On December 18-19, European Union leaders discussed in Brussels the possibility of seizing Russian assets deposited at Euroclear, a Belgian financial institution. The "brilliant" proposal to use Russian assets as collateral to finance a loan to Kiev came from Ursula von der Stupid and her entourage, and was supported by Chancellor Merz. However, it was clearly contrary to international law and, more importantly, opposed by the Belgian state, which would have been held accountable by rating agencies around the world, which believed this choice made it unsafe for international investors to invest in the eurozone. This was obviously opposed by Euroclear, which feared a loss of depositors' confidence and the consequent withdrawal of their investments. Furthermore, many states believed there were significant risks, as Russia, by appealing to international arbitration tribunals, could obtain orders requiring the restitution of the illegitimately held assets. Confirming this, it's worth noting that Moscow has already obtained the confiscation of Latvian assets from an arbitration tribunal, and now the Russian Central Bank is demanding EUR195 billion from Euroclear. If the Russian courts rule in Moscow's favor, the ruling could be enforceable in other jurisdictions, putting Western companies still operating in Russia at risk and forcing European Union taxpayers to cover any losses.
Awareness of these risks has also led Italy and France to oppose the proposal, fearing that Russia could recoup the losses from the two countries' assets, consisting of companies still operating in Russia. As for France, it also emerged that EUR19 billion of Russian property is deposited in French banks, a fact previously unknown. It follows that the confiscation order should have been extended to these deposits as well, with the resulting discredit and losses for French banks. Thus, the frozen Russian assets (EUR210 billion) will remain unused for now indefinitely.The European leaders' decision, with some qualifications, thus fell back on granting Ukraine a zero-interest loan of EUR90 billion, to be financed through the issuance of a joint debt guaranteed by the European Union budget. However, it is quite clear that the cost of the loan will fall proportionately on the budgets of the individual states, while Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic will be exempt from contributing to the repayment of the joint debt. The bulk of the sum will fall to Germany, the Union's largest contributor, amounting to EUR29 billion annually at the current rate of 3.25%. Italy will be left with a debt of approximately EUR10 billion, which will be taken from the Italian people without the vote of Parliament.
The fact remains that, politically, von der Stupid and her associates have been seen as mountain fifes who went to play and were played. Yet, as advocates of liberalism as they claim to be, they should have known that when politicians make other people's property available and seize it for contingent needs, legal certainty erodes and the propensity to invest diminishes, while capital shifts to places where rights remain reliable and neutral and investments are safer.
The issuance of a joint loan of EUR90 billion
If the decision solves Ukraine's immediate financing problem, the sum allocated is far less than the needs highlighted by the rapacious almsgiver Zelensky. However, he is cashing in, relying on the proceeds of future collections from individual states, leaving the Union with the problem of repaying the loans obtained and maturing. If the effete leaders of various European countries delude themselves into thinking they can cover these loans with Eurobonds or the issuance of national debt, they are deluding themselves: it is illusory to think that anyone would be willing to invest in such a loan, even if the returns are generous, unless the loan bonds are placed with arms suppliers, thus implementing a triangulation that has frequently recurred during conflicts. In any case, the loan granted constitutes an incentive to continue the war, as Ukraine's repayment of the loan is conditional on Russia receiving payment of war reparations.
It so happens that Ukraine is clearly losing the war, and since the dawn of time, those who lose a war do not receive payment for war reparations, but rather pay them, because it is the victor who benefits from victory on the battlefield. It follows that, as Zelensky, who is well aware of the true course of the conflict, has also stated, this is a non-repayable loan that Ukraine will never repay, to the great disgrace of the citizens of the Union who will be forced to pay for the continuation of a losing war. The decision therefore constitutes an incentive for all European countries to continue the war, because this would be the only way to obtain, with Ukraine's unlikely victory, the repayment of what was given.
Ursula von der Stupid and her acolytes, including Merz, continue to behave like clumsy cheaters at a poker table, trying to win with stacked cards and, gripped by gambling fever, continue to play, continuing to lose and accumulating debts for future generations.
It is worth remembering that among the reasons that led to the birth of a United Europe was the desire to ensure that the peoples of Europe, in the name of common interests, would avoid future recourse to the wars that had torn the nations of the old continent apart throughout the early 1900s. But if the result of this operation is that the birth of a unitary, albeit federal, state requires a bloodbath and the purification of war-as Senator Monti stated in a moment of cynical sincerity-then it is better to do without the European Union: the price to pay is too high.
The war in Ukraine must end as soon as possible and at all costs. We have repeatedly expressed our position on the war in Ukraine, but we believe it is appropriate to clarify and reiterate our views once again.
The war in Ukraine was born from the evil arts of American imperialism, combined with Britain's enduring interest in dividing the European continent, in the belief that a fragmented Europe composed of conflicting states is the means to ensure the perpetuation of the Anglo-Saxon empire under a new guise. But there's more: faced with the objective demise of the British Empire, Britain plans to rebuild its dominion by fragmenting the Russian state into numerous territorial entities that can constitute a plundering ground for the resources needed to sustain the dying well-being of an island with a depleted population and a marked economic, cultural, and social decline.
This project is embodied by the British establishment, regardless of party affiliation. Proof of this is the fact that with the change in government majority and the transition from the Conservatives to the Labour Party, Britain's foreign policy has not changed. The European Union's leaders are foolish and stupid. After having endured Brexit to allow Britain an independent foreign policy, they are now subjected to British input that guides and conditions their foreign policy (see, "willing").
They could have taken advantage of Trump's intentions to free themselves from the hidden British direction of the politics of the dying American empire, and from the political circles representing the City of London, to try to salvage what can be salvaged, reducing its dominance and freeing themselves from the British burden, allowing the island to sink into its contradictions. Instead, trained to obey the old Anglo-American policy, embodied by the mainstream of the US Democratic Party that occupies the American deep state-foolish servants that they are-they continue to obey their old master, now conditioned and incapable of independent thought.
Certainly, the interests that bind them to the old project are strong, but their expectations are rendered obsolete by the growth of new realities, by the emergence, albeit with great difficulty, of multipolarity in international politics, crushed by the growing weight of the BRICS, incapable of recognizing the now-altered balance of international power. Proof of this is that they are doing everything they can to persevere in their dream of balkanizing Russia, wishing for Putin's death, spreading rumors of his illnesses, and failing to realize that the Russian leader is a moderate among the contenders for his country's leadership, compared to many others who would like to re-educate the West with some nuclear sweets, drawing on their immense arsenal, instilling in Europeans the palpable sense of fear they seem to have forgotten.
The Ukrainian Variable
Britain has been able and capable of exploiting the interests of Ukrainian nationalism, which seeks, through confrontation and conflict with Russia, to lay the foundations of its existence and its raison d'être, putting an end to the existence of a multiethnic and multilingual country and establishing a centralized and nationalist state. To implement its plan, the current Ukrainian government is carrying out a cultural, linguistic, and ethnic genocide, aiming to shape not only the language and culture of the Ukrainian people but even their history.
He has therefore imposed only Ukrainian as the country's official language, persecuting and legally prosecuting those who speak other languages; he has created his own Church and established it as the state Church; he is attempting to erase the country's historical memory, demolishing monuments, burning books, rewriting history for his own use. He has attempted to reformulate the population, even erasing its memories, changing the names of cities and villages, erasing the names of saints of Russian origin from the religious calendar, and attempting to erase tradition by changing the date of Christmas, which is mandatory for December 25th, and by cracking down with administrative and police sanctions on those who still celebrate it on January 7th, as is Orthodox tradition. In doing so, he is enacting a criminal and violent, if not grotesque, revisionism that imposes by force what it cannot achieve with reason and conviction.
Aware that it could not achieve this goal by its own means alone, the Ukrainian establishment sought to exploit the international contingency afforded it by the clash between the various powers and embraced the dream of Russia's fragmentation, in the belief that the more fragmented and small the neighboring countries, the more Ukrainian nationalism would prevail. They theorized that the bloodbath and the shared suffering of the country, the war, were the necessary cement and the price to pay for the foundation of the nation and its identity. For these reasons, and for reasons of sinister interest demonstrated by the lavish profits derived from corruption and personal enrichment, the Kiev establishment sided with British policy, put national assets up for sale, making them available to multinationals, starting with land ownership, and offered itself as a vassal to the British political plan, in the belief that it would find a place in the future structure of the continent, carving out a hegemonic role for itself on behalf of its insular partner.
