Why world leaders are desperately holding onto Ukraine

Letters from O'Brien #77

Dear Mr Smith,

One of the strangest occurrences since the Trump admin entered office has been the reaction to the possibility of a Ukrainian peace settlement. While the new White House has been pushing for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, many pseudo-powers like Germany, Britain, Australia, France, Canada, and so forth have been counter signalling heavily.

This has grown in intensity since the recent White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky.

For the first time since 2023, the ‘stand with Ukraine’ rhetoric is now being espoused constantly by many of these national leaders. In fact, the response to Trumps proposed end to the war has been nothing short of a meltdown by European leaders. Why is that? Well, there are multiple reasons, and all of them are more absurd than one would assume.

A BAD DEAL?

To start with, one must consider the current rhetoric being espoused to justify prolonged involvement in the conflict. This is rhetoric, not reality, but it is still worth noting.

Currently, there are three major arguments for a continued war in Ukraine.

1. The first are a combination of various interest groups in the US, who believe that Ukraine represents a crucial tool in enacting the disastrous Wolfowitz policy— a policy which I believe had the veneer of legitimate geopolitical strategy, but in reality, was an esoteric vengeance tool driven by ethnic hatred for Russians (stemming back centuries).

2. The second group are the Euro-centric right; this is a far smaller, mostly irrelevant but vocal group comprised primarily of naive or outrightly stupid nationalists who believe that Ukraine represents some sort of continuation of ‘the Reich’, and that the Aryans (Slavic Ukrainians) are holding off the Asiatic hordes (Slavic Russians). This comes from a comically simplified view of revisionist history in which the entirety of the Ukrainian nation and identity can be summarised as ‘SS Galicia Division’, or something…

3. The third and most important group are the neoliberals in Europe. These comprise (as has been made evident lately) every ruling party in Western Europe, both major parties in France, both in England, both in Germany, the Low Countries, the Baltics, and so on. In fact, in France, Germany, and England, all ruling parties hold the belief that unanimous support should be afforded Ukraine, and that the war must continue at all costs.

These European neoliberals are driven not by one, but by several important factors which legitimise the Ukrainian cause in their eyes. Before starting this list, it is worth noting broadly why Ukraine represents a neoliberal tool.

UKRAINE: NEOLIBERALISM

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been perceived as an important staging ground. To summarise and skip over the often-repeated details I have written to you over the last few years; Ukraine is strategically important for enacting the Wolfowitz policy of isolating and provoking Russia to perpetuate global dialectical conflict in a post-Soviet world. Specifically, it perpetuates endless conflict in Europe (who would have guessed). Wolfowitz himself got this idea from the father of neoconservatism; Leo Strauss, who believed that tension had to be artificially manufactured to draw the US into conflicts it otherwise wouldn’t engage in.

Cut to the early 2010s; Ukraine has experienced several attempts at election rigging, most likely by intelligence agencies. The most notable was the Orange Revolution in 2004. Russia leases the Black Sea port in 2010 via the Kharkiv Pact. The Ukrainian population is split roughly 50/50 between a pro-Western and pro-Russian outlook, with a slight bias towards the latter. This split is matched at the ballot box and is visible on electoral maps; the western regions are ethnically Ukrainian and pro-EU, whilst those in the east are usually ethnically Russian and pro-Russia. From a logical perspective, Russia was the natural partner, however friendly collaboration with the EU was still possible to some extent; Russian and Ukrainian industries were still interlinked from the Soviet era, and economically Ukraine was reliant on Russia in many ways. The only alternative to this was mass foreign funding to artificially prop up the economy.

Following the 2013 coup, Ukraine essentially solidified itself as a neoliberal vassal, taking out huge loans from the IMF / World Bank in exchange for the globalisation of domestic industries (the precondition to some of these loans was to replace native workers with foreign labour), and allowing Carl Gershman with the National Endowment for Democracy to fund military provocations in the eastern territories. The US and Western Europe increasingly invested in the country, with the goal of turning Ukraine into a doorstep-outpost against Russia. During his first term, Trump escalates by arming Ukraine in its fight against pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk.

