AN INDEPENDENT EUROPE: CUI PRODEST?

Lately we’ve been hammered with the idea that “Russia wants to undermine and weaken European Democracy”. Now, I’m not going to mince my words, this idea is absolutely non-sensical.

In primis, the idea that Russia wants to dismantle the EU is illogical; as even though they’re prepared to survive anything (war, economical shocks, etc) in the fortress they’ve been building up their country to be, an independent Europe beyond the blocs, lead by a political class who thinks and prepares policy for Autonomous Europe, with a European mindset, would benefit them first and foremost. Because Autonomous Europe would NOT be thinking that systematically provoking and threatening their neighbouring country is clever in any way. Of course they themselves do not say so - they seem to be skeptical that the European Union could even survive; but not because of their own actions, or because of the Chinese’s actions, but because of the obvious internal and structural problems which are crippling the Union.

In a second instance, they can’t be weakening European Democracy, because such a thing as European Democracy does NOT exist; Von Der Leyen (head of Commission, the only political figure with full legislative powers) is UNELECTED (and so is Borrell, the foreign policy chief in the EU). Of course the response to any dissident, who’d dare pointing out the obvious, is “well, people vote in their own countries and then these people choose who’s going to get the full, unlimited political power in the EU, hence the EU is a Good Democracy”. In this sense we can say that the European Democracy is a new form of democratic government; it is an homeopathic democracy. In homeopathy, the more the active principle gets diluted, the stronger it is - as water remembers and amplifies the effectiveness of the active principle; in the Great European Democracy the less control people have over who’s going to take all the decisions and who’s getting to which institutional position, the stronger the Democracy is - as democracy remembers, that people voted for their own national parliaments in the first place. Even the Roman Republic gave more power and consideration to the plebs than the EU political echelon gives to European citizens.

And I need to note that this fact - the fact that the political and institutional dimension of the EU is completely out of people’s management and control, and quite often, also outside of their sphere of comprehension, MIGHT also be why European citizens are pushing back against the EU. We’re told that the EU is good for us; yet there is no one who ever addresses us as citizens from there, or who thinks, that it is important to include citizens’ will into the decision making process. And when I talk about “decision making process” I don’t mean this very trendy “citizens meet up and decide practical things about their day-to-day life” (aka local governance) - I mean they need to be explained why Europe, as a whole, should behave in a certain way rather than another certain way. Citizens need to be informed about things like foreign policy - they need to be showcased the wider European interests beyond their national interests; and especially in the case of Europe, bringing it back to reality would be easy; as it is very possible that a more peaceful foreign policy would interest everyone, because when you offer people the idea of peace and trade, they often respond positively to it. Of course the issue here, is that to make Europe truly great, and a true force of good in the world, her leadership needs to be European; we need to have a political elite who thinks in terms of Europe, and can transmit the love for Europe and its people to the people itself.

Almost all of the issues in between Russia and the EU, in fact, stem from the bloc being fundamentally a disjointed conglomerate of Vassals to different degrees; the Superintendent knows that, and that’s why, every time some kind of politician would pop up, who would either agree to try to realise in practice the concept of Europe beyond the blocs, or some business man who would go against the Superintendent’s will of hegemonic control over the globe, they always ended up, somehow, dead.

The best of the Superintendent’s Vassals, unfortunately for everyone, are the most aggressive towards Russia. We have those who built their whole national identity over hatred for the Soviet Union (the Baltic States) those who are just using Vassalage to settle long-term historical rivalry (Germany, Poland) those who have become Good Vassals because they have historical beef but they know, that in the contemporary world they’d never be on par with Russia (Sweden) and the saddest one of all is the Vassal who is a Happy Vassal because they’ve always been in servitude, and they are thus not prone to fight for freedom (Finland). These vassals who have a personal beef are joined in the crusade by other Vassals, who are Vassals more because they miss the Empire they once had and vassalage makes them feel powerful (the UK, The Netherlands, The Czech Republic, Denmark). Other countries are Vassals as well (to a lesser degree, perhaps), but they do not believe the crusade against Russia makes any sense (Hungary, Italy, Greece, most of the Balkan States, Austria, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain) - and it is my opinion that many of these Vassals would be totally glad of terminating the contract and would be happy to set out independently. Then there’s the erratic semi-Vassals who are complaining about the current status of Vassalage but that I don’t know, would they be less of a bully if Europe would be autonomous (France); especially because the Franco-German Axis might have agreed to let France colonise the Mediterranean in exchange for Germany and her subservients to have their way on the East.

