And the cheers from the crowds seeing off the expelled French ambassador must be seen for what Europeans are.

The chicken or the egg? Did the Mali military junta’s decision to bring in Russian military contractors create the inertia for Emmanuel Macron to reduce his own troops’ presence there and initiate EU sanctions – or did his earlier decision to reduce troop numbers push the regime to take the measure to bring in around 400 Wagner mercenaries to keep it in power?

Regional buffs might mull this at length, but in many ways it doesn’t matter. What is important is that Macron’s childish reaction to the Russians coming shows the world so much about him and the French and their outdated and unrealistic views about themselves. The apparent lack of gratitude for being the big brother in Mali with originally 5000 troops and supporting the regime is the real issue. For the junta to turn to Russia, it was showing not only a lack of gratitude but also a lack of respect. It was, in a nutshell, saying ‘we can’t take Paris seriously’ and even in the best scenario, can’t imagine the French helping the generals stay in power if the brown stuff hits the propellers.

The reality is that the regime saw through the flawed narrative and could see why Macron had the troops there in the first place. On paper, it was all about fighting terrorism as Mali is at a crossroads of Islamic terrorism to plague the Sahel and terror groups there could take control. What this means for Macron is simply huge migrant flows to France which is just another headache for him battling to take a second term as serving President and aiming at lapping up the far-right votes with his stand on nailing immigration. And if that wasn’t bad enough, France has huge investments in Mali as French multinationals operate there, staffed by French expats who need protecting in the event of another attempted coup.

The tenuous link which kept Macron happy and kept the troop numbers high was the promise recently by the generals in Bamako of elections which would usher in a civilian government, but when the junta announced that these would be rescheduled to a new date in five years time, Macron’s patience waned. How much longer could he juggle the awkward scenario that he was, in effect, propping up a military regime which didn’t even have the decency to tug its forelock and show reverence to France as the only world power which mattered?

Last year in October, he announced that France would reduce its numbers in Mali starting with its presence in Timbuktu. We can assume that the regime decided that this was the time to turn to the Russians for help to fill the void.

What the Mali regime probably didn’t count on though was the reaction from Macron. Within days, literally, of the news emerging of the Russian presence Macron had not only raised a flag signaling his anger and disappointment with the junta but also managed to stir up similar discontent in Brussels which wasted no time in slapping sanctions on Mali.

Red in tooth and claw

The move though makes the EU look weak and France even weaker. So, when France can’t sustain the respect from former colonies in Africa who are required to play a certain role to keep the French happy then the Elysee turns to the EU to stick the knife in the back? And what does this say about the European Union as a whole? Ready and willing to keep the French dream alive in Africa and even happier for its own so-called foreign policy to be hijacked by a French President red in tooth and claw from a ruse based on revenge and score settling?

The signal to the whole of Africa is far worse though. As we are witnessing in the Middle East with Gulf Arab countries welcoming Syria’s Assad back into their pack following Russia’s intervention, the Mali move will be watched keenly by a number of failed francophone states in Africa. Either accept full hegemony and all that it entails and more or less stay a colony – and don’t seek any geo military support from anyone else – or face the petulant wrath of the EU and France in one almighty blow which will more or less push you in the arms of the Russians anyway.

For those countries who don’t think they have a good deal from France and the EU anyway, their regimes might well consider working more closely with the Russians in either case as Wagner mercenaries will at least go the extra length in keeping a junta in power with no conditions or silly EU human rights handbook.

What Macron has done is signal to African countries and to Russia itself that there is rich pickings for Putin there as all he has to do to expand his empire is send in the Wagner boys and clean up. With one swift move, armies of EU countries scarper once they even hear the word ‘Wagner’ and any remnants of trade with the EU is wiped clean. The clean slate is the perfect basis for Moscow to step in with its partners China, Iran and others to offer a new deal – to be part of a new bloc which sticks two fingers up to western sanctions and backs up the security component with real soldiers prepared to do real fighting. The talks recently between Nicaragua and Iran where the latter proposed a new trade bloc made up of countries sanctioned by the US is a glimpse of the future, which may well include African countries like Mali who now stand tall as the Russian model for others to consider replicating.

The recent bizarre meeting in Paris between Macron and Ursual Von Der Leyen, the European Commission president where both harp on about the need for a new defence strategy for EU countries (probably within NATO) was a desperate move by both the French President and his EU concubine. Macron was clinging on to an informal arrangement in Mali where other EU countries as well as the UK show support to his disingenuous stand against Islamic terrorism in the Sahel. But he is clearly afraid that countries like Germany, which has 800 troops there will be asking themselves just how far this farcical situation can sustain itself all in the name of keeping the Elysee fantasy alive of still being the only relevant power in francophone Africa. After all, if the EU has imposed sanctions and France is pulling out its own troops, then why should others keep theirs there? Mali now knows that the blurred lines of diplo talk with Macron’s people who might have suggested that France would help keep the junta in power have now been made clearer. The UN mission there now can only be there to keep Islamic fighters at bay but not to keep a junta in power. If others follow Macron, then isn’t this a clear sign that western powers are more interested in their own geopolitical goals and hegemony over fighting terrorism? Just look how the Europeans run like chickens when the Russians turn up. And the cheers from the crowds seeing off the expelled French ambassador must be seen for what they are. A landmark between the West and Russia, just as the current talks are between EU leaders and Putin. The times really are a-changin’.

So far, the “war in Crimea” has been a paper war, fought in the media editorial offices, and let’s hope it stays that way forever. Anyway, also in this kind of Metaverse conflict, there is a clear loser: Europe. No one noticed the EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell weakly protesting that “Europeans have to be part of the table” in the Ukrainian talks. The general perception is that he doesn’t exist. Crushed by its bully American ally, faint-hearted and blind to its genuine interest, the Union is in a decline’s spiral. Less and less, it is an economic giant and more and more a political and military worm. In a tightly interconnected world, it has to restrain its crucial commercial relationship with China and Russia (and Iran) to please Washington.

Once comparable in principle with the American one, the European economy is falling back. From rough parity in 2008, the U.S.’s economy is now one-third bigger than the EU and the UK combined.

In 2008 the EU’s economy slightly exceeded America’s: $16.2 trillion against $14.7 trillion. By 2020, the U.S. economy had grown to $20.9 trillion, whereas the EU’s had fallen to $15.7 trillion. The former major general in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force Qiao Liang’s studies brilliantly pointed out that Washington is ruling through a weaponised dollar. The world’s primary reserve currency accounts for about 60% of official foreign exchange reserves, while the euro for only 21%. Sadly smiling, one could remember the 2000’s Saddam’s switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading. It was an attempt to rebuke Washington’s hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. We know how it ended.

Europe is almost irrevocably falling behind China and the U.S. in the global race to technological leadership. Inside the EU, everyone is worried about the over-dependence on foreign-owned technology providers and the lack of industrial edge as in the semiconductors field. These concerns are particularly acute in the realms where “Europe does not have a strong indigenous industrial base, such as in cloud computing (76 per cent express concerns), artificial intelligence (68 per cent), and to a lesser extent by 5G mobile technology (54 per cent)”.

Have you ever seen a working European PC operative system? Or a competitive European search engine? But today’s problems are mainly EDTs, the Emerging and Disruptive Technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous weapons systems, big data, biotechnologies and quantum technologies. They are strategic and can give adversaries significant advantages, overtake existing governance systems, outpace regulatory efforts, and subvert military concepts and dual-use capabilities.

Europe is lagging behind also in the military field. European ground forces are mainly tailored for peacekeeping or anti-terrorist mission. Accustomed to occasionally fighting against a technologically inferior enemy, they are entirely unprepared against a real powerful army. Their command and communication infrastructure are highly vulnerable to the most advanced electronic warfare.

Still, it would be a gross attitude to insinuate that they are all a bunch of incompetent in Brussels. They know pretty well what is coming, but the machine is paralysed by political elites still squashed by a post-war mentality. Then, sometimes, the Americans forget to keep up the appearances; recently, Biden threatened to close for retaliation North Stream II, a pipeline on a foreign country over which Washington haven’t any jurisdiction. You can write unpalatable university papers full of data, but to say it in one world: Europe is an American colony.

Sometimes someone tries to break the chain with little success. In a famous speech at the Sorbonne in 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron said: “Only Europe can, in a word, guarantee genuine sovereignty or ability to exist in today’s world to defend values and interests”.

It was the first time that a European leader stressed the need for the EU’s strategic autonomy comprehensively, and the word “sovereignty” sounded like a bomb. The reaction of the other states of the Union was freezing cold. Many suspected a covert attempt to enhance the French military industries behind the grand idea. Even though it might also be partially true, the main issue was the usual lack of political perspectives and the petty particularism that still hold way in the relationship among the European partners.

This narrow-minded stance is deeply rooted in recent history. The substantial European enlargement of 2004, when ten nations, the great majority from the former Communist bloc, joined the EU in one fell swoop, was substantially a rushed way to attract the countries in the NATO’S foyer. Especially at the time, it was an appealing idea. Still, the absorption process, dense with bureaucratic steps, lacks accurate political compatibility assessments or a realistic reflection on a practicable roadmap. The result was an almost paralysed giant, in which some countries like Poland or Baltic countries trusted more Washington than Brussels despite being inside the Union. Their fear of the Soviet Empire has understandable links to their history, but they don’t like to realise that USSR and its socialist mission is over forever. They are stuck in the past and see Germany’s efforts to protect its legitimate business with Moscow as a betrayal.

Macron’s bold push for European sovereignty clashes with a fragmented reality. What is Europe? Brussels’ ruthless neoliberalism? Berlin’s Rhine capitalism, Budapest’s illiberal democracy? Warsaw’s Catholic ethical state? Up to now, only His American Master’s Voice brings everyone together, unfortunately not according to the true Union’s interests.

In a much-quoted article, written for the Financial Times and then rejected for unclear reasons, Professor Sergey Karaganov, a man said to be near the Kremlin, talks of a “wider Greater Asian framework”. Inside it, “Russia needs a safe and friendly Western flank in the future world competition. Europe without Russia or even against it has been rapidly losing its international positions”.

A besieged Russia may be tuning into Beijing wavelength for self-preservation, but its natural destiny is a bridge with the West. A Europe conscious of its strength must recognise that a good economic relationship with Russia is a geopolitical truism. At the same time, you cannot forget the American elephant in the room. It is unthinkable for a strong “sovereign” Union to cut its ties with WWII’s “Liberators” (even though the USSR paid the highest price to beat the Nazis). But the European can try to contain the over-power of the dollar a little more successfully. The problem with the American is remaining friends without being suffocated from the excesses of such a big guy’s friendship.

ISTANBUL – Emmanuel Macron is no Talleyrand. Self-promoted as “Jupiterian”, he may have finally got down to earth for a proper realpolitik insight while ruminating one of the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs key bon mots: “A diplomat who says ‘yes’ means ‘maybe’, a diplomat who says ‘maybe’ means ‘no’, and a diplomat who says ‘no’ is no diplomat.”

Mr. Macron went to Moscow to see Mr. Putin with a simple 4-stage plan in mind. 1. Clinch a wide-ranging deal with Putin on Ukraine, thus stopping  “Russian aggression”. 2. Bask in the glow as the West’s Peacemaker. 3. Raise the EU’s tawdry profile, as he’s the current president of the EU Council. 4. Collect all the spoils then bag the April presidential election in France.

Considering he all but begged for an audience in a flurry of phone calls, Macron was received by Putin with no special honors. Comic relief was provided by French mainstream media hysterics, “military strategists” included, evoking the “French castle” sketch in Monty Python’s Holy Grail while reaffirming every stereotype available about  “cowardly frogs”. Their “analysis”: Putin is “isolated” and wants “the military option”. Their top intel source: Bezos-owned CIA rag The Washington Post.

Still, it was fascinating to watch – oh, that loooooong table in the Kremlin: the only EU leader who took the trouble to actually listen to Putin was the one who, months ago, pronounced NATO as “brain-dead”. So the ghosts of Charles de Gaulle and Talleyrand did seem to have engaged in a lively chat, framed by raw economics, finally imprinting on the “Jupiterian” that the imperial obsession on preventing Europe by all means from profiting from wider trade with Eurasia is a losing game.

After a strenuous six hours of discussions Putin, predictably, monopolized the eminently quotable department, starting with one

that will be reverberating all across the Global South for a long time: “Citizens of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia have seen how peaceful is NATO.”

There’s more. The already iconic  Do you want a war between Russia and NATO? – followed by the ominous  “there will be no winners”. Or take this one, on Maidan: “Since February 2014, Russia has considered a coup d’état to be the source of power in Ukraine. This is a bad sandbox, we don’t like this kind of game.”

On the Minsk agreements, the message was blunt: “The President of Ukraine has said that he does not like any of the clauses of the Minsk agreements. Like it, or not – be patient, my beauty. They must be fulfilled.”

The “real issue behind the present crisis”

Macron for his part stressed, “new mechanisms are needed to ensure stability in Europe, but not by revising existing agreements, perhaps new security solutions would be innovative.” So nothing that Moscow had not stressed before. He added, “France and Russia have agreed to work together on security guarantees.” The operative term is “France”. Not the non-agreement capable United States government.

Anglo-American spin insisted that Putin had agreed not to launch new “military initiatives” – while keeping mum on what Macron promised in return. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not confirm any agreement. He only said that the Kremlin will engage with Macron’s dialogue proposals, “provided that the United States also agrees with them.” And for that, as everyone knows, there’s no guarantee.

The Kremlin has been stressing for months that Russia has no interest whatsoever in invading de facto black hole Ukraine. And Russian troops will return to their bases after exercises are over. None of this has anything to do with “concessions” by Putin.

And then came the bombshell: French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire – the inspiration for one of the main characters in Michel Houellebecq’s cracking new book, Anéantir – said that the launch of Nord Stream 2 “is one of the main components of de-escalating tensions on the Russian-Ukrainian border.” Gallic flair formulated out loud what no German had the balls to say.

In Kiev, after his stint in Moscow, it looks like Macron properly told Zelensky which way the wind blows now. Zelensky hastily confirmed Ukraine is ready to implement the Minsk agreements; it never was, for seven long years. He also said he expects to hold a summit in the Normandy format – Kiev, the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, Germany and France – “in the near future”. A meeting of Normandy format political advisers will happen in Berlin on Thursday.

Way back in August 2020, I was already pointing to which way we were heading in the master chessboard. A few sharp minds in the Beltway, emailing their networks, did notice in my column how “the goal of Russian and Chinese policy is to recruit Germany into a triple alliance locking together the Eurasian land mass a la Mackinder into the greatest geopolitical alliance in history, switching world power in favor of these three great powers against Anglo-Saxon sea power.”

Now, a very high-level Deep State intel source, retired, comes down to the nitty gritty, pointing out how “the secret negotiations between Russia and the US center around missiles going into Eastern Europe, as the US frantically drives for completing its development of hypersonic missiles.”