By 2022 - just before the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War - the nation of Ukraine was an invaluable asset of the neoliberals in Washington; it represented a chess piece in a power game, meaning it had to either secure victory in some way, or remain standing; any defeat would be a defeat for its supporters. It was also an asset financially, due to the large investments made into the region for globalist reasons. Other weird globalist-linked happenings were also occurring in the region in the leadup to the war; biomedical testing was taking place at the behest of foreign pharmaceutical corporations (including research into genetically targeted viruses), certain oligarchs wanted to turn the region - the historic homeland of the Khazar Khaganate - into a ‘second Israel’ (the ‘Heavenly Jerusalem project’, in case the nation of Israel fell), and the place was a crime haven, standing alongside Kosovo as Europe’s hub for organ harvesting, human trafficking, and other illegal activities (its looseness in this regard even made it an easy staging point for the Russian mafias criminal operations into Eastern Europe).

In other words, the place was a complete mess, completely open for pillaging by international organisations, and as a testing ground for the latest neoliberal experiments. This played heavily into the desire for Europe’s elite to continue holding the region, but more on this later.

With all this history understood, one must understand that today neoliberalism is under dire threat, unlike any time during the leadup to the war.

NEOLIBERALISM TURNED ON ISRAEL: NOW IT DIES

While there are many reasons why world leaders are trying to countersignal Trump and back Zelensky, the broad, overarching reason is that there is a common interest; upholding the neoliberal regime. As noted before, neoliberalism has been one side of the political dialectic for about fifty years.

Neoliberalism favoured the EU, Britain, Australia, and Canada for a variety of reasons. Firstly, they helped to craft an illusion of a democratic west, against which were superimposed the Straussian ‘enemies of democracy’, which just happened to be whoever the geopolitical enemies of the regime were at the time. Thus, it was a veneer of sorts, used in a particular context to justify certain goals.

There is an entire structure built around this neoliberal worldview; hundreds of thousands of jobs, entire industries, and most importantly, an elite class who seem to genuinely believe that they and their countries are the force behind the neoliberal idea.

Over the past year and a half there has been an unparalleled change in geopolitics. What caused this change? October 7^th in Israel, and the subsequent response in Gaza and Lebanon.

For its entire existence, neoliberalism was ideologically (and in some cases literally) bankrolled by global finance, particularly those who have an affinity for Israel and the Zionist worldview. For decades there was never a clear disconnect between these two ideas, in fact neoliberalism served the purpose quite well; it was in favour of Israel, while ideologically counter signalling any attempt by nationalists to call out the Israel lobby or foreign control in Washington. Without this backing, neoliberalism would have never established itself in positions of power— it was all artificial, but no one could see it.

This all changed on October 7, 2023.

Following the attacks, many on the left (who are seen as proxies of neoliberalism) began to turn on Israel. In fact, the pushback against the IDF’s operations were so harsh that a TikTok ‘ban’ was pushed through government relatively quickly. As many Zionists noted over the course of 2024; wokeism, leftism, and liberalism were suddenly announced to be failed projects. Why? Because they now act against the Zionist project. This was made even worse by anti-Jewish attacks by pro-Palestinians (yes, some of these were later reported to have been fake, but still, the sentiment is what matters). Jews and especially Zionists felt threatened by the growing problem of leftists aligned with pro-Palestinian anti-Israel sentiment. Thus, we saw a huge shift by Zionists and other pro-Israel groups towards the right wing in the lead up to the elections; we saw this with the historically liberal Silicon Valley crowd (Peter Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg, Jacob Helberg, Alex Karp, Sam Altman, etc.), with previously left-leaning Zionists (William Ackman, Paul Singer, etc.), and with the usual backers (the Adelsons).

