The European Union''s €800 billion plan to rearm Europe has been renamed ''"Readiness 2030''". Was it because the "Rearm Europ" first slogan was too incongruous for an entity so over-armed? Whether in terms of budget, naval, land or air forces, the countries of the European Union alone, not including Great Britain or the other European NATO countries, already far outstrip Russia.
And that''s without even taking into account the United States, champion in its own right, which in the event of open war against Russia would obviously be on the side of, or just behind, the Europeans - even if the latter pretend to be afraid of the opposite.
The only field in which Russia is unquestionably dominant is that of nuclear weapons - its life insurance policy? "If they didn''t have nuclear weapons, we''d have kicked the Russians out of Ukraine by now," said the head of NATO''s military committee last November1. Will the 800 billion beat her to the punch?
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Given its counter-performance in Ukraine, it''s hard to imagine why Russia would risk attacking the over-armed entity surrounding it, even if it had the intention to do so.
Unless, of course, it convinced itself of its imminent destruction.
And it''s true that it wouldn''t be hard to convince oneself of this, listening to the speeches of EU leaders who believe that Russia must bite the dust, whatever the cost. "Russia Delenda Est!" asserts the Latvian president, "Ukraine must be militarized to the teeth," asserts his Finnish counterpart. As for the head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, she openly advocates unconditional capitulation and the fragmentation of Russia2.
The EU''s concept of "peace-building", which it holds so dear, is becoming increasingly curious.
European leaders pretend to see in the war in Ukraine only the expression of "Russian imperialism", dismissing as propaganda its legitimate security concerns. The narrative they have locked themselves into makes any outcome other than Russia''s total defeat impossible, and any suggestion of negotiation "shameful".
The fact that this Europe is announcing that it is injecting 800 billion for so-called "rearmament" could actually encourage Russia''s leaders not to wait until Europe has finished accumulating sufficient strength to annihilate it outright. Gigantic investment in "security" therefore has the exact opposite effect of increasing insecurity and the danger of war.
Growth through the war industry
Another little tune is being heard more and more insistently. For an economically exhausted Europe, whose economy has been further weighed down by its own anti-Russian sanctions, this massive investment in the war industry appears to some as a miracle ''solution'' to artificially boost growth. The share prices of defense-related companies are soaring. Gun merchants are ecstatic.
Another undeniable advantage of a "patriotic" war economy is that protesting and fighting against the diverting of public resources to defense is stigmatized as unpatriotic, even as collaborating with the enemy. "Those who don''t see Russia''s existential threat are part of Putin''s 5th column," says our Prime Minister. War on the outside leads to fascism on the inside.
In the 1930s, the 3rd Reich had similarly given a spectacular boost to the stricken German economy by investing massively in the war industry. Some applauded the economic miracle...
Preparing for war has always led to war
“Si vis pacem para bellum”, “If you want peace, prepare for war” - never has this maxim been heard more often than in recent times. Is it a reflection of popular wisdom and the experience of past centuries? It''s true that ever since the end of the Roman Empire, when it was allegedly first uttered, this saying has been proving its relevance, with all the glare of bombs: European countries have never stopped preparing for war, and in fact have gone from one war and massacre to another. And always with the same good conscience, and the same certainty of being on the side of good, of justice, and the enemy on the side of barbarism.
Do we really want to return to the glorious slaughtering days of centuries gone by, with atomic weapons to boot? How many times in the history of mankind have we seen the over-armament of one side lead to war, either because one side felt confident enough to annihilate the other, or because the enemy felt that a pre-emptive attack was preferable to the certainty of annihilation?
Readiness 2030: being ready for war in 2030? We urgently need to get out of this death trap into which we are being dragged by the NATOized EU.
1. lindependant.fr, 13/11/2024
2. youtube.com/watch?v=PcFUnybWftM