EUROPE'S HYPOCRISY

Foreword
Hypocrisy kills hope because hypocrisy does not allow us to face reality. A hypocrite presents himself as something he is not. Because of this now widespread hypocrisy we are not able to understand well who are the good and who are the bad. Sometimes we think that there are really good people based on their appearance, their attitude, their presumed seriousness and competence. But often even the one we consider good is actually a bad guy like the other bad guys thanks to his hypocrisy, lies, fake news, the glamorization of what he says.

Current situation

The example of a hypocrite is Biden who supported the Palestinian genocide for over a year repeating to Netanyahu: "Be careful: if you invade Rafah I will not give you any more weapons. Pay attention: do not bomb Lebanon otherwise I will block military aid. Let the trucks with food and medicines enter Gaza for the starving Palestinians in need of medical care, otherwise I will no longer support you!”

And while Netanyahu continued to invade, destroy, bomb and block the trucks, Palestinian children died of bombs and hunger. This is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Trump is less hypocritical. Trump, to please Netanyahu, gave the order to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Qods Brigades of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It was also Trump who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, adding fuel to the fire in the Middle East. But all of Europe remained silent.

Now, however, Trump is being attacked because he is trying to end the war in Ukraine. In reality, he is less dangerous than an Ursula Von der Leyen, a Kaja Callas, or the warmonger Macron.

It is therefore paradoxical that the whole of Europe is silent while Trump can threaten the entire population of Gaza by saying "Either release the hostages or you will suffer the consequences" giving rise to yet another collective punishment by providing Netanyahu "everything he needs to finish the job....."

If instead he has harsh words with Zelensky inside the Oval Office: all hell breaks loose! He is destroying international law!

Watching the first 35 minutes of the meeting Zelensky is unbearable: he lacks respect and clearly puts on a show by getting everything wrong that could be done wrong. To understand the tragic event, you have to watch the entire press conference and not just the final explosion. The conference did not start badly. Trump had praised the Ukrainian army but Zelensky did everything he could to unleash the clash: this is the reality.

He knew that he had been invited exclusively to sign an agreement (however obscene) on rare earths: that was the reason for the invitation. So much so that at first Trump almost praises him. But Zelensky begins by saying that they must move forward and continues with the show. He requests the creation of a No-Fly Zone (an area of no-flying) repeatedly rejected by Biden. He begins to call Putin a terrorist, claiming that it is almost stupid to deal with him. Thus delegitimizing the line of action of the host who is dealing with Putin. Trump specifies that to reach an agreement it is necessary, obviously, to bring the parties closer together while Zelensky arrives in the studio and in 35 minutes destroys his line of action.

Trump and Vance then lashed out at Zelensky in a sort of argument that was then resolved when Trump ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine.

Who is in charge in Ukraine? And Europe?                 

Zelensky has fallen back into line: among other things also to reveal yet another lie that European governments and mass media have told in these three years: "Ukraine will defeat Russia; Ukraine is responsible for its own future; the Ukrainians will decide how and when the war ends".

It is evident that it is the White House that decides. First it decided to continue the war, dragging the European Union along with it when Boris Johnson in April 2022 sabotaged the peace negotiations sponsored by Erdogan.

Now the White House is trying to put an end to this bloodbath by involving Moscow and bypassing the European Union which has had 11 years (from the coup in Maidan Square in 2014 to today) to end the war. But the Europeans do not accept being excluded from the peace agreements, they become warmongers and try to wreck, with the last gasps, Trump's peace attempts, making the situation even worse.

Moral of the story: the European Union that proudly declares itself anti-Trump is the same European Union that has applied all the sanctions foreseen (17) against Russia but not those against Netanyahu.

This is hypocrisy. In the meantime, Europe has promised a phenomenal rearmament and a cold war led by Europe (rather than the United States) while Paris and London are ready to deploy troops in Ukraine to guarantee security after the truce and the peace agreement with Moscow.
But Putin is against it: he did not wage war to have armies of NATO countries on his border. Macron then stated that Russia is the enemy. A construction of the enemy useful for making people accept the rearmament race with 800 billion euros.

Debts, debts and more debts to buy weapons when Europe (data from SIPRI and the Public Accounts Observatory of the Catholic University of Milan) already spends 38% more on armaments than the Russian Federation. The problem is not the amount of resources of the armies, but the absence of a common foreign policy and a unified defense strategy. Von Der Leyen proposes to take away huge resources from the Next Generation EU, from development and cohesion funds, from healthcare and strategic investments to divert them to defense, completely dragging Europe into a war economy. An economically weak Europe is more vulnerable and will be even more so in the face of Trump who threatens tariffs and trade wars.

This narrative serves to fatten the investment banks and financial funds that hold huge share packages of the large arms producers. Obscene narrative!

The Ukraine's fate

But let's go back to Ukraine. With formidable pressure from Trump, the White House had announced the suspension of all aid to Ukraine, including aid from intelligence services. The next day, Zelensky accepted US mediation and proposed an interruption of air and sea operations. This is what Pope Francis, harshly criticized (as when he said "NATO barked at Russia's door"), called the courage of the white flag a year ago.

So the time has come to deal with Putin. The United States of America, as in the past, gets what it wants with the simple use of threats.

Trump realized (as Nixon and Ford realized in the past of the US defeat in Vietnam and as Trump himself realized of the disaster in Afghanistan) that the situation in Ukraine was dramatic. It was therefore necessary to get out of it to save human lives. A narrative that works in the eyes of US public opinion, but in the meantime Trump is already thinking about how to do business on rare earths and perhaps other resources.

What's the way ahead?

The madness is that of the European Union with the parallel Europe that Macron is building with London (which is not part of the European Union) and with the European Commission led by Von der Leyen (which has no competence in foreign policy). What exactly will be done?
Send troops to the battlefield to prolong the agony of the Ukrainian people? In Ukraine, they are picking up kids from their homes or on the streets to send them to the front after rough training.

The first murders of recruiters have occurred, killed by Ukrainian citizens who do not want to go to the front and who therefore kill those who are condemning them to death because they take more and more young inexperienced Ukrainians and throw them into training camps.

But the European Union must continue to send weapons because a strong Europe is needed!

The scandal is not the unprecedented European inability to conceive peace negotiations with Moscow but Trump's brutality. This is the scandal: that Trump is making peace! He is the enemy accused of forcing Zelensky to raise the white flag. The dead are not European anyway. The scandal would make sense if we were talking about Gaza and US aid to Israel!

But what is being asked about Russia and Ukraine? That Europe negotiate a common security system with Moscow or that the conflict against the détente attempted by Trump be further exacerbated? The fact is that Ukraine, NATO and Europe have lost the war.

A war thar broke out following: the continuous enlargements of NATO (expansionist bulimia), the transformation of Ukraine into a fortress, the oppressive treatment of Russian minorities and their language. A reality, an inconvenient truth. All this has been experienced as an existential threat by Moscow not since the invasion of February 22, 2022 but since 2008.

Europe is flexing muscles

We read in the newspapers that Europe is finally coming together to oppose Trump. It would do well to oppose him on Israel as it would do well to defend the UN vilified by Washington.

Also out of place is the indignation over the Washington-Moscow negotiations. Macron, Starmer and European politicians are indignant because Trump is not considering the European Union. Trump considers Europe a commission of servants who have always behaved as such, therefore they are treated like servants.

When the Berlin Wall was torn down and unification began to take shape, it was Bush Sr. and Gorbachev who negotiated bilaterally. The United States and the Soviet Union were the guarantors of a reunified Germany which Europe welcomed with favor and gratitude.

Now, however, people are protesting not because Europe is stronger but because it has become more inconsistent due to warmongering strategies to obey the White House, renouncing diplomacy, when being commanded by the White House was fine with Biden.

The icing on the cake: Kaja Callas, head of European diplomacy, managed to say "The dismemberment of the Russian Federation into many small nations is not a bad idea". A masterpiece of diplomacy!

Of course, Putin did not like it and, regarding Europe's request to be included in the negotiations, Lavrov says: "But why should we include Europe in the peace conference, which continues to insist on war? But what does Europe want? It only talks about rearmament, about a new cold war, about sending troops to the field".

Ursula Von der Leyen (renamed Ursula Bomber Leyen)

Ursula Von der Leyen announced an outlay of 800 billion euros within 4 years: "An era of rearmament is opening. This is Europe's moment. Europe is in era of rearmament against Russia. We are ready to use the European funds earmarked for social, territorial and environmental cohesion that will be diverted to rearmament".

It is criminal to use social cohesion funds (which has already been done recently, by the way) or even to use the part of the PNRR - Next Generation EU. It is desirable that someone stops Von der Leyen, at least as far as the eastern borders of Europe are concerned. The real danger it's her not Trump.

The sad reality of the battlefield for 3 years that is called the defeat of Ukraine and NATO behind it is laboriously making a breach in the curtain of propaganda. But the closer the negotiation seems to get - also thanks to Trump - and the hour of the apocalypse seems to move away, the more the risk increases that a last gasp by the war widows (the European countries) will send the situation out of control.

Unable to count on the United States of America for at least 4 years, the neocon Deep State (the transversal structure of American business policies, responsible for the wars of recent decades) and the armed lobby, to do their business have thrown themselves into the European bureaucracies which, as the Qatar and Big Farm scandals teach, are for sale to the highest bidder.

Von der Leyen's European rearmament plan against Russia is designed specifically to satisfy the ravenous appetites of these leeches who have been fattening for decades through wars that are studied and provoked at the table but passed off as just and cloaked in sacred principles and high values. This is the reality: the rearmament plan serves to fatten these leeches, enriched in recent decades thanks to wars of invasion disguised as peace missions.

All this also happens thanks to the hypocrisy of those who present themselves as the good guys who are identical to the bad guys with the only difference that they are more hypocritical.

The Arms Race

Does the European Union really need to start an arms race to defend itself from a Russian aggression?

1) What are the assets, the material values that Russia might want from Europe? Mineral deposits? Uranium stockpiles? Natural gas deposits? Oil fields? Cultivable land?
No, it is quite obvious that in all these things it is Europe that is lacking, in addition to being a net importer of the related products. The only European asset that Russia would want is its industrial capacity, manufacturing.

But obviously to take over a country's manufacturing you don't wage war against it, since a war tends to destroy production capacity and since exploiting other people's production capacity in a coercive manner is impossible (it only works for slave labor). Manufacturing and industry aside, Europe can only offer Russians vacation spots.

2) Russia has a territory of over 17 million square kilometers, the European Union as a whole is just over 4 million square kilometers. So the Russian territory is more than 4 times that of the EU. The EU population density is 105 inhabitants per square kilometer, the Russian population density is 8 inhabitants per square kilometer. So Russia already has a significant problem in occupying its own territory. Since when does a country with infinite land, comparatively few population, but colossal mineral and energy resources, want to conquer a territorially small, overpopulated and resourceless area? In fact, historically it has always been the opposite: Western Europe has repeatedly tried to conquer the Russian East, according to the iron geopolitical logic by which areas with a high population density, and few resources seek to expand into areas with a low population density and vast resources.
3) Is rearmament perhaps necessary because Russian military spending is aggressively superior to that of Europe? As already mentioned, Europe spends 38% more on armaments than the Russian Federation. Therefore, to say that there is an investment gap to be filled is simply false. It is simply a matter of spending better.

4) If EU is truly worried about the threat of war represented by a possible Russian aggression, what attitude would be advisable?

There is a universal rule in relations between countries, and that is that the best guarantee of security is provided by shared interests: if you have interests, investments, supplies in a country, you have a fundamental disincentive to jeopardize all of this with a war. Therefore, if the European leaders wanted to reduce the danger of a Russian threat, the way to achieve this is very easy: remove sanctions, reopen trade and investments, reopen the North Stream 2. Suddenly the reasons for a conflict would decrease vertically, and simultaneously, with low-cost raw materials and energy resources, the European capacity to supply goods of interest to the rest of the world (including Russia) would increase.

5) Given that on the geopolitical level the EU would have reasons to attack Russia, while Russia has no reasons to attack Europe, the EU strategy of:

a) increasing military spending explicitly oriented towards anti-Russian function

b) maintaining sanctions and permanent blockade of trade relations with Russia

represents precisely the most effective strategy to maximize the risks of a conflict. In the name of security needs we are increasing insecurity.

Considerations
As things stand militarily, the indignation of the main European governments against Trump's truce does not imply a just peace, but the extinction of Ukraine. This is the truth of the facts kept hidden during the Biden presidency: a bubble that Trump has burst with unprecedented verbal violence. It is not clear why the journalistic and political establishment in Europe speaks of the West under blackmail and Russian attack.

What is information for in a democracy? To help citizens understand and politicians decide for the good and the right way, making as few mistakes as possible. Knowing in order to decide!

Exactly the opposite has happened in these three years of war in Ukraine. Information has misinformed: while the Ukrainian army was losing on the field, the EU warmongers were saying it was winning by a landslide. So politicians have decided not on the basis of the reality of the facts on the battlefield but on Atlanticist propaganda and they have never got anything right, dragging all of Europe into a dead end.

We can now read in the global square the transfers with which America, on behalf of the financial elite, paid the salaries of thousands of editorial staffs of complacent "presstitutes" and entire political classes of many countries across half the planet. An entire infrastructure devoted to world war is exposed in its bare and raw numbers, in its tricks, in the brute mechanics of power relations, without the hypocritical fluff that has poisoned all the wells of public communication. The USAID (the United States Agency for International Development is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance) scandal - incontrovertible and obscene - endures as an unmentionable taboo, to the embarrassment of the editorial staff. Those who do not name it therefore have no right to give lessons in democracy to anyone.

Conclusion

Europe is irrelevant and in an identity crisis: the lie according to which Moscow can attack Europe if it wins in Ukraine is unreal and anti-historical. When has Russia ever attacked Germany, France, Italy, England? Instead, it has suffered 5 major invasions in the past centuries. The last three invasions: by Napoleon in 1812 and by Germany in the 1st and 2nd World Wars. All through Donbass.

Regarding Donbass, Poroshenko (Ukrainian president following the 2014 coup) chose civil war between 2014 and 2022, before the intervention of the Russian army. This war is little talked about. It was bloody (more than 15 thousand deaths) and should also be condemned. What would we say if Paris bombed the separatists of Corsica?

Even if he does not speak as a statesman, Trump has sensible solutions in mind: returning to the promise made to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian gates; readmit Moscow into the Group of Eight (now the Group of Seven) as had happened at the end of the Cold War, before Obama decided the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014 and Moscow responded by taking back Crimea.

The only thing that Europeans could do, but do not do, is to conceive a foreign policy that starts from scratch: that is, from when the Cold War ended and Gorbachev proposed a common security system (the “European Common Home”). Perhaps it is too late: so great is the gap that has opened, thanks to Biden, between Europe and Russia.

It makes no sense to defend a Europe as a fortress and forget Willy Brandt's détente in the 1960s. In place of Ostpolitik, today we cry over foggy Western, Euro-Atlantic values. Europe hopes for negotiations, but without ever admitting Kiev's defeat and its necessary neutrality.

Europe was born with a different spirit. It was the project of a coexistence based on cooperation, diplomacy, the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts. Today, however, the entire world is witnessing the normalization of the language of war, the arms race presented as the only possible response to international crises.

Rearmament is not just a strategic choice: it is a cultural drift. It means diverting public resources from social priorities – health, education, welfare, climate justice – towards war industries that profit from global instability. It means fuelling an escalation that makes dialogue increasingly difficult.

Rearm Europe represents the tombstone of the European project based on peace, cooperation, widespread well-being, environmental protection.