Britain’s Neoliberally Atlanticist, The Economist, February 18 2025
The air is thick with dust far from settled following twin shocks delivered last week to Europe’s Atlanticist leaders by their US masters. Specifically, Defense Secretary Pete Hegsworth told them what all those not fooled by the childish fairy tale of a West united in standing up to Big Bad Putin had long foretold: that Uncle Sam would cut his losses in the Ukraine – as he always does when overextended – once the costs of remaining outweighed the benefits. 1 Simplicius the Thinker opens his February 15 post – Munich Bloodbath Ruptures Western Order – thus:
It’s been another whirlwind day as the Munich Conference finally took off. The theme of the show was the epic confrontation between the US and European deep state, as represented by various comprador mouthpieces …. 2
Or in plain Anglo-Saxon, “we broke it with obsequious assistance from you guys – now we’re outa here and its down to yous to fix it.”
Vice President Vance was beating much the same drum, while admonishing – hypocritically, yes, but not inaccurately – the said comprador mouthpieces on their deeply anti-democratic ways. Now the compradors wring their hands in the figurative corridor with Zelensky, shut out of the figurative room while the big boys meet in Riyadh to talk turkey.
Had Western publics, both sides of the Atlantic down to the Antipodes, been allowed non-curated access to the words of Russian leaders they might recall a speech by one Vladimir Putin at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2022:
A direct result of the European politicians’ actions and events this year will be the further growth of inequality in these countries, which will, in turn, split their societies still more, and the point at issue is not only the well-being but also the value orientation of various groups in these societies. Indeed, these differences are being suppressed and swept under the rug.
Frankly, the democratic procedures and elections in Europe and the forces that come to power look like a front, because almost identical political parties come and go, while deep down things remain the same. The real interests of people and national businesses are being pushed further and further to the periphery.
Such a disconnect from reality and the demands of society will inevitably lead to a surge in populism and extremist and radical movements, major socioeconomic changes, degradation and a change of elites in the short term. As you can see, traditional parties lose all the time. New entities are coming to the surface, but they have little chance for survival if they are not much different from the existing ones.
Was he right – or was he right?*
But as I said, the dust is a long ways from settled. I’m just sketching out a few – by no means all – of the most relevant parameters while acknowledging that things remain up in the air. Too many “Alt” pundits strike me as a shade too sure of themselves when one aspect of the flux I speak of is that the wider I cast my net – I’ve read or viewed upwards of a score of respected non corporate sources these past few days – the more my head spins.
Let me offer three of the uncertainties I have in mind:
- Has Team Trump – its leader not what you’d call a deep thinker – fully grasped both the strength of the Russian position, and the extent to which the Russian people view their struggle as existential? As on so many matters the signals from DC, while unequivocal in tone, are in substance thick with ambiguity and prima facie contradiction. Take the way Hegsworth, Rubio and others are saying what Austin, Blinken and Sullivan never could: Russia does have legitimate security concerns and Ukraine can never be part of NATO. But I’m worried that a man who reduces diplomacy to business deals 3 might tomorrow see fit to “escalate to de-escalate” – as he would to put the squeeze on a trade partner to secure better terms. When the man with only a hammer approaches every problem as a nail, we have to ask two things. One, is Trump capable of recognising that while he may yet buy Greenland or “take back” the Panama Canal, Putin is not Yeltsin nor Russia for sale? Two, is “escalate to de-escalate” really the way to proceed in a nuclear world?
