The sheer lunacy of European leaders on Ukraine

The English language has limits. There is nothing beyond “totally deluded”. But, European leaders are beyond totally deluded.

At a European summit, a sort of fools tea-party, Danish Prime Minister gives a flavour:

It is clear to everybody that Russia is a threat, not only to Ukraine, but to all of Europe.

Lately, we have seen how Russia has increased airspace violations and hybrid attacks in Europe with fighter jets and with drones, migrants being pushed across our borders, interference in democratic elections and cyber-attacks targeting critical infrastructure,

Russia is testing us, and more than ever, we need to stand strong together. [1]

So, the UK’s Starmer:

They are unrelenting, and they show an appetite to continue this, and we must fight it with everything that we have. And it’s a reminder for all of us … that this is not just a question of Ukrainian sovereignty, it’s a question of the values and freedoms of all of us, particularly in Europe, and that we are all in this fight in relation to the Russian aggression.

(As always, it seem like the bold is added by the Guardian).

Or, Polish Prime Minister, Tusk:

Not only because of our history, because of geography, … we know something about the Russian intentions and plans.

We know that if they win against Ukraine, it is then, in the future, the end of my country and of Europe, I have no doubt.

And this is why we have to be as determined as Volodymyr [Zelenskyy, in Ukraine] and his people and as Maia [Sandu, in Moldova] and her nation.

Basically; the common theme, (as always, they sing with a single voice, only Orban is out of tune), is that Russia is poised to attack Europe. We must use Ukraine to defeat Russia. Or we will be next. This line is of course the one peddled by Zelensky, for rather obvious reasons. But such is the “Russia phobia” he doesn’t seem to have to work very hard.

The reality is actually quite simple. Russia objects, it is a red-line, to Ukraine joining NATO. They also object to Ukraine becoming a military-intelligence state of the West pointing at them. They also want to “liberate”, as they see it, the pro-Russian Eastern parts of Ukraine which have a significant ethnic Russian minority, from mono-culture Ukrainian nationalists in Kiev who came to power in a coup. They aim to annex 4 provinces in the East and force the other points by rendering Ukraine non-functional until the government in Kiev agrees. This is in line with their position which has been stated for years, though it has been modified; for example, annexing the territory in the East was a response to the non-fulfilment of Minsk. That is it. Putin stated these war aims very clearly in June 2024, but, as far as the point about NATO goes there is nothing new here. They have been saying that this is a red-line since 2008. All the evidence supports this. There is no evidence to support the claim that Putin is engaged in a revisionist Empire project. Nor, would Russia, have the military power to start taking, conquering, occupying and ruling large swathes of Europe, as the Tsarist Empire was able to do in the 19th century. (As Orban pointed out at the same conference the above speakers were attending, the EU is more powerful than Russia in economic terms and population and thus in military terms). It is just insane. Why do they, apparently, believe it? I think they do believe it; it is not just propaganda. It is really hard to say. One theory is that it started as propaganda, but they repeated it so often they duped themselves into believing it. One part of the answer is the lack of intellectual standards. No one seems to even think they should think about anything. The media never asks them to, never demands serious explanations or reasons for policies. On the contrary there is a deadly embrace; the media seeks sensational headlines for tomorrow’s papers and the political leaders just say whatever it will take to get a strong headline. The narrative echoes back to itself and then gets re-amplified outwards.

The problem is this is not a game. Russia is a nuclear power. If they are determined not to lose to Russia, what happens when, in reality, they start, visibly to lose? What will they do? How will Russia react to that? NATO is more powerful than Russia; what would happen if they started to beat Russia in a conventional war? Based on the above comments, these are not entirely theoretical questions.

Meanwhile much of the media fans the flames with irresponsible and intellect-free reporting. Consider this from the Guardian:

Back to Putin, he now blames Europe for the situation in Ukraine, as he says it “continues to escalate the conflict.”

Here are just a few pictures from some of the many Russian drone strikes on Ukraine in the last 72 hours. [2]

There follows pictures of fires and destruction in an apparent residential area, a market and a rail station. This is supposed to be an ‘argument’, and closely echoes the official political line. (One feature of European political discourse is how the media and political classes are a joint project). This is the “Putin doesn’t want a ceasefire line”. But, again, just listen to what Russia is saying; they are clear; we are ready to negotiate but we will not end the fighting until our objectives are in sight. Why would they stop, when they have the momentum, and Ukraine and Europe have made zero secret of how they would use a ceasefire to regroup and arm Ukraine to the teeth? No one else would. And, as usual, Putin, happens to be right. (I am not some kind of a Putin fan, but the fact is that what he says is usually based on objective analysis). It is clear; and we see it in the above comments, that Europe is siding with Zelensky and his desperate attempts to salvage his regime by dragging Europe into a war, predicated on the absurd notion that Europe’s security rests on tying our fate to the fate of a handful of far-right paramilitary formations, and is upping the ante. (More fatal embraces: Zelensky and Azov, the EU and Kiev).

This site largely follows the theory of offensive realism propounded by Professor John Mearsheimer. In this theory states can act rationally and still end up in wars. This is due to the anarchic structure of the world; states are in a security competition, and there is no global policeman to sort out their differences. No state knows the intentions of the others. The safest position to be in is to be a regional, (or global), hegemon. Wars break out because rational actors, seek the security of their state, in a dangerous and uncertain world. So be it. As Mearsheimer says, it is a tragic theory. [3] Even more tragic, even absurd, would be to have a war, based on performative politics; narratives produced for the studio lights, and then swallowed by their progenitors, in their intellect-free discourse.

This is not a game or a TV show.

Notes

The sheer lunacy of European leaders on Ukraine

Related Posts

Phantasy journalism (Shaun Walker on Belarus)Phantasy journalism (Shaun Walker on Belarus)

War propaganda in the British mediaWar propaganda in the British media

Mearsheimer on the Israeli-Palestine conflictMearsheimer on the Israeli-Palestine conflict