The EU fails. Will NATO succeed?

As the war has dragged on, European unity has collapsed and efforts to transform the European Union into a European superstate — a United States of Europe — have been exposed for what they are: delusions of grandeur.

The EU’s largest member states — France and Germany — have sought to appease Putin at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty. French President Emmanuel Macron, the strongest backer of European strategic autonomy, insists that Putin should not be “humiliated” and has even called on Ukraine to make territorial concessions to help the Russian dictator save face.

“Calls to avoid humiliation of Russia can only humiliate France. We all better focus on how to put Russia in its place. This will bring peace and save lives.” — Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.

“‘Saving face’ is a weak diplomatic aim; Putin can take personal responsibility for his face." — John Chipman, Director General, International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“The west has two goals in the war in Ukraine: to uphold Ukrainian sovereignty and to deter Russia from any similar assaults on European countries in the future… If another round of European diplomacy leaves Russia once again sitting on its military gains in Ukraine, then Putin will regain political strength at home and feel empowered to launch new military adventures in the future.” — John Sawers, former head, MI6.

One of the EU’s founding myths has been that national sovereignty is an outmoded concept and that the national interests of the EU’s 27 member states can be subsumed under a new “European interest”. The war in Ukraine and the differing responses to it have proven that national interests still matter and will continue to do so.

Poland and the Baltic states are deeply distrustful of France’s and Germany’s relations with Putin. They are also frustrated that Paris and Berlin do not take the Russian imperialist agenda seriously.

If another round of European diplomacy leaves Russia once again sitting on its military gains in Ukraine, then Putin will regain political strength at home and feel empowered to launch new military adventures in the future. The Ukrainians want to fight on and they need our continued support — advanced weapons and ever tougher sanctions on Russia. That means several more months of ugly fighting. But a premature ceasefire will help Putin snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. No western leader should be his enabler.

The French and German visions for peace imply Ukrainian territorial concessions. Such ideas are foolhardy and will not ensure security for Europe or Ukraine. A sovereign Europe must not be pursued at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty.

In fact, for Europe to have a future in freedom, Ukraine must win this defining battle of our times. The losers will include not just Putin’s Russia. The defeat of Russian imperialism should finally put to rest Franco-German delusions, whether they aim at a sovereign or a post-national Europe.

Putin is ready to implement his project of a new Russian empire, even at great expense. It is also clear that if he is successful, he will probably not stop at Ukraine.

Berlin and Paris have discredited themselves in the eyes of East Central Europeans and Scandinavians as reliable partners in the event of a Russian threat. More than ever, Eastern and Northern Europe will rely on the United States and Great Britain — that is, on NATO — for security policy.This means that there is no alternative to NATO — at least as long as Russia takes a revisionist stance, does not respect borders and does not recognize the reorganization of the region after the end of the Cold War. NATO is more important as the security policy core of a free West than it has been for decades.

But will NATO act?


Other than dissolving the Soviet Union, I don’t think NATO is any different from the EU, they keep claiming they’re for a freedom and democracy but they make countries less and less safe with their policies.

And I would trust what Macron says considering that he gave weapons to Ukraine which is a reminder that he is two-faced.

Maybe Trump had a point when he said that NATO is obsolete.

1 Like

You are piling up links again!

Articles deploring “anti-Bolshevism” are more than a little out of date. And not likely at any time to arouse sympathetic feelings in Western conservatives.

Why not just explain your argument in a few sentences?

1 Like

I thought I already explained my point, if you looked at previous articles I posted, NATO has a history of disasters foreign policy that has made the world less safe.

1 Like

Your defense of Russia and accusations against NATO need your own explanation, not the posting of other people’s articles.

1 Like

I think the articles already explained my point.

1 Like

No. All that your posting them explains is that you agree with the writers’ opinions. But WHY do you agree with their opinions? Your own words are needed.

You are taking an adversarial position: the invading power is in the right, the defending country is in the wrong. You are for the invasion and for Putin’s victory. Why? A great nuclear power makes war on a much smaller independent country, and you think that’s okay. To take such a view is strange. It needs to be explained. It is not enough to say that there are neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Sure there are, but the neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian army are not fighting to spread Nazism, only to help defend Ukraine. It is not enough to say that Russians in Ukraine felt badly treated. Were they threatened with genocide that Russia had to send an army in to save them?

Are you an admirer of the present Russian government? If so, why?

Do you think it is okay in principle for big countries to swallow small countries? If so, why?

Neither Russia nor Ukraine are models of good government or moral rectitude. That is not an issue. The issue is war, and when aggressive war is justified, if ever.

As for NATO, it is not at war with Russia and has not threatened to wage war on Russia. It is a defensive organization. Rumors of a dark intention on the part of NATO to invade Russia are not proved and not convincing. So why hate NATO? Its existence saved the West from hot war with the Warsaw Pact in the last century.

What do you personally know for sure? What do you therefore believe? What is your conclusion and your reasons for coming to it?

Or do you simply have an emotional attachment to Russia?

1 Like

But I don’t want to nag you! If you would rather drop the subject, I will understand.

