Friday 14th of June 2024

ursula von der leyen's dangerous not so secret fascist connections.......

In approximately 2 weeks, the European elections will take place. For people and workers, the European Union (EU) is at the heart of a deep crisis and their divorce from it is largely complete. On May 16 in Montauban at a meeting of CGT activists in Tarn et Garonne, Jean-Pierre Page spoke about the European Union, the far right and fascism, the new international balance of power.


The political, economic, social and cultural credibility of European institutions has indeed declined considerably. Increasingly numerous cleavages and divisions have appeared between member countries and affect all areas, social, security, refugees, economic, monetary, etc. Corruption through the role of thousands of lobbies affects both the Brussels Commission and its president and the Parliament itself. To exist, the EU seeks to compensate for its undemocratic functioning by resorting to authoritarianism, it attacks fundamental freedoms. As we see in Ukraine, in the Middle East or with regard to China, its servility towards the United States illustrates how much this existential crisis is linked to the very nature of what the EU is. As in its beginnings, European institutions are continuing an evolution consisting of maintaining a close relationship with the most retrograde political forces of the neo-fascist extreme right. The EU is shaking on its foundations, it is isolated and we cannot bet on its future. In fact, this one has no perspective, the worst is yet to come.


Furthermore, this undeniable evolution of Europe is not indifferent to the beginning of a significant change in the balance of power in the world. It is even a revealer.


More than 30 years after the destruction of the USSR and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, the unipolar power established by the United States with the support of their European vassals is today openly contested. The dominant system is cracking and we must take the proper measure. Imperialism must face a growing disavowal and a questioning of the peoples, of the workers, including those of its own camp, in particular the youth. Furthermore, many developing States are seeking to free themselves from this hegemonic desire that we seek to impose, whatever the cost. This stifling tutelage that the West exercises by all means, including wars and even the threat of a Third World War. This is significant in Ukraine with this war against Russia which is fraught with nuclear threats and for which Americans and Europeans demand that we fight to the last Ukrainian for the greatest benefit of the military-industrial complex and at the price of a social regression with an unprecedented human cost since the Second World War.

In fact, the decline of the dominant Western system continues to widen in the face of people's resistance. The role of the latter is decisive in this change. This is what we see in Palestine and through the extraordinary movement of global solidarity from which the resistance of the Palestinian nation benefits. This is also the case through a new generation of emancipatory struggles in the face of colonialism, which we can see in West Africa, in several countries of Latin America and Asia and more recently in New Caledonia, and this after Mayotte where French neocolonial and racist arrogances became unbearable. The July 2023 meeting of the Baku Initiative Group (Azerbaijan) with the Non-Aligned Movement and 14 independence political movements from the last French colonies including Polynesia, who are fighting for true decolonisation and self-determination is an important one drawing.


Anti-hegemonic alliances


This is also the case for anti-hegemonic alliances which are being formed and which are shaking up geopolitics. This is what we can verify with the rise in power of several emerging countries with the pivotal role played within them by China within the framework of this political, economic, financial and soon monetary alliance of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia , India, China, South Africa). In January 2024, it was strengthened by the accession of five new members including Iran and Saudi Arabia, other states are candidates such as Venezuela and Algeria. We can also note on a monetary and commercial level this movement towards de-dollarisation, the spectacular vitality of the gold market, and the massive abandonment by China of the EU treasury bonds that it held as well as the creation of new international institutions parallel to those of Bretton Woods. This development illustrates the choice of an ever-increasing number of countries in favor of a new international economic order. Many people now intend to assert their independence in order to exercise their sovereign decisions over their resources as well as their political choices and the content of their economic and social development.

It is therefore appropriate to ask the question of the causes and the deeper meaning of these unprecedented changes. They are accelerating and will determine the future of international relations in the very next period. These are fundamentally characterised by increasingly acute international contradictions. On the one hand, the Western camp is stubborn and stubborn: “if we let our guard down, the liberal world will disappear,” warns Francis Fukuyama. On the other hand, the vast world that we wrongly call the Global South is rebelling, it has no shortage of support! In this worsening global conflict, the international division of labor that had prevailed has become untenable. This is the case between the dominant and the dominated, between development needs and globalised financialisation, between inequalities and the accumulation of wealth and privileges in the hands of a few parasites, between nations which carry a project of social justice and win/win cooperation and those for whom the search for maximum profit requires destroying social and economic conquests. The main cause of this crisis is not so much the form it takes, even if we cannot neglect it, it lies in the substance and what it demonstrates regarding the harmfulness of an anachronistic system which does not is nothing other than a capitalism that has become totally outdated and incoherent with regard to the demands of humanity.


