European Panic

Yesterday I described Alexander Mercouris’ latest as a bit of a tour de force. The focus of his comments are largely on the crisis of Europe occasioned by the failure of their war on Russia. In fact, it looks like the definitive failure of the European war on Russia that has been ongoing for centuries—certainly dating back to the Great Northern War. Now, it’s true that I typically describe the current war as America’s war on Russia, or the collective West’s war on Russia. I do that for specific reasons—America’s war is largely a Neocon war, an aspect that I believe needs to be emphasized. It’s a question of sine qua nons. But for the Neocons, we really wouldn’t have this war on Russia—or most of our post-Cold War “forever wars.” But for the European obsession with Russia—fueled especially (but not uniquely) by the British imperial project—America would not be embroiled in a totally avoidable conflict.

So Mercouris is right to devote so much time to the European aspect of this Western cultural crisis. He emphasizes in the first 18 minutes or so that the Europeans (and especially the British) are massively invested in this war on Russia and specifically in Zelensky as the Ukrainian “leader”. There’s no specifically English term for what Mercouris describes as the transformation of a vulgar comic figure into a “Churchillian” leader. The Germans might say fuehrer, the Poles wódz, but those are stronger terms than our “leader”. Napoleonic? Well, you get the idea. The fact that the Americans are willing to dispense with Zelensky’s dubious services while the Euros and Brits are still heavily invested in him is a clear indication that America’s involvement is not as deep as the European involvement.

The two Alexes go on to discuss Europe’s “Russia problem” and Russia’s “European problem,” but America just doesn’t have a problem like that. As Mercouris says, America is a continent and an ocean away. Like all truths, it pays to keep that one firmly in mind. The Europeans and Brits would have done well to ponder that particular truth before darting down the Neocon rabbit hole. America can always bug out—because. No other nation really has that fallback—because. The Brits thought they had America firmly roped into the “Anglosphere” via the Neocons, and the Neocons thought—correctly, as it developed—that they could push the Euros into all sorts of goofy projects. Nordstream anyone? And what can you say about the Polish commitment? Or the Romanians?

But now the chickens have come home to roost, and the European and British ruling classes are faced with winter and the prospect of explaining to their restive subjects why they had to go to war with Russia and cut their subjects off from reliable and affordable sources of energy. This is a true crisis. Cue Alexander at around the 18 minute mark:

Avdeyevka collapse & possible Trump presidency fuels EU panic

AM: There is another factor at play, which is that the Europeans and the Americans also have a different perspective on the war. They start started the war--the Europeans and the Americans together--brimming with enthusiasm. I go back to the Munich security conference in early 2022, which I have never forgotten. The Europeans were in a state of euphoria because, finally, the brakes had been taken off in the United States. That terrible man, Donald Trump, was off the scene. They could go full tilt, support the Americans. The Americans wanted regime change in Moscow, the Europeans also wanted regime change in Moscow. So they were enthusiastic backers of the project in 2022. What they've now discovered is that the Americans can walk away--they're a continent and an ocean away, they've got an economy in much better shape than the European economy, and they don't have the Russians right at their doorstep. With the Europeans it's different. Their economy is in a terrible state, they're losing a war on their eastern borders, and they will have the Russians on their doorstep.

But when Alexander says “Americans”, what he really means is Neocons. “Americans” have not been overwhelmingly committed to this war. If you prefer “ruling classes” that’s OK, but eventually we get back to sine qua nons. Next Alexander makes an important point. There would be a political price to pay in America for another Walk Away Zhou moment, but America could deal with it. Hell, we’re used to that now. For Europe there ain’t no walkin’ away from Russia, so there really isn’t any off switch. Why did they ever think poking the sleeping Bear was a good idea? In a way it brings us back to a 1914 kinda moment, from a ruling class perspective.

You can start to see the panic taking hold, the Finns fortifying their borders just after they joined NATO. Stupid decision, as I think some people in Finland are beginning to understand. The Estonians beginning to do the same thing. The talk about the NATO Schengen area which is being revived. You can sense the fear and the panic continuing to take hold. So, from the European perspective, they want the war to continue--they can't just switch it off--and that leads them back to Zelensky, because they don't want to see political instability in Kiev. They don't want to see a crisis there. They want this thing holding together sufficiently long in the hope that something will turn up.

The US Marines coming to the rescue? That’s the dawning, sick realization—nothing is going to turn up. Just look at recent videos of Putin. He’s a happy guy these days. He probably spends any leisure time he has reading histories of Yalta.

