When Ursula von der Leyen became European Commission president in December 2019, many journalists responded with vitriol over how such a German political lightweight could take the top job in Brussels. She literally had no success stories in Germany in previous ministerial positions and many Germans when hearing of her appointment reacted with “Ursula who?”.

And yet, with the exception of Jacques Delors, European Commission presidents are traditionally selected on the basis of them being underperformers – so that the real powers behind the throne (French and German leaders) can manipulate them at will and use them like putty in their palms. There is another argument also that in Brussels, where the EU institutions are run by aging freemasons, the choice of a political retard at the end of their careers is really about appeasing these old guys, who the system assures you never see or hear of, ever.

And so, by definition, the European Commission president has to be a failed politician who will be dazzled by the bodyguards, motorcades and photo ops with world leaders, but not really take the lead from the front. In this respect, by their own unwritten rules, VDL, as she is known by some cruel hacks in Brussels, is an absolute perfect Commission president as she ticks all the boxes – and being German as well gives her a halo as the best kept secret in Brussels is that the previous worry in the late 1990s that the project was really a Franco-German axis venture has now descended into really just Germany running the entire show.

However, Ursula is also at the apex of what many EU insiders worry could be a crisis which will only worsen in the coming months and kickstart a process whereby the EU implodes slowly and falls on its own sword.

She has single-handedly made a monumental dog’s breakfast of Brexit, allowing herself, her negotiator and the federalist bed-wetters in Brussels to indulge themselves in a racist, twisted and deluded campaign, pitching the UK as a new enemy which has to be taught a lesson. It massively backfired and even her most staunch supporters are admitting this as a major gaffe which is actually furthering the cause of other EU member states who might have been mulling leaving the bloc before, but now are even closer to considering it as a real alternative path.

But that’s not her tour de force of gob-smacking failures. In reality, Ursula is seen by many EU watchers as a real threat to the sustainability of the project, due to her spectacular mishandling of the corona virusrescue plan. Vaccines.

Some might argue that she wants to champion an EU vaccine plan which in itself was ill-conceived and a thinly veiled ruse to boost the bloc’s credibility, following an all-time low from Brexit. Indeed, many member states already were on the case and ordering their stocks of vaccines and really didn’t need to be slowed down by a half-baked plan which was a series of blunders and poor decisions from the off.

But now the EU and Ursula are in panic mode. Britain, ordering early stocks unhindered by EU foibles and Eurocrats’ gaffs, accelerated ahead with vaccine order and will have the entire population done by the end of summer, according to some reports.

In early February, the calamity of erroneous policy decisions shifted gear when Ursula did a U-turn on the Commission’s decision to try and block ‘exports’ of the vaccine to Britain via Northern Ireland. But there was more hilarious keystone cops moments to come when news quickly came of a raucous tantrum led by some MEPs, after it was revealed that the Commission’s aging foreign policy wonk, Josep Borrell – a man who literally makes a pile a chair look exciting – went to Russia on his knees to ask Putin for vaccines while apparently scolding Moscow on its human rights. Try and keep a straight face. Borrell pulled that off at least.

By contrast to the UK’s vaccine program, by midsummer, the EU’s own would have barely begun which is really what the panic we are now seeing – and will see increasingly in the Belgian capital – is all about.

How did the EU mess this up? And how does the author, who worked in Brussels for 11 years, know that there is real panic within the EU.

When the EU really starts to panic, it turns to its oldest and dearest friend, the suppliant, loyal and entirely subservient institution at its disposal, ready and waiting to serve its master: the press.

Ursula lost no time organising an interview with Le Monde explaining the situation and how she shouldn’t be judged until her term is up, in 2024. Typical EU chief response. “We’re not a democracy and I have another 4 years before I should face any scrutiny, so let me draw the rock star salary and enjoy the lifestyle which the job brings” really is what the message was.

The article of course was a message to Emmanuel Macron who is literally pulling his hair out with a political crisis of his own. He can no longer rely on the EU itself to boost his profile, when the institution looks more and more like a sour loser each day, burying itself in ineptitude, graft, nefarious PR stunts and scandal. The delay in vaccines is costing France and Macron’s popularity dearly. A recent study showed that his right-wing nemesis Marine Le Pen was neck and neck with the centrist wet President. When more French citizens see the dirty tricks the EU and France and playing against the UK and start to see the project in Brussels as a failing one, mired in corruption and led by a Commission president who appears lost on the stage of international politics, this will only mean one thing at the French ballot. More votes for the far right. And he knows it.

Ursula knows that her critics in Brussels and from leaders of EU countries who saw her as too inexperienced and lacking in élan, that she is walking a tight rope. In the coming weeks there will be more pressure on her as the big guns of the project like Macron, will find it harder to ignore the obvious. Not only is she part of the current crisis, but her staying in the job and resorting to shallow PR stunts are all feeding a frenzy right across the entire continent which will not only swell the ranks of the far right in France but in a number of other EU member states as well.

It is obvious what the EU needs to do. Or at least obvious to anyone who works in government on a national level. If this happened in the UK, France or Germany, the party which supported her as leader would seek her resignation to keep the sanctity of the organisation alive. A resignation creates a media distraction and shows the party faithful, the media and its critics that the overall project is not only serious, but also in touch with the needs and concerns of the electorate.

The EU model doesn’t think nor work like that though. The EU itself in Brussels is a consensus-driven model, supported by member states who buy into the idea that a non-democratic beast in the Belgian capital can be beneficial to a democratic one on a national level.

The last time an EU Commission president resigned was in 1999 when, in fact, the entire commission itself made up of 20 ‘commissioners’ were implicated in graft, often remembered for Edith Cresson’s dentist landing a fat EU contract on nothing relating to fillings and braces.

Jacques Santer lowered his head in a press conference and whimpered in his odd Luxembourger accent “I’m sorry”.

Ursula, needs to do the same to save the EU project, restore confidence quickly and divert this ocean liner from slamming into an iceberg from which it will never recover. This will only happen if member states take the initiative and signal to her that this is the right thing. Watch very closely how Merkel and Macron stand by her. Or not.

Ursula who?

There’s no more time for EU bluffing. Before, we witnessed a lot of this from Barnier and some EU leaders who stood by the “Britain needs EU trade much more than 27 member states” preposterous mantra. But the desperation on the EU side now is lucid. EU leaders and the Commission now can see that Britain crashing out of the EU presents two seismic problem for Brussels which would only add to its already political crisis: firstly, it would make Britain a ‘survivor’ in a bitter battle (which sets a terrible precedent for other Eurosceptic member states); and secondly, it presents a political problem in Germany and France as the former might face job losses in its car sector when UK can no longer afford BMWs, while the latter will be hit by the massive loss in business in the food and wine sector.

