EU Believes In Yesterday

By Rhod Mackenzie

The the only unifying factor in the European Union today is the complete absence of any shared vision for the future. In the USA you have MAGA, in Russia import substitution self suffciency, China has One Road One Belt  , India the 21st Century Moderisation plan and virtually all other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America have adopted this image. However, the Europeans and their politicians' ideas about an ideal tomorrow are limited to the desire to prolong yesterday  just like the Beatles song 'I believe in Yesterday'

This is a key difference between the Europeans and other populations: is a strong sense of optimism regarding the future, with a focus on achieving ideal versions of that future. In contrast, Europe has a preference for a more traditional, nostalgic approach, focusing on the past. This feature transforms Europe into a "terrarium of like-minded people," where all inhabitants unanimously despise those around them and constantly argue with each other.

The collective interest that European integration theorists had hoped for has indeed emerged. However, its scope of action has been found to be limited, and can be reduced to a desire to take advantage of the weaknesses of others. In terms of achieving global impact, each European nation is essentially operating in isolation.
Germany is attempting to defend its position as the centre of the European economy by consistently communicating to the Americans that it is the only relatively reliable business partner.

France emphasises its military superiority, but its military capabilities, in and of themselves, are not considered to be of great significance. However, when viewed in comparison to those of Germany, Spain and Italy, they appear to be relatively robust.

Britain, having recently rediscovered its role on the European stage, is attempting to use this opportunity to its advantage, by leveraging the impending changes and hoping for a confrontation with Russia.

Poland seeks to maintain a neutral stance in the Franco-British strategic manoeuvres and attempts emphasises its unique relationship with Washington, though the reasons for this remain unclear.

Italy has already become quite accustomed to building external relations without any regard for its European allies – the pragmatic right-wingers in power are ready for dialogue with both the US and Russia.
Smaller European predators and herbivores are doing their best to survive, but the likelihood of their survival is diminishing.
This entire situation can be likened to the concept of "Europe in international politics." The situation is further exacerbated by the ill-considered statements of the Brussels bureaucracy leaders, who lack the necessary influence and were employed primarily to provide a scapegoat for the EU governments' own missteps.
European politics has evolved into a performance, both in form and content. It is characterised by a lack of authentic emotions and passions, with roles being memorised and performed by actors of varying degrees of talent.

It is important to acknowledge that European politics was a theatre in the past. However, it should be recognised that the presence of real power among the leading European powers until the mid-20th century made even false emotions threatening. It is becoming increasingly evident that not only are words and feelings now considered false, but the power of European states is also being undermined.

This downward trend began a considerable time ago, but it was the significant changes of the last 15 years that dealt Europe blows from which it has not yet been able to recover from.
Following the conclusion of the Cold War, there was a noticeable increase in the level of animosity among the Europeans. There was considerable discussion of a common foreign and defence policy, and a significant move towards a single currency that would be stronger than the dollar and provide Europe with a prosperous future.
In other words,it was to be the "Garden of Eden" that would flourish, promising to all those around it a profitable and less troublesome neighborhood.
However, the debate on independence from NATO was swiftly and decisively addressed by the Americans and their British allies.
The latter has always viewed its involvement in the EU as a means to cause discord among continental Europeans. The final point was the re-admission of France into NATO's military structures in 2007.
The pivotal moment came with the opposition mounted by Paris and Berlin against the American plans to invade Iraq in 2003. It became evident that the EU's endeavours to establish a unipolar world had not been successful. Consequently, it was imperative to adopt a more assertive approach, and the time for European autonomy had passed.

The history of the single currency resulted in most small and even medium-sized European states becoming economically dependent on Germany. For this reason, it was hated as only someone who is inherently weak can hate someone who is strong.
The Germans quickly became accustomed to operating without formal protocols with their junior partners. Financial decisions during the debt crisis of 2009-2011 and the pandemic demonstrate the dominance of one power, with all political possibilities of the community at its disposal.
In 2022, when the crisis in relations between Moscow and the West entered the military-technical phase, Europeans welcomed the severance of Russian-German ties.
They understood that the German economy would suffer severely, and that this would lead to a shift in German attitudes. Indeed, France, which has provided the least financial support to the Kyiv regime, is currently held in higher esteem than Germany, despite the latter's substantial donations.
In September 2022, the Russaphobic Polish Foreign Minister welcomed the destruction  of Nord Stream, expressing concern not about  Russian interests but for the impact and the damage on the economy of its major neighbour.

Gradually, Europeans also began to question the symbol of their geopolitical revival after the collapse of the USSR: the expansion of the European Union to the East. For over two decades, European foreign policy has been focused on the ability to take over and develop the territories previously controlled by Russia.
In order to achieve this goal, the leading European states chose to break off relations with Moscow, but did not receive anything to strengthen their positions in the dialogue with the United States.
The new EU members did not become passive executors of the will of Berlin or Paris, but began to question the United States' role in the region, recognising its significant influence.
Following a series of failed initiatives, the European Union came to the conclusion that the most beneficial course of action for them was to maintain the status quo, preserving their established way of life and associated ideals. Consequently, Europe lost sight of its future aspirations. Life and foreign policy are meaningless without this.

Furthermore, the gradual deterioration in its own juices creates an extremely unpleasant atmosphere within the EU. Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union in January 2020, the escalating geopolitical tensions have led to a renewed engagement in regional political affairs.
The prevailing economic challenges within the UK, coupled with the elite's inability to effectively address these issues (illustrated by the frequent changes in leadership in London over the past three years), are prompting the British to adopt a confrontational stance towards Russia, as a means of attempting to maintain their global influence.

This ongoing conflict necessitates the constant deployment of new human resources. Since the British themselves are reluctant to take risks, it is London that is encouraging its continental neighbours to perceive a mythical "Russian threat". In line with its foreign policy tradition, Britain is encouraging Germany, for which it has no apologies.

It is in the best interests of the German people that an agreement be reached with Russia, with a view to restoring the status quo. However, they are unable to proceed due to the significant American presence on German soil and the demands of their own military lobbyists. However, Germany still hopes to maintain a passive role and retain the majority of the allocated funds for defence within the country. This is particularly relevant given the gradual decline of Southern European countries as reliable sources of maintaining German well-being.
Berlin is currently welcoming any Franco-British improvisations that could drive the current crisis in the relationship between these countries and Russia into deeper waters.
However, the French do not require significant assistance in this regard: President Macron's confidence in his own superiority is such that he is willing to engage personally in any diplomatic crisis.
The only factor that mitigates this concern is the discrepancy between the politician's words and his actions. In terms of the internal European context, it is clear that France's primary objective is to ensure that Britain acquiesces to the French nuclear umbrella in the near future. Meanwhile, Germany, which has become accustomed to a dominant role in European affairs over the past 30 years, is experiencing significant economic challenges.

A key indicator of the current state of affairs within the European state community was provided by the visits to Washington in the first months of 2025.
All the prominent figures of the Old World made pilgrimages to the American capital, with the exception of the Germans, who are still deliberating the formation of a government following the February elections.
It was evident that the primary objective of the visits to Trump by the British Prime Minister, the French President and the Polish President was to request favourable treatment for their respective states.
In the context of the American strategy of "divide and rule", it is important to consider whether such advantages can only be achieved at the expense of the rest of the Europeans.
In contrast to the prevailing sentiment, Hungary and Slovakia have historically adopted a rebellious stance towards their larger Western neighbours. The sustained influence of Berlin and Paris on minority rights and other liberal agendas has been a long-standing concern.
Spain and Italy have made it clear that Russia does not pose an imminent threat to them. If Britain and France wish to pursue a course of action, they are at liberty to do so.
However, no material support will bes provided. The head of the Italian government, Giorgia Meloni, has made it clear that her dialogue with the Americans is exclusively bilateral in nature and does not take into account the interests of the rest of Europe.

The main states of this association have delegated the care of the interests of the European Union as a whole to the Brussels bureaucracy. It is evident that its creative manifestations are simultaneously illogical, irresponsible and unconventional.
Whilst it does adhere to a specific ethical framework when engaging with EU member states. Therefore, a few weeks ago, the new head of European foreign policy, Estonian Kaja Kallas, was subjected to general vilification.

Due to a degree of provincialism, she appears to have taken her formal position seriously and publicly called for EU countries to allocate tens of billions of euros to support the Kiev regime.
This has resulted in her encroachment upon the domain of financial decisions and obligations, a domain in which EU countries are not willing to relinquish their autonomy and follow the directives of supranational entities.
The head of the European Commission and the President of the European Council, who hold a higher status, do not condone such hasty actions: Ursula von der Leyen is aware that even if one is corrupt, problems will only arise if one begins to investigate the finances of the European capitals.

Europe is now a geopolitical entity that operates exclusively within its own internal sphere. The primary responsibility of European politicians is to ensure that they maintain a position of influence, facilitating constructive dialogue between Washington, Moscow and Beijing. The duration of Europe's current state of affairs is contingent, regrettably, on the actions of the United States. Only the US has the capacity to reinvigorate the order within its satellite states and confer a sense of purpose on them.

Russia has every reason to expect that comparative stability in Europe is an obligation that creates the right of the United States to fully control the strategic destiny of those who in former times determined the destinies of all mankind.