In this sense we can see that the idea that “EU foreign policy is about respecting 27 POVs” is pathetic, as this foreign (and internal) policy always manages to cater only to the Very Good Vassals, and it aims specifically and purposefully at weakening and subjugating the South; in this sense we can see how the Italian Parliament (on a proposal by the European Federalists) commissioned to the PM, earlier this year, to contrast the Finnish budget proposal, as it cut all of the cohesion funds, while pushing for the compulsory switch to “green economy” - countries like Italy, whose debt is due to earlier mismanagement (from the 80’s) rather than actual current performance, and who could do decently in normal conditions, would have had to take on more debt to fulfil the Finns’ conditions - and I’m 100% sure that that was the intent of the Finns, cripple your adversary so that you don’t have to actually face them in a fair fight (this was done to take aim not only at Italy but also at other countries in the same situation, especially countries in the East who have been already crippled by Germany’s aggressive expansionistic economic policy, and Greece, oh Greece, what have we done to you). To add insult to injury, Italy is actually the third net contributor to the EU, chipping in 15B per year into the Union. So, yeah, as an Italo-Finn I have to say, that I don’t really understand where this attitude of Finnish superiority is coming from.


Of course we need to hereby mention Machiavelli, once again, but it is not from the Discourses on Livy today, no, it is from The Prince; Machiavelli pointed out how in order to control a conquered land physically located far away from the Capital, one would need to either go and live there, or one would need to station a great number of servicemen in primis (which happened, as Italy and Germany are both fully militarily occupied, 75 years after WWII ended), and in second instance one would need to leverage the fact that the "smaller lords" are going to go and unite around the conqueror in order to command over others. And this is exactly what is happening - a bunch of small countries are gaining power and oppressing the rest of Europe because they are so enabled by the Superintendent. The problem with this, is that, these small countries are not even realising that they are not leaders - they're still servants. They're allowed to oppress some underneath themselves, but they still have to obey themselves. I recall talking with someone who was engaged in politics in Finland, and I was told "we're going to lead Europe". How sad is the servant who doesn't even understand their own social standing, isn't it? You're not leading, you're just oppressing others with the permission of your own overlord, can't you even see that? What sad, little, pathetic political game we're playing, Finland.


So just from this we see that this “diversity” always ends up with the aggressive Very Good Vassals having their way, and this is not only dangerous for Europe, it also dangerous for Russia, and for the world. These countries, some of which seem to have forgotten they had a own identity before the Superintendent came along (anyone remembers the Hanseatic League and the cities which were part of it?), have come to build or fit their identity around the idea that we need to be Very Good Vassals and help the Superintendent maintain hegemonic control, and the political class of the EU, instead of trying to point out that Europe has always thrived more on trade (we recall that SMEs are the backbone of European economy), travel and cooperation throughout Eurasia (see how long both the Roman Republic and the Merchant Republic of Venice thrived as independent entities), and that our collective identity is not related to the Superintendent; our collective identity comes from our own European history (where we consider as “Europe” the actual geographic reality) and those who have always been part of our history, are more nations like Russia, Iran and Turkey than the Superintendent.

The Superintendent exercises control with the aim of weakening Europe, and foments the hatred of the Very Good Vassals so that if (when?) they decide to assail Russia (either directly or through a proxy), the conflict will ravage our cities, our land, and not theirs. They exert control not only through the control of bilateral relations (for example both the Baltic States and Finland have bilateral military cooperation with the Superintendent); but also by de-facto controlling Europe through alliances of sort, the most notable of which is, quite obviously, NATO. Under the military aspect we also have to mention that the Superintendent has what, close to 100.000 Army troops on European soil, and you can believe me when I say, that I’m not the only Italian who feels that we are being militarily occupied against our will by the Superintendent. A second one, is the corporate US Media who took over official internal reporting of the EU (maybe the EU leadership doesn't think we're obedient enough to be conceded tho honour of reporting about our own continent?), and which sets the Allowed Narrative in the bloc (which surprise surprise is always anti-Russia and depicts the Italians as idiots and the Greeks as beggars, and I’m not surprised by this representation, when a UK-Czech jointly managed anti-Russia propaganda website states that Italy approves of the Kremlin’s foreign policy while Greece is [wait for it] a Sino-Russian Trojan horse into Europe - one face one race, I guess it's true then). We then have OSCE, which seems to be fairly useless as well in its current form, as the leadership seems to always go to the Very Good Vassals. And this is a problem, as none of these Vassals seem to understand, that if you want to thrive, you can’t just subjugate others in order to shine yourself. According to Machiavelli, this is how ancient Greece operated, and that’s the reason their rule lasted way less than Rome’s. And at least Greece gave the world things like the concept of democracy and philosophers and thinkers of the caliber of Socrates and Aristotle - but what are you Vassals giving to the world, except for destruction and subjugation hidden under a gleaming pile of well-sounding lies ?

The main difference in between Roman-style ruling and Greek-style ruling is that, while Greece aimed to subjugate, Rome aimed at creating leagues where they held the most influence. Roman allies in these leagues were not subjugated, they were subalterns - so they were also thriving, to some degree. So in this sense we can say that the United States is ruling Europe like Rome was ruling the Empire; but together they're just trying to subjugate everyone else, thus making the Western Empire a failing one.


The main difference in between the Western Empire and Rome Rome never had any interest in keeping conquered areas in a constant state of war; wars were to be effective, quick, and the areas conquered had to become thriving parts of the Empire as well. They conquered France, they built roads and made it a thriving part of the Empire, they conquered Britain (which was a very far out province) and also there they built roads, and spas, and such things. They were always engaged in some kind of war, but it was not about keeping the same areas engaged in never-ending wars. The main centre of the Empire wasn’t Rome but it was the Mediterranean Sea, Mare Nostrum. Even though they had wars, and fought with almost all of the people there, when they conquered the whole area of the Med, they didn’t subjugate all the others - they made the whole area around the sea as a thriving cultural and trade centre. And it is when they stopped to operate like this, and they overextended their military campaigns to far away lands of which they did not care about and neither they understood the culture, that's when Rome fell.

What the Finns were trying to do to the Italians, with their cowardly economic attacks, the Romans would never have done. Because the Romans knew, that the Republic thrives only when every province also thrives. But alas, the Finns are no Romans, and neither are the Germans, and the Franco-German Axis believing that they are better leaders just because they are more aggressive and more prone to subjugate other peoples still pervades European politics, like a sort of political gangrene which cripples the bloc, and impedes its development. Republics thrive for centuries, badly managed empires crumble after about a century - and aren’t we close, oh so close to the century of the Shumann Declaration?

