Timofey Bordachev: Europe and Its Defenders

And "Fyodor Lukyanov: Vance only said what Americans really think"

A short five paragraph essay by Valdai Club program director Timofey Bordachev initially appeared at the Club’s website on 10 February well before all the fireworks erupted at the Munich Security Conference. It’s preceded by a short synopsis that suggests reduced pressure from the Outlaw US Empire will help Europe alter its POV and relations with Russia. On 14 February, RT republished a very altered essay entitled “Enslaved: Here’s how the US made Western Europe its puppet,” that grew to seventeen paragraphs in length. Yes, RT did note “This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.” [Italics original] There’s no note saying the author authorized this massive expansion or participated in it. IMO, RT ought to write its own editorial based on Bordachev’s ideas instead of altering his work so far beyond the original. After providing the translation of Bordachev’s original essay, I’ll provide the short op/ed that was apparently written for RT, “Fyodor Lukyanov: Vance only said what Americans really think,” since there’s no note saying it came from another source: Lukyanov writes a regular column for Russia in Global Affairs. It was published on 15 February after the verbal incendiaries of the Munich Security Conference’s first day. The two make for an interesting before and after comparison. Here’s Bordachev:

The constraining factors for the normalization of Europe's behavior are, first of all, American pressure, the crisis state of its own elites, as well as the neocolonial model of Europe's participation in the world economy. Reducing pressure from the United States, which consistently forces Europe to be at enmity with Russia, can lead to a rapid change not only in the rhetoric, but also in the practice of European foreign policy, believes Timofey Bordachev, program director of the Valdai Club.

Regardless of how long the military-political crisis around the Ukrainian problem turns out to be, for Russia, relations with its immediate neighbors in the West–-European states-–will remain a matter that would be frivolous simply to dismiss. And this means that, even as we unfold our political, trade and economic relations at the global level, we must understand how life is developing in the region, the confrontation with which has shaped most of Russia's foreign policy goal-setting for centuries. Moreover, Europe's position in the modern world is now fundamentally changing.

The most important factor in these changes, in addition to the growth of the rest of humanity, is the relationship between Europeans and their senior partners in America. Throughout the 20th century, these relations were the most important factor in the development of Europe and its position in international politics. Now they have become central to the internal political evolution of our immediate neighbors in the West, and determine the nature of the processes and changes taking place there. The likelihood of Europe's positive contribution to the security of the whole of Eurasia, which now seems not just minimal, but negative, largely depends on how this interaction develops at all levels.

The central element of the unequal partnership between the United States and Europe is security. In fact, the role of the United States in relation to European states has always been limited to two issues. First, deterrence from the restoration of European great power and militarism. Second, the use of Europe as a territorial base for confrontation with Russia. The United States has never solved other problems in the Old World, and the discourse about the "American security umbrella" is nothing more than a myth, diligently repeated by observers in the absence of a desire to show any critical attitude towards it. Such a simplistic view makes sense for propaganda purposes, but when it comes to realpolitik, to remain captive to the concept of an "American security umbrella" over Europe means artificially limiting the limits of one's intellectual search.

It is high time to admit that there is no "umbrella", but there is a US protectorate over Europe, established without enthusiasm, but with the support of some European elites and leading this region to further degradation. [Shared Emphasis]

The most striking examples of such degradation are the largest European countries-–Great Britain, Germany and France. All of them have gone through a slow but inevitable erosion of their role in world politics. All of them are now performing, in one way or another, tasks that serve even the craziest inventions of the United States. All of them do not receive anything for this that could contribute to the survival of their statehood and population both at the tactical and strategic levels. Moreover, their economic benefits from such a humiliated position are becoming more and more negligible. And one should not think that Europe's slide into strategic meaninglessness is the price for its own bad intentions. Europe could perfectly ensure its security and development, but it cannot do so, because it is constantly forced to pursue a suicidal foreign policy. [Bolded Italics My Emphasis]

Perhaps the RT editors needed to unpack the essay so they could comprehend. IMO, the nuclear umbrella was all that ever existed. It might be easier to understand Europe’s sad fate if we think of the Outlaw US Empire and the UK waging an undeclared war against Russia/USSR since WW2’s end, with Churchill making the official announcement of hostilities in his Iron Curtain speech at Fulton Missouri in 1946. It must also be recalled that plans did exist to attack the USSR once Germany was vanquished, meaning they were made prior to 9 May 1945. Some readers will have heard of Operation Unthinkable which was a Churchillian inspired plan to drive the Soviets out of Eastern Europe, where more had allied with Hitler. Of course, the huge Anti-Communist angst held by Capitalist elites who ran the UK and other governments prior to WW2 is why Hitler was empowered to begin with—Western intervention in Russia’s Civil War was merely interrupted. Thus, the “Cold War” can be seen as an extension of the undeclared war against the nascent USSR that began with WW1’s end. The Imperial contests of the 19th Century continued in the minds of British elites where Russia was already an enemy. Getting the USA on-board proved to be easy thanks to Communist Ideology as its elites shared the fears of their British partners. So, what’s happening in Ukraine is a clear defeat for The Outlaw US Empire and its NATO allies in the current chapter of the undeclared war that began in 1946. With that in mind, now we’ll read the short op/ed by Lukyanov:

Vance only said what Americans really think: The EU needs the Cold War to continue, but the US VP’s Munich speech signals a transatlantic divorce

US Vice President J.D. Vance’s landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday has been attributed to various factors. Some say it was an act of revenge. For years, Western European leaders have denounced Donald Trump and his supporters, never considering that they might one day have to answer for their words. Now, the response has arrived, and the EU is left bewildered, asking: “Why us?”

But beyond personal grievances, there is a deeper ideological divergence at play. In many ways, Vance’s critique of the Europeans echoed the same accusations that the settlers of the New World leveled at the Old Continent centuries ago: tyranny, hypocrisy, and parasitism. The rejection of European political traditions laid the ideological foundation for the American state three hundred years ago. Now that dispute over what constitutes real democracy has evolved from an internal American debate into a transatlantic one–-and its outcome will shape the future.

Yet the most crucial element of Vance’s speech goes beyond personalities or ideological rifts. It reflects a fundamental shift in global politics. The key question today is whether the Cold War should finally end within the framework of the 20th century or whether it should continue indefinitely. Western Europe insists on the latter—not because of any grand strategy, but because it has failed to integrate its former adversaries peacefully. The US, on the other hand, appears ready to move on

This shift is not a product of Trump, nor even of Vance, but rather of America’s evolving priorities. The pivot away from Europe began under George W. Bush and has continued under every president since. Trump merely said out loud what his predecessors preferred to leave unsaid.

For Western Europe, clinging to the ideological and geopolitical framework of the Cold War is about [political] survival. Maintaining the old order allows the EU to sustain its centrality in global affairs and, more importantly, to preserve its own internal cohesion, which is already under strain.

For the United States, however, letting go of Cold War-era structures offers a chance to focus on present and future challenges—-China, the Pacific, North America, and the Arctic. Western Europe cannot prove itself indispensable in any of these areas, but it can serve as a costly distraction.

This leads to an uncomfortable conclusion: The EU has a vested interest in escalating tensions to a level where even a reluctant US administration cannot stand aside. The real question now is whether the Old World is capable of pushing events in that direction. [My Emphasis]

What few are saying or discussing is the big unstated fact that the Outlaw US Empire is declining and dealing with that unstated fact is driving policy. The Empire can’t afford to continue waging and losing its undeclared war against Russia. Yes, NATO’s losing too, but there’s a huge level of denial which is driving the anger and disbelief we’re seeing from the rather disgusting European political elite who are in fear of losing their sinecures. Yes, the issue of democracy was voiced, but it ought to have been a critique of authoritarianism, for that’s what’s occurring, and the Empire was promoting most of it with lots of help from the EU dictatorship. That Europe is now faced with having to provide for its own security might make its leaders think about all the treaties they broke with Russia. Of course, we now see the very heavy grease tracks as massive USAID corruption becomes known—how many millions went to EU politicos and the media they used to push anti-European policies? Who made Russia an enemy?

Will NATO and the EU rupture? The prospects are good that they will. That will be a boon for Europeans as two major bureaucracies won’t need to be supported anymore. And IMO they’ll find China’s Global Security Initiative and Russia’s proposed Eurasian Security Structure very amenable as they’ll need minimal security forces. The biggest ideological crap baggage needing to be incinerated is that China and Russia present threats instead of opportunities. Both have their own forms of democratic representation. What they also have is vast citizen control over the economy and wealth distribution, and that’s what Neoliberals can’t stand, just as the Capitalist elite starting in the 1880s began their own battle to defeat those who would deprive them of their economic rents. That group has existed for centuries and is known as the ancien regime. The members change but the basic ideology of what must be pursued and protected have remained. They’ve profited greatly from the longstanding undeclared war against USSR/Russia and of course want/need it to continue. Yes, there’s a large element of Class War present along with ethnic hatred as Slavs are again the primary victims of Western warmaking. Yes, and crackers like Vance have had a hand in it all for decades.

Both writers agree Europe will be better off with less Outlaw US Empire influence. Now long it will take to alter behaviors and POVs is unknown but already seems to be occurring. IMO, Germany in particular must gain its independence. The most fascist Europeans—the Danes and Balts—will try to get their larger NATO partners to keep the undeclared war going, but that will be improbable without the Empire’s help. The big question is will the Outlaw US Empire sit down and actually negotiate given its inferior position? IMO, there’s a lot of undoing needing to be done before talks get to the more serious issues of Ukraine and beyond. We ought to learn that rather soon with meetings in Saudi Arabia to begin soon, perhaps before March begins.

One last note, Commentator Don F. provided a link to a talk by Ben Norton about the vast difference in how Multipolarity is understood by China/Russia and the Outlaw US Empire’s Marco Rubio, which is important to watch so undertstading is gained.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!