Fuck the EU 2022 12

<https://tinyurl.com/2qwm63ja> consortiumnews.com

I read those two extraordinary interviews Angela Merkel granted Der
Spiegel and Die Zeit last week .. The former chancellor's astonishing
revelations of Berlin's duplicity in its dealings with Moscow ..

The former German leader described her cynical, treacherous betrayal
of Moscow during negotiations of the two Minsk Protocols, the first
signed in September 2014 and the second the following February.
Berlin, Paris, the post-coup Kiev regime and Moscow were signatories
to those accords ..

Earlier this year Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine's first post-coup
president, shocked everybody when he stated publicly that Kiev never
had any intention of honoring the commitments it made when it signed
the Minsk Protocols: The talks in the Belarusian capital and all the
promises were meant simply to buy time while Ukraine built
fortifications in the eastern regions and trained and armed a military
strong enough .. against the Russian-tilted Donetsk and Lugansk ..

Committing to all that was a ruse intended to deceive Moscow and the
Donbass republics while Ukraine rearmed and shelled the latter in
anticipation of the war .. So: Shocking but also in keeping with the
conduct of a corrupt-up-to-the-eyebrows pack of nobodies with no
notion or regard for statecraft or responsible governance.

It is another matter, to state the very obvious, for Merkel to say
the very same things .. Now that Merkel has spoken of these matters,
the German position seems to have been that the West needed the accord
nobody in the West wanted if time was to be bought for Ukraine's
rearming ..

Merkel described the Minsk talks .. expressing satisfaction that this
strategy - a straight-out abuse of the diplomatic process - has
succeeded .. The important topic now before us is the damage Merkel
did in 2014 and 2015 and the consequences of her comments last week.
Much has been written and said about the fatal blow that Merkel dealt
to trust in diplomatic affairs, and I think "fatal" is our word .. A
measure of trust was essential between Washington and Moscow even
during the Cold War's most perilous passages .. This trust no longer
exists ..

...

The writer of the article is an old-school leftist. The old-school
leftism was more truly universalist while the essence of the modern
kind of leftism (of left-liberalism) the way it dominates now in the
"western" mainstream is a use of leftist slogans for other purposes.
The freaks like Josep Borrell personify the new-school leftism.

...

The Atlanticist-backed 2014 coup in Kiev was violent, unlawful and
anti-democratic, raised destructive extremist forces that led then
to destructive consequences. Today, the European politicians should
recognize their mistakes and misdeeds and repent sincerely. That's
the only way to restore sanity.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Merry Christmas to Ole from

Jens

"Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu> wrote on Fri 16 Dec 2022 04:21:23p:

> <https://tinyurl.com/2qwm63ja> consortiumnews.com
The only way to restore 'sanity' in Europe seems to recognize that
sovereign European states are now to small to be 'sovereign', and are
effective ruled by special interests.

Europe seems now a confederation ruled by a cabal of conferencing local
junkers, international plutocrats, and other special interests with some
sort of alleged historical claim. Looks increasingly like south America
under some sort of Monroe doctrine.

The story of Ukraine from the geopolitical perspective seems, ad least
to a large extend, the story of a conflict about the expansion form NATO
in a geopolitical cotext.

But instead of (finely) boosting political, fiscal and military European
integration and negotiate a stable new border in Europa (and repairing
Nordstream), Germany and its local satellites are faithfully repeating
the narratives of the Biden admin while spending billions on American
weapons while (apparently) abandoning a fledgling European defense
industry.

And for good measure, they spend other billions on 'aid to Ukraine' to
restore an infrastructure that probably will soon be destroyed again if
provocative attacks on Russian territory don't stop so the current
front-line can be frozen and negotiations based on reality instead of
slogans start.