- How far does Team Trump mark a break with, and how far a substantive continuation of, Team Biden? In a twenty-one minute discussion with Danny Haiphong, Brian Berletic says the latter:
I’m inclined to agree, as I usually am with Brian, and recommend giving this a viewing. As ever he urges us to set aside emotion – in this case that of cheerleaders for either half of the US duopoly masquerading as a democracy – and focus instead on underlying events and processes. And as ever he builds a strong case which for the most part persuades me. But I’m not sure he engages with the extent and nature of Team Trump’s acceptance of multipolarity. Speaking of which …
- While Team Trump – unlike Team Biden and, indeed, any US Administration since the fall of the USSR – acknowledges that the world is now multipolar, what does this mean? Call me a dreamer but in the absence of counter evidence – as distinct from bogeyman propaganda by a West with vastly more form, past and current, on violent expropriation of the planet’s wealth – I’m prepared to believe China, Russia and BRICS that for them it means a world without a hegemon, each nation pursuing its interests in trade on a level playing field. 4 The same cannot be said of the West, and more specifically the USA. As indicated by the Greenland/Canada/Panama braggadocio – be that serious declaration of intent or simply marking a shift in how the world looks from the Beltway – and more generally by doubling down on the Monroe Doctrine, so far the signs all point to a US view of multipolarity as a crudely Westphalian world 5 carved up into spheres of control ruled by three competing hegemons. Meanwhile Europe’s leaders descend into fantasy – witness Keir Starmer’s talk, reality-defiant even by his standards, of UK boots in Ukraine – born of intellectual paralysis and an inability as much psychological as political to face the truth that Europe’s place in that world has, due to their embrace of Neoliberalism and more immediately of US agendas in the Ukraine, not for half a millennium looked more in doubt. 6
* * *
- What has happened in the Ukraine – to its and Europe’s great cost – was foretold in the 2019 Rand Report, Extending Russia (discussed here). Russia’s challenge to the US hegemon, it counselled – and by challenge we mean refusal to enter the collective West as a US vassal once the hitherto naively trustful Putin finally saw that these were the only terms on offer – could be weakened by sowing mischief on, inter alia, her southwest flank. Ukraine’s “freedom” counted for no more than had Syria’s in US plans for regime change across the Middle East.
- Good to know I’m not the only one to apply the term, comprador – traditionally reserved for elites in the global south who collaborate in their countries’ exploitation – to Europe’s leaders.
- To be sure, “reducing diplomacy to business deals” is a step in the right direction from making a virtue, as Team Biden had, of not listening at all to Russia. But isn’t it a mark of the West’s degeneration that these are the only two games in town?
- “I’m prepared to believe China, Russia and the BRICS that for them [multipolarity] means a world without a hegemon, each nation pursuing its own interests as it trades on a level playing field …” One reason I’m prepared to do so is that, as set out in this post, while fast approaching catastrophe of one kind or another, we’re not exactly spoilt for choice are we?
- To be sure, even a “crude” Westphalian world would for all its perils be a step up from Washington’s failed “rules based order”, trumping international law whenever it suits the US. But I ask you. In an age marked on the one hand by cynicism, on the other by a multiplicity of delusional recipes for radical change, isn’t China offering a bigger and nobler, yet profoundly practical and reality based, alternative?
- One measure of the level of denial among the Starmers and Baerbocks, the Macrons, Scholzes and Von der Leyens, is set out in my post last September, The Super Mario plan for Europe.
Yes. ‘Comprador’ is a great word – encapsulating the essence of current European ‘leadership’.
As for Starmer sending troops to the Ukraine – he’s said he will do that only with US backing – but the US has already said they won’t provide that, so he’s conveniently off the hook, while giving the impression that he can act forcefully. Amazingly blatant example of hypocrisy.
The only way forward for Europe is to get rid of the compradors, become independent of the US and make its own decisions in its own interest. Whether it can do this now is another matter. Maybe things have to get much worse before they can get better. And maybe if they do get much worse then getting better recedes into the distance. Maybe we’ll last long enough to find out Lots of ‘maybe’s’.
What was that name again – Toom Tarbert? All mouth and no trousers.