Now, as I was born in Italy, and received education in Italy, I have a long view over history. Italians have to go through millennia of history in detail during basic education, and while our own country’s existence as a nation-state is relatively short, Italians did not build their national identity over the Italian nation-state; they built it around the cultural and historical perspective of our land. To us, the fact that Venice was an independent Republic, not part of Italy, or the fact that the Etruscans were not even technically Latins doesn’t make any difference - to us, the Etruscans, the Venetians, the Romans, it’s all part of the history of our land and therefore goes to create our national-identity. Peoples of Italy fought against everyone; the Ottomans, the Carthaginians, the Persians, then they were colonised by the Austrians, the French and the Spanish - yet our national identity is not built around following someone, or around hating someone, it is about enhancing and developing our own millennia old qualities. This is why the descendants of the Merchant Republic of Venice, when they heard about China’s Belt and Road Initiative, jumped with joy. How is that not a beautiful opportunity for us and for the whole of Europe? Let’s build roads, hurray! There is some business deals to be signed, there is merchandise to be sold, bought and exported! There are restaurants to be opened, and new cities to travel to! And here the same goes for Russia - there is a market there, and in Central Asia, and Iran, all countries where we could build roads all together, but we can’t, because the EU is fully controlled by the Superintendent’s Vassals, who are benefiting from the Union way more than they are giving, and they are basing their own greatness on subjugation and opposition to others rather than their own innate qualities. Just look at how we’re dealing with Russia - we’re trying to cripple them economically (they were denied access to the European Investment Bank for example) but we end up hurting ourselves more, as the counter-sanctions cut off access to Russian market to our own SMEs (and we recall once again, that SMEs are the economical backbone of Europe). And in view of current global mega-trends, our oppositional stance towards Russia is even more ridiculous: both China AND the US are bigger fishes than Europe, Russia and Iran. And they are engaged in competition, which can only be expected to grow in the coming years. Therefore given the geography of our continent, and the economic possibilities this piece of land has, instead of trying to subjugate them, we should get in league with them. But we can’t, because the leadership is all about disliking Russia.

And the sad irony of this all, is that European leaders, instead of crapping all over the Russian Federation, could have learnt something from their history (and it’s not even 30 years of history!) as if they would have made an effort to learn something about them, they would have noticed that by maintaining (or better said, rebuilding) both economic and military independence, Russia has built a pretty decent and a pretty resilient country - and they don’t have to answer to anyone when they take decisions. They found themselves without an identity at the fall of the Soviet Union, but they all (all of the peopleS of Russia) rally behind their flag in a patriotic, not nationalistic manner. But the most important detail of the Russian Federation is that they, compared to us, have not built their country over the systematic exploitation of others.

But alas, it’s 1984 in the EU, and Slavery is Freedom.

Given all of these facts, we need to doubt the claim that “Russia wants to weaken and dismantle Europe”; it is rather the United States who doesn't want Europe to be strong and independent. This disjointed, colonialist within herself Europe, currently benefits just one class of Europeans and the Superintendent. It benefits the corporations who are lobbying in Bruxelles, it benefits the Superintendent’s military industrial complex, and it benefits Western hegemony, which is good for the West, but cruel towards the rest of the World. We have to note that as I mentioned already, the Russians themselves do not believe that the EU will survive - but I think it could, with a European-minded political class taking power, and if this new political class would ferry the Superintendent and her troops out of the continent. So I’ve got to convince literally everyone, that we all need to stay united, and build something real all together.

WHAT WOULD AUTONOMOUS EUROPE DO?

EH. This is a mammoth of a job. Institutional reforms are needed, reforms to the European media landscape are needed (criticism of the EU and especially criticism of organisations like NATO should be allowed, if not promoted, for the sake of plurality of opinions), EU politicians who are not afraid to speak to their population without lying are needed, more European-minded politicians and individuals are needed, I could be spending my whole life reforming European institutions; but I am also a bit afraid because as I mentioned, every Italian who tried to reduce the Superintendent’s power and control over Europe, has eventually wound up dead.



-----------------------------------------

Further note: if you are interested in the topic, I would advise you to read this article; I got to read it myself while I was writing this text and it did open my views (as I mentioned, Italy has a long history, and we might be more similar to China and India [so countries with a short history of being a nation-state but a long history overall] than to other countries in Europe who have had a longer history of being a nation-state, and perhaps that's why it seems to be easier for Italians to think in terms of European strategy, and not strictly national strategy.