What should now probably especially be of interest tot the European
public that's (again) would pay the price, is to what extent the
pressure on the Russian leadership is mounting to use a couple of
tactical nukes in an attempt tot 'snuff out' the conflict. And limit
russian casualties while sending a message to Washington (and it's
European poodles) that Mutual Assured Destruction is still a viable
option to the Russian bear... :-)

KPGH, <news:XnsAF6FE83E4...@88.198.57.247>
I'm not a decision maker, I don't know anything about the exact plans
of the Russia's leadership. The Ukraine case represents not only
geopolitical dimension but also moral dimension, which should not be
underestimated. The internal disputes within the Ukraine in 2013
might be resolved well through democratic procedures, i.e. they might
there elect a new president and a new parliament in due time via due
procedures. This way it would be less likely that extremist freaks
would come to power there, and the disputes might be resolved in more
decent and civilized way. The Atlanticism, including the top European
politicians, chose to incite and endorse a violent coup that paved
the way for destructive extremism in the country ("in the center of
Europe"), that in turn caused the separatist movements, and then the
militant clashes, and then all the rest.

After that, the European politicians continued to speak out righteous
rants about 'values', and all this BS, and it all was boldly immoral
and these misdoers don't seem to realize the fact they are so.

I suspect it greatly contributed to the Kremlin's decision to resort
eventually to a military action against the Kiev regime, and thus the
European politicians need to realize their evil misdeeds and repent.

<https://tinyurl.com/2e8vtqjn> moderndiplomacy.eu

Worse than under Trump - Biden's economic policy hits EU yet harder

The French Le Monde has published an article whose author argues that
"for the EU economy, Biden has proved worse than Trump" .. The United
States did not hesitate to use its geopolitical dominance in order to
exert pressure on the allies every time when the interests of American
producers were in danger .. The new president, who positioned himself
as Trump's antagonist, de facto continued his predecessor's policy ..
America is providing itself with unilateral economic advantages ..

...

This is also somewhat "Fuck the EU".

Oleg Smirnov wrote:

> Fuck Putlerist "Oleg Smirnov"

I agree.

W.

I suspect that the conflict in Ukraine is part of the
'south-Americanization' of Europe where local elites lost a lot of
leverage within the nato-construct after the demise of the USSR.

Cutting of western Europe from Russian resources by undermining free
commerce on the basis of immature moral pretenses, seems part of a much
larger trend.

'Democracy' outside of a social compact and/or republican context that
provide for checks and balances to mitigate a 'tyranny of the majority',
seems today little more then a method used by parasitic elites to escape
responsibly for outcomes that favor them at the expense of others.

European politicians probably don't need to realize anything, because
they already know that they are bought and paid for. And have many
examples from south America etc. to remind them of what can happen if
they don't make good on obligations to the preponderant power. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtJ6yAGjsIs

At this point Europe is probably well beyond the point of no-return with
regard to reforms from within: 'European politicians' should probably be
disposed in a preferably 'soft coup' after the formulation of a
consistent republican constitution by publicly respected elder statesmen
and intellectuals. A little like the US was formed from a cabal of
little states that attempted to serve shared interest without
undermining the interests of local elites.

Unfortunately, now it's seems to late for that too.

KPGH, <news:XnsAF711BF9E...@88.198.57.247>
I tend to see (in somewhat more idealistic way, maybe) the current
developments as a continuation of a long-term trend related to
Europe and Russia, that started since the mid-19th century.

Until the 19th century, Russia stood virtually aside from the major
Europe-related affairs. But it somehow became a bold Europe's player
due to the Napoleonic wars, that introduced some discomfort for West
Europe's powers. Then, the s. c. Crimean War, launched by Britain
and France in the mid-19th century against Russia, may be seen as a
beginning of the long-term trend I mean. The WW1 was triggered by
the imbalances that were is some part a legacy of the Crimean War's
outcome. Then, links from the WW1 to WW2 are obvious. The present
Ukraine case is a legacy / continuation of the WW2 (the claim about
the (western) / post-2014-coup Ukraine's radical movements inspired
by nostalgia for the Nazis isn't an exaggeration). So this whole
sequence can be considered one trend, and then for all the regional
participants in the trend, the game seems to be a lose-lose game.