And always remember something else about the Europeans--when I talking about the Europeans, to be very clear, I mean people like Ursula von der Leyen, the Baerbocks, the Habecks, all of those kind of people--the biggest nightmare of all for them is of a deal done over their heads by the Americans and the Russians, the Americans and the Russians agreeing on spheres of influence in Europe, something that would mean that the United States is gradually losing interest in Europe, leaving the Europeans to deal with the Russians on their own. That is for these people the ultimate nightmare. And again, that motivates them to continue to back Zelensky and the war, even as they increasingly realize that it's going wrong.

I don’t imagine The Donald is really into reading history, but maybe he could get a briefing on Yalta—how to do it right?

AC: That is exactly what Donald Trump should do if he gets into office. If he wins the election what he should do is, he should strike a deal with Putin. Yeah, everyone's going to flip out but, at this point in time, what does Donald Trump care anyway? He shouldn't care what people say, what the media says, he should do a deal with Putin and they should decide the security of Europe, plain and simple. You don't even need to bring the Europeans in to sit at the table! It should be decided between the United States and Russia. That should be what Trump should do because, let's be honest, there are no European leaders with the exception of Orban--maybe Fico now--but there are no European leaders that are going to want to sit down and deal with Trump. They despise Trump, they absolutely hate Trump! So, if that happens that would be the the way to go about securing stability in Europe. The European leaders are going to freak out--absolutely--but, if you want a stable secure Europe, you have to get Russia and the United States to agree on that architecture. So, I just wanted to say that.

My final question to you is, I've been reading a lot of reports coming out of Europe, talking about a potential conflict with Russia--at least it seems like the Europeans are preparing the population for an eventual war with Russia in the next two, three, five years. The Europeans are trying to produce ammunition and weapons, they are trying to ramp up production, they continue to talk about investing money into the war effort, and you're getting a lot of analysts, TV shows, generals, all talking about how Europe needs to prepare for war with Russia--Pavel's statement, the the NATO Schengen that that you just mentioned. Is it me, or does it feel like the euphoria in the Munich Security Conference about a Ukraine proxy war with Russia, are you seeing the same type of euphoria or is it panic on the European side of things, to prepare for a war with Russia? Is that even possible? Is that, I mean, can Europe go to war, the EU, can it go to war with Russia? And wouldn't there be some Neocons in the United States who would be very happy to see Europe smash itself against Russia? 'Go ahead! We encourage you to ramp up production and smash your entire economy and your entire society against Russia!' I mean, well, are you seeing these reports? And then these posts, these articles, these interviews about how Europe needs to ramp up for a war with Russia--not Ukraine, Europe.

AM: Yeah, indeed, absolutely. These things are everywhere now. And, of course, what Pavel said is very indicative now of a certain type of language which is coming out of a certain type of European politician. And bear in mind, when I say “a certain type of European politician” it is important to remember that these are the politicians who are still in control. I mean, we're talking about the political leadership that is in control in Europe at the moment and, yes, they are talking about a war with Russia. Now, in my opinion it is such a ludicrous, such a fantastical idea that it cannot be put down to euphoria--it is clearly panic. I mean, whereas in the Munich Security Conference you could see these people were absolutely exuberant, they were exhilarated, they were in rapture because, finally they were going to settle, once and for all, Europe's Russia problem--which is apparently what they were saying to each other. You know, the Russia problem that has existed ever since the time of Peter the Great. It's incredible to say this, but there was apparently private discussions in which people were using those kind of phrases with each other. 'It seems astonishing, but this is finally going to happen! We're going to achieve regime change there!' The assumption was that--under the pressure of the sanctions--Russia would fall apart like a house of cards. Nobody thought that [the Russians] would not only withstand the sanctions but go on to become stronger and economically more prosperous, and go on to win the war, as well.

So that was euphoria. What you're getting now is panic: 'It's all gone wrong!' It's suddenly dawning on people that they're losing the war in Ukraine, and they're starting to understand that the possibility that the Americans might cut this deal with the Russians, that a Donald Trump, for example, might do it, is increasing. There have been lots of articles in the British media about what a tremendous danger a Donald Trump presidency would be, and you could tell that behind the language, the way they bring up all these other unrelated topics, the core issue again is this fear: that Trump and Putin are going to get together and they're going to agree to this Grand Bargain with each other, which Trump had talked about at the start of his presidency but was never able to execute. This time, given the debacle in Ukraine, he not only would want to do it but he might pull it off. And bear in mind, Putin has recently said he can't imagine any kind of reconciliation with the Europeans, but some kind of an arrangement with the United States is possible and even, before long, likely to happen.

It’s a nightmare moment, or an ‘Oh, sh*t!’ moment. That moment when you realize you’ve screwed up in the most public and irreversable way. Your train is on the wrong track and none of the levers you’re frantically manipulating are responding.

So you can see that the Europeans are very, very frightened and panicky about this. So, like people who are in a state of panic, they're going around telling each other, 'Well, we we don't need the Americans. Even if the Americans go away we can somehow take on the Bear by ourselves. Our GDP is multiple times greater, we're far richer, far stronger than they are.' The reality is, there is no way Europe can fight the Russians by itself. It needs the Americans to do it--and every European leader knows it. If you look at the state of European militaries, they're weaker now than they were in February 2022. I'm getting more and more reports right across Europe about how the warehouses have emptied, and Olaf Scholz's great plan to build up the German military, enhance its military power, bring it to the point where it Germany becomes a great military power again.

The reality is things are going in the diametrically opposite direction. It's impossible to crank up military production. Shell production [in Europe] is still apparently at around 4,000 rounds a month. The United States manages 28,000 a month. The Russians are probably producing hundreds of thousands of rounds a month. Nobody knows exactly how much. The Europeans aren't producing tanks, they aren't producing aircraft, missile production is apparently very low. The militaries are growing weaker. The European publics are completely against any idea of a war with Russia or with anyone else. So it's brave talk that these people are engaging in with each other. They're trying to tell each other, 'Look, we can't be disregarded, we're still strong,' and you sense that beneath it they know it isn't true, and they know that without the Americans they can achieve nothing. And that they're starting to panic because they sense that this deal between the Americans and the Russians is coming.

Alex insists on getting his gag line in here, but it’s OK. It works.

AC: All right, let's end the video there. I wonder what Putin and Russia would do once this conflict, this battle--Ukraine, which is just one part of this big war--I wonder how Putin is going to to leave Russia so that it doesn't have to deal with this European headache. Because, you know, we're always talking about the EU. You said the EU wanted to solve their Russia problem, right, which is what they thought. And Viktor Orban said as much the other day in Switzerland. He basically said the Europeans big plan was that the EU would would let Ukraine fight Russia. Russia would lose on the front lines, we'd get regime change in Moscow, and everything would be great. Europe would then be negotiating with the new Russian government and then, of course, Balkanization and dividing up Russia--they would solve their Russia problem. That's what Orban said. The EU would pretty much solve their Russia problem. You're saying the same thing, but we never ask the reverse question, and sooner or later Putin is going to resign. My feeling is that Putin wants to leave Russia in a state where Russia doesn't have to worry about the European problem. Europe says, 'Russia's a problem for us.' Well, Europe is a problem for Russia, and it has been a problem for Russia for many hundreds of years. So my question to you is, How do you think Russia is going to to deal with Europe? How do they solve the Europe problem?

AM: I think they've actually made their position extremely clear. It's an overlooked fact that this was part of the discussion that took place in that televised Russian Security Council meeting on the 21st of February, 2022, the one that took place shortly before Putin announced a Special Military Operation and the recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk. The Russians had previously proposed two draft treaties to the Americans--and notice that they proposed those treaties to the Americans and to NATO, but they specifically sought to engage the Americans. And over the course of that Security Council meeting I remember various people, including Medvedev, said, 'One of the things we need to do when we get this war over is, we need to revisit the topic of these two treaties and get the Americans to finally agree to them.' And I think that is exactly what the Russians are going to do.

I think Putin has dropped multiple hints about this. I think you're absolutely right. He does want to resolve the present situation on Russia's Western borders so that Russia can focus on its internal economic and social development. He said so, by the way, again in a meeting that took place--I think it was in November 2021--when he was addressing the collegium of the Russian Foreign Ministry. He said, 'We need to resolve this problem of our Western borders once and for all,’ and that was the treaties that followed. So, what he would ideally like to do is to get back into a discussion with the Americans and get the Americans to finally address seriously the issues set out in those treaties. Basically what that called for was a pullback of all American troops and NATO equipment from the territories of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. Bring them back to where they were in 1998 when the process of NATO expansion first started, and for the United States to commit by treaty that there would be no further NATO expansion. So that's the deal that Putin wants to do. He's made it very clear, there's no reason to think that he's changed his mind. Whenever you see him speaking it's clear to me that he hasn't changed his mind.

That’s a deal America can do, too. And the Euros know it. It’s a very sensible deal. And what must really scare the Euros is that they know that the demonization of Putin is all false. He’s a very reasonable guy, as he’s shown at every step of the way. The panic must be occasioned by the thought that an American president could sit down with Putin and come to the same conclusion—he’s a reasonable guy offering us a reasonable deal. Trump, whatever his flaws, is just the kind of guy who could figure that out.

Now, of course [Putin]'s got a plan B in case the Americans don't agree to this. He's going to win his war in Ukraine--I think everybody can see that now. And what he's also doing is he's building up the Russian military now to enormous dimensions. I mean, enormous relative to what they were. So we're going to have a one and a half million man army. We see huge numbers of tanks, military machines being produced in enormous numbers. That puts pressure on the United States, because the United States can no longer be strong everywhere. We're not talking about the 1960s. If the United States is faced with this kind of Russian military buildup and with the Russians once again on Europe's borders, on Poland's borders, and all of those sorts of places, what does the United States do? Does it try to match the Russians—tank for tank and shell for shell? Does it rebuild the whole military system in Europe that existed in the Cold War? That would be unbelievably expensive to do, and at the same time, of course, the United States is now confronting the other superpower, China, in the Pacific--it's got to consider the need for a big naval buildup in the Pacific. Can it take on China and Russia at one and the same time? The logical thing for the United States to do--so Putin probably will think--is that rather than face that disaster which will leave the United States massively overextended, they cut a deal with the Russians, reduce the need to keep huge numbers of American troops and equipment in Europe, and that way they can concentrate on other things. So that, I think, is Putin's plan.

AC: He's not dealing with rational people, but we'll see ...

Putin’s a chess player and the Neocons are checkers players. He’s been planning for the long game, and the Neocon strategery is based on fantasy. But once you sit down at the board, you have play by the rules.

AM: As I said, I think he's now reached that point where, if he has to conduct that massive buildup in Western Russia--in what will soon be Western Russia, in other words former Ukraine and indeed, possibly, Belarus as well--he will do it. He's shown that he has both the political will and the resources to do it, and that the Russians can do it without undermining their economy, so he will do it. I don't think it's what he would prefer. I think he would prefer a deal with the Americans, but it would have to be a deal that he was confident would stick. At the time of the draft treaties back in December 2021, one of the things that the Russians said that they wanted to see was that these treaties were actually ratified as treaties. In other words, they want a vote in the US Senate binding the United States by treaty, and of course the political obstacles in the face of that are enormous.

AC: Yeah, I wanted to have this discussion before I wrap up the video because everyone is always looking at it, obviously, from the [Western perspective]. Even in our analysis we're always thinking, 'How are the Europeans going to to react, and what are they going to do? Everyone talks about the the Russian problem, but no one ever addresses how Russia sees it on their end. It's Russia that that has a legitimate grievance or claim or right to say, 'We need to prevent another catastrophe, another war in our direction.' For them this is a problem. And I imagine that Putin is going to address that. That's how I see Putin. I see Putin as staying in office in order to make sure that, when he leaves, he leaves Russia in a very secure and safe position. That's how I see Putin's thinking on this. But we'll see.

AM: I think you're absolutely right. I think that is absolutely his view. As I said, the Russians would like to see a deal done with the Americans, but one of the interesting things is that in Russia today--in publication after publication, in commentary after commentary--you start to see, increasingly, Russian officials, Russian commentators quoting the famous words of Tsar Alexander III that, when it comes to its security, Russia has only two reliable allies: its Army and its Navy. So the Russians are basically saying, 'Look we would like to do this deal but, fundamentally, we don't trust you. If we can can do a deal that passes the Senate, that kind of deal, we will do it because it benefits us, but ultimately we're never going back to the illusions of the 90s, we're never going to make that mistake again. We will always maintain a strong military in future precisely because we have to protect ourselves from the Europeans, mostly, but from the Americans to some extent as well.'

For Europe, by the way, the future--however it turns out--now looks incredibly bleak. The ultimate disaster in my opinion would be another military confrontation in Europe. Europe is in no condition to withstand it. The idea of the Europeans being pushed into another kind of indefinite Cold War with a much more coherent and angry and united Russia, and having to depend on the Americans--even at a time where the Americans are overextended--well, that is a nightmare scenario, in my opinion. Strangely enough, the best possible outcome for Europe—or, shall I say, the least bad one—is that Donald Trump is elected and does do that deal with Putin. If you really care, if you're really concerned for the future of Europe, that is the best deal, the best outcome one can now see.

AC: Yep. I that's exactly right.

For all the problems America is facing—all of our own making—we do still have plenty of energy, fresh water, great farmland, and natural resources. The developing restructuring of the international monetary system could make America fundamentally stronger in the long term by weaning us of pyramid scheme types of financing. A topic for another day, but one that could come up during the 2024 campaign—because, just as at Avdeyevka, the financial/monetary front appears to be developing faster than expected.