The main point is that if the US places such hypersonic missiles in Romania and Poland, as planned, the time for them to reach Moscow would be 1/10 the time of a Tomahawk. It’s even worse for Russia if they are placed in the Baltics. The source notes, “the US plan is to neutralize the more advanced defensive missile systems that seal Russia’s airspace. This is why the US has offered to allow Russia to inspect these missile sites in the future, to prove that there are no hypersonic nuclear missiles. Yet that’s not a solution, as the Raytheon missile launchers can handle both offensive and defensive missiles, so it’s possible to sneak in the offensive missiles at night. Thus everything requires continuous observation.”

The bottom line is stark: “This is the real issue behind the present crisis. The only solution is no missile sites allowed in Eastern Europe.” That happens to be an essential part of Russia’s demands for security guarantees.

Sailing to Byzantium

Alastair Crooke has demonstrated how “the West slowly is discovering that that it has no pressure point versus Russia (its economy being relatively sanctions-proof), and its military is no match for that of Russia’s.”

In parallel, Michael Hudson has conclusively shown how “the threat to US dominance is that China, Russia and Mackinder’s Eurasian World Island heartland are offering better trade and investment opportunities than are available from the United States with its increasingly desperate demand for sacrifices from its NATO and other allies.”

Quite a few of us, independent analysts from both the Global North and South, have been stressing non-stop for years that the pop Gotterdammerung in progress hinges on the end of American geopolitical control over Eurasia. Occupied Germany and Japan enforcing the strategic submission of Eurasia from the west down to the east; the ever-expanding NATO; the ever de-multiplied Empire of Bases, all the lineaments of the 75-year-plus free lunch are collapsing.

The new groove is set to the tune of the New Silk Roads, or BRI; Russia’s unmatched hypersonic power – and now the non-negotiable demands for security guarantees; the advent of RCEP – the largest free trade deal on the planet uniting East Asia; the Empire all but expelled from Central Asia after the Afghan humiliation; and sooner rather than later its expulsion from the first island chain in the Western Pacific, complete with a starring role for the Chinese DF-21D “carrier killer” missiles.

The Ray McGovern-coined MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) was not capable to muster the collective IQ to even begin to understand the terms of the Russia-China joint statement issued on an already historic February 4, 2022. Some in Europe actually did – arguably located in the Elysée Palace.

This enlightened unpacking focuses on the interconnection of some key formulations, such as “relations between Russia and China superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era” and “friendship which shows no limits”: the strategic partnership, for all its challenges ahead, is way more complex than a mere “treaty” or “agreement”. Without deeper understanding of Chinese and Russian civilizations, and their way of thinking, Westerners simply are not equipped to get it.

In the end, if we manage to escape so much Western doom and gloom, we might end up navigating a warped remix of Yeats’ Sailing to Byzantium. We may always dream of the best and the brightest in Europe finally sailing away from the iron grip of tawdry imperial Exceptionalistan:

“Once out of nature I shall never take / My bodily form from any natural thing, / But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make / Of hammered gold and gold enameling / To keep a drowsy Emperor awake; / Or set upon a golden bough to sing /To lords and ladies of Byzantium / Of what is past, or passing, or to come.”

The hypocrisy is both stunning and comical. Mali has been in the news in the last couple of years for having a military coup in 2020 which installed a junta and then again in 2021 when the temporary civilian leader experiment was annulled by the military who took full control.

During this period, France has also been in the news for helping Mali with its fight against terrorism as the country stands at a pivotal point in the Sahel where Islamic terror groups operate and which, we are led to believe, were threatening the stability of this West African country and former colony of France.

Macron’s perceived position at the beginning was to send 5000 French troops there are a vanguard to a UN mission to keep the extremists at a distance and install France’s supremacy. The troops sent a message to the world and to the West in particular that showing a force against Islamic extremist groups operating in Mali and neighbouring countries was the right thing to do.

Critics of Macron both in Bamako and Paris point out however that there is a hidden agenda to Macron’s Mali policy, which is to serve France’s interests as an investor in the country and to stop any impending immigration flows to Paris. The French soldiers are also there to protect French nationals working for French companies.

But the relationship between the junta and France was always a fragile one. In early January, that relationship reached a breaking point as Macron threw the lever which set those relations to ‘reset’.

The official line from France’s foreign minister is that a recent move by Mali’s military to reschedule elections in five years has exhausted the patience of Paris.

The real reason however which prompted Macron to rapidly respond to his demands to sanction the regime in Mali is Russia.

In recent days it has emerged that around 400 Russian mercenaries from the Wagner group have arrived in Mali to support the regime.

This, and only this, is what has caused the fuse to jump. This is the ‘klack’ which has overloaded the circuit and got Macron in a state, to such a point that analysts in France have suggested that his decision to reduce French soldiers there since a year ago will now be accelerated following the Wagner presence.

Many will wrangle over the question whether it the reduction of French soldiers itself which prompted Russia to fill the vacuum. Or whether intelligence which got to France months ago that the regime was about to make such a move prompted Macron’s withdrawal.

In either case, it doesn’t show France and the EU to be very convincing powers in the region. France’s attitude was always a paternalistic one as it expected the regime to fall into line with the Elysee’s folly of democratising in the same way it has attempted to do in Lebanon. But the decision to turn to Russia for help was salt in the wound for Macron and his delusional views of France holding onto the hegemony in this failed state. The fact that Mali’s regime can’t take Macron seriously or rather sees through its veiled objectives and has turned to Russia is hardly surprising. In the region, Russia is playing a role more in line with what the West aspires to, but cannot pull off: regional super power hitting terror groups hard and building states. What Moscow has achieved in Syria is practically a geopolitical miracle which has won the praise and respect of former enemies in the Middle East who are now lining up in Washington to harangue the Biden administration to bring Assad in from the cold.

In Africa, both France and the EU have big ideas. The EU showed this week, by supporting Macron’s demands to hit it with sanctions, that it will support Macron’s absurd ideas about Paris being the big brother of its francophone former colonies. It’s about keeping a dream alive as, with France still playing such a paternalistic role, the EU is then afforded the opportunity to pump aid money into such countries and claim them as theirs, rather than America’s or Russia’s.

But the Mali debacle is showing the whole world how the EU model of hegemony, arm in arm with Paris, is failing. If Macron is so upset by the regime’s move that he is prepared to resort to such shameful vitriol against the regime, then France should forget about its African wet dreams and accept a new reality in the world, a new world order which we can see on our TV screens every day, which is that Russia, China and Iran are taking more power in Africa and the Middle East and are delivering on their side, when it comes to giving sovereign states what they want in return. The news just this week that China was developing new relations with Morocco is proof of that, or indeed that Beijing is helping Saudi Arabia with its ballistic missiles program. What happened in Mali is just another example of how the West’s model on hegemony is both outdated and fatally flawed. Macron is so obsessed with his media coverage and taking every opportunity to swipe at Brexit Britain’s economic success that he probably hasn’t time to read the memos from his advisors. This week France became almost a minor EU member state, turning to Nanny Brussels for help in its role as bully in the playground. Pathetic on so many levels. Just like Macron being scared that Russian mercenaries will intimidate French soldiers as part of a power struggle between Russia and the West which the latter is losing time after time in Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan Belarus and even Poland. Mali has fallen, but others will follow and no new “EU pillar” in NATO would have ever prevented it.

Russian private military contractors propping up a military junta which France originally supported has now led even France to pull its own troops out. So what the hell are British soldiers doing there risking their lives?

The deployment of British soldiers in the West African country of Mali has reached a new farcical level, prompting the question why did Boris Johnson send them there in the first place?

In theory at least, 300 British troops of two regiments were sent there in February of last year to boost a UN operation fighting international terrorism. But in reality, they there to give tacit support to the French who have vital business interests in their former colony and need help in both preventing Islamic terrorists from harming those operations and protecting French nationals working for them.

But if that wasn’t farcical enough, in recent days, it has been revealed by the French press that Macron is actually withdrawing French troops from the UN operation, which initially had 5000 French soldiers leading it.

His reason? The presence of Russian private military contractors in Mali, believed to be there to support the military junta which took power in a coup in 2020 followed by a second one last year to oust a civilian government. In fact, Macron has been quietly reducing his own troops from Mali since June of last year but this initiative is expected to be accelerated when the news of around 400 Wagner private military contractors had been hired by the Mali junta.

In recent days, the tension has reached fever pitch. A senior French diplomat said that alleged Wagner-group activity in Mali was still being assessed.

“It is still unacceptable for Wagner to deploy to Mali,” the diplomat said, adding that the group’s presence creates security risks.

“The problem we have in Mali is first of all a political problem,” he said.

“There is a junta which has staged a coup, which exercises power illegitimately and which, to save itself, resorts to Wagner’s services.”

And so, if you’re struggling to grasp how or why 300 British squaddies are fighting Islamic terrorists there to ostensibly keep the status quo in the country which helps France and its investment, you might be wondering what the hell Boris is doing now keeping them there given recent announcements from the Elysee. As France speeds up a massive withdrawal of its own troops from its former colony is Britain expected to deal with terrorists having the edge now? And what about the Russian private military contractors? Will British soldiers have to accept them as a dominant military power on the ground?

Clearly Boris Johnson, who is facing a political revolt from his own backbenchers, would be wise to take a second look at the Mali situation and Britain’s relations with France given Macron’s pugnacious attitude towards Brexit Britain. Many will argue that enough is enough from Macron who has deliberately allowed record numbers of migrants in France to make the crossing into UK. France’s own navy won’t hold illegal immigrants on flimsy dinghies from making the channel crossing – which puts a strain on housing resources, leaving some Brits out in the cold – let alone exasperating tensions within the cabinet as Priti Patel looks increasingly useless at dealing with the crisis.

So what links Britain’s own migrant crisis from France’s shores and British squaddies in Mali? In fact, they’re both two sides of the same coin. Unwanted asylum seekers.

Is the British military is expected to help France with its own potential immigration problem if Mali sinks into the abyss and thousands of its citizens head to France for asylum? This is the heart of the matter. Macron cannot afford politically new immigration flows from Mali and so begged the international community for help there to boost the UN mission.

But the hypocrisy is stunning.

Many will surely argue that given our all-time record low relations with Macron, that the abusive nature of the relationship has now reached new level of travesty and that British troops really shouldn’t be helping keep terrorists at arms length from the military regime in Bamako when even France itself no longer wants to prop it up.

The reality is that aside from the press on both sides of the channel bashing one another’s governments, Boris and Macron have a bold vision of teaming up on playing the world’s policemen in the troubled hotspots, with a garnish of peace keeping and humanitarian work thrown in to keep the PR boys happy. This is the real reason why Boris made the decision to help Macron in Mali and why he is so servile to the French president.

But we may well be at breaking point.

Heaven forbid the day a British soldier is seriously wounded or killed and it transpires that the incident was as a result of a vacuum left by France’s retreat. Does Britain have to keep law and order in Mali just so France can cling to the absurd idea that it is still the colonial power there?

The leader of the opposition and Johnson’s own backbenchers now need to be asking questions in the Commons as to the wisdom of the decision to send British troops to Mali. This madness has to come to an end. Or are they hoping for the draped coffins at Britain’s RAF base Brize Norton which would be the final nail in Boris’s coffin?

In the coming weeks and months Boris has a number of major hurdles to jump, namely a massive tax rise and local elections in spring. If he can survive the present debacle over office parties, most of the main hacks in Westminster are betting on these two events being his downfall. But it may well be long before that, when Russians in Mali become a huge news story and Boris struggles once again to give a coherent answer to why British soldiers are there. Cue ‘This is the End’ by The Doors and watch the murky water rise.

In Paris on December the 7^th, Parisians were phased by the motorcade and the middle-aged lady appearing from the limo. But Ursula von der Leyen’s arrival in the French capital, although a downbeat and certainly rare event, has significant overtures to both France’s role in international peacekeeping and Macron’s future as a second-term President who will lead the EU into a new dawn.

Both Macron and the EU chief spoke about the need for “dialogue” with Russia and the need for a new defence initiative which should be worrying NATO chiefs who are already grappling with the realities of being practically a defunct organisation entirely impotent in the face of the showdown with Russia over Ukraine.

EU chiefs don’t normally make visits to EU member state leaders. There is a time and place for that, which is Brussels itself and EU summits where photographers capture them making small talk in the EU Council of Ministers building. Von der Leyen’s visit to Paris and her joint podium scripted speech signal that, to some extent at least, Brussels is backing Macron with his initiative to lead some sort of defence pact, made up of a handful of EU member states in peacekeeping and at least talking tough on Russia and Ukraine. Of course, the idea that such a pact would actually do anything against Russia and its troops is entirely ludicrous and far-fetched and Macron talking (unscripted) about the need to “talk to Russia” is a lucid indication where he is going with his own EU army initiative. Clearly, the most realistic option of all the “EU army” ideas – which will cost the least and give the EU its own so-called “defence policy” – is the watered down idea, which simply involves an informal coalition of EU governments agreeing to be one, on defence policy on behalf of the EU. Given how the subject is so divisive, this group will not be run by Brussels, but led by one EU member state while its soldiers sport the EU armband. France is emerging as that country which will break the stalemate which has plagued EU federalists in Brussels as to how to move forward with the plan, which many in the Belgian capital have convinced themselves is the silver bullet to restore credibility to the EU project as it scrambles to survive from the ashes of failed Covid initiatives, twenty years of the single currency and an immigration policy which is failing on every level.

For Macron, it’s what will anoint him in his second term, putting France on the world stage as a leading nation of some kind as the “EU pillar” within NATO. The idea is pulled out of the windowless bunkers of the Elysee, dusted down and given a new lease of light. And it is Biden’s breathtaking impotence as a U.S. president who runs away from confrontation on the world stage, whether it be Ukraine and Russia or Afghanistan, the Middle East or elsewhere, which is driving the Macron EU army idea. The origins of this blueprint can be traced back to a buffoonish French General who found himself held hostage by Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in 1993 who decided that his endearing promise to protect them from the Serbs wasn’t worth the price of a cigarette. Morillon’s word that his UN soldiers would protect them amounted to nothing and the Srebrenica Massacre followed in 1995 where 8000 mainly Muslim men were slaughtered.

Morillon later became and MEP and in the European parliament in 2008 lobbied hard within the EU institutions for an “EU pillar” within NATO so that EU governments could work “alongside but not under NATO” forces [read American].

And so, the idea is hardly new and if France 24 journalists are being briefed by Macron’s team to use this term “EU pillar” then we can be sure this is where Macron and von der Leyen are heading. They are both banking on the outfit, if it were ever to get off the ground, it will largely be a talk shop and provide the gilt edge to any threatening narrative which they feel Russia would take seriously, given the vacuum at present and reports of Biden pulling troops out of Eastern Europe in a deal with Putin. It’s unclear how, if the mighty U.S. hasn’t got the guts to face Putin in Eastern Europe, a weasel French President and his fancy plan on paper will fill the gap. Much of the thinking is delusional and about promoting Macron himself as a world leader and he is following tradition. Mitterrand, Chirac and Sarkozy all went down the rout of self-promotion on the international stage when the French economy was imploding and so Macron follows the trend. But the interesting takeaway is how this plan has no endorsement whatsoever by the EU as an autonomous body. In great tradition, when the EU can’t get any support itself democratically for a bold plan, it turns to member states to do its bidding for it. And there is no shortage of servile French leaders who are happy to capitalise on the situation. Talk is, after all, cheap on the EU circuit. But whether Putin himself will want to talk to Macron, is another matter altogether.

By Diana JOHNSTONE

The “Franco-German couple” is a key tenet within what can be called a European theology, an historic mystery transfiguring past enemies into co-guardians of the unifying European spirit.

But while war between them has long since been acknowledged to be totally impractical, on many subjects Germans and French have not evolved to feel or think in the same way. Major currents in the two nations are presently moving in contrary directions on many levels. It is unclear whether these growing countercurrents will culminate in compromise, the victory of one over the other, or open opposition.

On Dec. 8 a three-party coalition took office in Germany. Its political choices are very different from the trends leading up to France’s presidential election next April.

Green for Go

Ampel is the German word for traffic light and that is the nickname of this coalition. Red is the traditional color of the historic social democratic party, the SPD, which came in first, and whose lead candidate Olaf Scholz, rather colorless himself, is the new chancellor, replacing long-reigning Christian Democrat Angel Merkel.

His party has taken on the unwelcome task of grappling with the coronavirus pandemic. As finance minister, Christian Lindner of the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP), color yellow/gold, will protect the rich from high taxes and strive to enforce budgetary austerity at home and throughout the European Union.

But the dominant shade of this new regime is Green. The party’s two co-leaders will be on top of both domestic and foreign policy.

Robert Habeck will become vice chancellor, heading a new Ministry of Economy and Climate especially designed for his Green Party. It will oversee the whole economy inasmuch as every government measure must pass a “climate check” in order to be approved. It seems that the main task of this government is to reduce CO2 emissions.

Germany’s rejection of nuclear power had made the country dependent on coal, but the new government calls for phasing out coal entirely and achieving 80 percent of electricity consumption by renewable energies by 2030, faster than previous government goals. This involves accelerated expansion of wind turbines and more gas-fired power plants, although where the gas will come from is uncertain.

Green influence has succeeded in a significant postponement of certification of Russian gas from the completed Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and how much is needed can depend on how cold the coming winter will be and whether or not the wind blows adequately.

Value-Oriented ‘Feminist’ Foreign Policy With a Nuclear Twist

Annalena Baerbock (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen Nordrhein-Westfalen/Wikimedia Commons)

At 40, her only known expertise is in trampoline jumping, and she takes over the foreign ministry at a moment of heightened tensions between Russia and NATO. On her second day in office, she rushed to NATO headquarters in Brussels to reaffirm her oft-declared devotion to the Atlantic Alliance.

The foreign policy chapter of the Ampel coalition pact is entitled “Germany’s Responsibility for Europe and the World”. Germany today is feeling big and proclaims its “special responsibility” for Europe “as the largest member state,” and its “global responsibility” as the “world’s fourth-largest economy”. The program gives the impression of Berlin’s determination to throw its weight around, but in close cooperation with an even bigger heavyweight, the United States.

“The transatlantic partnership and friendship with the United States are a central pillar of our international action,” it proclaims, calling for “renewal and dynamization of transatlantic relations with the United States and Canada,” echoing slogans for “the rules-based international order” – meaning rules emanating from Western virtue rather than the United Nations Charter. Germany intends to crusade for “values” everywhere in the world, combating “authoritarianism” and defending minorities such as “LGBTI.”

“NATO remains an indispensable foundation of our security. We are committed to strengthening the transatlantic alliance and sharing the burden fairly.” Although this is not spelled out clearly, “sharing the burden” will be very expensive, and not particularly environment-friendly.

It means dropping all prior objections to storing U.S. nuclear weapons on German soil. It means purchasing the hugely expensive U.S. successor to the Tornado, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, to be flown by German pilots. The excuse given is that “Germany (has) an interest in participating in the strategic discussions and planning processes.” The Green-tinted coalition also wants to acquire armed drones, for defensive purposes only, of course.

When Baerbock was a baby, German Greens were at the forefront of a movement against U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany. But Germany was divided then, and the generation of Baerbock’s parents was showing the world – and especially the Russians – that Germans had become peace-loving. Mikhail Gorbachev was impressed, believed that Russian and Western Europe could live happily ever after in their “common European home” and consented to German reunification.ⁱ

Scarcely had capitalist West German taken over socialist East Germany than the mood began to change. With Green Joschka Fischer as foreign minister, Germany eagerly joined the NATO bombing assault on Germany’s historic enemy, Serbia.

E-Cars and the European Market

Some Germans have longer memories than Annalena Baerbock, and the good news is that her appointment appears to have aroused thoughtful Germans to attempt to oppose her belligerent tendencies. On Dec. 5, 27 ex-diplomats and generals issued a call for a “new beginning in relations with Russia.” On Dec. 8, the Freethinkers league issued a call for Nato to leave Germany that quickly began gathering signatures.

So it is possible that widespread dismay over the appointment of Baerbock as foreign minister may spur a counter-movement against alignment with U.S. and NATO hostility to Russia and China.

Meanwhile, Baerbock is interested in business as well as NATO. She sees foreign policy as a way to promote the crucial German auto industry, which is converting to electric cars.

“It is important not to think of climate policy in national terms, but in a European context,” said Baerbock in a recent television interview. Germany, she said, is part of the common European internal market, which is linked internationally. The German car companies primarily produce for export. “Transport policy, foreign policy and climate policy must come hand in hand in the future to tackle the climate crisis,” she observed.

Indeed, and the norms and standards churned out by the European Commission in Brussels, currently headed by German Ursula von der Leyen, will decide which cars can be marketed in the EU and which cannot. The rationale will be saving the planet. Germany intends to become the lead market for electro-mobility producing at least 15 million electric cars in 2030. The European Commission is reportedly proposing that only CO2-neutral vehicles are to be registered in Europe as of 2035.

A Different Wind Blows in France

Nuclear power plant at Chooz, France. (Raimond Spekking / CC BY-SA 4.0/Wikimedia Commons)

Both have grown since badly-attended municipal elections during the Covid shutdown produced Green mayors who came up with such ideas as banning the city hall Christmas trees because they had been killed, or what the runner-up presidential candidate of the French Green Party declared: “The world is dying of too much rationality, decisions taken by engineers. I prefer witches who cast spells, to male engineers who build EPRs.”

Despite complaints over the decline of math and science teaching in French schools, the majority of the French are not yet ready to give up rationality. Nor to give up EPRs (European Pressurized Reactors).

In fact, in recent months, the increasing alarm over CO2 emissions and climate change has produced an upsurge in support for revitalizing France’s historically large nuclear industry, which had been forced into decline by green opposition. This revival is motivated by the fact that France’s nuclear power plants do not emit CO2 and that they provide a reliable, constant source of electricity both for domestic use and for industry – this at a time of growing alarm over the nation’s dramatic deindustrialization.

Support for nuclear power and for re-industrialization are expressed mainly on the political right, but also by the French Communist Party, which is moribund after decades of subservience to the Socialists, themselves now in drastic decline.

President Emmanuel Macron, a wobbling centrist, after catering to the anti-nuclear lobby, has recently responded to the trend, announcing that France’s future must be nuclear.

As Germany promotes more and more wind turbines, they are increasingly rejected in France for producing too little energy, too irregularly, for posing a serious disposal problem after their relatively short operational period and emotionally, for defacing French landscapes. Citizens movements increasingly oppose their installation, although local governments and farmers welcome the subsidies.