Consequently, the immediate perspective that dominates is that of a period of great turbulence with an uncertain outcome. This violent disorder will grow! Hyper inflation, over-indebtedness, unprecedented inequalities, social tensions of all kinds, the future and status of refugees, threatening conflicts and high-intensity wars will contribute to chronic political instability. This will disrupt the order of things everywhere and particularly in countries like the United States where the fragmentation of society is already extreme, which the next presidential elections will illustrate. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.


Fundamental freedoms under threat

Faced with this trend, the questioning of fundamental freedoms, which everyone can see, continues everywhere. In fact, it continues to worsen in worrying ways. It is one of the characteristics of this state violence to which Emmanuel Macron and his government resort systematically. It brutally falls on workers as soon as they express their demands, on young people and even on parliamentarians. Since the yellow vest movement, the police but also the justice system and the judiciary have demonstrated a zeal worthy of any regime in which democratic freedoms have been prohibited.


This is why we can say today that this neo-fascism has no need for armed gangs to destroy political and trade union organisations, or to put an end to workers' conquests. Quite simply because successive governments have taken care of it. Thus the parties are atomised, the unions are reduced, the representative institutions are now integrated into the European Union which prohibits them from any critical reflection or independent action: this is how we regulate the functioning of national parliaments. This is also the case by directing media stories through a caricatured model of single thought, repeated over and over and uniformly, as much as by the control and finicky repression of social networks and the systematic practice of amalgamation. The objective is to muzzle any space for freedom of expression, as required by the directive of European Commissioner Thierry Breton or as illustrated by the Guillaume Meurice affair, this comedian suspended from Radio France for daring to criticize the war criminal Netanyahu.


To seek to remobilise opinion electorally and socially, most political and union forces are raising the threat of the neo-fascist far right. We talk about it in itself without any relation to the real causes of its influence. We do not stigmatise it, on the contrary we demonise it, including by making it more public and ensuring its media promotion.


In France, we are witnessing the establishment of a form of sacred union by politicians, trade unionists and set experts. It aims to be consensual and never intends to evoke the real reasons behind the legitimate resentments of a large number of workers and citizens, as well as the need for a real political alternative. So, rather than questioning the substance, we prefer to divert and talk about something else. To do this, we are putting up a smokescreen over the economic, social and political disaster, the threats to peace, and to individual and collective freedoms that the government's policy as well as that of the European Union represent. In fact, the objective is to save the capitalist system in deep crisis by granting it a new remission so that it can continue its evil, and if necessary by resorting to the worst reactionary ideas.


What are the seeds of the extreme right?


In fact, to stifle resistance, the ruling elite in France, as in most European countries, needs right-wing extremists and neofascists. This is why it is the bourgeoisie which deliberately creates this obscurantist and retrograde political climate in which the seeds of the extreme right and fascism can develop. Especially since in fact their program is identical.

Moreover, together, they put it into practice and collaborate closely. Nowhere is this more evident than in the brutal repression of social movements and the rejection of all social policies, through the exploitation of insecurity, through the persecution of refugees or demonstrations against the genocide in Gaza. This can be verified in the votes in the National Assembly as well as in the European Parliament. Thus the violence of government measures against immigration even made Marine Le Pen declare that the government had found its inspiration in the program of the National Rally. She saw this as an ideological victory. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal is also preparing to renew this approach through an authoritarian system on the elimination of social allowances to families in the name of safety at school.


Under these conditions, responsibility for the rise of the far right lies entirely with the political and economic forces which currently determine policy in France as is the case at the European level. Therefore the idea that the rise of the far right can be stopped by voting for these left-wing, green, social democratic or liberal and conservative parties is a dangerous illusion. The reality is quite different. The fight against the far right is not a question of electoral arithmetic, but of the dynamics of class struggles. This is what history teaches us! The first fights against Hitler's occupation of France and Vichy collaboration took place through worker demonstrations demanding soap and bread. Let's not forget it. The best way to fight against the extreme right conveyed by the partnership of Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen and the employers is to fight for demands and a real break with capitalism and its deadly ideology. But strangely, there, the union confederations are absent.


Ultimately, the policies of Emmanuel Macron, like those of Brussels or the far-right forces, are choices put at the service of globalised financial capital whose function is to continue the plundering of work and natural resources in all its forms by Europe as in developing countries and the rest of the world. So it is with the function of debt which is the means by which Western economies use and abuse to further enrich this leech that the global financial system has become. It is for this and nothing else that we intend to create the conditions necessary for the establishment of a police state directed against the entire working class. In fact, the responsibility for the rise of the far right in elections in France and in Europe lies in the policies implemented by the main European leaders in their respective countries, regardless of their political affiliation and complicity. from which they benefit. It is dismaying to note that no union questions those who, through the content of their decisions, are at the origin of the influence of the extreme right.


Ursula Von der Leyen complicit with the far right


This is so true that in Europe, Ursula Von der Leyen has long worked in close collaboration with the neofascist Giorgia Meloni, the president of the Italian Council of Ministers, who is also the president of the CRE (Parliamentary Group of Conservatives and European reformers to which most of the forces of the political extreme right adhere). Thus, Von der Leyen applied the recent tightening of European asylum legislation by drawing inspiration from the decisions of Giorgia Meloni. Von der Leyen even intends to go further by taking over the system that the British Prime Minister has just put in place for the deportation of refugees without distinction of nationality to Rwanda.

In reality, the current main representatives of the Brussels Commission and the European Parliament are preparing to cooperate closely with far-right parties. There is no longer any mystery in this configuration that these parties will be called upon to play an important role after the elections, both in the European Parliament and in the European Commission. The famous firewall against the extreme right, or sanitary cordon, which has always been a fiction, will then fall definitively. Meanwhile, the media will continue to entertain the gallery with the supposed electoral performances of one or the other or the prospect of a Mr. Le Pen/E debate. Macron. These political games are only made to distract people's attention. They contribute to making those who are presented as adversaries more accountable but who in fact are the acolytes and associates of the same system of dupes.


Ursula Von der Leyen, the very one who alongside the German Chancellor received a long standing ovation and unconditional support from all the delegates of the 15th Congress of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) in Berlin, is the only candidate of the conservatives of the European People's Party (EPP). She is preparing to be re-elected as head of the Commission with the votes of right-wing extremists. It goes without saying that the latter will demand a price in the form of political concessions and important positions within the EU. What will then say those who speak of the fascist threat but who in fact are the useful idiots of a system which, in history and since, has shown that it is capable of resorting to the most extremist policies including war for maintain the exercise of totalitarian power.


From this perspective and to satisfy their thirst for profits, plunder of raw materials and markets, the EU and its Member States are once again ready to commit the worst crimes by pushing further their commitments to war in Europe. As in the United States where the defence budget will approach $1,000 billion this year, the military-industrial complex occupies a central place at the heart of the European and North American economies.


NATO and EU interventionism


NATO interventionism is encouraged everywhere. We are preparing for high-intensity wars. Thus, with 172 billion euros, Brussels will have invested more money than the United States to fuel the war in Ukraine against Russia. Furthermore, the European Union unconditionally supports Israel and the tragic genocide in Gaza that Netanyahu is implementing as a final solution to the Palestinian problem. With the United States, the EU is participating in the military encirclement of China and the strengthening of military alliances in Southeast Asia. It is in this context that Macron, after having obtained the support of the French Parliament for new military credits for the Nazi regime in kyiv, wishes to involve French military forces in the Ukrainian conflict. It also intends to share and pool the French nuclear defence system with the European Union in defiance of all principles of sovereignty. The same is true of France’s seat on the United Nations Security Council.


Europe, and therefore France, is passing on the costs of war and militarism to the working class and young people. This point is important because, in addition to its function which is to subject the world of work to new constraints in the name of a so-called European solidarity in the name of which we should prepare for war, Brussels intends to stir up conflict throughout the world. alongside Washington. This is the case in Ukraine, but it is also the case in many countries on the borders of Russia in Georgia, Moldova, Armenia but also in Cyprus, Serbia and the Balkans, it is still the case in the Near Middle East where the economic challenges for the control of energy sources or land and maritime corridors are obvious.


