by Elena Basile
We are experiencing an anomaly that is not being highlighted in Western media. NATO, as described by Zbigniew Brzezinski—a National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, one of the leading U.S. strategists, of Polish origin and known for his Russophobia—is an alliance of European vassals subjugated to the hegemonic power of the United States. The President of the United States, in the contradictory and unsettling dialectic between institutions that exists in Washington, is meant to synthesize the various lobbies and power structures, constitutionally representing the country on the international stage. Within NATO, however, Europe today follows a policy contrary to Trump’s directives. The more he speaks of the need for mediation with Russia, the more Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, in unison with Mark Rutte, champion the continuation of the war, offering the usual mendacious excuses intended to make mothers proud—just as during the Vietnam War—to sacrifice their sons in the name of the freedom of the democratic West.
So, who within NATO has gained prominence against the U.S. President? Is Europe waging a proxy war against Russia on its own, one strongly desired by U.S. Democrats even after a democratic change of leadership at the White House? This represents a wrenching contradiction in the Euro-Atlantic world, one passively accepted by our analysts. Can you imagine NATO’s European armed wing meddling in Kennedy’s negotiations with Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962—an isolated Kennedy, who was soon after eliminated by the not-so-shadowy American counterforces, the same “Deep State” to which Trump now refers? European citizens, witnessing their social welfare systems being dismantled by the current ruling class and seeing the values of peace and prosperity repudiated, should first ask themselves which powers Europe is obeying. How many times have diplomats criticized pacifists by realistically reminding them of the necessary Euro-Atlantic constraints and obedience to the hegemon that provides the nuclear umbrella?
And yet, under the framework of familiar international structures, the United States today supports mediation, not the supply of weapons to Ukraine.
The many violations of international law now go unnoticed. European heads of state and government applaud terrorist acts: the assassination of a Russian general through an attack in front of his home, the detonation of cell phones causing countless civilian casualties in Lebanon, and the attack on the sovereign state of Syria carried out by jihadist militias. These actions are passively accepted by Western governments. “Finally, we have an ISIS worth the name,” goes a cynical quip making the rounds today. Indeed, if undeclared powers within the Euro-Atlantic constitutional framework are pulling the strings, leading European puppets to offer limitless support for war in Europe, we cannot sleep soundly. After the Ukrainian people, who will be the next lambs sent to slaughter?
I doubt Trump could reach a mediation deal that Moscow would accept without extremely harsh terms: Ukraine’s neutrality, recognition of Russian-occupied territories, and a security architecture that would make future conflict impossible. Trump, in his isolationist approach, would offload costs onto Europe. Meanwhile, we will foot the bill for the weapons sent to Ukraine. Neoconservatives and the Deep State bureaucracy would claim their partial victory. The arms industry oligarchies will toast to sustained profits. In the Middle East, the horrors of Gaza continue before an audience numbed to suffering.
Russia has played its cards in Syria, and an agreement between Turkey, Iran, and Russia has allowed the triumph of terrorist militias with minimal bloodshed. Demonstrating that double standards are not solely a Western trait, Moscow condemned Israel’s brutal military actions in Syria (as in Lebanon and Palestine) but remained silent on Turkish maneuvers. The end of Assad’s regime will coincide with a division of resources and territories among Americans, Turks, and Israelis, leveraging brute military power delegated to former cutthroats. Russia will maintain its alliance with Turkey and Sunni Arabs and secure its Black Sea military bases. Iran and the Palestinian resistance are the losers. Iran may have bowed its head, hoping to avoid the blow that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby have long threatened—one that would have been inevitable under Trump.
Unfortunately, the elements available to analyze the authoritarian liberalism in which we are unwittingly complacent do not allow for solid conclusions. The only certainty is that the Syrian people will endure a new geopolitical experiment, and state terrorism in Palestine will continue, undisturbed and unpunished. The Ukrainian victims will not yet have the longed-for truce.
Il Fatto Quotidiano, December 28, 2024