From that point onwards, neoliberalism was unofficially done.

A perfect parallel to neoliberalism is Marxism-Leninism; when it stayed in its lane, it was arguably one of the most powerful, rapidly growing political forces in the world. Yet at the height of its power - in the late 1940s under Stalin - it went from a globally powerful ideology to world enemy number one. And what caused this change? Stalin suddenly broke the unspoken rule; he took a hard stance against the newly formed Israel, threatened to expel Zionists from Russia, and started rambling about Jewish doctors plotting to assassinate him. A similar scene had also played out in the mid 1930s; despite massacring 8 million Ukrainians in the Holodomor, Stalin was portrayed as a hero in the west, then he began the purges, which resulted in the execution of around 2000 of the original Bolshevik leaders, many of whom happened to have Zionist leanings according to authors like Solzhenitsyn. During the period of the purges, he received global condemnation, up until it was realised that he and the USSR could stop Hitler… and then the narrative flipped again.

Thus, there is a reason why Josef Stalin went from ‘good ole Joe’ to global enemy number one, and why the Cold War really picked up after 1948; Stalin announced he was going to deport ‘cosmopolitans’, and when the newly formed Israel began showing support for the US over the USSR, he announced that Russia would begin backing the Arab states. Lo and behold, in the months and years following this, there was a mass ‘renouncement’ of Marxism amongst the intellectual class and hence came the likes of Leo Strauss and co… and the rest is history.

Neoliberalism is like Marxism-Leninism; no matter how much perceived power it has, it is all illusory, and once it stops serving the right interests or oversteps its boundaries, it will be crushed sooner or later by the new current thing.

Now although I am not a Zionist, far from it, I must admit that there is something rewarding about seeing this shift away from liberalism and seeing the shock response by these ‘leaders’ upon realising that they never actually possessed power. Neoliberalism was the foundational ideology behind destroying the US and Europe in recent decades, and although things may not necessarily get better under any new replacement system, at least those who played the hand of traitor are now being thrown under the bus as global finance finds a new base.

THE ‘THREAT’ OF POWER DIPLOMACY

Some of this was highlighted to me over the past few days before writing you this letter. One of the most common criticisms I saw online - both in newspaper articles and in comments - was that Trump’s rough handling of Zelensky was a ‘deathblow’ to diplomacy.

Again, I am not naive on Trump and Vance but understand this; the way Trump handled the situation is indicative upon a return to true power politics, and this is something the neoliberals now rightly fear. Why?

As mentioned, the neoliberal regime no longer possesses the backing. If it doesn’t have this backing, it must now attempt to consolidate its own sort of power. The only problem is it doesn’t really have any.

For the past few decades, ‘power politics’ within the west (internally) hasn’t really been power politics. People act like it was, using this Julius Evola slop language about rhetoric and backstabbing, but that’s just normal politics. Europe and the EU-crowd have been afforded huge benefits and self-determination by proxy of the favour granted to the liberal experiment. This was - as should be obvious by now - all a veneer of power, yet I do not believe that the decision makers in Europe were aware of this. They never had true power. America (and international finance) momentarily backed the neolib concept and thus enabled (under Biden back to Clinton) Europe to enact draconian policies which worked against the majority of their population. However, the only way these ‘powerful’ bureaucrats in the EU or England could ever actually exercise this power unchallenged was because they had support. Now, they do not; Israel is against them, the US is against them, and the eastern powers are obviously against them.

Everything has changed; true power is now rearranging the order in which things fall. The situation could best be described using Trumps own words to Zelensky; “you don’t have the cards”.

Now I am not shilling for Trump, but what he said is true, and what happens to Zelensky reflects what will happen to the neoliberal centre and centre-left in Europe, and it seems they know this.

In other word, this rapid 18-month shift away from neoliberalism and towards either ’NatCon’ conservatism or this type of techno-libertarianism has caused the neoliberal regime to go into a type of shock response, which is what I believe we are witnessing right now. It’s like having the rug pulled from under you, except under the rug there is nothing, and the magic floating carpet you were standing on has now been rolled up and taken away by the guy who gifted it to you. You are in freefall.

The repercussions of true power politics on Europe (with their veneer of power) would be felt if a land war broke out on the continent. In such a case, certain doctrines in both the US and Russia outline how tactical nuclear weapons can be employed, but not directly against the opposition power. Instead, there are countries marked out by both sides for nuclear weapons use, including Poland and the Baltic states.

But regardless, there has been several people actually trying to jump ship as a result. For example, neoliberal icon Tony Blair has begun countering certain liberal-aligned talking points. If I had to guess, I would say he is playing the middle ground, seeing which way things will head.

Thus, we currently see these neolibs attempting to consolidate power away from America, without realising that the only reasons neoliberalism ever had power was because it was momentarily granted to them.

NEOLIBERALISM APPEAL TO ‘BASED’ PROPAGANDA

To round off this first point, I want to discuss what is happening right now in regard to propaganda, and what it says about the neoliberal effort to hold onto the power they are quickly losing;

Up until this point, neoliberalism has been harshly against any form of nationalism (it still is). However, I have noticed that for the past year, there has been an increasing push by certain liberal influencers and outlets; they are now attempting to pair (in a propaganda sense, not reality) neoliberalism with these ‘based and trad Europa’ memes and edits, alongside using similar rhetoric to justify upholding their regime. I see this on Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and so on.

So… apparently, it’s not about defending LGBT rights and abortion anymore, no— now it’s about defending ‘based Europe’ and the blonde trad Aryan girls from American modernism and degeneracy. Yeah… I don’t think so.

But who would’ve guessed; despite being probably the most obvious psyop ever, I am already seeing a lot of midwit nationalists and Keith Woods-type Euro-centrics falling for it. Behind the cheap façade I’d characterise the attitude as - they hate you and want you to die. The neoliberals do not support nationalism, they never will support nationalism, and the only reason they are appealing to the ‘based’ crowd is because they are attempting to reposition Europe away from America and need universal support to counterbalance just a fraction of the power the US or China wields against them. Many of the populations in these countries are already extremely divided, so I don’t think it will work, but still… Don’t fall for it.

What happens now? I don’t think neoliberalism will survive; it will be forced out of power over time. Europe does not possess enough autonomous power to reestablish neoliberalism amongst it and its allies (Britain, Australia, Canada). Crucial here is ‘reestablish’, because again, these people like Starmer, Trudeau, Macron, Albanese, Schulz and so forth never actually built the regime nor established their own power; it was artificial.

With no incentive to keep the heart of neoliberalism beating, this may signal a return to true power politics between America and Europe, who has the armies, the manufacturing, the tech, the nukes, the defences, and so forth.

I think there is also a strong sense of personal ambition and self-preservation at play; these EU leaders (and Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.) are now under direct threat; if the liberal idea goes under (which it most likely will) they will be wiped out of their positions permanently. And who will take their place? Most likely this new tech-right NatCon sphere; Vance, Thiel, Altman, Helberg, and so forth, or rather their equivalents in these European countries.

This tech-right bridges the gap between neoconservatism and the ‘old liberalism’ of the 1990s. They are motivated primarily by profit and by securing America as world leader; they are anti-China and rightly note that the only way America can properly compete with China is to have manufacturing and military powers like Russia on their side. Russia is a natural ally of ‘the west’, however Russia’s anti-liberal attitude cannot co-exist with the neoliberal regime in Western Europe. The inference should be obvious; those with the power now want Russia on ‘our side’, and that means opposition will be booted out one way or another.

There is more to be said, but I don’t want to overextend my letter to you any more today; there are other things which must be discussed which tie into this.