The expansion of NATO's prerogatives, the increase in military credits, the illegal use of economic and financial sanctions, the countless measures of coercion as we see against Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua constitute another facet of this authoritarian arsenal. For its part, the UN system is exploited, presented as obsolete, multilateralism and the United Nations Charter itself are called into question. By all means and at any cost, the Western camp seeks to destabilise through chaos by engaging in interference, by directly carrying out regime changes, wherever its power is contested. He does this if necessary by resorting to the most extremist forces, as with the ultra-liberal recipe of Milton Friedman’s “Chicago Boys”. We have seen them before and we see them again in Argentina where they inspire the policies of the neofascist Javier Milei who, fortunately, comes up against strong popular opposition.


The world is changing quickly


For the Western camp, the problem, one could say, is that the world is changing quickly, even very quickly. In fact we are at a turning point which involves other choices, those in favour of development, social justice, cooperation, peace. In fact everything that opposes the destructive and predatory logic of the capitalist West. The decline we are witnessing is therefore the reflection of a challenge to a system of aggression and pillage which has operated until now in an international balance of power which apparently seemed immutable but which today sees its totalitarian power openly contested.


In fact, the interests of the majority of people cannot be compatible with the greed and imperialist aspirations of the ruling class. This is the main contradiction. This requires the labor movement, the progressive forces and trade unionism in particular, to become aware of it in order to contribute independently to ensuring that the people, the workers, take responsibility for themselves, commit themselves in order to reappropriate another way of conceiving their union and political commitment. It is for the world of work to support all actions aimed at breaking the power of banks and multinational companies, financial institutions and weakening by all means the powers of the imperialist system, starting with ours. To do this, we must have the ambition to develop an internationalist solidarity of our time with all the social and political forces which not only challenge the domination of capital but intend to break with it.




FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.......................


contrasting visions....


Why are Israel and the West unravelling in tandem?




Alon Pinkas, a former senior Israeli diplomat (well plugged in at the White House), says aloud the “reality” about Israel which he underlines cannot be hidden further:

[There are now] two [Jewish] states – with contrasting visions of what the nation should be. There is an elephant in the Israeli room – and ‘no’: it’s not occupation, though that is its main cause.

The elephant in the room is Israel gradually but inexorably being divided [into a high-tech, secular, liberal state] … and a Jewish-supremacist, ultranationalist theocracy with messianic, antidemocratic tendencies that encourage isolation.

Zionism … has morphed and mutated through the settler movement and extreme right-wing zealots into a Masada-like political culture, based on the concept of the redemption of the ancient kingdom in the ancestral land. (Masada was a Sicarii cult in CE 73).

Pinkas continues:

[I]n essence, there is a civil war raging in Israel. It has not reached Gettysburg levels, but the deep and wide schism is becoming glaringly evident. The two political value systems are just not reconcilable. ‘We are fighting the Arabs (or Iran) for our existence’ remains the only common thread, but it is weakening. That is a negative definition of national identity: a common enemy and threat, but very little of what unites us in terms of the type of society and country we want to be.

Even the most fundamental common narrative, the Declaration of Independence, is now being questioned with some of its basic tenets and guiding principles a source of political contention.

Of course, one can see from which side of the divide Pinkas views his world – yet “above and beyond pondering 7 October, there is a growing realization that ‘unity,’ ‘one destiny’ and ‘we have no choice and no other country’ have become meaningless and hollow clichés. Instead, more and more Israelis on both sides of the divide see their country as essentially split into two distinct (non-reconcilable) entities.”

Does this sound familiar, albeit in another context?

It should. For it is a metaphor for the inexorable divide in the West, too. The war in Gaza has precipitated and sharpened the latent schisms within in the West. It too can be hidden no longer. On the one hand, there is an (illiberal) social engineering project posing as liberalism. And on the other, a project to recover the “eternal” values (however imperfect) that once lay behind European civilisation.

The conflict in the Middle East has thrown the parallels between the two spheres in the West into clarity.

Again, the parallels and similarities are discomforting: As Pinkas says:

…the divide is real, widening and becoming unbridgeable. The political, cultural and economic gaps and rifts are growing, accompanied by toxic vitriol that masquerades as political discourse. Even the most fundamental common narrative, the Declaration of Independence, is now being questioned with some of its basic tenets and guiding principles a source of political contention.

He is referring to Israel, but the same is true in the US, where the basic tenets and guiding principles of the Constitution (i.e. free speech) are a source of political contention. He talks also of the Right’s claim that Tel Aviv “is a bubble,” but adds: “As for the bubble claim, they’re right – but New York is a bubble, Paris and London are bubbles” – geographical, as well as ideological bubbles. Yet Pinkas does not “get” the paradox he creates: Is not that the core of the problem? The “Techie-obsessed” Metro-Élites of America versus the Rest (i.e. “flyover America”)? The bubbles are the problem, not something to be brushed aside.

Today, tens of thousands of students in the West are protesting the on-going massacre of Palestinians, whilst the institutional place-holders fully support the annihilation of Hamas and any “complicit” civilians (which is extended by some to include all who live in Gaza).

The two worldviews share no common perception. They represent contrasting visions for the future – and of the essence of their nations. October 7 exploded the simulacra of the “status quo” in Israel – and at the same time, unravelled the political order in the West – as in Israel.

What is important to understand is that both polar visions – that of disputed national “history,” and secondly of a common future – are authentic to each community. The visions have their separate legitimacy. This means that simple political fixes won’t liquify calcified zeitgeists. Each party must first accept the legitimacy of “the other” (whilst remaining in disagreement) for politics to become possible.

Pinkas – as metaphor – has a wider application: Having said that “there is an elephant in the Israeli room – and no, it’s not occupation – though that is its main cause,” Pinkas adds later in his piece that “Israel is not only occupying territory but approximately 5 million Palestinians. In effect, for 57 years Israel has been living in a recurring loop of the seventh day of the Six-Day War. That reality, which in the 1970s was termed “protracted temporariness,” has become a permanent feature of Israel’s political and geopolitical ecosystem.”

It is a framework that has become Israel’s trap.

So why are Israel and the West unravelling in tandem? Well, it is firstly because they have become so inter-connected at the level of power structures (in both US and Europe) to a point that it is difficult to know who has more heft within these power and media structures: Tel Aviv or the White House.

This means interdependency in terms of each’s international standing, and by extension, vulnerability to any collapse in Global standing.

So, whilst the West today ostensibly eschews literal settler colonialism (other than that practiced by Israel), it nonetheless has pursued a form of rent-seeking, financialised colonialism since WW2. That process also has become a permanent framework to the western political and geopolitical ecosystem.

The consequence is that as settler colonialism in Gaza moves starkly and darkly into view, the global majority sees both Israel and the West as explicitly colonial. No distinction is made – the Rules-Based Order is seen as just another iteration of the colonial eco-system. Thus, events in Gaza, amongst other things, have sparked a new wave of anti-colonial sentiment across the globe.

It constitutes a dynamic which, in finding a strong resonance amongst western student protestors (and amongst many of their elders), is fracturing western leadership structures – threatening the carefully curated lead-in to the November US Presidential elections.

Finally, the close integration of the two linked “structures” has overflowed into the West’s foreign policy zeitgeist: Just as Israel’s answer to the October 7 has been to lash out at “Hamas” and Gaza, so the West, viewing its own “hegemony ecosystem” challenged by Russia and China, emulates Israel in seeing military force as the key to its own deterrence and global primacy.

President Putin – foreshadowing the present tensions with the West – criticised in Munich in 2007 in a pivotal speech what he called the United States’ monopolistic dominance in global relations, and its “almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations.”

He could have said the same about Israel in the regional context.







nazi EU....

“Democracy”, European Union version

by Thierry Meyssan

The European Union presents the election of MEPs and the President of the Commission as demonstrations of its democratic character. Yet all this is a shadow play. Most of it has already been discussed elsewhere, and no one has even heard of it. This staging will be enough to make people believe that the play, already written, is only the fruit of the popular will.

On May 15, 2024, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was evacuated by his bodyguards after suffering serious injuries.
As the European Union prepares to transform itself into a single state, its political evolution is taking an authoritarian step.