What seems to be common throughout this trend, it's the role of the
popular / mainstream mass media in inciting maximalist intransigent
moods that then lead to warlike moods. I.e. a kind of crowd effect
implemented through the mass media. And then decision makers become
hostages of this effect.

<https://archive.is/DwaMt> bloomberg.com

Europe's $1 Trillion Energy Bill Only Marks Start of the Crisis
- High prices could last years and aid is becoming unaffordable
- Relief on global gas markets isn't expected until 2026

Europe got hit by roughly $1 trillion from surging energy costs
in the fallout of Russia's war in Ukraine, and the deepest crisis
in decades is only getting started ..

While governments were able to help companies and consumers ..,
a state of emergency could last for years. With interest rates
rising and economies likely already in recession, the support
that cushioned the blow for millions of households and businesses
is looking increasingly unaffordable ..

Government fiscal capacity is already stretched ..

...

It may well be that God will punish Europe.

I suspect that the emphasis on the role of mass media are greatly
overrated. They seem primarily tools exploited by often competing and
hierarchical arranged interests. The internal political dynamics of
client- and buffer-states of which mass-media are tools, are mostly
defined by the geopolitical context in which these states exist.

After WW2 the front-lines between 2 competing ideological blocks ran in
Europe (and Asia) mostly through buffer-states. The reason for that
subject-populations in these states were often relatively well
treated, wsa probably that a relatively big part of the competition
between ideological systems consists in offering populations an
(propagandist) alternative for the system they actually live under.

After WW2 Churchill apparently wanted to turn the western-controlled
part of Europa basically into a protectorate of the western conquering
powers. That is, primarily teh US and the UK.

The US apparently opposed this primarily because it felt that
administering western Europe like itv did south America, could make
communism look to attractive as an alternative. Instead they installed
'client democracies' that were controlled by what comes down to 'pork
barrel politics' administered by local elites. With the end of the USSR
came the end of the threat of communism, and therefore a shift from
'pork barrel politics' (under christian- and social democracy and such)
to more open coercion.

What seems to be going on now, is teh avoidance of the formation of a
(popular endorsed) independent European geopolitical entity in reaction
to the shift to coercion. For that purpose an artificial (propaganda
based) buffer is now created so that the European public has no longer
access to its (natural) regional trading partners that the US cannot
control.

Russia itself has probably enhanced this development by supporting local
populists rather than the formation of a European (federal) alternative
to a 'regency of round table' that the EU now essentially is.

Christian- and (especially) social-democracy seems to have in common
with fascism (of Mussolini -- not what propaganda has made of it today)
that they represent forms 'occult corporatism' which is also the basis
of populist nationalim. This probably explains why the European version
of a blend of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism increasingly started
to resemble fascism with the switch from the 'carrot' to the 'stick'.

The meaning of 'fascism', its historical background and role of what
labeled itself 'national socialism', is however utterly distorted by
post-war propaganda. It's now probably best avoided it outside of either
academic or polemical discourse.

I guess the roots of the ns-movement were if the trenches of WW1.
Conscripts were told to die for some imaginary greater good centered
around the interest of a national elite and their allies. That principle
was apparently later applied to the administration of the state when a
discredited German oligarchy attempted to install an populist chancellor
that could be controlled -- and later made responsible for the adversity
that was visited on the German population after Versailles and the
crisis of 1929.

KPGH, <news:XnsAF758D46E...@88.198.57.247>
Your remark seems to be not so contrary to what I have written.
The mass media are indeed tools exploited by some political actors.
"Independent media" is itself a dubious cliche, and the very term
would be more organically applied to some non-mainstream, not very
popular outlets. The key contradiction is elected vs. non-elected.
Those who own/control influential media and define editorial agenda
weren't elected to implement this role. Media are bought and sold.
Within the democracy model, the elected leaders - decision makers -
are supposed to be liable for the decisions they made. In turn,
the mass media are supposed to be non-liable (or much less liable)
for the passions they fanned (the free speech principle). This way
the [nominal] decision makers become hostages of some non-elected
people who induce the crowd effect through the influential media.

