Jaz glede tega sicer ne bi bil tako zelo presenečen će nisi gospodarsko in vojaško suveren, če si gospodarsko in vojaško podrejen, potem pač nisi igralec in drugi odločajo o tebi. EU se je v to situacijo spravila sama z zavestno podreditvijo Ameriki. Nazadnje z igranjem po ameriških notah in v stranski vlogi v ukrajinski vojni. Toda še dvajset let nazaj, ob ameriškem napadu na Irak (2003) so EU države še imele svoje stališče, drugačno od ameriškega. Ameriškega napada na Irak sicer niso mogle preprečiti, toda imele so jasno in glasno odklonilno stališče. Danes evropski politiki pač govorijo to, kar jim napišejo v Washingtonu, zato je vseeno, če so za pogajalsko mizo ali ne – na koncu bodo sprejeli in poslušno izvedli, kar se bo Trump dogovoril s Putinom. Tudi če se s tem ne bi strinjali, nimajo ničesar, s čimer bi to lahko preprečili. Odločnih govorov se nihče ne boji, če za njimi ne stoji realna vojaška moč.

Tako šibka Evropa ni bila še nikoli v zadnjega pol stoletja.

The upcoming negotiations in Alaska between Trump and Putin tells you all you ought to know about the nature of the Ukraine war, and Europe’s current geopolitical status.

I did the research: there are very few examples – if any – in Europe’s millennia-old history of a military defeat against an external power where it wasn’t even at the table to negotiate the conditions for its future.

You’d probably need to go all the way back to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to find Europeans having zero say in their own fate. And still, this was a somewhat “classic” military defeat where the victor simply dictated terms. At the time, there wasn’t another external power negotiating with the Ottomans about how to carve up Byzantine territory – it was at least a straightforward conquest.

It’s therefore fair to say that, literally on a millennial scale, Europe’s exclusion from negotiations about its own future in Alaska represents one of the most humiliating moments in European diplomatic history.

I mean, think about it, the guy who:

1. explicitly calls the EU “one of United States’ biggest foes”
2. is persuaded – absurdly – that the EU “was formed in order to screw the United States”
3. wants to annex Greenland
4. launched a plethora of hostile actions against Europe, including a massive trade war
5. THAT guy is now negotiating Europe’s future on Europe’s behalf. It’s almost cartoonishly absurd.

Pathetically, European leaders are now – according to the Washington Post – “scrambling to respond” and relegated to begging for scraps of information through secondary diplomatic channels. Their access to the negotiations determining their fate? JD Vance – the same man who privately expressed his loathing of Europe and called it “PATHETIC” (not that he’s wrong).

Imagine if the reverse was true: Macron and Putin carving up American spheres of influence in Berlin, while the White House “scrambles” to get information through Von der Leyen about what’s being decided. Sounds unreal because no American administration would survive 24 hours after allowing it. The fact that European leaders face no such consequence tells you everything about how completely we’ve internalized our own subjugation.

In my latest article I explore how Europe went from writing the rules of global diplomacy to watching from the sidelines as other powers negotiate its fate – and why recognizing this humiliation might be the only path to shattering the Stockholm syndrome that now passes for European foreign policy.

This is the link to the article, entitled “Not at the table: Europe’s colonial moment“

Vir: Arnaud Bertrand