It’s often forgotten that the UK is France’s largest consumer of champagne and in Germany, BMW bosses have enjoyed years of the UK being the number one member state for car sales in the entire EU.

But if either of those two sectors are hit hard by Brexit, then a political earthquake will erupt and the consequences will be felt both inside those countries and also in Brussels at the European Commission itself.

The row itself, boiled down, comes down to the UK taking back full control of the waters which it lost when it became a fully signed-up member state in 1973. It also focuses on how Britain will use state aid, once it becomes full detached from the EU.

And this explains a number of contradictory reports in the press in recent days. In the last days of August, it was reported that the call from Barnier to EU member states themselves to step in and save the day, was rebuffed. This move itself could be seen as insidious desperation from a man who has really lost all credibility as a ‘negotiator’. It was more or less a begging call.

But then the U-turn came when the European Commission’s chief Ursula von der Leyen, stepped in, and, according to reports on September 5^th, was preparing for the European Council (an opaque yet powerful institution in Brussels which represents EU governments) will take over the talks as Barnier gets pushed aside and is replaced by council president Charles Michel.

Once these reports were written up by mainstream media, strong denials on the EU side were issued out of respect for Barnier, and published dutifully by, among others, Bloomberg.

But whether these measures are false, or exaggerated, something has to be done as the bickering and backstabbing between the UK’s negotiator and Barnier had reached a point where neither one wished to stand down and give ground. The problem is that the EU always had deluded views about its strength (which have massively crashed down to earth in recent weeks), against Britain who has a leader who sees a no deal Brexit as a victory – as it would force the EU in 2021 to come back to the negotiating table and treat Britain with more respect.

Is that already happening now?

To some extent, yes. For the European Council to negotiate directly on behalf of EU leaders makes a difference, if that is to be the case. Firstly, the move is without a doubt whatsoever a climb down from the EU and gives Britain’s negotiators more leverage. Secondly, it dispatches into the long grass the lie that the EU has been bandying about, which is that the UK has more to lose in a no-deal scenario.

What is not helping though is France’s dirty game of allowing more and more refugees camped on its shores to easily make their way across the channel to claim asylum in the UK. Macron is allowing this to happen deliberately as it sends a message to the UK: ‘even if you win the talks with Brussels, it will be our ports which your lorries will have to deal with’.

In other words, if Britain wins a deal in Brussels and gets its waters back, it will be French fisherman who will be allowed to block France’s ports, so that British lorries carrying perishable goods, will not be able to enter the EU to make deliveries under either a new trade deal or even WTO rules. Boris Johnson needs to talk to Dutch and Danish governments to plan different routes for haulage operators, for sure. The French government has a long history of playing such dirty games and this is where the real standoff with France will come, when Macron has to tell French fisherman that their quotas have been slashed as the UK won the right to take back its waters. As we saw in Beirut, the French president has a shocking contempt for media – he had a tantrum with one journalist who leaked details of talks with Hezbollah – and so expect much fake news being spread via his press people when the blockades start. But the question is, does the pusillanimous Macron have the guts to stand by his own fisherman when a total blockade of all French goods by the British is an inevitable retaliation? It’s unlikely that in such a standoff situation that he can handle the heat. Unfortunately though, such leaders insist on staying in the kitchen. Watch closely how France will come under pressure from Germany and other EU member states who want more sensible and grown-up dealings with the UK. Expect another Macron tantrum. In fact, expect Brexit being used as a scapegoat for a number of Macron failures while still in office.

What Corona has re-impounded is the uselessness of the EU, its impotence and delusional idiocy and above all its futility. Even those across Europe who believed passionately in the bloc, now see it for what it is. In the words of the Serbian president, “a fairy tale”.

Need convincing? Just look at how the European Commission president is so enfeebled that she can’t even unveil any kind of rescue plan, either for those infected or for the millions who have to suffer, lose their jobs, or small business that go under.

At the end of February, the Commission unveiled a 250m dollar aid package. Oh yes it did. You might have missed it, or didn’t quite see it properly if you didn’t have your reading glasses on, as articles next to it on Google, flanked Spain’s 220 BILLION euro aid package.

But wait. You might be wondering how the European union is able to give 500m euros of its own cash to dictator of a country in Central Africa which has been thrown into turmoil following the same despot’s coup d’état but not manage much for the entire 27-nation bloc as Europeans drop dead like flies.

It’s all about competence. A little known secret, until now, about the EU is how the European Union puts on a great show, by paying cash to EU media giants to subsidise their reports from Brussels, and pretends to the greater public that it has competences and power in areas where, in fact, it doesn’t.

Any Brussels-based hack, worth his weight in Mules and Frites, will tell you that two chief no-go areas which are sacred are health and culture. But don’t let that stop Brussels from blowing billions and billions of euros of taxpayers money on setting up and running a “ghost ministry” in the name of pan-EU healthcare policy. Yes, the EU actually has a directorate of health, run by a Greek called Stella Kyriakidou. But like foreign policy, it’s yet another one of these talk shops which doesn’t actually do anything.

Yes, the European Commission’s own Directorate General of Health is a white elephant, which is why not only have you not heard or seen this Greek lady in front of the media’s spotlights, but the EU also has no real power – and therefore no cash – for healthcare, which is what the corona pandemic would fall under.

So, in short, add ‘health’ to the growing list of competences which the EU claims to have, but in fact are bogus. On that same list, ‘foreign policy’ is a good contender for the top place and yet the EU’s foreign diplomatic service, the EEAS, blows over a billion dollars a year just on keeping 130 odd “diplomatic missions” around the world open. That’s one billion dollars with a ‘b’. And all we have heard from the aged, bumbling Mr Magoo – ‘ol Josep Borrell – about corona is that it is a “global problem”, which he muttered recently in a spammed social media video clip. Is that code for “we can’t really do anything about it. Sorry”?

Of course, Borrell could. He could propose that the 1bn dollars a year blown on his own diplo yaddah yaddah service be diverted to saving Europe’s small businesses. Or jobs. Or face masks. Anything.

But that’s about as likely to happen as Borrell himself, standing up to Donald Trump and defending Iran against crippling, and morally bereft US sanctions. Yet nothing comes from Borrell on this subject. Can Iran assume that the EU has totally abandoned it? And that, in reality, Brussels wasn’t the great architect of the so-called Iran Deal, that is claimed to be? Can Tehran assume, that in its darkest hour, that the EU is simply a cheaper, poorer grovelling cousin of the White House? Yep.

And what about immigration? Could or should that be added to the White Elephant list of non-competences, which EU taxpayers fund, which is failing spectacularly as we witness the total implosion of the so-called Schengen Agreement?

Corona has shown us that the US is not the super power it might like to think it is, as there was no leadership from Trump around the world. It has also shown us how London, Paris and Berlin are helpless when it comes to health crises and that the concept of unity is very limited at best. Presently, what we are seeing is a new war emerging which pitches NATO countries against their foes over face masks. Germany recently lashed out at the US which “confiscated” a shipment of facemasks heading towards Berlin cops; France and Spain are also at loggerheads over a consignment of face masks from a Swedish firm based in Lyon, got swiped by the French government before they could be delivered to Spain which ordered them. Turkey is also in the news for face mask banditry, but this time threatening to nationalise firms which make them on its own turf. While all this kicks off, Trump holds a press conference defending his decision to take face masks from Putin.

But where is the European Union in all this? What is Josep Borrell doing? In fact, celebrating. According to his own twitter Feed we see that the former Spanish FM was self-pleasuring over the news that Albania and Northern Macedonia had got the “green light” to begin accession talks with the EU.

The EU is getting more insular and elitist. It can’t help but think of its own priorities no matter how banal they may seem to outsiders. When countries join the EU, even those on the edge of darkest Europe, this gives EU officials a massive rush, as though expanding the club provides temporary relief to the reality that the building is falling down – like using gasoline to put out a fire, it provides a small flare, a distraction which endears the viewer, while he realises that he’s in the midst of an inferno.

How will the European Union survive this stunning lack of dynamism and misplaced priorities? It’s hard to imagine it will hang on as the lack of any real power or influence is even being picked up by journalists in MENA countries who watch such things carefully. Corona has its own media dynamism which hundreds of millions of euros of cash which MEPs voted should be put aside to “assist” EU media report on the EU, cannot buy.

“Be careful what you wish for” might be words some mutter when they think of the engagement of Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen as European Commission president last November. Traditionally the post of the powerful Commission president has always gone to an obscure, failed politician from an even obscurer EU member state, with perhaps the exception of Jacques Delors in the mid 80s, who, arguably, wasn’t known much outside of France in that period.

But this German lightweight, with the unfortunate nickname of VDL (which in Britain conjures ideas of a sexually transmitted disease), broke the mould on failing to achieve anything while being in the federal government where even colleagues in Berlin opposed her nomination for the EU post on the ground of being sensationally unremarkable.

But the EU elite, the real powers in Brussels who have funny handshakes and whose sweaty palms are on the real powers over member states, like “also ran” candidates. This is seen as very much a positive thing when installing your own puppet in the top euro job.

Yet, given the EU’s rancid if not delusional ideas of how to pull itself out of its own political crisis – take more power, decentralise more away from member states, build stronger foreign policy and swell the budget considerably (presumably to pay for more fake news from journalists who are indirectly on the EU payroll) – one would have thought that this old business model needed a second look. Surely, a heavyweight pro federalist leader with a guilt edged profile, which media lapped up, would have been the ticket? Someone like Tony Blair for example?

Dear Ursula’s failure this week to garner support from EU member states to all stick to a single policy on the dreaded Corona Virus, rather than all develop their own policies on borders and national health initiatives, failed spectacularly though. If anything, it goes to show how weak and ineffective the EU is as, when tested under a crisis, the real confidence, the vote of confidence from national governments no less, just isn’t there. It’s like governments are saying we love the EU, we really do, and we see it as such a great thing…but when the shit hits the fan, we’ll take it from here, thanks.

On Sunday 15^th of March, Germany moved to impose travel restrictions along most of its borders, without even bothering to informed its neighbouring countries. Several European Union members — including the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Portugal and Denmark — had also taken moves to impose border restrictions, in some cases with little advance notification. Is any of this legal? What about Schengen?

This must have panicked Ursula who, on the Monday 16th, made the cringe-worthy plea through a video conference for calm and for everyone to do as the new EU Commission president wants. And so on the following day, she appealed to member states through a video conference for her 30 day travel ban proposal to be approved.

Finally the chaos was brought under control. But it was Germany’s Angela Merkel who announced the news of an EU-wide 30-day shut down on non-EU citizens. Until that point, 27 member states went ahead with their own polices and almost certainly the move to agree on the Ursula proposal, was pushed through by Macron and Merkel as not only a common sense move, but also a political one to support the new European Commission president who for a number of days was really not on the ball.

And yet it didn’t stop a number of EU member states continuing with their own internal border rules, which bypassed entirely the European Commission president.

But what no one saw coming was the extraordinary reaction from Serbia – an EU candidate country – whose president took the opportunity to more or less declare its loathing of Brussels, as it saw the proposal as a direct threat to its relations with China. Importantly, the draft of the text prohibits EU member states (and those in line to join the EU) seeking to acquire medical equipment outside of the EU (as well as exporting medical equipment out of the EU-27 block) which drew the wrath of the Serbian president, who more or less spat blood while taking about Brussels.

“European solidarity does not exist. That was a fairy tale,” he said at a conference which soon became vital on social media. “The only country that can help us in this hard situation is the People’s Republic of China. For the rest of them, thanks for nothing.”

President Aleksandar Vucic slammed the decision by Ursula to impose such measures and has practically begged the Chinese premier to help with medical equipment and doctors, as he sees no help whatsoever coming from other EU member states or even Brussels.

His move might well see Serbia’s accession process slowed down or even annulled as the EU is quite a petulant beast and doesn’t take kindly to accession countries who try to defy it. Turkey’s bid to become an EU member state is put on the ‘never-never’ back burner of EU politics following a number of run ins with its headstrong leader Recep Erdogan who doesn’t really buy the carrot-and-stick approach from Brussels.

Are we witnessing, via a bumbling management of Corona the meltdown of the EU’s accession policy? Possibly. Other eastern European countries which are already in the block but also have a deep scepticism of Brussels may well take Serbia’s lead and go ahead with their own plans to protect their own citizens, from taking China’s help or others. So far, we are not only looking at a catastrophe from a pan-European health perspective but also the first signs of an illness within the Commission itself which keeps up some of its senior members late at night fretting about its fate: a dire lack of confidence of its president.