FRANCE IS LOSING

The next biggest issue is probably France. By far the most vocal non-US supporter of the Ukraine War has been Macron and the French elite. Most people believe this is simply because of the French allegiance to postwar liberalism, but it isn’t.

The US-led destruction of the Nordstream pipeline (which I’ll discuss next) represented a morally questionable but undoubtedly effective power-play by the US; create energy insecurity in Germany and the Low Countries. I remember commentators at the time claiming it was to bring Europe into the ‘American sway’. Only one problem; Europe was already in that sway— Germany literally relies on US forces at Rammstein for support. I think the actual play was to prevent Germany from creating any real sense of self-sufficiency; remember the German government had begun pushing for a massive new military budget. If one does research, he will find similar examples in most Western European countries over the years.

And it isn’t just the US doing this. All global powers are doing this, Russia, China, India, Israel, Saudi, and so on. As mentioned earlier, this is what power politics truly represents on its more brutal side, not rhetoric or political backstabbing, but action with tangible effects on populations. Germany was hit hardest by this, as power shortages resulted in proper chaos.

The one country who was mostly spared from this was France. Why? Because the majority of France’s power is nuclear. Up until 2024, France got most of its nuclear fuel from the colonies in Africa; most notably, it received Uranium from Niger, which is one of the global leaders in this sector. This worked well, since as a historical colony Niger sold France these supplies at below-average prices. Now, however, France has no guarantee of continued stable Uranium shipments from Africa, and may now have to turn to somewhere like Kazakstan. Why is that?

Many counties in West and Northwestern Africa are currently in various stages of unrest. Some have fallen into revolution or coup. There are two main players here, both of whom are allied with each other; in the central-southern regions China is setting up infrastructure to secure goods, in the central Congo is Israel through Dan Gertler International, and in the south is China once again. China is primarily approaching ‘their’ respective regions with diplomacy and the One Belt One Road Initiative. Then, there are the historically French controlled regions in the west/northwest. Who is operating there? Russia’s Wagner Group, who have huge sway over the region as of late; they are responsible for staging the various coups and instabilities which are now threatening France’s material and mineral supply lines.

Another interesting oddity rarely talked about; some French immigration seems to be coming from these colonial states. Why? Well, according to a variety of strange reports I read in 2023-2024, African immigrants - when asked why they were coming to France - mentioned that in their respective countries, TV stations had begun running ads claiming that Africans could ‘move to France’ and receive ‘free money and housing’. This was corroborated by a variety of immigrants, while another report claimed that Wagner were airing these ads through state television services in these countries. This keeps in line with Russia’s apparent attempt to bus immigrants from Turkey and the Caucuses up through Russia to the Polish and Baltic borders, through which they enter Europe (However, as a disclaimer, I don’t know for sure if these reports are true).

Russia is thus beating back France in Africa. What is the solution? Well, French media has claimed that deals may eventually be struck with places like Kazakstan for Uranium. If they do this, they would be paying a premium, and on top of that, Russia has already outplayed them; before beginning Wagner operations in French Africa, Russia successfully secured a variety of Uranium deals (among other natural resources deals) in place like Kazakstan and Tajikistan.

The only other ‘viable’ option in the long term is Greenland… Which America is now planning to seize either economically or directly to secure both the resources and the region as a staging point.

One of Macron’s promises from the start was energy stability, which is obviously a problem in Europe right now. He is failing. As has always been the case; if basic needs are not met, eventually discord will grow within the country.

Energy security is a huge deal in the west now, and in my estimation ‘we’ are losing very badly, hence why it is rarely reported on in as much depth as it should be. Russia and China are leading the world in terms of acquiring energy infrastructure. The US is seeking to do likewise, hence why I believe they are trying to bring Russia into the western sphere once again. But of course, as mentioned earlier, if France wants to uphold neoliberalism under its own sovereign power (read; for Macron and his regime to retain personal power), it must ward off Russia in the regions it relies on and simultaneously counter-signal the United States and China— in my estimation France (and Western Europe more broadly) will never be able to achieve this ever again, given its demographic destiny paired with its opposition to ‘global finance’, so I don’t have the slighted idea what will happen next… probably something completely illogical.