The phenomenon of Trump can illustrate it. He had enough supporters
from the grassroots, but pressure from the preponderant mass media
made him a lame duck from the very 1st day of his inauguration, so
that he stood much lamer vs the share of his voters. I point to the
fact for illustration, even though I myself dislike Trump.
The role of the mass media vs. elected politicians I described above is
somewhat (but not exactly) similar to the role of the Church vs. secular
authority in the medieval period. When such a Church of "Church" becomes
powerful enough it naturally tends to abuse "stick". Also, I set the
mid-19th century as the beginning of that "long-term trend" because it
was the time when newspapers began to cover majorities of the national
populations (that made them "mass media" close to the present day sense).
The Nazis abused the idea of ethnic (or "racial") hierarchy combined
well with the standard European "civilized world" rhetorics. This is why
I point to the fact that the modern European politicians instigated and
welcomed a violent coup that was clearly anti-democratic. Now they refuse
to repent but continue to abuse "civilized world" mantra instead.

This plane won't fly well.

All such reasoning must probably result in 'rhetorical loops'. Outcomes
of popular elections are to a large extent the result of narratives
disseminated by dominant sources of information which are inevitably
disproportionally influenced by existing elites. Whether or not some
elite was initially elected, is of no consequence for outcomes of a
'democratic process' -- understood as 'majority rule' on the basis of
popular elections. 'Majoritarianism' must result in tyranny (of the
majority) unless some mitigating process is in place to counter the
tendency to an ever increasing concentration of power within an elite
class.

A similar process applies in a 'free market' where asymmetric bargaining
positions without some countering mechanism, must result in an ever
increasing concentration of wealth.
I suspect that the rise mr Trump was part of the counterbalancing
mechanism envisaged in the US constitution against a 'majoritarianist
tyranny'. That seems to have became a problem with dissolution of
communism and the rise of the 'third way' ('populist communitarianism')
introduced first in het UK by pm blair and then in the US by the Clinton
adim that effectively outmanoeuvred the 'conservative right' by
introducing a narrative that redefined extreme-rightist issues as
center-leftist.

I'm certainly no expert on the US constitution, but I suspect that the
real problem is that in the democratic party has mechanisms
(super-delegates and the like) in place to prevent the accension of
candidates (for the presidency) that could become a real problem for the
political elite.

Mr Trump was probably a mistake based on the assumption that the
national system would prevent him from being elected as the system
within the democrat party prevented mr Sanders from becomming a
candidate for president.

If 2 'dissident candidates' (trump and sanders) would have been on
offer, 'the beltway' (US political establishment) might have been more
inclined to openly discuss narratives and issues that involve the public
rather than its own interests. As it was, 'the beltway' could
concentrate on installing 'their' next president by means of the
democrat party. which, as with pres Obama, seems what happened
with pers Biden. The main difference apparently being that 'the
first black president' made lots vague promises followed by an U-turn
that left millions sleeping in the street while zomi-banks were propped
up by means of 'quantitive easing'since interrest rates has droped to
zero, whereas after 4 years of pres Trump voters were simply told that
anyone would be better. :-)

...
The more or less serious philosophical core of the NS-movement seem to
have been centred around the notion of geopolitics as introduced by
Rudolf Kjellén: Different peoples and cultures developed over long
periods of time to be best suited to particuar environments. Mixing them
up quickly on the basis of half-backed political theories, would not
result in new and better circumstances for humankind.

Apparently from this basis highly opportunistic narratives were
developed according to the political needs of the moment. A justifiction
for that was apparently found in that the circumstances of the german
population were so dire, that political 'shortcuts' including
'state-terrorism' were justified to resolve a national emergency.
Whereas most states claim to inform their population truthfully, in
Germany the information office was labelled 'Reichsministerium für
Volksaufklärung und Propaganda'.

