Oiropa

Citând din AM:

Russian-European relations should be reduced economically only to the most basic trade: such as hydrocarbons from Russia, if Europe decides to buy them, plus very few other, mostly high-tech fields, while culturally–new Iron Curtain looks increasingly desirable. European “values” smell with decay and death of a culture, a real one.

Și încă:

[…] none other than Lord Ismay about the nature of NATO, which, in his words, was needed: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. Does anyone see here anything about “Democracy”, defense or sovereignty? I don’t see anything. Of course, those dumb Soviets who lost 27 million defending themselves from this very Europe (actually, since middle ages) never really cared about attacking NATO and wanted to be left alone, but, of course, Europeans are not that good with serious military-political analysis, especially when this “analysis” is controlled from Washington, but never mind. So, now is the time to reap what one sowed–Europe wanted “defense” from mythical Russian threat, so let Europe be “defended”.

What did they expect? That their “defender”, who looked at them for 70 years as vassals is going, in the minute of its own decline, to think about welfare of Europeans? It is down right funny. No, I mean it–I know modern Western “elites” are dumb, but to be dumb that bad. Europe’s purpose for the United States is three fold, it always was:

1. As a market for the American weapons and other goods;

2. A ram against historic Russia (USSR);

3. Theater of operations for a conflict with Russia with a caveat that US proper remains largely untouched.

Period. Yeah, yeah, I get it, visiting European stones and graves, and indulging in exquisite (not anymore) cuisine and art, is good, but this always was a bonus, nothing more, for Europe’s American overlords. Now that US explicitly defined Europe’s place as that of the American bitch (she always was), I don’t see why Europeans should feel insulted. They better start learning their own REAL history of the 20th century and try to figure out how they ended up where they are today. Obviously, whoring out own sovereignty to someone who merely uses Europe (as a bitch) inevitably lead to this European “conclusions”, from El Pais:

The US Department of Defense warns that, in its view, the Fund’s project and PESCO “represent a dramatic reversal after three decades of increasing integration of the transatlantic defense industry.” Washington adds that “not only could the constructive relationship between NATO and the EU be damaged, but it could potentially revive the confrontational discussions that dominated 15 years ago our contacts on European defense initiatives.” “We are facing a clear conflict of interests,” says Luis Simón, director of the Office of the Elcano Royal Institute in Brussels and principal investigator of that center of studies. Simon recalls that “the American industry has a very strong presence in the European market.” And that the US observes the first steps of European defense policy, however timid, as a potential threat to its dominance both in the European market and in third countries. But Donald Trump’s government does not limit itself to expressing its complaints and reproaches harshly. The letter from Lord, a veteran of the armaments industry with more than 30 years of experience, also contains serious warnings and threats about the consequences that will be unleashed if Brussels goes ahead with its plans. “It is clear that if the US imposes similar reciprocal restrictions, it would not be welcomed by our European partners and allies,” says the Undersecretary of Defense. “We would not like to have to consider it in the future,” he warns. And remember the multi-million dollar impact that this decision could have on European companies in the sector.