The election of MEPs promises to be deliberately confused. There are still no political parties at European level, despite the fact that they have been talked about for fifty years and enshrined in the treaties, but only European coalitions of national parties, which is not at all the same thing. These coalitions each present a Spitzenkandidat, literally a "head of list", who is not, however, a candidate for Parliament, nor does he or she appear on any of their national lists. Five of them will be debating their plans to preside over the European Commission in Eurovision. They are :


Walter Baier, European Left ;
Sandro Gozi, Renewing Europe Now;
Ursula von der Leyen, European People’s Party;
Terry Reintke, European Greens;
Nicolas Schmit, Party of European Socialists.


The "Identity and Democracy" group was not invited to this show. This is because the five previous groups have a particular conception of democracy. They consider that Identity and Democracy doesn’t play the game they do, and therefore refuse to debate with it.

The "Identity and Democracy" group was not invited to this show. This is because the five previous groups have a particular conception of democracy. They consider that Identity and Democracy doesn’t play the game they do, and therefore refuse to debate with it.

It will take place in English. This is another of the Union’s subtleties: each member state has the right to request that all official documents be translated into a language of its choice. The Union therefore has 23 official languages for 27 member states, i.e. 552 possible language combinations. However, no state has requested that English be one of the languages of the Union. Malta, for example, which has made English one of its two official languages, has preferred Maltese to be used in Brussels. Yet, de facto, English has become the 24th language of the Union, and the only one common to all. This, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that the EU is not a European project, but an Anglo-Saxon one.

Incidentally, this strange debate is of little importance, since everyone knows that the Commission President will probably be chosen from outside this cenacle: it is likely to be banker Mario Draghi [1]. This is not impossible, since in 2019, Ursula von der Leyen did not take part in this debate and yet became President of the Commission.

Don’t get me wrong: Mario Draghi may be 76 years old, but he’s the former governor of the European Central Bank. In this role, he did everything to make the euro irreversible. He managed, "Whatever it takes", to save it from the sovereign debt crisis of the 2010s. It hasn’t solved any problems, and has exacerbated the gulf separating the economies of the member states. From the point of view of the member states, he’s an incompetent, but not from that of the investment bankers, a caste that has always been his (he was Goldman Sachs’ number 2 for Europe).

Confirmation of the Belgian (Brussels), German (Mönchengladbach) and European corruption investigations into Ursula von der Leyen leaves no room for doubt [2]. The institutions urgently need to get rid of her. Similarly, parliamentarians caught red-handed have been discreetly sidelined, including Vice-President Eva Kaili. The impression must be given that the Union’s administration is honest and at the service of its "citizens" (sic); an impression, because in reality, there are neither European people nor citizens, as evidenced by the absence of European parties.


The Union, which is a political structure that goes far beyond the original "common market", faces a number of external challenges: 
It has signed several free-trade agreements with states or blocs that do not respect its internal rules. The balance of competition, which was established via a complex system of subsidies, is therefore no longer assured, given that there is no comparable financial system on a global scale [3].


Instead of linking the fact of trading with a third party to its compliance with the Union’s internal rules, it has linked it to its respect for human rights. Yet two of the EU’s trading partners are posing very serious problems, without the EU reacting.

 For 76 years, Israel has not complied with any of the United Nations resolutions concerning it. Moreover, it has just begun an ethnic cleansing of Palestine, massacring some 50,000 civilians and wounding around 100,000 others.

 Ukraine, whose constitution is explicitly racist, has carried out two successive coups d’état (2004 and 2014). It has since elected a president, but his term of office ends today, May 21, 2024. No elections have been called and eleven opposition political parties have been banned.


In recent weeks, the EU has not moved one iota in the face of the free trade agreements it has signed in violation of its internal rules. In its view, all we have to do is wait for the problem to disappear: within a few years, the affected agricultural sectors will have disappeared.

On the other hand, the EU has announced its support for a solution for Palestine, while continuing its aid to Volodymyr Zelensky’s undemocratic regime.

On the first point, the EU seems eager to recognize Palestine as a full member of the United Nations. It points out that it does not support the plan of the UN’s special envoy, Count Folke Bernadotte (assassinated in 1949), but refers to the plan of the Colonial Commission chaired by William Peel: there should be two separate states, and certainly not a bi-national state where Jews and Arabs would have equal rights.