Ursula weathered the storm this time, due to Macron and Merkel’s help but the move from the EU president is not nearly enough to save both the health epidemic and its implications towards EU economies but also a political crisis in Brussels. What she has done is too way too little and way too late. A number of emergency measures have also been taken to open up emergency funds to help companies threatened with collapse or for jobs. In Ireland alone, 140,000 jobs have been lost, for example with Spain’s own central government coughing up a staggering 219 bn euros as a rescue package. That’s 20% of its entire annual GDP. Compared to the few billion announced by the EU, this puts into perspective how the dithering EU neither has the ability to handle such crises – as it never prepares for contingency plans as it fears this will make it look like the project is a failure [read euro bail outs] – but also how it doesn’t even have the funds. Or rather, it does have the funds if it didn’t spend billions on propping up despots in African countries with ‘humanitarian aid’ which is linked directly to flows of immigrants leaving the region and ending up in Libya. Interestingly, Ursula has agreed that the EU commission needs to relax EU state aid rules during this emergency, which in practical terms means giving EU governments the green light to use their own taxpayers’ money to rescue old, large companies – hardly comforting news if you’re a boss of a small firm facing losses and bankruptcy. What happened to the tomes and tomes of euro-garble about “supporting SMEs” which the Commission endlessly has harped on about for the last quarter century? Or jobs? The cats out of the bag.

Surely if the EU can just drop hugely important state aid rules which are the cornerstone of the single market, which the EU holds to dear, and it has no rescue plan for the small and medium sized enterprises which are surely going to go under, then really what role can we expect from the EU? Under the commission president Ursula, clearly not much. Or at least not much which amounts to anything more than just providing the office space for a talk shop for EU member states. If the EU can’t even contain the virus and take measures to protect it though, what should we really make of its plans to forge ahead with an EU army with a bolder foreign policy agenda? In fact, all we need to do, to answer that question, is look at the mess created on the Turkish-Greek border as the EU’s failed immigration and asylum policy wreaks havoc and drives home the point that the “fairy tale” of the EU as an international player is becoming recognised. In the coming months we will see EU member states abandon any directives from Ursula in Brussels and will take matters into their own hands. The dream of the euphemism of “further integration” [read decentralising power from member states to Brussels] which was parroted when the new commission took office at the end of 2019 will end up as European citizens’ nightmare. If Ursula van der Leyen was considered to be the answer, the then question must have been a pretty stupid one.

In effect, the plaintiffs argued that if the Prime Minister can suspend Parliament for any length of time, say three days, it would be legally no different then him suspending Parliament for a year or, even, indefinitely.

That’s a dangerous line of argument given the more than 300+ year history of this process, with the Prime Minister proroguing Parliament under far more dubious conditions in the past. This does limit the role of the Government to conduct business and set the agenda, especially if and when the day comes that Parliament is not staffed by people who are loyal to their constituents and not the political elite.

Far be if for this anarcho-libertarian not to cheer at the ineptitude of this arrangement, but it does highlight what’s fundamentally wrong with putting your faith in systems run by men.

The speed with which this was pulled together is the clue that this was a ‘stitch-up’ from the very beginning. Time is running out to stop a No-Deal Brexit, or any kind of meaningful Brexit for that matter, and therefore everything must be turbo-charged.

That’s why I feel this ruling was baked into the pie before the trial even began.

There should be no question that when there is need of a procedural change to thwart Brexit, that procedural change occurs. Speaker John Bercow has rewritten Hansard to give Parliament unprecedented power and the Supreme Court just gave him and the vandals in Parliament even more.

Earlier this month I voiced my long-standing suspicion.

The Remain coalition in the U.K. parliament have become vandals.

They would destroy everything about their government, traditions and what they know to be true outside the halls of Westminster to ensure the dreams of their paymasters are made real.

The fact that they would put forward a bill {Benn Bill} that hands absolute control over future negotiations with the EU to the European Commission is treason. Period.

That they would then hide from a General Election that they know would reverse their coup is an act of vandalism.

It is the height of arrogance for people who first stood on party manifestos to implement Brexit and then demanded a ‘People’s Vote’ to stop it, to simper and use their last remaining bits of power to deny those very people the opportunity to change their representation out of fear of Brexit.

And now they’ve co-opted the courts to ensure that the people are denied their say even while they virtue signal that they are ruling this way for the sake of democracy.

So, now with this ruling in place what’s next and what’s really going on tactically and strategically?

Johnson, for his part, refuses to resign. He can’t or won’t get anything past this hostile Parliament. This Parliament will reconvene to push more legislation to attempt to tie his hands against negotiating with the EU from any position of strength.

Remember what made this ruling necessary. Parliament doesn’t want any meaningful Brexit and refused to accept Johnson’s offer of a General Election to allow the people to form a new government to break the deadlock.

Why? Because they know that a new Parliament would be decidedly more Leave than Remain. The polls are perfectly clear on this. Neither Jo Swinson of the Liberal Democrats nor Jeremy Corbyn of Labour have a prayer in hell of becoming Prime Minister.

If they did, they would have accepted Johnson’s offer. In fact, his offer was derided as a cheap political trick.

If Johnson were to resign here, he would be replaced by a caretaker government under Corbyn, most likely, which would then table a Second Referendum with two versions of Remain on the ballot.

This strategy neatly bypasses the original referendum to ensure the threat to the European Union is nullified.

If he doesn’t resign, the wrangling goes on to neuter Johnson and make him a laughingstock. The EU doesn’t budge on the terms of the deal and Johnson holds onto power in the same way that Parliament does.

Johnson not resigning, however, is his only leverage. So, if he wants to be the Hero of Brexit he has to force Parliament to remove him via a Vote of No Confidence, which he clearly doesn’t have, and go for a General Election first.

In essence, Johnson wants an election first and the Remain camp want a Second Referendum offering a non-choice first. An election would very likely grant him a majority in a coalition with Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and allow him to get the deal he wants.

Farage, of course, wants the No-Deal option because he rightly believes Johnson doesn’t want a much different deal than the horrific one Theresa May was handed by Angela Merkel.

For the Remain crowd, going for the Second Referendum first would render a general election irrelevant because the new government, no matter how strongly pro-Brexit, would be tied to the terms of the referendum.

That’s the Remain gambit and that’s why the court was always going to rule against the government. It is the British elite and civil service who do not want Brexit. They are all EU-firsters and traitors to the British people they represent.

Their willingness to upend all conventions of civilized governance is the clue you need to realize just how big the stakes are.

With the EU falling into a massive recession that ECB President Mario Draghi is willing to throw aside all EU fiscal compact rules to combat (Hello MMT!) the risks are acute.

Because, make no mistake, losing the UK from the EU’s budget would be catastrophic for an EU staring at massive capital outflows as helicopter money happens and bond yields reverse from their current bubble levels.

Brexit is emblematic of the West’s decline from the rule by law to the rule by men. Gaming the rules to entrench power that does not have the will of the people is a recipe for revolution of the type that ends very badly for those doing it.

The opinion of Parliament in Britain cannot sink any lower. That anger will now be transferred to the courts. The entire Brexit process has been a layer by layer unmasking of the autocratic prerogatives of the ruling class. With each setback in the Brexit process the British people are getting an object lesson in just how corrupt their system is and how badly they have been betrayed.

The hope by The Davos Crowd is that they will get fed up and tune it all out, that they’ll give up and let the UK be steamrolled. The polls tell a far different story.

“German industry is in the deepest slump since the global financial crisis, and threatens to push Europe’s powerhouse economy into full-blown recession. The darkening outlook is forcing the European Central Bank to contemplate ever more perilous measures.

“The influential Ifo Institute in Munich said its business climate indicator for manufacturing went into “free fall” in July, as the delayed damage from global trade conflict takes its toll and confidence wilts. It goes far beyond the woes of the car industry. More than 80pc of Germany’s factories are in outright contraction.”

Why? What is going on here? It seems that, though other European member-states used to be Germany’s largest market, Germany’s first and third largest export destinations are now the US and China, respectively. Together, they account for more than 15% of all outbound German trade activity. More than 18% of Germany’s export goods ended up somewhere in Asia. Therefore, Germany’s industrial struggles in 2019 point the finger in the direction of its external focus, which means the US, China, and Asia – i.e. its largest marginal trade partners. And the principal assailants in today’s trade and tech wars.

Clemens Fuest, the Ifo president, says: “All the problems are coming together: It’s China, it’s increasing protectionism across the board, it’s disruption to global supply chains”.

But if Germany’s manufacturing woes were not sufficient in and of themselves, then combined with the threat of trade war with Trump, the prospect indeed is bleak for Europe: And the likelihood is that any of that ECB stimulus – promised for this autumn, as Mario Draghi warns that the European picture is getting “worse and worse” – will be very likely to meet with an angry response from Trump – castigated as blatant currency manipulation by the EU and its ECB. EU Relations with Washington seem set to sour (in more ways than one).

But there is more: Speaking in the German parliament, Alice Weidel, the AfD leader, tore into Chancellor Merkel for her, and Brussel’s, botched handling of Brexit (for which “she, Merkel bears some responsibility”). Weidel pointed out that “the UK is the second biggest economy in Europe – as big as the 19 smallest EU members combined”. “From an economic perspective, the EU is shrinking from 27 member-states to 9. In the face of such an enormous event, the EU reaction verges on a pathological denial of reality … [they should recall] that German prosperity and jobs are at stake here. It is clearly in Germany’s interest that trade and investment continue unhindered. But, out of blind loyalty, you [Merkel], follow France, which wants to deny Britain access to the Single Market. Yes, you [Merkel] are considering not allowing Britain access to the European Economic Area, because France does not want it. [Sarcasm] that would be too much: Too much free trade; too much fresh air in the markets … France with its failed industrial policy serves as [the new] blueprint [for the EU]”. (See video here).

Weidel’s last point is key: She is implying that Macron is positioning himself to eclipse Merkel as the EU leader on the waning of the Chancellor’s influence and credibility. Macron intends to impose instead, the “failed” French industrial model, to Germany’s disadvantage, Weidel suggests.

She is not alone in this suspicion. Trump too, dislikes any prospective Macron take-over of the EU leadership that will (almost certainly) be more hostile to any trade agreement with the US (especially on agriculture), and which would open French industry to US competition. Hence Trump’s riposte (on French wine) in retaliation to France’s new taxes on US tech firms – contributing little, or nothing, to the French Treasury. Trump is enlisting too in the battle for the future shape of Europe. It is going to be a battle royal.

A major threat to the EU now emanates from the least anticipated direction – from the US. At no point did European leaders consider their project as a challenge to US power. Rather, they saw progress in their careers as contingent on receiving the US approval. Consequently, they deliberately chose not to found the Euro in anything other than within the dollar sphere. They never considered the possibility that the United States might change attitude. And now – suddenly – the EU finds itself exposed to all manner of sanctions through the Euro’s close vulnerability to dollar hegemony; from a possible trade and tech war between Europe’s two key trading partners; and even a falling-out as a result of a changing US defence calculus. Steering a course between the US and China will challenge deeply Europe’s imbedded cultural predisposition.

Weidel also warns the German Parliament that that the biggest consequence for Germany from Brexit is not just its exports, but rather, without the UK as a EU member, Germany will lose its ability to assemble a blocking majority (35%) in Council: And, absent this ability to block, Germany may not be able “to stop the crisis-ridden, Club-Med States and France, from reaching into community funds”.

This goes to the crux of the European crisis: an accord rooted in Germany’s traumatic experience of the inter-war hyper-inflation; in the Great Depression of the 30s; and to the social erosion to which it led. To exorcise these ghosts, Germany deliberately painted the EU into an automatic system of austerity ‘discipline’– enforced through a German surveilled, Central Bank (the ECB). The whole was ‘locked-fast’ in automaticity (i.e. in Europe’s ‘automatic stabilising mechanisms’). This was conceded by other European states (the core accord), since it seemed the only way (it was said), that Germany would agree to put its revered ‘Ark’ of the then stable Deutsche Mark, into the common ‘pot’ of the ECM system.

Professor Paul Krugman explains:

“How [then] did Europe manage to follow a common monetary policy … with an European Central Bank, explicitly … set up to give each country an equal voice, and yet satisfy the German demand for assured monetary rectitude? The answer was to put the new system on autopilot, pre-programming it to do what the Germans would have done if they were still in charge.

First, the new central bank – the ECB – would be made an autonomous institution, as free as possible from political influence. Second, it would be given a clear, very narrow mandate: price stability, period – no responsibility at all for squishy things like employment or growth. Third, the first head of the ECB, appointed for an eight-year term, would be someone guaranteed to be more German than the Germans: W. Duisenberg, who headed the Dutch central bank during a period when his job consisted almost entirely of shadowing whatever the Bundesbank did”.

Krugman is too polite to say it explicitly, but it never was a common policy. It was German control, hidden in stabilising mechanisms, designed by Frankfurt. The loss of this mechanism is what is frightening man of the German élite.

And Macron has just exploded that original Franco-German compact through putting a French woman (Lagarde) in charge of the ECB; a self-declared Federalist (“I want a United States of Europe”) as EU Commission President, and a Brexit hawk as President of the EU Council. Macron’s triumph over Merkel is intended to de-throne Germany. And a punishment Brexit – both to weaken Germany, and to sap Germany’s voting power at the Council – as well as the satisfaction of seeing a chastised Britain being chased from out of the EU.

So Macron is ushering in his notion of a closer centralised European governance – but who is to pay for it now? Without Germany’s former level of contributions and Britain’s input as a major contributor nation, the EU can neither reform itself (since many reforms would require Treaty re-writes), nor afford itself.

And wide political discontent to the Macron formula is already baked in for the future, as Frank Lee notes:

“Those Eastern European states which emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union had been led to believe that a bright new world of West European living standards, enhanced pay levels, high rates of social mobility and consumption were on offer.

Unfortunately, they were sold an illusion: the result of the transition so far seems to have been the creation of a low-wage hinterland, a border economy on the fringes of the highly developed European core; a Euro version of NAFTA and the maquiladora, i.e., low tech, low wage, low skills production units on the Mexican side of the US’s southern borders”.

And we are not talking ‘just Latvia’: For many in the East of Germany (the AfD’s electoral heartland), German unification in 1990 was not a merger of equals, but instead an “Anschluss” (annexation) with West Germany taking over East Germany. Reasons for East German disenchantment can be seen everywhere: The eastern population has shrunk by about 2 million, unemployment has soared, young people are moving away in droves, and what was one of the Eastern Bloc’s leading industrial nations is now largely devoid of industry.

And here lies the kernel of the crisis. There has been a call from all sides to try something different: such as relaxing the fiscal rules that are destroying public services; or, more daringly, to touch the ‘holy grail’: of reform of the financial and banking system.

But here is the rub: All such initiatives are prohibited in the locked-down treaty system. Everyone might think to revise those treaties. But that is not going to happen. The treaties are untouchable, precisely because Germany believes that to loosen its hold over the monetary system will be to open Pandora’s Box to the ghosts of inflation and social instability rising, to haunt us anew. Weidel was very clear on this danger.

The reality is that the European ‘lock-down’ derives from a system that has willfully removed power from parliaments and governments, and enshrined the automaticity of that system into treaties that can only be revised by extraordinary procedures. No one in Brussels sees any prospect of ‘that’ happening – hence the Brussels ‘record’ is stuck: repeating the mantra of ‘There Is No Alternative’ (TINA) to more, and closer, Euro-integration. And that is precisely what the European ‘sovereigntists’ are determined to oppose, by all means possible.

Only the onset of the coming recession in Europe and the associated sovereign debt crisis may prove sufficient to shake Brussels from its smug torpor, and to focus minds on how to manage the coming crisis. As Evans-Pritchard concludes, the ECB cannot save the eurozone another time. The baton passes to the politicians – if they are able?

Welcome to the new phase of Westphalian struggle: European ‘Empire’ – to be, or not to be.

Of course it is corrupt. To the core. The European Union makes no pretence whatsoever to be anything faintly whiffing of a democratic body, because it was built along the lines of a Napoleonic model made up of elitist ‘functionaires’ who wield huge power and are accountable to no one. Some would argue that its authoritarianism is a counter weight to the democracies which it governs.

But what we have witnessed in recent days is Angela Merkel and Emmanuelle Macron playing cards on a green baize table and the German leader pulling from her hand a nobody to satisfy Macron. Indeed, it was entirely accurate of the former European Parliament president Martin Schulz to dismiss Von der Leyen as a “weak” candidate for the post of Commission president. Comically, this sour grapes comment came from the same man who entered euro-politics as a conservative MEP, after the high octane life of running a failed bookshop surpassed its natural life. At least Von der Leyen was a government minister before entering the euro elite club.
But here’s the small print about her, which excites Macron. VdL wants a euro-army and is quite open about it. Macron’s great letter he gave a few months back in March leading up the euro elections harped on about the EU being more accountable to its citizens, tougher rules against companies which break anti-trust rules, tougher borders with the possibility of a shake of Schengen and, above all, increased military spending and a euro army.

Macron has called for a special conference at the end of this year which can even rewrite present EU treaties to make Europe more competitive and embolden the EU as part of that process. For that to have any impetus, the EU needs to have a charismatic Commission President and a seriously dynamic, female, head of the European Central Bank (which is nailed, in the form of Christine Lagarde). The former IMF boss is a break from the norm, as she is not a central banker usually chosen for this job which indicates that Macron wants a different approach. Lagarde is going to be hands on and really feature a lot in the new vision the French president has for the EU.

And VdL will also be crucial as, being “weak” is absolutely what the doctor ordered for the Macron dream to become a reality. The top post of European Commission president, with the exception of Jacques Delors, traditionally, has always been given to a “re-tread” or a “has-been” in national politics who can be guaranteed to be the servile leader of the most powerful institution, answerable to both France and Germany.

What the Telegraph editor doesn’t get is that the old corrupt system, reminiscent of 18 century Russia, whereby the political blocks in the European parliament horse trade amongst themselves behind close doors for the top jobs has been surpassed by a new system which breaks the mould. Previous years of the Franco-German axis being a perennial worry to smaller EU countries has been eclipsed by France taking more control as it is Macron who has now put his foot down and shown ‘Shakin Merkel’ that he is taking control. A French leader is now taking over the European Union. It doesn’t really get any more corrupt than that. Another fine detail is that all of the top euro jobs, including Parliament president, are now taken by fluent French speakers. That is not a banal euro-accident on a Belgian highway but entirely a key part of the coup d’état which the Elysee has pulled off with great success.

What we can expect in the coming months are many speeches and leaked memos of a new EU which appears, at least, to be closer to its citizens which places the French president in a more leading role and France more important than ever. We will also see more EU cash heading towards Africa, to complete the French colonial dream of influence and exploitation there and no one gets any bonus points for guessing which country the companies who clean up with all the huge contracts come from.

The new commission president will be more or less a deputy to Macron and will take her instructions from him on everything from Brexit talks to competition policy. The EU is doing a full circle and going back to its French roots and the sooner Boris Johnson understands this, when he calls for a new Brexit deal, the better as the same mantra of it being France and Germany who call the shots on Brexit – and not buffoons like Jean-Claude Junker and his federalist pals in Brussels – still stands. Johnson might as well start dealing with Macron and Merkel at the end of July and skip the EU surfs all together.

As early as March 2018 the European Commission wants the Council of Ministers to sign the Global Compact on Migration which governs development co-operation for the entire EU.

Two answers recently given to the German Bild newspaper by the Federal Foreign Office, made it clear that the cap set on migrant family reunification that was decided by a German coalition agreement, will not be removed, since the above-mentioned cap only applies to asylum.

The answer to the second question posed to the Foreign Office about whether the Global Pact would treat “climate migrants” the same as refugees, was a very clear “no”.

Miazga says these are two pivotal responses showing that the legal framework for open borders in Germany does not yet exist.

But would the Commission, Council of Ministers or ultimately the institutions of the EU have the authority to oblige member states to sign the Global Migration Pact?

To that important question, the answer is “yes” they do, and the establishment parties especially in Germany, are responsible for this development, Miazga says.

“Politicians who signed the agreements for the transfer of German sovereign rights to the European Union with the Maastricht Treaty in particular, but also the Lisbon Treaty, saw to it that the EU was legitimized, although it still has to operate according to rules,” according to Miazga.

But in the field of legislation there is something called a subsidiary procedure. This agreement that obliges the member states to take in large numbers of migrants from non-member countries, is not recognised by the EU as a legal act.

“Thus, the European Union, in incorrectly classifying the Migration Compact by not recognising it as a legal act, can skillfully circumvent all inspection, especially subsidiarity tests and deadlines,” Miazga explained.

“But the complex plan [of introducing open borders] of the EU or the Commission has failed. At the end of April, according to documents from the Federal government of Germany, there was no agreement at the ministerial level.

“I can only speculate which neighbours I have to thank for this, and I keep thinking of the Visegrad Group,” she said.

In an assessment by the Research Services of the German Federal Parliament, it is stated: “Through the migration pact, all migrants will benefit from same civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights to the same extent as its own citizens do.”

The Migration Compact thus allows all future migrants access to social systems to which they contributed nothing, and most likely will not contribute to in the future. In addition, the migration pact only mentions the rights of the migrants and the obligations of the destination countries.

Miazga points out that “duties of the migrants in regard to the countries that accept them and provide them with support perhaps for their entire life — are non-existent”.

She says there is no profile of requirements in terms of integration capacity, education or qualifications — as in the 2009 Blue Card EU directive,

“The reason is quite simple. The Migration Compact is not a plan to promote so-called labour migration or to recruit professionals from non-member countries. It is simply about poverty migration.

“For all those who still claim that the EU has no regulation at the international level on the issue of labour migration from non-member countries to countries in the EU, you are in for a surprise.

“Since 2009 there has been a directive which is dedicated to this topic. This directive has a list of requirements for those migrants looking for work in the EU.”

The Migration Compact in fact applies to all those who are not eligible to receive asylum or do not qualify for receiving a blue card.

“These individuals will now have the so-called ‘collective’ paper, the collective agreement, the Migration Compact, and will soon have the legal right to cross our borders.

Miazga says the Compact will contribute to an increase in criminality too. “Another important point concerning the migration pact is the following: The migration pact completely eliminates any potential danger to homeland security from immigrant criminality.”

To disguise such problems, the Migration Compact calls on the media to report on the benefits of immigration in terms of “enriching society” and to prohibit all negative reporting.

A passage from the Global Migration Compact clearly states that “public funding or material support of media that are systematically intolerant, xenophobic, racist or practice other forms of discrimination against migrants will be discontinued”.

Miazga argues that The UN Agenda 2030 from 2015, already tried to do away with borders. “In addition to that, the EU published a very interesting study back in 2010 called ‘Study on the Feasibility of Establishing a Mechanism for the Relocation of Beneficiaries of International Protection’.

“This study found that in the already densely populated nation of Germany with around 80 million people, it still had enough room for 200 million more people.”

France will have to cram in even more, she noted. “And for every single member state, it has already been calculated how much space is available in order to squeeze as many ‘new citizens’ in as possible.”

freewestmedia

The executive branch of the EU triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, popularly known as ‘the nuclear option’. The procedure could eventually lead to Poland losing its voting rights in the EU. The European Commission has taken an unprecedented step in the history of the bloc. This is the first time an EU member will face legal procedures for non-compliance with the rules established by Brussels. One senior EU diplomat told the Financial Times it was a momentous decision to “cross the Rubicon”. The Commission will now ask the other EU governments to declare that Poland’s changes to the judiciary constitute a breach of law.

As the standoff escalates, EU officials are separately considering limiting access to EU funds in the post-2020 budget for any country that disrespects the bloc's values. Brussels has pledged to deliver a total of 229 billion euros ($271 billion) in aid to Poland through 2021.

EU governments, meeting in the Council of the European Union, will hear Poland out and discuss further steps. But if 22 out of 28 members (a majority of four-fifths) and the European Parliament are not satisfied in the end, the process will move on to the next stages, which may mean punitive measures. Warsaw is given three months to correct the situation; otherwise it risks the prospect of coming under sanctions, including the suspension of the voting rights and EU financial transfers. Poland is the biggest beneficiary of European funds aimed at improving living standards.

Poland’s newly appointed Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, has explained that he is committed to the judicial reforms and has warned that Poland will not “allow ourselves to be blackmailed”. He believes that the move is taken to punish Warsaw for its refusal to take in more refugees.

EU’s First Vice President Frans Timmermans said he was acting “with a heavy heart” but was obliged to take action to protect the Union as a whole. According to him, “As guardians of the treaty, the Commission is under a strict responsibility to act … If the application of the rule of law is left completely to the individual member states, then the whole of the EU will suffer.” European Council President Donald Tusk, a Polish citizen, said that "Poland is currently seen as a force for disintegration of the European Union (EU) and hence it is important to end the destruction of Warsaw's reputation."

The step against Poland – one which may herald the future fracturing of the EU – is taken at a time the UK is on its way out of the bloc and the EU institutions are battling a rise in Eurosceptic nationalism across the Old Continent. With sanctions in force and hard pressure exerted by Brussels on the immigrants’ issue, Polexit may not be so far away. Other members facing the same problems may follow the example to trigger a chain reaction and make the “European unity” become history.

Fierce differences of opinion have been evident in some of the disputes between Western and Central Europe. The Visegrad Group, made up of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is an alliance inside the EU. Hungary has already declared that it would not support such a motion against Poland. It even threatened to use the right of veto if such a decision were taken. The European Parliament adopted a resolution in May 2017 saying there was “a serious deterioration” of the rule of law and democracy in Hungary and calling on the EU to trigger Article 7, but the process has not yet started. The Czech Republic and Slovakia may also side with Poland.

Poland and Hungary support strengthening the role of the national parliaments in European politics and ensuring the proper application of the principle of subsidiarity. They point out the need to concentrate on securing external borders and oppose the EU’s quota system for refugees, emphasizing that this problem should be tackled at national level.

In February, the European Parliament adopted three resolutions on strengthening centralization of the bloc. One of the resolutions proposes limiting or even totally abolishing the right of individual member states not to comply with collective decisions – just exactly what the Visegrad group members so vehemently oppose.

The divisions inside the EU have triggered discussions of the ways to move further creating multi-speed Europe.

The idea boils down to EU integration in subgroups, which is already de facto happening. But the creation of subgroups means breaking up the much-vaunted unity.

Poland and Hungary are not the only targets for “punishment”.

Romania could face penalties from the European Union similar to the procedure launched against Poland this week if it presses ahead with the changes to its judiciary system. Romania’s Senate has also approved a bill that is part of a widely-condemned judicial overhaul, which is also considered to be an attempt by politicians to take control of the justice system. The move has been criticized by the European Commission.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel seems to have failed to form a coalition with Germany's Free Democrats (FDP) and the Social Democrats. The end of Merkel’s era is in sight. Germany may be moving to a snap election and there is a big chance Angela Merkel will not lead her party being blamed for the prolonged political crisis. Another chancellor may review Germany’s EU policy with ensuing institutional reforms to reform the bloc. The stance on the relations with the countries of Central Europe as well as Russia may alter. Germany’s Free Democratic Party (FDP), the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the Left-wing party (Die Linke), and the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) – all of them are calling for improving the relations with Moscow.

If a new election is held sometime in March, the outcome is to be by and large the same as it was in September. Unlike French President Macron, a new chancellor will not enjoy strong support of the ruling party in parliament. Many things will change. The bloc will have to reform or face the threat of disintegration. The triggered “nuclear option” rings an alarm bell for the European Union.

In his interview with Euronews, the EU Commission President said that he «would like to have an agreement with Russia that goes beyond the ordinary framework, bearing in mind that without Russia, there is no security architecture in Europe». Mr. Juncker noted that «Russia must be treated as one big entity, as a proud nation». The president emphasized that he «would like to have discussions on a level footing with Russia». He thinks that President Obama was wrong saying that Russia was only «a regional power».

There are reasons to make Mr. Juncker make such a statement at this particular moment.

With Donald Trump in office, the US European policy on is expected to go through drastic changes and a period of uncertainty will last in Washington at least until January 20.

This is also the time the so-called «pro-Russian» politicians gaining more clout in the Old Continent. Actually, they are not exactly pro-Moscow but rather pro-national, putting national interests at the top spots of their priority lists. For them, the interests of their countries are more important than the priorities of the US or the EU. They believe that normalizing the relations with Moscow is what meets the national interests to make it part of foreign policy plans.

Two weeks ago, such leaders came to power in Bulgaria and Moldova. The EU’s image has been damaged in both countries, where the public perceives economic progress as too slow and sees a failure to tackle corruption by nominally pro-EU leaders.

François Fillon – a politician advocating rapprochement between Russia and the EU – won the center-right nomination for French presidency on November 27. His victory means that two «pro-Russia» candidates – François Fillon and Marine Le Pen – will probably face each other off at the presidential election in April 2017.

A presidential election will take place in Austria on December 4. Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party has a good chance to win. According to what he has said during the election campaign, Mr. Hofer will consider pulling out of the EU and visit Moscow, if elected president. He promised «to show my strong commitment to the withdrawal of sanctions against Russia because I am firmly convinced that sanctions hinder communication».

If the Italian referendum on December 4 says «no» to the major government overhaul plans, then a snap election will become a possibility to benefit the Italy's Northern League party, which advocates the improvement of relations with Russia. Its leader, Matteo Salvini, has visited Moscow and Crimea a number of times and called for lifting the EU-imposed sanctions.

Some signs to confirm the trend of changing EU’s policy on Russia are largely kept out headlines. In late October, the EU lifted a cap on Gazprom's use of the Opal pipeline in Germany, opening the way for Russia to expand Nord Stream's capacity and bypass Ukraine as a gas transit route. The Nord Stream-2 has been recently supported by London. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel is an outspoken advocate of the project.

It has been reported recently that large Western companies, like IKEA, Leroy Merlin, Mars, Pfizer, have started to reinvest in Russia. They are pumping billions of dollars into Russian economy expecting the consumer demand in the country to grow.

There are calls to address European security concerns. A large group of European leaders has recently called for launching a dialogue with Moscow on a new arms control treaty within the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). There is also a group of EU members who have started to openly challenge the anti-Russia sanctions policy.

There are NATO members who express their will to develop military cooperation with Russia. Turkey – a NATO member – has stated it mulls turning towards the Shanghai Cooperation Organization led by Russia and China, instead of trying to join the EU «at all costs».

All these events testify to the fact that NATO and the EU have started a turn towards Moscow. The cooling period of Russia-West relations is becoming a thing of the past giving way to more pragmatic approaches. Mr. Juncker stated the obvious fact – the rapprochement between Russia and Europe is one of the trends shaping the contemporary political landscape in Europe.

Meanwhile, the idea to recognize Russia as a global power and make it part of the global US-Russia-China equation is floated among US foreign policy pundits. In his recent MSNBC’s «Morning Joe» comments, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a well-known foreign policy guru, said, «America is needed to pull together some larger coalition that can deal with global problems. And in that larger coalition America, China and changing Russia could be preeminent». Actually, what Mr. Brzezinski suggests makes remember the Yalta Conference held in February, 1945.

Indeed, the «big three» format talks is the right place to address global issues: trade, finances and global security architecture. Will Mr. Trump listen to what foreign policy pundits say? Anyway, the pivot to Russia is becoming a global trend.