These strategies affect the interests of the European peoples, not only because they reintroduce fratricidal warfare between its member countries, but also because they destroy their standard of living and well-being, making it impossible to improve the social and political conditions of their peoples. They create the conditions for a further defeat of the lower classes, who find themselves relegated to a permanent state of subordination. They push towards the adoption of policies repressing civil liberties and the militarization of society, as demonstrated by the recent measures of censorship and deprivation of freedom of opinion adopted by the European Community against those who independently develop analyses and opinions, as happened to former Colonel Jacques Baud, who was deprived of his freedom of movement by an administrative measure and had his accounts closed for having written books and expressed his opinions by an administrative measure that cannot be legally challenged.
In essence, Jacques Baud and others, placed on a statute of limitations, were sentenced to civil death, without trial, without the opportunity to defend themselves, for having expressed their opinions, in total violation of the rule of law and similar to what happens in a dictatorial regime. However, he is the only Swiss citizen de facto detained within the territory of the Union, unable to defend himself before a judge.
Our opposition to war stems from the conviction that it leads to the deterioration of people's living conditions and undermines the possibility of any emancipatory movement, any social growth, freedom, and equality. To make matters worse, the policy pursued by Ukraine and its oligarchs and militias, in addition to being inspired by a historical fascism that had its national champion in Bandera, is characterized by xenophobia, racism, and narrow-minded nationalism. It is hostile to freedom of conscience and civil liberties, is profoundly corrupt, to the point of threatening to infect the entire Union, and must therefore be kept away from any proximity to European states. Hence our firm rejection of Ukraine's membership in the European Union.
This does not mean that we support the state it is fighting against, which, in turn, is characterized by a nationalism tied to the principles of Orthodoxy, tradition, and the master state. It is governed by an oligarchic government, hostile to civil liberties and equality, but compared to Ukrainian Nazi-fascism, it represents the lesser of two evils.
The interests of the European peoples
It is in the interest of the European peoples to select their interlocutors based on their willingness to accept peaceful coexistence and maintain open economic and trade relations, with a view to collaborating for the common good. Compliance with these conditions does not depend solely on the goodwill of the interlocutor, but is rooted in the objective, geographical, orographic, economic, social, and historical conditions that characterize the life of the European peoples. Analyzing the situation from these factors, it is clear that pursuing economic, trade, and cultural cooperation with Russia is a cornerstone of the interests of the union of the countries that make up continental Europe. This is not only because Russia is an integral part of Europe and what it is today, but also because it is part of its history in terms of social, economic, and cultural relations, the development of the values that have characterized the life of the continent over the centuries.
On a purely economic level, the human, economic, and structural resources of the two components of Eurasia-Western and Eastern-integrate admirably and form a single whole, the fruit of the encounter between two civilizations: the Roman-Barbarian and the Slavic. These civilizations laboriously learned to communicate, learned to understand and integrate over time, and, after fighting, chose to forge relationships of collaboration and exchange of experiences and cultures, making this part of the world a whole with a shared history. Both cultural, political, and economic areas have had the shared experience of establishing relations with Islamic civilization, which, not coincidentally, today constitutes a common element of both Russian and European society, albeit as a result of the migration of the last century, as far as the West is concerned.
All of this is actually part of humanity's common heritage, which should lead different civilizations and political systems to seek the reasons for coexistence rather than war, allowing societies and peoples to aspire to an ever-improving standard of living and inducing everyone to dedicate their strengths, energies, and resources to overcoming the internal imbalances within these societies, represented by the unequal distribution of wealth, which is the real danger, as it constitutes the causes of a war far more serious than that between states: namely, social and class war.
The peoples of Europe, like all other peoples, do not have the energy, resources, time, or interest to devote to fratricidal warfare in the name of state interests and vulgar, shortsighted, and miserable nationalism. However, they have every right to seek peaceful and happy living conditions, through coexistence and cooperation, in mutual respect,
putting an end to the exploitation of man by man, whether it occurs through an increasingly unscrupulous, cynical, and cruel capitalism, or through oligarchic regimes that govern peoples, suppressing their freedom.
Is this a utopian vision of relations between peoples?
Perhaps not, if we look to the future and have at heart the interests of humanity, the preservation of the species, the environment, and humanity.
The Editorial Staff
https://www.ucadi.org/2026/01/31/il-papocchio-di-bruxelles/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Italy, , UCADI, #204 - The Brussels Mess (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten