sovereignty

5
(1)

Post photo: chess pieces | © Elmer L. Geissler on Pixabay

"This week could not have illustrated more aptly why Europeans urgently need to rethink the direction of their security policies." schreibt Katrin Pribyl in today's Heilbronner part (14.01.2022/2/XNUMX: XNUMX). And with that, the decades-long efforts of European nationalists to at least talk the peaceful, democratic and federal European unification to pieces have finally arrived in the mainstream.

Because the security and defense policy of the European Union would be in a very good position if the nationalists in Europe had not been constantly undermining it for decades and repeatedly leading it ad absurdum through national solo efforts or omissions. And that's exactly what they do with the foreign and security policy of the European Union.

The facts have been on the table since 1945 at the latest and have so far not been disputed by any serious expert - at most by our beloved experts who like to tinker through the media.

Without an ever deeper one european cooperation, which actually also includes the surrender of parts of the previous national sovereignty, hardly any single European member state can still guarantee its own sovereignty. The UK is trying to be the exception to the rule - we'll be able to see if and how this works.

Without the affiliation to NATO the European Union will not be able to guarantee its own security either, unless we Europeans renounce significant achievements in our societies, such as social security for every individual — as the Americans have been doing for decades.

Right from the start, they superstate europeans, as the European nationalists have been called for a while, question these two facts and do everything they can to be right. For example, they prevent the necessary financing of NATO and also the provision of the promised national contributions and resources. They also prevent a common NATO armaments policy in order to be able to reduce total defense spending for everyone — quite the opposite, they increase spending through completely absurd national or sometimes trinational armaments projects. And they undermine the residual success of NATO and the EU by doing everything in all the relevant bodies to prevent joint decisions and coordinated measures.

John F. Kennedy still downright courted us Europeans, but at least since Ronald Reagan all US Presidents are drawing attention to this unspeakable European fuss and are trying to get the Europeans and individual European states to take joint concerted action, or at least to keep the contractually guaranteed commitments.

In return, we Europeans make fun of our American and Canadian allies, leaving them out in the cold at almost every opportunity, but constantly demanding their alliance services and guarantees ourselves.

Recently we even revealed to the Americans that we an open strategic autonomy, but in any case want to achieve complete sovereignty over the USA — while we all openly court the favor of the Chinese and Russians, whose leaders are known not to stand for democracy but for oppression of their own people, wars of aggression and genocide.

Out of necessity, the Americans have once again sat down at the negotiating table in order to wring at least a few concessions from the Chinese and Russians for the security and supply of Europe and its very own "courtyards" ... and the media read again: “On Monday the US and Russia met in Geneva to discuss the Ukraine crisis. The Europeans were absent from the table.” and this combined with the demand that one must be less dependent on Washington and at the same time become more capable of acting (Heilbronner Voice, January 14.01.2022, 2: XNUMX).

The whole thing would be very, very simple: we would have to

  1. all become reliable allies and also fulfill our own commitments;
  2. begin to act in a politically coordinated manner, both in Europe and within NATO;
  3. coordinate and, if possible, merge all armaments projects at NATO level so that we can all minimize our defense spending.

The increasingly loud and open cries of sovereignty are nothing more than a vociferous commitment against Europe, against the European Union, against NATO and all of our common values.

The associated motto is: Nationalists of all countries unite! and let's fight new wars, because the others will always die.

So these nationalists will continue to court Russia and China instead of becoming equal partners with our democratic neighbors — so the actual priorities and preferences of our (European) nationalists are clearly set and obvious.

Admittedly, there was actually an alternative to European vassalage towards China or Russia on the one hand and a North Atlantic partnership on the other, namely that of an Afro-European cooperation, which was actually known as “Eurafrica” even on the French side in the 1950s was discussed in the 1960s. But since nationalists are usually also racists, or at least chauvinists, this idea was quickly buried and its smaller version, a “Mediterranean Union”, was also vehemently rejected.

So we Europeans will scream for sovereignty and autonomy until the Americans, Africans, Chinese and Indians have to argue about who is going to take care of the old Europeans.

"Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Speech at the People's Forum in Troy, New York (March 3, 1912)

How helpful was this post?

Click on the stars to rate the post!

Average rating 5 / 5. Number of reviews: 1

No reviews yet.

I'm sorry the post wasn't helpful to you!

Let me improve this post!

How can I improve this post?

Page views: 8 | Today: 1 | Counting since October 22.10.2023, XNUMX

Share: