The Weaponisation of the International Criminal Court

When it comes to crimes against humanity in Ukraine, one should start looking for culprits in one's own backyard.

*

As American readers might recall, Daniel Ellsberg had been a leading military expert working for Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara during the Vietnam war. He became famous after leaking to the press secret DOD memos which proved to the public the fact that four US presidents lied regarding the extent of the US military involvement in Vietnam.

Ellsberg has recently commented on the war in Ukraine, accusing British prime minister Boris Johnson and US State Department officials of crimes against humanity there:

[Ellsberg] added that the alleged decision of Boris Johnson and other Western leaders to dissuade Volodymyr Zelenskyy from signing a peace deal in April 2022 was a 'crime against humanity':

"Zelenskyy and Putin essentially had an agreement, were very close to an agreement, returning to a prewar status quo in Crimea and the Donbas, in relation to Nato and everything else, but the US and the British, Boris Johnson, went over and said, 'We are not ready for that. We want the war to continue. We will not accept a negotiation.' I would say that was a crime against humanity. And I say that, with all seriousness, the idea that we needed to see people killed on both sides in order, quote, 'to weaken the Russians', not for the benefit of the Ukrainians, but for an overall geopolitical strategy, was wicked."

The weaponisation of the ICC in The Hague in order to serve the US's hegemonic geopolitical objectives makes a mockery of the Court's latest ruling targeting Vladimir Putin. 

As the Ellsberg interview demonstrates, the originators of crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine could be found much closer to home, working for administrations of countries claiming to be global champions of democracy.

Do the Americans and the British REALLY understand the nature of the Ukraine war ?

Western war propaganda has all but obscured the nature of the conflict in Ukraine. To better understand it, two recent analogies could help Americans and the British avoid the traps used by the Ukraine war spin doctors to pull the wool over their eyes.

The analogies of TG Carpenter from TAC and that of Anatol Lieven between the war waged by Russia in Ukraine and the American civil war or the potential secession of Scotland are both pertinent.

For Americans, TG Carpenter's analogy between the American civil war and the one in Ukraine is the most appropriate. Both the civil war and the one in Ukraine have in common their fratricidal character. Neither Russia today nor the USA in the 1860s can be classed as great military powers. What they have in common is their solid industrial base and human resources, superior to those of the enemy.

Anatol Lieven's analogy between Ukraine and Scotland is more relevant for European politicians and the public from the EU states, but especially from Great Britain, whose meddling in the conflict is incomprehensible, considering Scotland's own challenge :

" In the centuries since Russia captured Kiev from Poland in the 1660s and Peter the Great defeated the Swedes and their Ukrainian Cossack allies at Poltava in 1709, Ukraine has been in one way or another under Russian rule. As Scots from the British Empire, ambitious Ukrainians entered the Russian and Soviet bureaucracies and armies, and Ukrainian writers and filmmakers worked in Russian." (A.Lieven, Time )

In the case of the American civil war, England and France avoided intervening militarily on the side of the southerners, but they helped with weapons  and credits, in a manner similar to the financial and military equipments support offered by NATO to Ukraine today. Both the USA in the 1860s and Russia blocked the ports of their enemies. European powers did not intervene militarily in support of the Confederates because " The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence." ( US Office of the Hisorian, State Department ) Sounds familiar ? It should ...

The fact that the USA is fully involved today in the Russian-Ukrainian war is due to a totally erroneous understanding of the American national interest on the part of the current officials in Washington. In reality, the strategic and military interests of the USA are not and have not been harmed in any way by the war in Ukraine:

In the US Russophobia Rules

 The leaders in Kiev have so far been able to milk the US and UK governments of hundreds of billions of dollars by simply taking advantage of the virulent russophobia that is deeply entrenched in the education of English-speaking elites.

***

In 2014 Paul Starobin, formerly Businessweek's Moscow bureau chief, wrote an article about the russophobia affecting elites in the Anglosphere. In it, Starobin traces the origins of the current russophobia displayed by American political and intellectual elites to the UK.

During most of its modern history, Russia was less developed than Europe when it came to standards of modernity. The country was relegated to the status of "other" by Victorian political and intellectual elites, during the competition between Britain and Russia for colonial expansion in Asia. Books like George Stoker's "With the Unspeakables", written in the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, gave further impetus to anti-Russian feelings within Britain and its far-flung territories.

In his 1950 book "The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain", historian J.H. Gleason concluded that British antipathy towards Russia was the brainchild of the imperial-minded political elite in Britain, worried that Russia would advance beyond the Himalayas into India.

As it usually happens, British attitudes towards Russia crossed the Atlantic into the United States. One of the main American foes of Russia was President Theodore Roosevelt himself who, in 1905, portrayed Russians as "untrustworthy in every way" and - by contrast - the Japanese as a " wonderful and civilised people"...

It is thus unfortunate that, with the shining exception of George F. Kennan, the quasi-totality of 20th century American intellectual and political elites were badly affected by Russophobia.

Not even the 1991 implosion of the Soviet Union brought much of a respite in anti-Russian phobia. 

As Starobin astutely observed, more than 150 years after the Crimean War, russophobia is still gravely affecting the minds of politicians involved in framing US foreign policy in the 21st century, from the late Senator John McCain who derided Russia as a "gas station masquerading as a country", to former Moscow bureau chief of The Economist Edward Lucas and many others. Anglosphere experts and politicians indulge in Russia-bashing in the Western media on a regular basis, with potentially dire consequences for their countries.  

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that English-speaking states are now almost totally devoid of policymakers able to negotiate a peace treaty with Russia.

In truth, when it comes to the aforementioned policymaking circles, russophobia has reached Freudian proportions. That acts as a paralysing factor which stymies meaningful political action and prevents the adoption of a set of adequate political solutions to the challenges posed by Russia internationally. Against this background, it is very hard - if not impossible - to foresee how future conflicts, including a nuclear one, with Russia could be indefinitely avoided.

The mammoth task of re-educating British and American elites could conceivably take between 25 to 50 years, and this only after russophobia is recognised as an intellectual pathology and dealt with accordingly. Alas, the leaders of the Anglosphere have allowed the problem to fester for so long that it now seems next to impossible to rectify matters before a catastrophe happens.

UKRAINE IS A GEOPOLITICAL BLACK HOLE

 The readers of my blog can be forgiven if they are still under the illusion that what the world is doing in Ukraine is safeguarding the independence of a newly-minted country against the aggression of Russia. On a superficial level this seems indeed to be the case.

In fact, we should look at Ukraine as the ultimate - man-made - geopolitical black hole. 

Such a place sucks up the resources of neighbouring countries, human or material, leading to their economic and even physical destruction. This black hole has a sick form of nationalism at its centre of gravity, which is aggressive, domineering and intolerant with other ethnic groups happening to live within the same borders. 

The Ukrainian black hole has a history of 31 years and it started after the implosion of the USSR with Kiev's refusal to allow ethnic groups at its fringes to revert to the countries they were severed from, by Stalin or his successors.

The saga continued with the involvement in the region of the US, which since 2008 started sponsoring Kiev's intolerant nationalism in earnest, with a view to weakening, destroying or partitioning its old (new) foe, Russia. 

By 2014, all the essential elements that led to the creation of the Ukrainian black hole were in place, culminating with the Maidan coup against the Yanukovich government.

Gradually, the new geopolitical black hole, an initial creation of western services, went from bad to worse. From 2014 to 2022, the US, EU and Russia all fought a losing battle to use and control the political centre of this black hole. The Russians lost first, hence the Ukrainian intervention and their annexation of Donbas. This however does not mean that the Americans or the EU won, and this is why:

The peculiarity of a geopolitical black hole is that it eventually becomes uncontrollable. Its political leaders develop an agenda of their own and bleed their sponsors dry, financially, militarily or economically. Thus, it is enough to consider the 60+ billion dollars spent only by the US so far this year, or the economic disaster currently affecting Europe from London to Berlin, to grasp the danger of the existence on the edges of the continent of the Ukrainian geopolitical black hole.

Like Serbia before it, Ukraine will not ultimately end up in control of the territories - inherited from the USSR - it now claims as its own. We now know that the Serbian black hole was also a man-made one, having been the creation of a freemasonry bent on destroying the Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires. The Serbs ended up controlling parts of the former Austro-Hungarian territories like Croatia and Slovenia, but they lost it all some decades later. An identical fate is in store for Kiev's ultranationalist regime, although I suspect its territorial losses are coming much sooner, if the Russian annexation is any guide.

The task of politicians everywhere is to resist being sucked into the Ukrainian black hole - an occurrence that would have disastrous consequences for world peace. 

The Kiev regime has no intention to run a normal country. It refuses to correct the errors of its ways and negotiate an end to the conflict. This attitude, however, is in perfect accordance with the essential characteristics of a geopolitical black hole, whose gravitational pull towards generalised conflict is very hard, if not impossible, to resist.

Operation BARBAROSSA II

 The second Barbarossa operation against Russia in Ukraine is again led by Catholics. Unlike the original invasion of the Soviet Union from 1941, Russia is not facing a huge allied army, as the US and UK are maritime powers. Traditionally, such countries resort to sanctions and finance others to do the fighting and dying for them, but the outcome is essentially the same from the intended victims' point of view. The novelty of the plan is to make Russia appear as the aggressor and to set up the Jews of Washington and Kiev as scapegoats when it will all unravel.

* * *

When Hitler decided to invade the USSR in 1941 he called his invasion "Operation Barbarossa". His selection of the name of Frederick I - a known Catholic emperor and crusader from the 12th century, also known as Barbarossa - was indicative of the true Catholic nature of Hitler's invasion. 

Like his imperial predecessor, Hitler fancied himself as a Catholic crusader, in a fight against the godless Stalinist regime of the Soviet Union. He enlisted as allies the fascist Italian regime, Hungary and Romania and convinced Finland to join the invasion. The Western Ukrainians and the Balts also joined in, thinking the days of the Soviet Union were numbered and that the Russians could not resist an invasion force of some 4.5 million soldiers. 

The moral crusading has been picked up once again today by two of the most prominent countries of the Western alliance, led by 2 Catholics: US President Joe Biden and British prime minister Boris Johnson. Their crusade, which started by stealth in 2014 in Ukraine, is against the emergence of Russian nationalism, which threatens the global elites of the West. Being at the helm of maritime countries, the two leaders are waging war by proxy, by using the Ukrainians as cannon fodder and a Jewish president, Zelensky, as their point man. We can safely call this new Catholic conflict with Russia "Operation Barbarossa II", since the ultimate aim of the war in Ukraine is the same as Hitler's in 1941: Russia's defeat.

The Ukrainians, while they believe they are fighting for and animated by their own distinctive nationalism, are only being celebrated in the West as foot soldiers for globalism. "( Christopher Roach, The Chronicles Magazine) )

" One reason Zelensky has become so popular in the West is because he serves the globalist agenda. Zelensky is Jewish—a small ethnic and religious minority in Ukraine—and doesn’t even speak Ukrainian fluently. But Zelensky’s outsider background makes him a symbol for the deracinated, multicultural Ukraine of the future that Europe would prefer. All across the transformed Europe of the future, blood ties to the land and the preferences of the people will count for very little. "

The two Catholic leaders mentioned above have apparently learned from Hitler's errors and they are trying hard to avoid them this time around. While most of us know that the Catholic Church is not about God or preserving the Christian faith, but about world domination, we are able to grasp why a far-removed country like the United States under this particular president is now financing a war on Russia's doorstep (a Protestant US President would never have contemplated such actions). Indeed, for the first time in its long history, the global aims of the Catholic Church and those of the American state, not to mention those of the world's global corporations, happen to coincide. 

The US president tries to justify his involvement in the Ukraine conflict by portraying it as a crusade on behalf of democracy and a fight against autocracy. However as a Catholic he is a member of a church that is traditionally deeply anti-democratic. The Catholic Church has supported almost all dictatorial regimes of the 20th century, from Italian fascism and Spanish francoism to the fascist and military dictatorships of Latin America. Accordingly, a Catholic US president is the least qualified person to organise a crusade for democracy anywhere in the world, let alone in Eastern Europe.

Today's Western crusaders have enlisted the forces of Ukrainian ultranationalists and neo-Nazis and have even cooked up a method of hiding this fact by promoting as president and prime minister members of the Ukrainian Jewish community. This was deemed as the perfect cover for the largely fascist nature of the military and financial support extended by the West to Ukraine. Again, the usual allies are present, with Finland and Sweden anxious to join in as well.

Like operation Barbarossa I, operation Barbarossa II is doomed to fail. When that happens it will eventually take down its promoters and backers with it. Our collective concern should now be, however, to minimise the human casualties on both sides and to try to prevent any type of revenge actions, or even a second Holocaust.

THE TRUTH ABOUT UKRAINIAN NAZIS AND ZELENSKY

 We should not be surprised at the great tolerance shown by American and British political leaders towards Ukrainian neo-Nazis. In fact, both fascism and Nazism are political ideologies belonging to Central European Catholics :

"worth noting, however, that most people who wore the uniform of the Wehrmacht were documented members of one church or another, and had “Gott Mit Uns” (“God With Us”) embossed on their buckles. Nor should we forget that the Vatican signed treaties with both Nazi Germany and the Italian National Fascist Party; and while Hitler may have been influenced by Nietzsche, his name does not appear once in Mein Kampf. Hitler did, however, include the following: “And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.” Underscoring all of this is the religious conceit of totalitarianism: that the will of one man, the source of all power and authority, must be worshiped and adhered to as it pervades the whole structure of society." (Jared Marcel Pollen)

 Until recently, states such as the US and the UK have been led almost exclusively by Protestant or neo-Protestant political leaders, who are well-known opponents of fascism. Moreover, with the exception of neoconservatives, Jews in the Anglo-Saxon world support either left-wing or conservative, mainstream parties.

 Unfortunately for all of us, however, in recent years the political leadership in America and England has been taken over by leaders who are Catholic, and they have no qualms about cooperating with neo-Nazi political forces, such as those in Kiev. This is why the denazification process pursued by Vladimir Putin is felt by them as a personal insult.

* * *

In the 2019 election campaign, Zelensky had promised that if he is elected president, he will make peace in the Donbas and implement the Minsk II agreement.

He quickly changed tack after the head of a neo-Nazi party threatened him that if he negotiated with the Russians, he would be hanged from a tree on Kiev's main street. Zelensky promoted this person adviser to the defense minister and has adapted to working with the Ukrainian neo-Nazis. He has even handed out decorations to some of them in parliament.

The Western media and decisionmakers are aware of the real situation, but are actively hiding it from the public by repeating the fact that Zelensky being Jewish, he cannot possibly be associated with neo-Nazis . The trick has worked for the time being, although most Western journalists know that the oligarch Kolomoisky, another Jew, was the financier of both Zelensky and the Azov battalion. Zelensky therefore cynically uses the suffering of his own family during the Holocaust, and his ethnic background, to hide from the world the fact that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis have significant political weight in Ukraine.

In the attached article , Maurice Richards, a senior US police officer, also blames the fact that the CIA has been cultivating America's relationship with the Ukrainian Nazis for 75 years, despite the past and present horrors they have wrought. More recently, in the training camps run by the neo-Nazis, young people are being indoctrinated to kill Russians.

An Analogy Between Scotland and Ukraine

  The United Kingdom and Russia have more things in common than they think: a glorious imperial past, loss of international clout and a troublesome rogue province each

Analogies between the history, geography or culture of nations are used to illustrate both the similarities and differences between them, in order to better understand historical realities.

Since 1991, following a referendum, a new state - Ukraine - has appeared on the map of Europe. Detached from Russia, of which it was an integral part since 1654 - at the request of Bogdan Khmelnitsky's Cossacks - the new state is in fact only a rebellious province of Russia which decided to abandon the Russian Federation in order to join the EU. For Russia, the most contentious decision made by Kiev was that of applying to join NATO.

Ukraine's population is 40 million, or about a quarter of the total population of the Russian Federation before the separation. Ukraine's economy is based on coal mining and heavy industry, especially steel or aluminum production. Agriculture is also an important branch of the economy. Ukraine is the poorest state in Eastern Europe.

In 1996, Scotland became an autonomous province within the United Kingdom, of which it has been an integral part since 1707. Since 1999, Scotland has its own parliament. Scotland covers a third of the UK land area, but only has about a tenth of its population (5.5 million). The Scottish economy was based on coal mining and heavy industry for decades, especially shipbuilding.

Until 1560, Scotland was a staunch ally of France for 250 years and fought the English armies on numerous occasions, including during the Hundred Years' War. Scotland was also the northern gate through which French armies came to the rescue of their Scottish allies fighting the English for independence. For the English kings, subduing Scotland and incorporating it into Great Britain represented their main national security concern for centuries.

