EUROPE TO USSA: AMERICA FIRST DOESN’T MEAN EUROPE LASTAugust 2, 2017
As regular readers here might have gathered, I've been focused the past few days on matters of economic-geopolitics and the equally growing myopia of the District of Cesspool. As I stated yesterday, Washington's "doubling down" on "empire" and the militarization of the American economy is beginning to show some serious fault lines, and one of those growing fault lines is between the USSA and the European "Union", both classic studies in growing fascism and disconnect from the peoples they claim to govern in the name of.
All that aside, it is beginning to look like Europe, finally, may have "had it", if the following article shared by Mr. G.B. from Russia Today(RT) is any indicator:
For me the crucial paragraphs are the following:
In a harshly-worded statement, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, lashed out at Washington saying “America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last.”
He added the commission “concluded today that if our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days.”
The EU’s legislative body also argued the sanctions “could affect infrastructure transporting energy resources to Europe, for instance the maintenance and upgrade of pipelines in Russia that feed the Ukraine gas transit system,” according to a press release.
The sanctions bill has also caused a stir in Berlin. "This concerns not only German industry … Sanctions against Russia should not become a tool of industrial policy [pursued] in the US interests," German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Schaefer told a news conference on Wednesday, as cited by Sputnik.
“In our opinion, it is not in the Americans’ right to judge or stipulate which way European companies may engage in cooperation with any third parties – particularly, with Russian energy companies,” Schaefer said.
Speaking at the same briefing, government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer added Berlin believes “the European industry should not become the target of US sanctions.” She noted it was crucial “to continue close coordination between the US and the EU in the sanctions policy toward Russia.”
France has said the sanctions “contradict international law” due to their “extraterritorial reach,” according to a statement by the French Foreign Ministry.
I strongly suspect that the language about "coordinating" sanctions against Russia that Ulkrike Demmer is talking about is nothing but "window dressing," i.e., a pretense to mollify the "Atlanticists" on both sides of the pond. The real attitude of Europe, rather, I strongly suspect is given by the French Foreign Ministry: American unipolarism has now reached the point that Congress presumes to act "extra-territorially," mandating the "one size fits all" solution: one size - America's size - must fit all, especially Europe. As I stated yesterday, the hidden agenda of the USSA's sanctions regime is both economic and political: economically, it is designed to force Europe to get much of its energy from the USSA, thereby making sure those intransigent French and stubborn Germans stay firmly under Washington's thumb. Geopolitically of course the goal is the same goal that Sir Halford Mackinder had: to prevent any economic alliance of Germany (and thereby Europe), with Russia; the goal was to prevent the alliance of European industry and technology with the vast strategic depth and resources of Russia.
What stands out, in this context, are the strong remarks of the German Foreign Minister spokesman Martin Schaefer (note that RTs feels entirely free to use standard English, like "spokeswoman" and "spokesman"... at least standard English survives in Russia!.... (heavy sigh)). Schaefer is clearly targeting the one sidedness of the sanctions regime. In effect, what Schaefer is really saying, if one parses his words carefully, is that the sanctions regime is as much about European industry as it is about Russian industry. One has to look back in history several decades for a German Foreign ministry spokesman speaking so clearly and openly in opposition to American policy.
Konstantin von Neurath or Joachim von Ribbentrop come to mind.
The bottom line here is something I've pointed out before: Europe and the USSA are coming to the inevitable parting of ways, and the reasons for parting will ultimately be economic in nature. In this respect, it's worth recalling something else that the British geopolitician Mackinder warned about at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century: the geopolitical paradigm of the previous five hundred years was changing, as railroad networks grew, making the long distance transport of goods more cost efficient. Railroads and aircraft, he predicted, would knit together the vast Eurasian land mass, making the ocean-based global economy obsolete, and privileging, not sea powers, but land powers... like Russia, and Germany... and China...
All of this means that NATO itself will increasingly become obsolescent... it will continue to exist on paper, but become increasingly irrelevant to political and economic reality, like the Holy Roman Empire. France and Germany have already made a number of significant moves toward the creation of a common military, and Germany has already integrated foreign military units into the Bundeswehr command structure.
Thus, American foreign policy needs an entirely different approach. Driving Europe into the hands of Russia an China is short-sighted and ultimately detrimental both to Europe and to the USA. And at the heart of the issue is Russia. Culturally and historically, Russia has far more in common with the West than it does with Japan, or China. It's time to quit treating that great people as an international pariah.
See you on the flip side...