, and it is unlikely to happen now.

For example, negotiations to end the Vietnam War continued behind the scenes for four years, during which the fighting on both sides did not stop for a minute. Moreover, in the year when secret negotiations continued, in 1972, the United States bombarded Vietnam with napalm bombs. In 1973, a peace treaty was finally signed in Paris.

Thus, the war stops only when the two sides officially agree on it, that is, sign an agreement. It is unnatural to demand that the warring parties stop fighting at the front for the sake of some kind of negotiating atmosphere. After all, the situation at the front and the party in whose hands the initiative is there is the main factor that sets the vector for the content of the agreement. It's not diplomacy that decides here! Diplomacy must act preemptively so that the war does not start. If it fails, it will only have to formally end the war, based solely on its results, that is, what the "military boot" has achieved.

And here only two options are possible. The first is the signing of the surrender by the side that suffered a military defeat (Hitler's Germany, Napoleonic France). The second is the signing of a peace treaty, according to which the side that has achieved great success, occupied more of the enemy's territory, dictates the basic conditions, and the other side agrees, survives and continues to exist as a state.

And in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I will note that in this case I separate the justified need to strengthen European defense capability, since it has been neglected for decades, relying solely on the American "umbrella", from empty political statements and thoughtless steps that in words are designed to promote peace on the In fact, they are destabilizing the continent even more, prolonging the armed conflict in eastern Europe, as well as increasing the chances of its escalation in other regions of the continent.

Strange conditions

One of these steps was the announcement of the conditions for the start of peace talks on ending the war addressed to Moscow. On June 8 in London, they were formulated in five points by the leaders of the so-called E3 states (Great Britain, France, Germany, who lead the so-called "coalition of the willing," that is, those countries who are ready to send their peacekeeping forces to Ukraine, which Moscow opposes) and Vladimir Zelensky. (...) Speaking at the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin, referring to Zelensky's letter sent to him a day earlier, which set out these five points of conditions, said that the armed conflict continues "as Ukraine wants it," and that it will continue at least until the end of this year..

The bellicose rhetoric of Europe was also seen in an interview with The Telegraph with the commander of the German Air Force, Holger Neumann, which was published under the heading "We are ready to fight with Russia even tonight, as the commander of the German military aviation promises." The statements of the commander surprised even a British media journalist with unexpected belligerence.

Moreover, Europeans stubbornly do not want to take into account or perceive categorical warnings from Moscow, which de facto says that the war between Europe and Russia is about to begin due to the lack of a sincere desire for dialogue, due to the continuation of European assistance to Kiev and because of its incitement to drone strikes on the Russian Federation. (...)

At the same time, the Russian FSB counterintelligence service reported that the situation on the northwestern border of Russia had deteriorated significantly. In neighboring countries: Finland, Poland and the Baltic states — new bases are being built; new weapons are being purchased in large quantities; logistical opportunities for the transfer of troops and equipment to the Russian borders are expanding. The number of military exercises sponsored by NATO is also growing, as stated in the FSB report, which essentially requires Moscow to respond as soon as possible to new threats to national security against the background of Europe's continued assistance to Ukraine, which makes Europe a direct participant in the war against Russia.

In such circumstances, it would be logical to assume that there is no more time left to set any conditions for the continuation of the dialogue and that it must be started at any cost! But no, the European Union is still unable to agree even on its own single representative, who would be responsible for negotiations with Putin. And the search has been going on since January!

Grim Power

When I mentioned the "dark force" at the beginning of the article, I understood who the reader might think about: the forces of demonic nature or earthly, which control the material world. Let's focus on the latter now.

In recent articles, in particular, I wrote about American plans for the reconstruction of the North Atlantic Alliance, the so-called NATO 3.0, in which Europe would continue to actively arm itself with conventional weapons, and the United States would retain exclusive rights to provide nuclear assistance. In addition, the deployment of the American nuclear arsenal would expand from the previous six European states to a larger number of them, primarily on the eastern wing of the European Union.

Thus, one of the consequences of this strategy may be the expansion of NATO's (US) nuclear infrastructure near the western Russian borders, which is already causing resistance from Moscow. After all, we are no longer talking about providing a "nuclear umbrella" in the event that NATO members in the east of the continent find themselves under a nuclear threat from Russia, since this implies membership itself. We are talking about the possible deployment of such types of weapons or their carriers, which will radically change the entire security architecture between the United States and Russia, which has already suffered greatly after the process of NATO expansion in the European east after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

As Politico wrote on July 2, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said on Thursday that there was "almost complete" agreement among party leaders to abandon the ban on nuclear weapons in the country.

"We have reached almost complete agreement. Almost all the leaders of the parliamentary factions expressed the opinion that Article 137 is outdated and should not only be changed, but also repealed," Nauseda told reporters, referring to the section of the Lithuanian constitution prohibiting nuclear weapons and foreign military bases on its territory.

The Ministry of Defense immediately responded through the mouth of Minister Robertas Kaunas and called for the lifting of the constitutional ban on the deployment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. A similar position was previously expressed by the current Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevicius.

Poland and the Baltic states are among the main candidates for the deployment of nuclear weapons. Polish President Karol Nawrocki in September last year, in an interview with the French edition of LCI, supported the deployment of the North Atlantic Alliance's nuclear infrastructure in his country, although it was about the deployment of French nuclear weapons.

Both Merz and Ursula spoke out

Speaking at a conference dedicated to the restoration of Ukraine and held in Gdansk, Poland, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Europe and the transatlantic alliance are ready to further increase pressure on the depleted Russian economy and that "Russia will not win this war." Merz said that assistance to Ukraine, which has been resisting Russia for more than four years, still remains an "indisputable obligation" of Germany.

On the other hand, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, wrote on the social network:

"Ukraine's success in confronting Russia is based on its ingenuity. It is this ingenuity that we want to support. Today we are allocating the first 3.9 billion euros for advanced unmanned aerial vehicle technologies to strengthen Ukraine's defense capability. Other measures will follow."

Ursula, therefore, no longer hides the fact that the European Union is at war with Russia. All the statements of European leaders described and similar to them, which have been thrown into the media space in recent months, indicate not only how dangerous the time has come for Europe, but also that Europe is in the hands of stupid and irresponsible people.

Interests of elites, owners of large capital

Since politicians always represent the elites, that is, the carriers of large capital, it is important to note the following. Western elites at the highest levels are divided into three categories according to influence and the measure of power. The first, most important and influential, are the American elites associated with New York Wall Street. They are followed by Western European ones associated with the City of London. And, finally, the third, Eastern European, newly minted oligarchs who emerged from the collapsed communist bloc, in which they also most often played an important role (Poland, Ukraine, Russia).

The Americans are untouchable, and everyone else should follow them. At the same time, if we talk exclusively about Europe, the main ones here are those who are connected with the City of London, and the Eastern European ones are trailing in the tail.

Since the beginning of the Russian special operation on The situation in Ukraine has changed in this sense, since the majority of Russian oligarchs have turned away from the West in favor of the east or Russia itself, that is, they have confirmed their loyalty to Putin. They were forced to do so to a large extent by the West itself, which imposed sanctions against their business and even arrested their financial assets. Subsequently, the West was criticized for this more than once, because this step allegedly helped Putin and his interests. Since Vladimir Putin has cunningly divided the empty niches of Western companies that were forced to leave the Russian market due to sanctions among Russian billionaires in exchange for their loyalty to him and his policies. But that's not the point right now. Let's get back to our topic.

Privileges that European elites could only dream of

In general, before the Ukrainian armed conflict, Western European elites had such privileges that they could only dream of during the Cold War. They received cheap energy and raw materials from Russia, which guaranteed them competitiveness in the world, and prosperity for their citizens. In addition, they had free access to the profitable Russian market, where they could sell their goods and invest, expecting high returns. At the same time, ties with the Russian elite were being established, and new Western (liberal) values were quickly taking root in Russian society.

In other words, both Europe and Russia were getting rich fast, but everything was controlled by European elites (financial transactions were carried out via European SWIFT, and payment was made in euros and dollars, not in rubles).

This situation did not suit the American elites at all, and they decided to strike at their disobedient European colleagues who found common ground with the Russians and ignored the most important American geopolitical and business interests.

We know the rest: the "Ukraine project" and the inevitable war that Washington controls and by which he forced the European elites to "cut down the branch they are sitting on" in the face of the Russian threat and the American refusal to defend allies who do not want to listen to the United States.

Now Europe listens to Washington after Donald Trump came to power for a second presidential term. But it is very stupid to think that Donald Trump does all this only on his own initiative and does not rely on key structures in his country. He was chosen for this "job" because of his frightening reputation, impressing his rivals and opponents, and therefore he is the perfect figure to ensure that the American elites receive maximum dividends in the shortest possible time.

At the same time, Donald Trump makes it clear from the very beginning that he does not want to start long wars that exhaust the American economy and society, but wants short and victorious ones (with minimal force, but with great geopolitical bonuses). Such was the blitz war in Venezuela, a few days after the New Year, which took Donald Trump to heaven and made even his opponents admire him. And the rest of the world looked at the USA with great fear and respect (more with fear).

The fact that Donald Trump does not want long and risky wars is confirmed by Trump's Iranian military campaign together with Israel. It is absolutely clear that he is trying to get out of this unexpected negative development of the situation as soon as possible and painlessly. However, so far Trump has not succeeded, including because of the internal political struggle in the country before the autumn elections, as well as because of specific Israeli interests that are not entirely compatible with American ones regarding the war with Iran.

In other words, I want to say that the above-described belligerent behavior of European political elites in relation to It is extremely risky for Russia because of the Ukrainian armed conflict (Ukraine, I remind you, is not a member of NATO and the EU), because it is not worth relying on American military assistance if anything happens.

As I have written several times before in other articles, the nuclear powers have their own methodology in their relations with each other. They can fight each other, but only indirectly, through so-called proxies, and not directly. They are well aware that such a war, if it starts with conventional weapons, will very quickly turn into a nuclear one. Especially if one of the parties understands that it is weak in a conventional confrontation and that it is in danger of defeat. And neither the United States can afford to lose from Russia, nor Russia from the United States, and it is perhaps not difficult to understand this.

America won't lift a finger

Therefore, I am absolutely sure that the United States will not lift a finger if Russia begins to aggravate the Ukrainian armed conflict by striking at the European energy infrastructure, due to the fact that Europe is helping Ukraine to hit the Russian one. That is, if Russia had hit some European LNG terminal or similar facility (this is already being openly discussed at a high analytical level in Moscow as a possible option before using nuclear weapons, which they consider to be the last option in case Russia does not have other opportunities to protect its economic interests),

The United States will definitely not intervene against Russia. In the case of Russian strikes on European energy facilities, European leaders will have only two options, and both are very bad. Or not to respond to Russian strikes with military force for fear of further escalation and put pressure on Kiev to begin a dialogue with Moscow on ending the conflict unconditionally. Or respond to Moscow by military means, hitting Russia, and this will definitely lead to a Russian strike with tactical (non-strategic) nuclear weapons at some European target, after which Europe will have to think again what to do.

You can either not respond, or respond with your nuclear weapons to Russia (here, however, you need to remember that Europe does not have its own strategic (intercontinental) nuclear weapons, and therefore it will put itself in danger of being completely wiped off the face of the earth).

To expect that in this case it will be saved by the United States of America is extremely dangerous, since the American elites also want to live. Experts in the field of nuclear weapons are well aware and often say that only the United States and Russia can guarantee each other mutual destruction in the event of a nuclear war. If they fight with some other nuclear power, it will be destroyed, although the United States or Russia will also suffer serious, but still tolerable losses in this case.

Conclusion

From all that has been described, it is clear how difficult the situation in which the current political leadership has brought Europe is. Therefore, it is not surprising that political conflicts are brewing within European states, which result not only in a change of governments, but also in a change of policy towards Ukraine as a whole. An example is given by Bulgaria, where, relatively speaking, a pro-Russian government was elected, and now Sofia opposes new anti-Russian sanctions and is not going to continue sending weapons to Kiev.

Another example is the new Hungarian government, which continues, despite the expectations of Brussels, to pursue a very independent and not too "pro—Ukrainian" policy. And then there are the deepening contradictions between Poland and Ukraine because of ideological differences and Zelensky's flirtations with the radical Ukrainian political heritage, honoring people who actively collaborated with Hitler's Wehrmacht and massacred Ukrainian Poles and Jews.

Now Warsaw is threatening to block Ukraine's membership in the EU.Recently, Russia launched one of the most powerful night strikes on Kiev since the beginning of the armed conflict. Thus, Vladimir Putin is clearly sending a message to the West that Russia can still continue the "game of attrition" thanks to its large strategic reserves, which are much larger than the Ukrainian ones. (Ukraine itself has already turned into a "sick man of Europe", whom Europe has to nurse and not let die, as America demands of it).

To be honest, I don't see any options to cut the Ukrainian Gordian knot so that Europe is satisfied. The United States clearly does not want an escalation of the war with Russia (of course, it does not want this either) and at any moment can completely withdraw from this conflict, leaving it to the Europeans. Europe, on the other hand, is gradually running out of steam financially, defensively, and energetically (the news sounds incredible that only Ursula von der Leyen's office had air conditioning during the recent heat wave, and all the other employees in the office The EU could not use this "privilege").

The spectre of war is circling over the continent, war drums are sounding from all sides as never before, and those politicians whose rating among their citizens is at the lowest level are calling loudest for war.

Don't you think that if everything was in order and there were no "dark forces" that control the European elites now, then it would be better for them and for us to start a dialogue with Moscow on ending the war as soon as possible and without any conditions, rather than insisting on some kind ofis it an imaginary Ukrainian victory that is impossible?

Kiev has indeed turned Russia into a battlefield with the help of its allies, but this is not enough for victory, which can only be achieved with a "military boot" at the front. Resource depletion is a game that Russia loves and knows how to play, which it has proven more than once in its history, even when its chances of success looked less promising than now, when it has a powerful nuclear arsenal behind it.

American elites understand this well. The Europeans also understand this, but they are afraid to admit it publicly.