At the beginning of this millennium and about a decade before Brexit, Scotland tried to secede from Britain by referendum, and it has failed so far. However, being one of the poorest areas of Western Europe, the exit from the British common market in favour of its EU membership would cause a significant drop in the living standards of its citizens, just as the Ukrainians experienced after they left the Russian Federation.

The analogy between the two provinces - one Russian and the other British - reveals that leaving the economic, political and military structures of which they have both been an integral part for centuries is not only very risky, but can result in a failed state, like today's Ukraine.

As for the current British political leaders' interference in the problems between Russia and Ukraine, I refrain from commenting. I am sure however of one thing, namely that the British authorities would react quite violently if Russia intervened on the side of Scotland in its campaign to break the current arrangements linking it to Great Britain ....

Brexit and a Two-Union Europe

Because of the shock of Brexit, one may be forgiven for overlooking the fact that this week could rightfully be called “the week of trade bloc summits”.

In Europe, the 27 remaining leaders of the EU have gathered for two days in Brussels to adopt a common position concerning the upcoming withdrawal of Great Britain from the union.

On the North American continent, President Obama has met with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts in a last-ditch attempt to safeguard NAFTA against the relentless attacks it is facing from the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Last but not least, the leaders of the Pacific Alliance – the newest Latin American trade bloc made up of Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico – have held a two-day summit of their own to further cooperation in the areas of trade and investment.

The most important summit is by far the one which took place in Brussels, where political leaders were trying hard to reach a common position concerning the terms under which would take place the departure of Britain from the bloc. The initial anger generated by Brexit is slowly giving way to the realisation that the very existence of the world’s oldest trade bloc is now under threat.

With the future of the Union in doubt, federalization plans sold to the European public under the guise of an “ever-closer union” were stopped in their tracks by British voters. The project of a “United States of Europe” – as initially conceived by the CIA in the ‘fifties and advanced by stealth by like-minded European politicians over the span of decades – will in all likelihood have to be abandoned for good.

In order for readers to grasp the folly of such a project, let’s assume that the leaders of NAFTA decided to launch a trade bloc conceived only as a stepping stone to full monetary, fiscal and ultimately political union between the US, Mexico and Canada. To push our comparison further, let’s also imagine that the initial nucleus of NAFTA countries started expanding to Central and South America with the aim of eventually becoming a pan-American economic and political bloc dominating the entire Western hemisphere.

The Germans are currently trying to convince British conservative politicians that once outside the EU, the UK should adopt the Norwegian model. In other words, a country like Britain with a population of some 65 million and a 3-trillion dollar GDP is supposed to be treated like the small members of the European Economic Area (EEA), the latter of which comprises, beside Norway, geopolitically insignificant states like Liechtenstein, Andorra or San Marino.

So far, British Brexiters have called for informal negotiations with Brussels before invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What in fact they should be doing is having informal talks with the leaders of like-minded EU states that are most likely to follow Britain’s lead. Once these negotiations are concluded, the formation of a brand new, competing trade bloc should be announced to the European public.

The obvious candidates for such a trade bloc would first and foremost be the Nordic kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark, with a combined population of 15 million and an aggregate GDP of some 850 billion USD. The second group that could be persuaded to join would be the Visegrad-4, made up of Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. The combined population of the latter is about 65 million, with an aggregate GDP of 1.9 trillion USD.

Together with Britain, the new trade bloc would thus have a total population of 145 million and an aggregate GDP of close to 6 trillion USD. It would be sure to have a much better bargaining position than the UK all by itself in negotiating trade agreements with what is going to be left of the European Union. This is in fact exactly what is happening on the Latin American continent, where the 5 year-old Pacific Alliance co-exists side by side with Mercosur, the older trade bloc which comprises the bulk of the countries in the region.

Our continent could certainly accommodate a two-union Europe and two competing trade blocs that could only improve the overall economic performance of both. With political integration now behind them, the remaining members of the EU could themselves start to concentrate their efforts more on improving trade and investment and less on geographic expansion.

Secret History of the EU Project

 June 10, 2016

Pew research data released a few days ago indicates a growing dissatisfaction with the EU even in countries like France and the Netherlands, founding members of the Union.