With regard tot state-terrorism, I understand that in Nuremberg the
defence was denied the opportunity to argue on the basis of 'force
majeure': that the policies of the regime should be considered in the
context of the circumstances it needed to confront, and that these
policies should be compared to policies of other states when confronted
with similar circumstances.

KPGH, <news:XnsAF76AF167...@88.198.57.247>
Btw, the free speech idea is usually taken regardless of context.
But it's apparent that there's a big difference between when an
individual expresses what he or she thinks and when media outlets
affecting large audience are campaigning purposefully to induce a
crowd effect (eg. "Trump is a Kremlin stooge"). The manipulators
linked with the MSM still keep initiative in this field, and
under Fake News label some non-fake news are being suppressed.
I agree, taking your correction as somewhat a next iteration in the
comprehending. To be elected, aspiring leaders need support from
influential mass media. This way the non-elected media (neo-Church)
owners take a [disproportionate] part in the governance declared as
implemented on the principle of electability by [equal] voters.
Separatism seems to be the main issue regarding the majority rule.
Some minor part which feels unhappy with a decision of the majority
always can, in theory, separate itself from the community ruled by
democratic vote. And throughout history, as one can notice, the
main protection against separatism was a threat of loss of status.

Democratic practices were historically developing within privileged
groups supplemented with classes of disenfranchised in the shared
habitat or nearby, and separation from the group would mean a fact
or a threat of lowering of status. Thus the ancient Greek democracy
as well as the later U.S. democracy were harmonically combined with
their slave holding practices, while when West Europe increasingly
turned to republicanism/liberalism, it also was accompanied by "new
imperialist" <https://is.gd/nORqa4> developments in non-Europe. The
German Nazi's eastward rush was a desperate attempt to catch it up.

As well, it's visible that the modern proponents of democracy are
preoccupied with maintaining narratives of supremacy. As "scientific
racism" has been abandoned, some substitute is still necessary. And
that's an issue, illustrated by the fact that the recent Borrell's
garden against jungle rant caused multiple angry remarks worldwide.
| Concentration of media ownership (also known as media
| consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby
| progressively fewer individuals or organizations control
| increasing shares of the mass media. Contemporary research
| demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many
| media industries already highly concentrated and dominated
| by a very small number of firms. <https://is.gd/lMzyMQ>

In addition to the concentration theme (in the free market reality).
I see the Trump case so that the [non-elected] American establishment
and their mass media tools initially took Trump as a clown, and the
very initial approach in the MSM was to ridicule him. If they ignored
him, it would be much worse for Trump, but they sought to ridicule
him with a touch of overreaction, which gave Trump initial promotion.
But later they found a functional popular indoctrination to keep him
endlessly in the position of a cornered one having to defend himself.
<https://tinyurl.com/obama-is-messiah>

The tinyurl was created in 2013 <https://is.gd/VOybN5>, still works.

Sanders seems as an effort to reconcile some non-reconcilable things
within the American bubble, and the result of the effort looks not so
nice and somewhat pathetic (Tulsi Gabbard looks better and wiser).

Under popular democracy political campaigns are probably always to a
large extend based on a 'crowd effect' (deindividuation) by means of
polemics with the intent of polarize an electoral base.

It's to some extent probably necessary to limit too much dissident
discourse that reaches a too big part of an electorate. If too many
competing narratives exits simultaneously that cancel each other out in
the context of an electoral process, than the outcomes of elections can
effective be ignored by existing elites. That seems the essences of
oligarchy presented as democracy based on 'proportional representation'.

The problem with freedom of expression in Europe seems that dissident
discourse is either repressed at all levels because it is considered
corrosive to an existing order, or free competition between (political)
narratives is interfered with while truckling down into the
consciousness of a wider (politically relevant) audience.

Now the 'official narratives' which purport to justify the continued
existence of now obviously to small 'sovereign states' in Europe and
related narratives about European history, have become increasingly
erratic. The focus of suppression of alternative narratives seems for
this reason increasingly switched from corruption of dissemination to
open suppression . The reason being that even in an embryonic state
alternative narratives are now considered potentially dangerous to the
status quo -- more importantly, to its proprietors.

In the US safeguards against this type of repression seem now under
threat but still largely intact. In Europe on the other hand protection
of dissident discourse and the dissemination of alternative narratives
was never there -- and is now back with a vengeance.

Thus, one could argue that mr trump abused US safeguards which he could
do because they are somewhat compromised.

If the political elite would have been confronted with the rise of only
potentially dangerous populist candidates for president, it would
presumably had adjusted its self-serving stance and neither would have
make it to the presidency. In this sense pres trump was the canary in
the coalmine warning against the surreptitious buildup of potentially
dangerous gasses.

In Europa on the other hand, there is no canary which could result in a
'big bang' -- again. :-)

KPGH, <news:XnsAF78A8908...@88.198.57.247>
Perhaps the meaning of the crowd effect should be sought in deeper
depths and basics, turning to ethology. Anyway, this is one of the
key elements of the social (or ethological) mechanics that produce
jingoistic sentiment without much thinking about consequences. And,
as I wrote before, I think this is what significantly contributed
to the mentioned above long-term "self-destruction of Europe" trend
since the mid-19th century and then throughout the WW1 and the WW2.

Then, one more thing that can be noticed is the timing coincidence
of changed role of the media (and the media's contribution to the
crowd effect), from the initial printed newspapers - that began to
cover national majorities in the 19th century - up to what's called
"[mainstream] mass media" today.
This can be characterized as a turn towards "cultism".

Less rationality/objectivity, more righteous speeches about "values".
America doesn't seem to me as something more sane than Europe. They
have their own cultism and their mainstream thinkers, both "left" and
"right", are buzzing within the same ("American") matrix. The Ancient
Rome, Tocqueville etc. The two major American parties may be the best
way understood as gender roles - female (D) and male (R) - around one
agenda. And Trump did not seem like a true dissent from their matrix,
but foremost he was unacceptable stylistically for the establishment.

Jingoism can be effective way of preserving privilege. The role of
ethology is to first rally a 'superfluous population' unsing some
ancient instinct around a leader or elite in the face of some perceived
danger or enemy, and then march them of to oblivion. The beauty of the
'Unknown Soldier' is that he is nameless so there's no grieving family
to content with. And after a while, when too much (societal)
'superfluous material' has build op again, the 'noble cause' he died for
can be used for justifying marching a next reluctant generation into the
crossfire. This mechanism seems to become a problem when an avoidable
war or some other crises is deliberately triggered to merely maintain an
obsolete, parasitic and/of incompetent leadership that would otherwise
be challenged -- by reasonable and peaceful or, if necessary,
revolutionary means. And with regard to consequences in the long run
elites with offshore-accounts tend to borrow from Keynes: "In the long
run, we are all dead". It's who dies first, and why that should not be
them if dying for some 'greater cause' is inevitable, is what they
prefer not to discuss or be discussed. :-) ....
>> If the [US] political elite would have been confronted with the rise
That seems precisely the difference between 'EU of the regency' and the
US. The US was never intended to be 'multiculturalist' in the sense that
the constitutional order was a 'marriage of convenience' without an
underlying binding social compact/contract that goes (theoretically)
beyond societal station -- based on class or group-indentity.

Even if there is little doubt that the US-system is challenged, at least
there's some sort of roadmap. (And it happened before.)

An added benefit of people like mr trump over a canary that drops dead
as a warning of impending danger and might then be overlooked, is that
so far there was little chance of that happening with mr trump. :-)

KPGH, <news:XnsAF7A21162...@88.198.57.247>
I heard similar kinds of judgments in relation to the current Ukraine
case. One is that Putin started the military operation against the Kiev
regime in order to [better] secure his irremovability from the royal
throne. Another one is that the US (and the Atlanticist vicegerents in
Europe) exploited the Ukraine situation and deliberately contributed to
its escalation in order to [better] unite the Atlanticist bloc as well
as the American domestic populace (they say "Ukraine unites Americans
like little else" <https://is.gd/KysXvA>) and also to undermine Europe
as an economic competitor to America.

It would be legitimate to discuss such judgments, but real life is such
that usually multiple factors contribute to the political developments
and decision making. For an analyst it's desirable to prioritize things
correctly and maintain a sense of proportion with regard to different
factors. And one may try to consider where jingoism played a role.

On the Atlanticist part it started at the end of 2013. I.e. evil tyrant
Yanukovych set out to take away Ukrainians' "European future", so that
decent people must show solidarity with the protesters. It went well as
"western" standard "freedom fighters" stereotype, thus it was initial
jingoistic wave in popular support to "freedom fighters".

No doubt there were competent people in Europe who understood that the
"freedom fighters against tyrant" image is a sick caricature of the
complicated real Ukraine situation. These cynical ones just considered
it politically expedient to promote this bogus image. But in addition
to them, I think, there was a big lot of those who took this image at
face value. But within jingoistic atmosphere it's difficult to perceive
and think rationally. And this jingoism was promoted by the news media.

This moral support emboldened the Kiev protesters (and the support was
not only moral, about which one can read, for example, this observation
<https://archive.is/ymapB>), and their violent part turned more and
more violent since they felt an increased sense of impunity, - while
the Atlanticist speakers were repeating "right of peaceful protest"
mantra even when this violent part of the protesters (neo-Nazi groups)
turned to extreme violence, up to use of firearms. If then president
Yanukovych was really a Kremlin puppet, then things might turn another
way. In fact, the oaf sought to play its own game, trusted some false
promises from the EU representatives, and the result was fatal as for
him as for the whole Ukraine.

After the Ukraine coup happened, I recall, the sentiment prevailing in
the European infospace resembled a very hungry cat who's just gotten a
piece of fish. Of course, this could not end well. Given the fact that
the usurpation of power by the protest minority happened in a violent
and anti-democratic way, quite a large part of the Ukrainians naturally
refused to recognize the post-coup government. If the European minders
were sane and decent, then they would agree that these people have a
legal and legitimate right to refuse the post-coup usurpers. But since
they were obsessed with the simplistic-jingoistic "freedom fighters
against tyrant" sentiment it led to a situation that made some sort of
the Ukraine's citizens more important than others. If one establishes
such an inequality, it would naturally result with something non-good.
And this is why living standards in Europe are deteriorating today.

Sooner or later Europe will have to recognize the fact that its support
for the violent 2014 Ukraine coup was a mistake, and it was disgraceful
from moral and ethical perspective. So far, the European politicians
refused to recognize it and repent, but I believe they will eventually
have to recognize it. That's the only way to restore sanity.

Looking further back in history, one might notice that the beginning of
the WW1 might be avoided it there was less pan-Germanic jingoism in
then Austria and Germany as well as less anti-Germanic jingoism in the
Balkan Slavic region. The both kinds of jingoism were promoted by the
nationalist newspapers for years before 1914. Result was so that the
Austrian empire collapsed, and what are Austria and Germany today can't
be compared with what they were before the WW1.

Then one can recall that the Germanic-Balkan tension at the turn of
the 19th and 20th centuries was a legacy of previous developments, when
Britain and France prevented then Russia's encroaches to mitigate the
Balkan-Ottoman situation that in turn made it possible for the Austrian
empire to abuse Balkans. The beginning of the Crimean War in 1853 also
might be avoided, but the highly insane anti-Russian jingoism promoted
by the British and French newspapers at the time prevented politicians
(decision makers) from a compromise solution. Which inter alia created
the prerequisites for the WW1.

Finally, what is Europe today, against the rest of the world, is much
less impressive in comparison to what Europe was in the 19 century. And
the main basic reason for that is abuse of jingoism. Waste of resources
due to the current Ukraine case will continue to further weaken Europe,
lowering its economic competitiveness as well as "geopolitical" stance.

Non-European world should look at Europe and learn from its mistakes.