Denis Dubrovin — on the program of the newly elected head of the European Commission and the benefits for the United States from the militarization of Europe
The appointment of Ursula von der Leyen as head of the European Commission in 2025-2029 consolidated the course towards militarization and Ukrainization of the European Union. Moreover, this should be understood as broadly as possible. It's not just about expanding the production of shells and weapons. Brussels aims at a comprehensive total militarization of the whole society. This will manifest itself in everything from the maximum tightening of discipline in the conduct of EU foreign policy (which has already been expressed in the obstruction arranged by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for his "uncoordinated" peace initiatives) and to the mandatory introduction of European values into the principles of training neural networks created in Europe.
The military approach is becoming the European mainstream for the next five years. It will determine all aspects of local political, economic, social, cultural and scientific life. This includes a sharp tightening of control over the media space, an increase in protectionist trends in the economy, and most importantly, a qualitative strengthening of the power of Brussels and the structural centralization of the community.
All these theses can be found in von der Leyen's 31-page program, which she distributed before her confirmation in the European Parliament.
Von der Leyen's Three Threats
Kirill Logvinov, Acting Permanent Representative of Russia to the EU, highlighted three primary and most radical goals of the newly elected head of the EC from this program in an interview with me.
First, he confirmed that for the next five years at least, the entire European policy will be based on opposition to Russia. "It is the long—term counteraction to the so-called Russian threat that has been proclaimed the driving force for the further development of the European integration project, should affect absolutely all its dimensions, in fact enter the home of every European," Logvinov said.
Secondly, according to him, von der Leyen is aimed at getting the European Commission control over the entire military-industrial complex of the EU countries. "The application for the transformation of the EU into the European Defense Union (ED.) means the European Commission's interception of control over the entire European military—industrial complex with the complete reorientation of the EES economy to a long—term military confrontation with our country," he continued.
Thirdly, the head of the EC intends to create its own special service for the "protection of democracy". "The announced appearance of the European Shield of Democracy structure in order to "guarantee a reliable legal framework" in the fight against disinformation is nothing more than a step towards creating a kind of European Security service, a special service that will be directly subordinated to an increasingly authoritarian Brussels," the Russian diplomat stressed.
The Birth of an Empire
In other words, the course of preparing Europe for a full-scale war with Russia (even if the Europeans have no real intention of fighting now) is extremely beneficial to the European supranational bureaucracy and the globalist-minded political elite, who brought von der Leyen to the post of head of the European Commission for a second term. Whipping up fear of the mythical "Russian threat" and harsh pre-war rhetoric, as well as the logic of "security above all", will allow for a radical transformation of the European Union in the next five years. The main thing will be the qualitative expansion of Brussels' power, which will mean the transformation of the European Union into a new militarized and centralized structure, known in history as the "empire".
It will even have its own economic colonies in the form of countries that are eternal candidates for admission and states that were careless enough to sign free trade agreements with the EU.
The paramilitary policy serves the clear domestic political goals of Brussels, and in this sense, no matter how expensive this course may be, it is beneficial to the European Commission.
Moreover, everything is like with "green" energy. The EU countries will allocate money for the militarization of Europe. If this weakens their economy and increases social tension, it will only make them more dependent on various decisions of the European Commission as an economic regulator. For example, by approving government measures of EU states to provide subsidies to their own businesses. That's right — within the framework of European competition standards, only the European Commission is authorized to make decisions on whether the government of, say, Germany can invest several hundred million budget euros of its taxpayers in car production on its territory.
Will the EU go bankrupt?
Western and Russian analysts often express the opinion that the deindustrialized EU economy will not cope with today's challenges. And this is simultaneous reindustrialization, militarization and a "green" transition in conditions of overload caused by the sanctions war with Russia and the related energy crisis, as well as the rapid deterioration of relations with China and a number of African countries, which have traditionally acted as resource donors for the European economy. But the real situation looks different.
Yes, the economy of the "old" economic European Union, entangled with a system of checks and balances and free market games, as well as obsessed with indicators of the standard of living of Europeans, would hardly have coped with this task. But the "new" European project will work on new principles. Here we should expect radical economic measures that could not have been imagined before. For example, there will be a large-scale issue of military Eurobonds without much regard for inflation, and even restructuring of the national debt of a number of EU countries is very possible.
This will be explained by the same "pre-war situation". Against the background of whipping up hysteria, this argument can be used as widely as possible.
In fact, the EU will finance the construction of a "green" digital military economy due to a qualitative drop in the standard of living of the local population, although, I think, in words, the European Commission will continue to constantly declare the preservation of the "European social model". If, under these conditions, Brussels retains political control over the situation, the task of militarization and centralization of Europe will be quite solvable.
Distancing the USA
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ocean, in the United States, in parallel with the fixation of military policy in Europe, an equally important process is taking place — careful distancing from the Ukrainian crisis. Not in terms of reducing the supply of weapons for fighting against Russia, but solely in terms of limiting the responsibility for the consequences of the escalation of this conflict for the United States.
The decision taken at the NATO summit in Washington on July 9-11 to shift the coordination of all military supplies to Ukraine to NATO, which the United States used to do within the framework of the Ramstein group, is usually explained by an attempt to insure the consequences for Ukraine's supply from Donald Trump coming to power in the United States. However, such a castling is solely for Trump's benefit. After all, this also makes the supply of weapons and ammunition to Kiev mandatory, not voluntary, for NATO countries.
Moreover, this "commitment" will have almost no effect on the United States itself. Their word in NATO is law, and no one (within the framework of this organization) will be able to put forward any claims to Washington if, for example, it reduces the volume of supplies to Ukraine.
Thus, forcing NATO countries to become more deeply involved in the Ukrainian conflict and moving the main official decision-making center to Europe (to be more precise, to Wiesbaden, Germany, where the headquarters of NATO assistance was moved Ukraine), the United States is leaving itself a path of retreat, which in theory will not lead to the collapse of Western arms supplies to Kiev.
Is war possible?
To answer the question that torments many, whether a war between Russia and NATO (or individual NATO countries) is possible in the near future, I think it is necessary to unemotionally analyze two potential scenarios: global nuclear and without the use of nuclear weapons.
The first implies the maximum participation of the United States in it. Given that Russia's nuclear potential exceeds that of the United States and NATO, this theoretical scenario is completely unacceptable for Brussels and Washington. But still with one exception: if local leaders have confidence (perhaps false) that they will be able to launch a preemptive strike with impunity, to which Russia will not be able to respond. To do this, NATO forces must find a way to paralyze the missile launch early detection system or the decision-making system for a retaliatory strike. In the current conditions, it is extremely difficult to fulfill these conditions.
Another thing is a conventional or non—nuclear military conflict between Russia and European countries. Especially if it is a hybrid conflict on the territory of the same Ukraine (that is, outside the main territory of Russia and NATO), with the participation of the Western side not of the alliance itself, but of a coalition of several volunteer states led, for example, by Poland.
Such a scenario seems possible to many in Europe today simply from the experience of two years of fighting in Ukraine — nuclear weapons were not used, which means it is possible to raise the stakes further, without reaching an atomic catastrophe. Another thing is that in a theoretical conflict between Russia and NATO countries, the level of escalation can uncontrollably go beyond the threshold of using such weapons.
The North Atlantic Alliance is used to considering its military advantage over Russia to be absolute in conventional weapons. But in the current picture of the world, taking into account the new missile weapons of the Russian Federation, including hypersonic, the significant Russian advantage in the field of air defense, the strategic depletion of ammunition stocks in NATO countries and the level of real modern combat experience, the alliance does not have confidence in its own forces. In fact, it is the fear of nuclear escalation and self-doubt that keep NATO from becoming fully involved in the conflict.
In Brussels, the calculation is made that Ukraine, while maintaining Western support, should be able to ensure the depletion of Russian resources for a long time. NATO countries intend to spend this time building up their own capabilities — from replenishing and increasing ammunition reserves through a large-scale increase in military production, mastering the techniques of using drones and before returning to universal military service in a number of European countries.
It will take NATO countries four to five years to implement these plans. And in these years, the probability of a military conflict between NATO and Russia is low, since the alliance understands its unpreparedness for conflict. And what's next?
Europe-2029
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has announced his intention to make Germany defensible by 2029. And this deadline clearly coincides with the end of von der Leyen's mandate and her plan for the militarization of the EU. Both the NATO military and the globalist elite of the European Union are interested in this, although each pursues its own goals. But the population of Europe is categorically not interested in this, for whom building a military "green" digital economy will mean a significant drop in living standards and a significant increase in the danger of war on their land.
However, he has no practical opportunities to protest against this course. Firstly, due to the qualitative tightening of control over the media space, which will obviously continue to strengthen as the military regime is built in Brussels. Secondly, due to the lack of real anti-war politicians and parties in Europe who could defend the interests of the inhabitants of European countries by democratic methods. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico is evidence of this - the space for such politicians in Europe is narrowing with frightening methods and speed.
Thus, if all these trends continue and the process of European reconstruction does not go off the rails, then by 2029 we will have a fairly well-armed, noticeably impoverished and sparking social problems Europe. In addition, it will be pumped up to the limit with aggressive anti-Russian propaganda. That is, the Ukrainization of Europe will reach its apogee.
In this situation, the issue of direct confrontation or peace between Russia and NATO (if, of course, the alliance lives to its 80th anniversary) will be decided solely on the basis of the ratio of military potentials. NATO likes to fight with weak opponents.
The alliance's strategists are now doing everything possible to increase their military potential, while at the same time trying to "grind down" Russia's potential on Ukraine. What the consequences of this will be for the population of Ukraine, apparently, does not play any role for them at all.
At the same time, American politicians are trying to maintain control over the degree of Western involvement in the confrontation, smoothly distancing the United States from it, and get maximum dividends by tightly tying European economies to themselves, dragging production, capital and human resources to their territory, as well as selling their energy resources and weapons to Europe.
A hereditary European bureaucrat, Ursula von der Leyen, a descendant of the German and American elite born in Brussels, fits perfectly into this world order as the head of the European directory. Military policy will allow her to gain unprecedented powers for the head of the European Commission with one hand and at the same time play along with the American globalists in their attempts to maintain world hegemony. The fact that it will cost the disappearance of the European middle class does not seem to matter to her. This is necessary for the sake of a "higher goal", and it can always be attributed to the consequences of "Russian aggression".