Just encountered this from Arnaud Bertrand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQVt0MHed6k&ab_channel=NeutralityStudies
I got an interesting wee snippet of information from one of Alexei Martyanovs podcasts – he quotes a Russian source as saying that Russia has invited experts on historical borders from Poland, Hungary and Rumania to Moscow for ‘discussions’. If these countries can be persuaded to take lumps out of the Ukraine, that would really be pidgeon–cat time for NATO. It would certainly be a big deal for Poland as they could conceivably claim quite a large area, although they would also possibly be the most reluctant to offend the EU by doing so. Yet more ‘maybe’s of course.
One to keep an eye apropos such matters is Andrew Korybko. He’s well to the right of me ‘n thee but his prolific yet mercifully short posts pack a lot of detail on what’s going on in Russia’s border states.
Given that the core, let’s go with, nationalistic philosophy of the present Ukrainian regime is Galician rather than Ukrainian per se, there would be a certain irony (as well as being historically consistent in terms of incompetently shooting oneself in the foot) if Poland ended up with Galicia and the problem that area represents.
On the available evidence and Brian Berletic’s arguments, Putin was only half right in that what that quote ascribes to Europe is equally applicable to the US and the rest of the Collective West.
As noted in this observation…..
…..which once again channels the approach of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tom and Daisy – reminding us that the more things change, the more things stay the same.
It’s in the cultural DNA of the USA. As the example of the five monkeys in Simplicius the thinkers last Dark Futura piece reminds us:
https://darkfutura.substack.com/p/hypernormalization
And that represents only one example of a wider contextual problem.
As noted, a lot of the above and below the line sages of the Oracle are ascribing to Trump attributes too fantastical to take seriously.
Epitomised by Scott Ritter – who always gets too excitable – here at Consortium News:
https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/17/scott-ritter-trumps-munich-strategy/
Walking away from disasters it has created and leaving others to clear up the mess it has made is permanent default position of the USA regardless of who is in charge.
On that theme I’m more with Patrick Armstrong……
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2025/02/17/europe-gets-an-anatomy-lesson/
The present consensus in the alt-media seems to be that:
a) The US still wants to retain Europe (UK as well as EU) as a vassal within its sphere of influence in this emerging US view of multipolaric configeration.
b) That Europe and the UK will be getting a new leadership.
Though no one seems to be joining the dots in figuring out the inconsistency in critcising the current set of comprador European/UK elites put in place by the US over a long period of time and nthe fact that such an outcome require replacing that same incompetancy with a new one just as servile, self-serving and lacking in efficacy as the current contingent.
The only other alternative is for this current contingent of European and UK leaderships to be replaced over time with people who are not incompetant and servile. In which case the steaming pile of shite that the US has dumped on Europe and the UK through Trump will be remembered and and acted upon accordingly in terms of future relationships.
As regards the different and incompatable versions of Multipolarity, Moon of Alabama succintly nailed this the other week (February 4th):
Quoting Rubio’s opening remarks to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee of January 15th
Moon of Alabama observes:
And continues by contrasting it with Lavrov’s response:
No amount of trash talk from Trump and fawning sycophancy from sections of the alt-media is going to alter the realities that fawning is myopic to.
Yes, Scott Ritter is over excitable – though Pepe Escobar is even more so. Both commentators are too intelligent and well informed to ignore, but both are on my naughty step for their failure to distinguish dispassionate analysis from wishful thinking – not that I’m blameless in that respect – over Syria and Israel.
What’s more, Scott stands alongside Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer, also too smart and well informed to ignore, in their erroneous view – fruit not of antisemitism (FWIW Jeffrey is Jewish) but of a worldview which fails to distinguish US national interest from that of its ruling elites – that Israel rules the US.
Here’s a little piece of comedy:
https://anti–spiegel-ru.translate.goog/2025/offener-streit-zwischen-selensky-und-trump/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
The author, Thomas Roper, explains how the German government and Zelensky (plus outside his reference, Starmer) are digging themselves deeper into a hole with Trump. Luckily, they all seem too stupid to recognise what the consequences will be. More power to their elbows, I say. Putin and his team are much smarter, thankfully.