1 Like

I do think the articles explains my point and you ignore where NATO said that they want to prolong the war and fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. I’m not “Pro Russia”, all I’m just saying that this is a pattern that NATO keeps repeating, just like with Yugoslavia the same will probably happen with Russia.
Propaganda in the War on Yugoslavia – Swiss Policy Research
Delusion - by Niccolo Soldo - Fisted by Foucault

1 Like

There are some very good reasons for being at least highly suspicious of the motives of our government for escalating the war in Ukraine, rather than working to de-escalate it.
First, we know how thoroughly corrupt and dishonest they are. We know that every policy they have advanced at home has been designed specifically to be destructive - why believe that their policy toward Ukraine would just magically be altruistic and their motives pure?
As the article Yasmin posted, “Delusions”, points out, the people pushing for regime change and the partition of Russia are the same ones that made a mess of Libya, among others.
Also mentioned is how dangerous it is to push Russia into an alliance with China, which is already an even worse threat than Russia.
Being against escalating the war doesn’t mean that one is pro-Putin - it just means that one thinks provoking war with him is dangerous, and that it would be better to work out a compromise and a cessation of hostilities.

1 Like

The Swiss Policy Research article is good and to my knowledge accurate. The deceitful propagandists were journalists. But the wars in Yugoslavia were not initiated by NATO. The rickety communist union called “Yugoslavia” fell apart and the old enemies reverted to their ancient (religious) conflicts.

The Niccolo Soldo article is worthless. Obama and Hillary Clinton, who were responsible for the vast disasters of death and displacement in Libya, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the empowering of Russia in Syria, were not “neo-cons”! (And why the heading “Fisted by Foucault”? What is that about?)

You are still citing articles. You search for other people’s accusations against NATO. Why? What would you have instead of NATO? No Western alliance at all against nuclear-armed aggressive communist
and post-communist Russia, or communist China, or jihadist Islam? What would your strategy be to defend the West?

It would be good if Russia did break up into many smaller republics! That map is a game, but it reflects great hopes and wishes.

Do not fear Russia, Liz. Fear the weakening of the West if its foreign policy becomes craven appeasement. There is little enough of the West still recognizable as the free world. Propitiating evil nuclear powers would be fatal.

The time for negotiations will come. Russia must ask for them.

1 Like

At this point, I am going to ask you not to link to the Voltaire Network site here ever again. Reading its article on 9/11 tells you all you need to know about it. Please, do not dump anymore of it here.

1 Like

Voltaire Network is based in Lebanon. Considering who now holds power in Lebanon, it is possible - even likely - that Iran is behind it.

About Thierry Meyssan of Voltaire Network:

Thierry Meyssan (French: [tjɛʁi mɛsɑ̃]) is a French journalist, conspiracy theorist and political activist.
In 2005, the U.S. State Department declared Meyssan a persona non grata due to his active promotion of misinformation about the United States.

His book:
L’effroyable Imposture[1] (or “The Horrifying Fraud”) is the original French title of a highly controversial and discredited 2002 book by French journalist and political activist Thierry Meyssan. Its English edition is entitled 9/11: The Big Lie.
The book argues that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were “false flag” operations directed by right-wingers in the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex who sought a casus belli for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. A publishing sensation in France, the book has received severe criticism over its factuality in both the French and United States mainstream news media. The U.S. government has publicly denounced the book and considers it a significant international misinformation threat. The crux of the criticism emphasizes that the book contradicts much eyewitness and forensic evidence[citation needed] and so cannot be accepted as a factual account.
His absurd claims:
The actions that provoked the collapse of the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and damaged part of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, were not the result of attempts by foreign suicide pilots, but were rather an action organized by a group within the U.S. administration; an internal plot aimed at driving opinion and forcing the course of events.

NATO was involved in Yugoslavia, you seem to ignore that gap in history. You continue to ignore that NATO keeps continuing to make the world a less safer place rather than defending it.

How exactly is it good for Russia to be broken by NATO, who is woke and partnered with Facebook and a part of the WEF?

And Putin isn’t the one rejecting negotiations, Zelensky is under the orders of Biden’s administration.

And about, I don’t agree with any of the opinions of the writers, but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong when it comes to important information.

1 Like

And there’s also this information:

1 Like

I said that NATO did not initiate the wars in ex-Yugoslavia, not that NATO was not involved in them.

I did not say that Russia breaking up into many republics would be good FOR Russia. I said it would be good IF it happened. Good for the rest of the world - Oh, and maybe good for Russians too!

What the World Economic Forum thinks of NATO is not relevant to our discussion. does not provide information, it is a propaganda site antithetical to our political position. I find it disturbing that you do not recognize this. Please believe us. Or are you associated with it? That would surprise me, because on most issues you are with us.

Please stop posting opinions to back up your strange misunderstanding of the Russia-Ukraine war.

You have not answered my questions.

I ask one of them again. What do you propose the West should do to defend itself against Russian, Chinese, and Islamic aggression?

NATO does NOT make the world “less safe”. Such safety as the West has is entirely due to the existence of NATO. (And NATO is hugely dependent on the power of the US.)