With regard to Ukraine, the EU persists in ignoring the Minsk agreements, endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2202, and the responsibility to protect that derives from them. Not only does it fail to congratulate Russia on ending the massacre of Russian speakers in the Donbass region, but it persists in accusing it of invading its neighbour.

When it comes to defense and foreign policy, the EU’s positions are exactly those of the G7, in which it participates. There is not a single case in which it differs from them, or even simply expresses a nuance. The EU is therefore building up an arms manufacturing industry and coordinating each country so that it continuously supplies the Kiev government. Until 2022 (the Russian army’s special operation in Ukraine), the EU had no involvement in defense issues. Indeed, the European Treaties stipulate that this is not its responsibility. The defense of the Union’s territory does not depend on its member states, but on NATO, whether or not they are members.

However, on a permanent basis, the Atlantic Alliance defined interoperability standards between its members, which it passed on to the European Commission, which in turn had them adopted by the European Parliament. These were then transcribed into national law by each of the 27 member states. These standards ranged from the composition of chocolate (there’s a chocolate bar in the rations of Alliance soldiers) to the width of main roads (so that US tanks could use them).

The Commission had no difficulty in taking up arms issues. It had already done so for drugs during the Covid epidemic. It’s worth noting that the generalization of these drugs has not proved its usefulness in the face of Covid-19. But that’s not the point. This was not a devastating epidemic, but a pretext for a mobilization exercise in which each power showed what it could achieve. From this point of view, the Commission proved that it could take on an issue that was not within its remit, and that it could even conclude gigantic contracts on behalf of its members without revealing the secrets of its negotiations.

When the EU becomes a single state, the Commission should demonstrate the same dexterity and more, since its action will no longer be hampered by the 27 member states. They will have disappeared. After the merger, banker Mario Draghi is expected to achieve "economies of scale". For example, there’s no need to waste money on embassies for each member state, as a single network will suffice for the single state. While we’re at it, the privileges of some will be put at the service of all. For example, the French permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council will revert to the Union. Or the French atomic bomb will be handed over to the Union’s Defense Department. Neutral states, such as Austria, will have disappeared anyway.

What’s true in politics is also true in economics. Mario Draghi has long been advocating a reorganization of the EU economy along Soviet lines: each region with its own specificity. In fact, it was with this in mind that the EU concluded the free trade agreements to which I referred at the beginning of this article. While livestock farming will remain a particularity of Poland, the Netherlands has taken the lead by authoritatively putting its farmers out of work, and it won’t be long before France devotes its talents to other tasks.


The real obstacle to the creation of a single state can only come from those member states that refuse to disappear. It lies in the Council of Heads of State and Government.
Two diametrically opposed and irreconcilable points of view face each other. The two extremes are in the former Czechoslovakia: for just over a year now, the Czech Republic has been governed by General Petr Pavel, former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee. His agenda is that of the G7 (affirmation of a world governed by rules [4], containment of Russia, support for Ukrainian fundamentalist nationalists, preparation for confrontation with China). Robert Fico, on the other hand, has governed Slovakia, for six months. The alliance on which he relies certainly includes a few nostalgic supporters of Father Jozef Tiso, who established a national Catholic regime under Nazi protection during the Second World War. More seriously, it is founded on supporters of independence from the USSR, who did not recognize themselves in the figure of Václav Havel, the CIA agent who took power during a colourful revolution, the "Velvet Revolution". A former Communist, Robert Fico distinguishes Russia from the USSR. He defends a world organized around International Law (and not G7 "rules"). He supported Security Council Resolution 2202 and consequently approved Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. He is the one and only EU leader to have held this position (Viktor Orbán’s Hungary avoids broaching the subject).

A few days ago, the problem was solved: on May 15, 2024, an individual fired five shots at him at point-blank range. Robert Fico was immediately evacuated (photo). He has already undergone two operations and his life is no longer in danger. The debate he was leading in the Council was interrupted. It is not expected to resume.

The history of the EU is already written. The wonderful thing about this project is that, as it unfolds, we discover why Brussels has imposed rules and facts that made no sense when they were first decided, but now make sense.

The grotesque Spitzenkandidaten debate, in English and in a grandiose setting, but with nothing at stake, will have played its role: occupying the crowds while the people who count decide their future in the shadows.


Thierry Meyssan

Roger Lagassé