It would be easy, of course, to blame the spread of euroscepticism on Brexit, on the 2008 financial debacle or last year’s migration crisis. In fact, as I will attempt to demonstrate further, it is the design flaws inherent in the European project that now undermine its survival.

This project – involving “an ever-closer union” of European nations – originated on the other side of the Atlantic and had started as a covert operation of the then newly-formed CIA. These essential details were hidden from the public for decades. Even I, as an historian, was made aware of them thanks to the interventions on French TV of Mrs. Marie-France Garaud, the eminence grise of presidents De Gaulle, Pompidou and Chirac.

Recently declassified CIA-OSS archives also prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that men whom we have considered for years to be the EU’s founding fathers (Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and so on) were in fact paid to impose the CIA’s European project on an unsuspecting public opinion.

The CIA’s project was chiefly inspired by former OSS boss “Wild Bill” Donovan and by John Foster Dulles, former CIA director. Together with a small group of other lawyers, they elaborated the mad project of an “United States of Europe”. It was supposed to be realized in stages, by stealth and without European nations being fully informed about the ultimate shape or objectives of the EU institutions created in the mid-fifties.

Its original design flaws reflected the founders’ lack of grasp of European history, geography and geopolitics. Donovan and Dulles, steeped in European clandestine operations during WWII instead, had also developed an unhealthy admiration for existing Nazi blueprints to unite the continent’s countries and/or of Nazi high-ranking officials like Walther Funk. Their ideas by and large were incorporated into the CIA project, with the consequences only now made apparent by the financial and sovereign debt crises of the past decade.

However, had the initiators of the CIA project taken into consideration their own, American geopolitical scholarship concerning the organization of Europe after the war, Germany would have never been included into NATO but had been kept neutral instead, possibly undivided and under military occupation. Nicholas Spykman, the founder of American geopolitics, writing in 1941 considered that:

 

“Any proposal for the unification of Europe would tend to put them in a subordinate position to Germany (regardless of the legal provisions of the arrangement), since Germany, unless broken up into fragments, will still be the biggest nation on the continent. It is hardly conceivable that countries now fighting for their freedom would turn around and voluntarily submit to any such arrangement. It is equally improbable that the United States, after having made such tremendous sacrifices to help free these countries from the German yoke, would consent to the restoration of German domination.” (Nicholas Spykman,“The Geography of the Peace”, 1944)

 

 

 

Today when we look back at the crucial 1947-1957 decade, we can start to understand why the EU Commission and institutions are manned by an opaque bureaucracy unresponsive to public scrutiny, which is hell-bent on advancing the agenda of global corporations at the expense of the European citizen. Being a covert project inspired and financed by the CIA, the EU is indeed unable to fulfil the aspirations for progress of the European nations, although for a few decades it has seemed to function in that sense.

Towards the end, however, the central tenets of the project – the creation of the United States of Europe, Brussels’ centrally-planned economic and fiscal management, the common currency – became the foremost priorities of the subservient EU bureaucracy and of some EU political leaders alike. But this was also the point where European nations could not continue to support the project and started having serious doubts about the whole construction.

In hindsight, after two devastating world wars, the creation of NATO and the Marshall Plan would have been sufficient to keep the peace on the continent and return it to prosperity. The CIA on the other hand, which during the same period also financed the creation of the Bilderberg club, wanted to make sure that American multinationals and later global corporations can fully profit from European reconstruction and the accompanying economic development. Hence the adoption of an European union project and the creation of European institutions which were from the outset under the influence or management of people vetted and approved by the CIA/Bilderberg bosses.

The un-European nature of the entire EU project is its major flaw, although there are others, as well. No such project originating in the New World – even if elaborated with the best of intentions (which of course is not the case) – could ever be expected to work for long on the old continent. And vice-versa.

The EU’s apparent fleeting success had more to do with European reconstruction efforts and with the ubiquitous desire for peace after the two devastating wars. During the past two decades, unfortunately, CIA-sponsored politicians and intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic have overplayed their hand and the entire edifice is crumbling as a result. While it is hard to gauge right now what alternative structures and arrangements will ultimately replace the EU, what’s for certain is that European nations should never again go to war with each other or allow outside powers and institutions to make vital decisions on their behalf concerning their collective future.