The traditional center right party, the Republicans, has seemed totally sidelined by Macron’s wobbling centrism. So it is rather surprising that the candidate just selected by the party in its primary, Valérie Pécresse, suddenly raced to the head of the polls for the April presidential elections. Her climate program gives a good idea of what is popular in France: construction of six EPRs, and creation of zones where wind turbines cannot be implanted (to respond to citizens’ protests and landscape protection). She would also set the date for transition from gasoline to electric cars in 2040.

Identity, But French

That is not the only area of differences between France and Germany. If the mood expressed by the Ampel pact is that of a strong, conquering Germany, the mood in France is of national decline which needs to be stopped. With this goes the feeling that Germany’s domination of EU policies is a factor in that decline.

It is possible that Germany is overconfident. The German car industry prospers, although the German people don’t necessarily get their share. American financial giants have bought into German manufacturing companies and take home their share of profits, while workers’ jobs are increasingly farmed out to eastern neighbors, Hungary and the Czech Republic, whose skilled workers settle for low wages.

In both Germany and France, the left has tended to abandon its traditional concerns in favor of identity politics, meaning all sorts of identities except their own national identity. Obligatory guilt over Nazism requires Germans to abhor nationalism as the source of all evil, and to cast the aggressive aspect of their foreign policy in moralistic terms: feminism, human rights, rules-based order, anti-authoritarianism.

Guilt (linked to collaboration with the Nazi occupation) is not so strong in France, and the sense of decline is reviving patriotism. However, most of the French left, including its most eloquent orator, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has recently succumbed increasingly to identity politics, under American influence.

Refusal to recognize that mass immigration might pose problems, and greater concern for “the planet” than for people having a hard time, has distanced the left from the voters it claims to represent. Faced with alarms over possible “replacement” of the native French population by massive immigration, Mélenchon has adopted the term “creolization” to designate what he foresees as a happy blend of differing cultures. This appeals to a certain sector of the young urban intelligentsia, but the electoral result has been a drastic shift of working class votes to nationalist Marine Le Pen.

Now Le Pen faces a rival more nationalist than she is: the journalist Eric Zemmour, who at an enthusiastic rally of some twelve thousand people on Dec. 5 founded his brand new “Reconquest” party intended to “reconquer” France for the French. Before Zemmour, Le Pen was the leading rival to Macron. Now the two of them split a substantial far right vote, putting Pécresse in the lead – for the moment.

Foreign Policy Differences

Zemmour at first campaign rally last Sunday. (IllianDerex/Wikimedia Commons)

France had hoped to sell its own military aircraft to Germany instead of the nuclear-carrying American heir to the Tornado. Berlin’s emphatic allegiance to NATO is also a way of dismissing Paris’ wishes for a more or less independent European defense.

The French political center, populated by veterans of the U.S.-sponsored “Young Leaders” program (including Valérie Pécresse) are reluctant to stray from the NATO path. But at both ends of the spectrum, whether Mélenchon or Zemmour, opposition to NATO dictates, and to systematic Russophobia are clear. There also exists in France a strong underlying heresy regarding the European religion, since close examination of policies needed to revive the French economy imply serious clashes with EU rules and rulings.

France is historically a centralized country, unlike Germany, and its economy has always prospered from government policy choices. At present, there is growing desire to return to the sort of industrial policy that allowed France to flourish in the 1960s. But industrial policy is ruled out by the EU’s fanatic competition rules.

For example, Zemmour has called for promoting French industry by use of government commands. But EU rules ban “national preference” except in the military sphere. Every offer should be open to the highest bidder, regardless of nationality.

France has higher social protection standards than most other countries, which make it easy for outsiders to outbid French companies on their own territory. There is also the problem that German-sponsored EU rules have forced fragmentation of the public power concern Electricité de France (EDF), weakening the national capacity to develop its nuclear power industry.

The future is uncertain, but one thing is sure: if political disagreements create serious disputes between France and Germany, you can expect most American media to show great understanding and sympathy for the side that defends “our values.”

consortiumnews.com

Time after time, in recent weeks, we have seen the threats and rhetoric ramped up by “weasel” French President against Boris Johnson and his government. Whether it is the rights of British fisherman to be in their own waters or more recently the migrant crisis which captured the headlines when 27 asylum seekers attempting to cross the Channel perished when their boat was unable to sustain what is believed to be a wake left by an oil tanker.

But how much longer can Boris Johnson stay at the helm when faced with the outright threatening manner of Macron? The French president doesn’t seem to stop with the machine gun narrative which is always aimed at harming the British economy, its post-Brexit freedoms and its inevitable future as a vibrant independent economy. The latest insult by Macron calling Johnson a “clown” surely went over a line. Isn’t it time that Boris put on the gloves and faced this cowardly French president head to head? In the words of John Major, surely now is the time for Boris to deliver the ultimatum to France and its two-faced President to “put up or shut up”

Two-faced because, in reality, Macron is no friend of the British, but sees them as an adversary both to France and his own Presidency. A thriving UK is a threat to the status quo of Macron and France’s role within the EU itself. But Macron can’t help himself with the threats, games and skulduggery which comes with a hefty price for the British.

We should not be taken in by the theatre of what is being put on for our benefit to fool us into thinking that Macron really cares about the Calais Jungle and the record numbers of migrants now arriving on our shores. The recent calls by him that he needs more cooperation from Boris Johnson’s government is folly. In reality, he simply wants more money. Blackmail is always a game which never ends. It only has a beginning and the victim never stops paying. And this is precisely what Macron wants from the UK.

If Macron genuinely wanted to help resolve the crisis he could easily propose new, tougher laws aimed at the smugglers themselves, break up the camps completely and properly use France’s navy to stop them boarding boats in the first place. He could also initiate a new policy whereby French police would no longer watch migrants get into their boats, while they merely watch and gloat and even take photos on their phone. And perhaps more importantly, he would allow British police officers to act as watchers, to work hand in hand with the French, to stop the smugglers. How is it that the UK accepts armed French police in their London Terminal of the Eurostar – to help the French intercept criminals before they even leave the UK – but are not allowed to have their own police simply work as spotters on French soil?

Macron’s concerns are entirely disingenuous and it’s high time that Boris manned up and accepted the French president’s stunts for that they are: fake and politically motivated aimed at creating a political hullabaloo to bring down a Brexit government and to make an “example” of the UK for the rest of the EU.

But Macron is not the only one who is faking it.

It’s a similar story with the EU’s announcement that it will send a plane to monitor the boats crossing from France to the UK. Don’t believe a word of it. The plane will no doubt seem to do its job but it’s all part of a ruse which in reality punishes the UK for Brexit. If the EU was serious about helping with the migrant crisis, it would create a multimedia PR campaign and pay for advertising space on TV, radio and mainstream media in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and other countries like Somalia showing the darker side of the route to the UK – and use the tragic deaths of those who recently perished. Most people in the UK never even knew that most of what they saw on their TVs when Britain was in the EU, from mainstream media was financially subsidised by the EU itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of euros each year. If the EU has that kind of cash for fake news, why can’t it use some of it to inform people on the edge of Europe that the path to the UK is fraught with danger? Given that the migrant crisis is a direct result of the EU’s own failed immigration/asylum policies, one would have thought this would be a natural path for Brussels to follow.

But Brussels doesn’t do ‘Mea Culpa’.

Boris needs to stop allowing Macron to continue with these games and show him that Britain can get tough on the migrants and the French. He needs to work much more closely with the Royal Navy and give it the greenlight to tow the boats back to France and do the job of the French navy. If the legal boffins argue that the British are not allowed to “dump” refugees in French waters, surely the counter argument is that this is precisely what the French are doing.

Boris should also play hardball on defence and security cooperation and threaten France that it will remove British troops from Mali where they are risking their lives specifically so that French nationals can work there and French companies can make money, under the hilarious auspices of a UN peacekeeping mandate of fighting terrorism. Macron wants a bigger defence and security cooperation deal with Boris as France’s defence budget is smaller than the UK’s but if Boris can’t get any cooperation on immigrants in the Channel whose numbers alone are posing a threat to the UK’s own stability, why should Boris keep British soldiers in Mali? The last time in history the French navy posed a threat to Britain by doing nothing was in the early months of WWII where Churchill could see that with the Germans advancing rapidly towards Paris, they would inevitably take full control of the French navy and use it to attack the British. The French refused then to cede to Churchill’s demands that the ships were destroyed, rather than fall into the enemy’s hands. In the event, it was the British who destroyed them. Will Boris have to reinvent this historical moment and similarly take bold decisions which once again affect France’s battleships which are unable to stop literally thousands of immigrants from crossing the channel?

Beaten and baffled by how the bluff of threatening the UK with kangaroo court blockades against British goods was only a frivolous play for media attention at the end of October, France’s Emmanuel Macron has taken a humiliating knock from his own country, the EU and many European governments after the climbdown. Indeed, with just six months leading up to the French presidential elections themselves, to learn that he didn’t have quite the support he thought he had from the EU’s powerful executive — the European Commission — must have been hard, given how Macron sees himself now as the leader of the entire project itself now that Merkel is out of the picture.

But in fact, there was much more to the stunt than merely a media ruse to win a few votes. Macron ticked the box ‘French fisherman’ which he badly needed to do, given that he didn’t really stand up for them during the apex of the Brexit negotiations which essentially sold both French and British fisherman out. Yet the climbdown itself, which on the surface, makes him look weak and panicky, actually was tactical, given that France had the sense to at least go through the motions and mull over the idea of British consumers boycotting French goods in supermarkets and for UK firms to bypass French ports altogether to get their goods into the EU market. The whole escapade was a lesson for him and the EU, which sent the message that there were enough big hitters in the EU who didn’t agree at all with the sanctions threat to the UK and believe in a much soberer, if not sanguine approach to trading with Britain and keeping on good terms with its government.

But there are other reasons why France and Macron need to stop throwing the toys out of the pram when it comes to Brexit Britain and think about how to capitalise on Britain being unshackled from the EU. Aside from the two-faced games which Macron plays with UK and Boris Johnson, his officials keep good relations with Johnson’s team and it is this cabal which has convinced him to back down in the fishing row, for something much bigger and more important to play for, with the UK: defence and security cooperation.

The much talked about subject for almost 30 years in Brussels of an ‘EU army’ had new air breathed into it recently when U.S. President Joe Biden pulled out of Afghanistan in such a self-serving way, without consulting France and the UK, that it prompted once again talk in the Belgian capital of the need for Old Europe to have more power over its own decisions within the bosom of a failing NATO. The subject itself is complicated and fraught with problems as to how to go about creating it, running it and, of course, funding it.

But one idea which might be more realistic is that larger EU member states themselves take a bigger role outside of NATO around the world in the troubled hotspots, as they team up together and fight terrorism or step in and help with humanitarian catastrophes.

And this is Macron’s vision. An EU army without any link to the EU itself, which France, he believes, would take a leading role in, if not run outright. Other members could include the UK, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Italy. But it is Britain which is seen as the big fish to catch and land in this post-NATO wet dream. To some extent, one could argue that on a smaller scale, Macron’s vision is already happening in Mali, which Boris Johnson just recently sent a contingent of soldiers to help the current French-led UN mission to hit terrorists.

If Macron would have gone ahead with the blockade threat to UK trucks at French ports, not only would British shoppers abandon French goods, but Boris Johnson would have to review his decision to support the Mali initiative. Such a petulant move would have hurt Macron, who is suffering from a considerable amount of backlash from France’s palatable decline in Africa and, in particular North Africa where countries like Morocco and Algeria who both have strong historical links to Paris, have more or less broken their relations with the Elysee altogether. In the Sahel also, like in Mali, Macron is desperate to muster more support though the dubious pretext of fighting terrorism whereas my own investigations unearthed considerable evidence to show that the Elysee has, in reality, a naked lust to give French companies a boost there, while protecting, of course, French citizens working for them. Not so much peacemaking. More money making and it doesn’t take too much sleuthing to look up the French companies, find the CEOs and see if they are linked to freemason lodges in Paris which traditionally have so much influence over the incumbent president’s office. Corruption is really at the heart of it.

And blurring the lines between fighting terrorism and pushing a national postcolonial agenda would be quite an achievement for Macron if he were to use a so-called EU army to muster some of Europe’s old guns to help him in, supposedly, his second term in office after April’s poll next year. If Macron is going to soldier ahead with the EU army idea, then he has to bag the UK first and then clean up when others follow. The UK has a bigger defence budget than France and is looking to expand that and to use its might around the world to do exactly the same thing. Win votes.

For France, it’s not just about getting Boris on board to “buddy up” on jaunts around the world. It’s also about realising that if a closer defence procurement and security partnership were to blossom, perhaps Paris would no longer be given the short straw over big defence deals, such as AUKUS which made Macron and France’s defence industry look ineffective and out of touch. According to some reports from Brussels, this is what Macron wants from Boris. Yet managing to find and hold one UK fishing boat, which France claims had no right to fish in its waters, when France manages to not find hundreds of dingies crammed with refugees crossing the English Channel, has made London more sangfroid, given now that Macron wants to kiss and make up with Boris. Perhaps Macron could start there to show some good faith before making unreasonable requests which have unclear advantages for London. It’s not far-fetched to imagine London and Paris teaming up on security and even defence procurement as big projects in the past like Concord or the Channel tunnel. But Macron’s capricious style leaves a lot to be desired.

The EU is under attack, 360 degrees, from a variety of fronts. From the west, with the Brexit. From the south, with the Euro-weak countries in which people dream of leaving the euro, clearly crippled – perhaps I should say “looted” – by the so-called “expansive austerity” (an oxymoron) of Franco-German matrix. And now also from the northeast, with Poland put in check and fined by the EU for the sole fault of wanting to continue to “be Poland”. Above all, the galloping inflation, exogenous in origin, which in a few months will no longer be able to be contained even in Latin countries, which today are still silently experiencing governmental manipulation of consumer price indexes (I imagine that social peace will not last long; see the report on prices for September 2021 published by the MISE/Italian Ministry of Economic Development, with prices in general vertical ascent – very often even in double digits – but with inflation “only” at 2.9%, totally absurd).

The above clearly points to an ongoing paradigm shift.

That is, the EU engineered to live on devaluation with the Euro (much weaker than the hypothetical German mark), or with the hidden aim of transferring wealth from the Europeripheral countries to the center of the Empire, is finally in the priority need – on the core Europe side – to tame inflation before being able to export thanks to an artificially devalued currency.

It is in fact clear that a country, or rather a “political continent”, without raw materials like Old Europe, is obliged to contain first of all the costs of production if it wants to hope to survive without destroying the social base on which its power is based, e.g. when inflation bites. That is to say, being tempted – on the German side – to mimic, today, with a new mark yet to come, the wise Switzerland and its franc, which has been rising steadily for months precisely in order to counter international inflationary pressures. And therefore, prospectively leaving the EU to its rubble, rubble on which Paris will certainly throw itself like a vulture, first of all on the Italian ones.

All the more so if, in this context, the USA and the FED are anticipating – as is clearly happening – the events by making the dollar rise in an anti-inflationary capacity (but also having abundant raw materials in place, above all oil, a situation not unlike the times of the attack on Nixon, see De Gaulle’s provocation on the convertibility of dollars into gold and the subsequent Watergate scandal, ed.)

Now then, in addition to the centrifugal drives within the EU, i.e. having as a driver the national interests of Southern Europe, mainly Italy, perfectly legitimate interests, a macro-economic context is also generating that will lead us to the epilogue expected to the title, due to inflation and related monetary policies: the controlled demolition of the EU based on the euro.

It should be remembered, for example, that Rome has seen in recent years a massive reduction in its own welfare (e.g. in terms of wages); to this is added – TODAY – interest from the center of the Empire in a paradigm shift, the first time in almost 25 years.

In addition, here is Poland’s recent response to the diktats of Brussels aimed at ceding superfunds (i.e. its own welfare) to EU interference; Poland clearly supported by the USA, see the so-called “Trump Base”, i.e. the US military installation in Poland recently inaugurated by the States on Polish soil.

A brutal response to say the least: in this context the Polish government has announced that the largest fine imposed by the EU to a country that gravitates in its sphere of continental influence, will not be paid anyway.

On the contrary Warsaw foresees a progressive enlargement of its armed forces, always with American support, a constant Anglo-Polish collaboration since the times of Brezinsky, Sikorsky and marriages in the heart of the US corporate with Polish soul (J&J above all).

* * *

In all this we must not underestimate the reaction of Berlin, as always upset when its plans do not follow the expected trajectory: although it has not been properly emphasized by the EU media always too pro-German, as to the Reich themes, the German move that will lead to chaos (come) is materializing before our eyes, see the incredible announcement of the German Defense Minister of military intervention in the Baltic even with the nuclear threat as anti-Russian, ie with weapons that Germans theoretically would not have (…).

This exudes desperation (never forget that the German system, then survived in various ways the post WWII purges, is the same that laid the foundations for the atomic military industry 80 years ago, ed).

Clearly, the US power factor remains in the background, ready to be activated if necessary to defend the stars and stripes interests. To date, however, the situation remains extremely fluid.

We can however fix some stakes, as of now, to understand how we arrived to such a EUrocentric debacle, that is where we are today. And perhaps try to hypothesize some future developments.

First of all, Draghi represents the real factor of continuity wanted by the EU to dampen the centrifugal pressures aimed at leaving this EU: too many people forget that only a few months ago, in 2020, the majority of Italians publicly expressed their support for an exit from the Union, as reported not without a vein of ill-concealed terror by the website german-foreign-policy.com only last year.

Accomplice to the fall of Trump, instead, Draghi arrived to stop the Italian diaspora, after the media canonization of Draghi at the Rimini meeting last year, preparatory to his landing at Palazzo Chigi, thanks to the activism of the leader of the Milanese “Compagnia delle Opere” (the German Bernhard Scholz), a religious-ethical entity contiguous to Communion and Liberation and perhaps even reminiscent of the activism in German protection of Cardinal Ildefonso Schuster 75 years ago.

Clearly an attempt to postpone the plan to deflagrate the EU via dollarization of Italian debt, as winked at by Giuseppe Conte in last year’s Eurogroup, behind US impetus (“…if we don’t go it alone,” said the Italian prime minister at the time, making Angela Merkel’s entourage excited).

* * *

In this context, it is essential to understand the genesis of Mario Draghi, a character who is grafted in a groove that is Anglo but intrinsically pro-EU. Noting that we are dealing with the area that we can roughly define as the “Cameronian world”, i.e. that pro-EU British elite that is behind the genesis, in the Peninsula, of both the 5 Star Movement and the Regeni case (no small detail, the wife of the former British Prime Minister Samantha Gwendoline Cameron – a Countess Astor – had a primary Christian education, ed).

That is, Draghi is supported by a political-elitist area of Anglo matrix that has always been close in its interests to Paris, as German containment (to represent less summarily the address of this, let’s say, pro-European current based in the Perfect Albion, one could go back to the “Scots Guards” of Mary Stuart in the French capital, who were also in defense of Joan of Arc, ed.)

Hence the natural closeness of the world that orbits around the current Italian Prime Minister towards what France represents, today especially given the expected turn of Berlin towards a more German set-up (Goethe himself depicted the printing of money as mephistophelian, diabolical, as it created inflation).

Unfortunately, the above does not augur well for future Franco-Italian relations, which will certainly be to Rome’s disadvantage; a relationship that the two neighboring countries will necessarily develop from here on, that is, during the period of German meditation on what to do with the current EU, thanks to the subjugation of the Roman political class to interests that are more French than Italian.

Hence the expectation of a new Franco-Italian strategic macro-agreement signed by Draghi soon, I repeat, to French advantage.

Wages on EU, from 1990 to 2020: “Italy is the only European country where wages have decreased compared to 1990” – Openpolis on OECD data – at LINK

In this context, with inflation now out of control, with economic growth actually close to recession if netted with the correct GDP deflator, Italian BTPs fell below a very important technical level, 150 points, only last Friday.

At the end of the game, however, it will always be the Peninsula to act as a watershed in the fate of the EU, with its expected collapse of public finances, in the long term, i.e. with the markets very skeptical about the possibility of repaying the huge debt in euro (…): for your information, today the Italian GDP without undeclared activity exceeds 180% of GDP. And with a number of pensions paid by the State equal to about the same of the employees: it is not a question of Italian implosion by remaining in the euro, only of when.

Finally, here creeps the Green agenda, always with Italy as center of gravity, to be saved with money borrowed from the same Italian citizens but in the name of the EU (the Recovery Fund is for the most part a loan, guaranteed in fact by the assets of Italian families), that is the total value of the PNRR of about 200 billion euros – paid in 3-4 years – of which the Recovery Fund, only about 30 billion euros are lost!

In addition to the madness of mass vaccinations in Italy, now with a target of 90% vaccinated and with the de facto obligation of universal vaccination, under penalty of the impossibility of working. Even in this context we simply observe that there is a huge and obvious correlation now between vaccination madness in selected countries and technical failure, in fact, of their local pension systems (on all, Italy, France, Israel, Austria with its minimum retirement age still below 60 years on average, ed).

* * *

In conclusion, it is easy to expect a controlled demolition of the EU, starting with German and pro-German drives aimed at shielding themselves from international inflationary pressures by returning to a surrogate of the new mark, stronger than the euro. At the same time, the centrifugal drives within the EU, undeniable e.g. on the Italian side if you want to ensure a minimum of future prosperity to their people, will be concentrated in the Europeripheral countries, i.e. where the state welfare institutions are practically bankrupt. Only to end in an inevitable contingency of, let’s say, reduced monetary union, in which Paris – once Germany crosses the Rubicon of the return to a stronger currency – will play the card of a “Euro-CFA” with Italy as a wingman; or rather, a Euro Med (or better yet, French Euro) in which the African countries of the CFA franc are replaced by Italy and perhaps Greece.

In this context, the only addendum that does not add up are the 100 US military bases in Italy, of which at least 4-5 are nuclear, together with the largest US weapons depot outside the US borders.

It is not to be excluded, therefore, a renewed next American activism aimed – encore – to neutralize threats to its strategic interests; we believe that this effort will not be too dissimilar from what was the American intervention in Indochina or more properly in the Suez Canal (these facts led to an implosion of the residual French and veteran-European colonial network in the world, ed).