GERMANYS REASONING

This upset is also being felt in Germany. This was evident during the recent elections, when both ‘ruling parties’ were rivalled by the AfD. While the AfD primarily focused on national policy, both the Union and Socialist Party oriented their rhetoric around ‘stopping the rise of the far right’ and ‘standing with Ukraine’.

I believe that Germany’s seemingly bipartisan support for Ukraine stems roughly from the same attitudes espoused by France (regional power) and Europe more broadly (retaining neoliberalism). Germany understands more than any other European power (save for Ukraine and Kosovo) what American support or lack thereof actually feels like.

There is once again a power-duality here; if Germany wants to be aligned with true power they must submit to the US. However, if they do submit to a United States now opposed to this neolib worldview, the individuals who are currently in high-ranking positions will be stripped of those titles and lose their place in the pecking order of power.

ZELENSKY’S LAST STAND

Finally, there is the never-ceasing rhetoric of Zelensky himself. This is a rather brief point; Zelensky has elevated his rhetoric as of late – and now, disgracefully, melting down in front of a US envoy and arguing at the White House - due to the obvious fact that he is doomed.

This has been evident since the war began; Russia is not going to lose in a peer-to-peer engagement with Ukraine by any reasonable outlook. It was only a question of how long the war would last, or if it would either escalate into a global conflict or result in a deal being struck.

People have tried to hyper-analyse Zelensky’s recent antics, wondering why a micro-state leader has reasoned it smart to aggressively countersignal the United States and Russia at the same time. I don’t think it is deep; he knows that once the war is over, he is finished for good. Unfortunately, in his case, he is a public enemy of Russia, he has counter signalled the Chinese-aligned East, and he is a liability to the US. If I was him, the last thing I would be doing right now is aggressively throw insulting rhetoric at the two regional superpowers. Possible bad outcome? An ‘accident’ that removes him as a liability? Even though he thinks he’s not playing cards, this could very well be on the cards. After all, if war with China is on the horizon, the current administration will try and pull Russia back into the Eurosphere, and this makes Zelensky’s mere existence problematic. Will the US choose to save Zelensky and the decimated rump state of Ukraine over defending Israel against Iran or defeating China? Of course not.

NATIONALIST PSYOP

The final point - although more of a comical one than a serious one - regards these various nationalist movements - particularly the pan-European movements - I mentioned at the start, and their allegiance to the ‘Ukrainian cause’. This is all mid-tier slop aimed at killing more Europeans in an endless war without addressing the core issues.

Essentially, there is a push amongst various ‘nationalist’ factions in Europe to label the Russians as ‘Jewish’, and advocate for an endless continuation of the war rather than a ceasefire or peace deal. In this strange worldview which has evolved over the past few years, they posit Zelensky (who is actually Jewish- which seems to contradict their claimed worldview) as an unsung hero of sorts, who is - somehow - defending Europe and Europeans from genocide. Never mind the million or so Europeans who have died thus far, and the many more who will needlessly die in a continuation of this conflict. Never mind the fact that Ukraine’s borders would have been forcibly opened under the EU’s policy of mandatory refugee acceptance.

Apparently, all of these tangible realities go out the window because… ‘SS Galicia’, and something about Bandera, and Holodomor, and communism, and defending Aryan trad-girl Ukrainians (who are Slavic). In contrast, one needs to consider the tangible reality; people are dying— yet to a lot of these deceived nationalists it is all an abstraction. It’s ridiculous, and as was stated at the start, if one actually paid attention to the subtleties, they would have realised that this particular strain of patriotism has emerged from a propaganda push to try and solidify neoliberal Europe as a counterforce to America. Again, there is only one problem; it is all a lie, and a neoliberal Europe will never support real nationalism, never support actually closing the borders, actually defending the population, and so on. As depressing as it sounds, it is all another psyop, with the result being people actually dying en masse.

The entire conflict was preceded by Carl Gershman and the National Endowment for Democracy providing funding to start conflicts in the east of the country. Does that sound like something working in the interest of defending European traditionalism?

This conflict is primarily resulting in the deaths of Europeans (who are already below replacement birth rates). Nothing can really justify its continuation; it is not as if Russia represents globalism and Ukraine represents traditional nationalism in a clearly outlined black-and-white battle, such that the fight ‘must go on’ until ‘final victory’ (the logistics of which don’t even make sense in and of itself). Ukraine has long been considered the second outpost of neoliberalism after Kosovo, and Odessa was long considered the modern equivalent of a Weimar German city of hedonism, depravity, human trafficking and corruption. For the sake of Ukraine, Russia, and Europe, this war needs to end soon, for the sole reason of preserving the dwindling numbers of Europeans who are still around.

NEOLIB FAILURE

To tie this off, one must consider how things currently stand now that the war is potentially coming to a close; Europe is a complete mess; part of this is a result of both US and Russian intervention, but chiefly a result of neoliberal policies enacted by bureaucrats in the EU and England. Anyone who believes that neoliberalism is the answer is either ill informed, naive, or outrightly hostile to the future of a true Europe built on traditional values, safety, restricted borders, and so forth.

Here is a hypothetical; what if Ukraine ‘wins’ and takes back its original borders? Well, it would become a rump state, and to pay back the loans taken out after the 2013 coup, and other debts which would inevitably stack up to fund a rebuilding process, NGOs would bring in international corporations, and staff these with third world labour. ‘Ukraine’ would integrate into the EU in 2030 and would thus be contractually obliged to accept a certain number of refugees per month, as well as sticking to official EU policy (which is often blatantly anti-European). Mass migration would ensue on top of this, under the same premise of filling jobs and rebuilding an economy, and sooner or later Ukraine would end up like every other European nation today, existing in name only.

While there are clearly subtleties involved in the Ukraine conflict, it is clear that the primary western justification to ‘stand by Ukraine’ is not motivated by any legitimate sense of nationalism, European values, or anything of the sort— it was solely pushed by powerful neoliberal institutions for years on end to expand this agenda, and now that the financial rug has been pulled, the war is being used as a tool of statecraft to counter-signal an anti-liberal America and preserve a future for the neoliberal elite in the EU.

Crossing the interests of international finance is what transformed the Soviet Union from arguably the world’s strongest manufacturing power into a backwater. Neoliberalism is in a similar position, and I believe it will slowly be extinguished in some way moving forwards. The ambitions of the new ‘tech-right’, international finance, and the current western administration is securing the Middle East and countering the largest ‘logical’ threat, China. They want Russia in the western sphere to offset the triple alliance in the east, and if that is what they want, the micro powers of Western Europe will eventually have to yield.

The United States was unrivalled for about 20 years following the fall of the Soviet Union. Now it is facing off against not one, but three major powers. The whole idea that the US is going to sit back and play the matriarchal figure - caring for and dealing with Europe as it did in the 1990s - when it is now directly challenged unlike ever before is beyond naive. This may or may not be good for European patriots in the long run, it is hard to tell, but there can be no denying that this is now the direction the world is heading in.

To finally return to the core point; Europe’s elite - who many nationalists are now praising - have not changed. They were established and exist solely as the faces of neoliberalism. Their values have not changed. Yes, they do want Pan-Europe— they want Europe to remain united under neoliberal rule which gives no power to individual European nations to decide their destiny. Their goal always was and always will be the destruction of Europe through demographic and economic catastrophe. But apparently promoting this ‘defend Europa’ stuff and talking about ‘independence from America’ is delusion enough for the people support the same elite class which is currently leading Europe towards demographic and economic suicide.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien