Your latest prediction of European collapse reads less like sober analysis and more like doomsday theater. Your central conceit—that the EU is like your uncle dying of a brain tumor—is a category error dressed up as profundity. Political unions aren’t human bodies; they don’t succumb to tumors. They adapt, reinvent themselves. By your logic, the EU should have been buried a dozen times already—during the Eurozone crisis, Brexit, COVID, or the migration waves. Yet here it stands, still expanding, still commanding one of the world’s most stable currencies.
Your reliance on a clumsy 2012 enlargement video as an omen of collapse is equally far-fetched. PR gaffes are not prophecies. To claim that a withdrawn advertisement foretold the EU’s descent into militarism is not analysis—it’s conspiracy-minded projection. Likewise, your depiction of European defense spending as a “final spasm” ignores reality: Russia invaded Ukraine. Brussels didn’t suddenly sprout a death wish; it responded to a threat on its doorstep. That’s not collapse—it’s basic self-preservation.
Finally, your sweeping declaration that the EU’s end is inevitable is a hallmark of unserious prophecy. It’s unfalsifiable, conveniently insulated from evidence, and grounded in historical determinism that ignores how unions actually persist. The EU is flawed, strained, and messy—but terminal? Hardly. To confuse resilience and adaptation with “final spasms” is not just sloppy argument, it’s melodramatic nonsense.
There was never any promise - and what has Putin achieved instead? NATO expansion. And did he think that others would not want to join NATO after that?
In your analysis of a clear and dangerous threat posed by Russias intervention in Ukraine I hear you repeating all the pompous mainstream lazy ill informed nonsense. Do some research, events don't happen in a vacuum.
That clip aside, do you not see danger in an aggressive, expansionist Russia?
Should the EU just all sit in an "OM" pose and sing "Kum By Ya" While Russia picks off neighbours?
Perhaps the EU should, instead of arming, offer them Austria, and then Sudetenland? Surely then, they won't go after Poland?
Besides Russia, the EU is facing an increasingly aggressive and expansionist US, who has threatened to take over a Danish protectorate, using force, "if necessary".
I by no means favour war. But when your former ally and traditional enemy both start rattling their swords in your direction, should you be putting yours away?
It would have been nice if you had made some argument — any argument — against the rest of what I wrote, instead of a two-word, self-righteous put-down.
my reply was not meant to be an arguement, it was just a (imho funny) statement. Concerning the rest of your post: Why not turn our "traditional enemy" into our traditional ally? ROI would be higher than the "19th Sanktionspaket"
Poland just shot down Russian drones that had entered Poland's airspace without permission nor notice. This was apparently multiple drones at separate entry points into Polish airspace.
Realpolitik tells me that rearming is wise at this time. Common enemies stimulate cooperation amongst allies, and Ukraine is not the only target for Putin. The Baltics, Scandinavia, and other Eastern European countries are fearful. The EU should unanimously stick together against the bully, as he will proceed unless he is convinced he will be defeated. Sometimes pacifism is suicide.
Who is the bully? Could it be those who seek to advance their "defensive" alliance to the Russian frontier and dismember and "part out" Russia? And this despite their solemn oath not to expand "one inch to the east"?
The leadership in the countries you name are fearful only of losing their own power because their economies and societies are slowly falling apart. Their only hope of keeping the grift going a little bit longer is to spook the public into believing this lie, and spending what little wealth and resources they have left on arming up for war.
NATO did not expand until Russia invaded Ukraine, the second time this century.
The first time, the US and the UK let Ukraine down, by not honouring the terms of the Budapest Memorandum. And now, the US is proving to be a totally untrustworthy pseudo-ally, slapping onerous tariffs on the EU.
This IS the current left wing nuts and press saying this. While true that there is no "written agreement" and that countries should be free to join any alliance that will have them, the very rationale for NATO ended with the dissolution of the USSR. Given the verbal assurances (--on the record and not hard to find--) given at the time of Germany's reunification, NATO should have disbanded, as the Warsaw Pact did.
The only possible "enemy" that is used (as an excuse) to justify NATO's continued existence is Russia. And as the missiles and other arms moved ever closer to Russia's borders, I guess you believe that in their case, "pacifism would NOT be suicide" and they should wait until the West pulls off another Maidan in Moscow?
Reply if you must, but I will end my side of it here.
Can you point to *any* EU nation that has done anything like that, at least, since WWII?
Didn't think so.
Russia whining about increasing NATO membership is like your neighbour complaining that you called the cops when they stole your car, broke into your house, and killed your dog.
"In the wake of the 24 February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, support among the Finnish populace for NATO membership increased from below 30% to 60-70%" — Wikipedia
No wonder Convicted Felon Cat Meat loves Putin — they are both experts at causing a problem, then blaming everyone else for it!
Let's try Yugoslavia, for starters. I won't try to list the times that various NATO countries have joined "coalitions of the willing" to participate in various military actions in the Middle East, etc.
"Try Yugoslavia" for what? A civil war? When Tito went away, there was a vacuum, which caused one ethnic group to try to assert their will.
I'm not going to go to any length to defend the opportunism of the US. But Yugoslavia is a stretch. That's like saying, "Let's try Rwanda!" when the Hutus started slaughtering Tutsis.
NATO is a defensive and peacekeeping entity. It has supported UN peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts several times since it was formed. Russia has invaded and taken over countries on and off since WWII. The NATO arms that are in the region are deterrents against invasions, and are invited there by the countries involved. I suggest your vilifications are the results of left leaning media spin over many decades. I'll stop now, and let the readership research this for themselves.
When humanitarian goals were their motive, they intervened in some cases. I never said they were perfectly impartial. But they never invaded to take over countries like USSR, Russia, Nazi Germany...
I hadn't seen that clip yet but consider it rather distasteful, aimed at "below IQ 70". Because a country / empire doing well (environmental condition, climate, education, social system, production, services and resources) doesn't need to attract immigrants: they will apply by themselves and will compete for a residence permit, improving the status of country / empire.
IOW for a region (too few or) without natural resources, skills and education of the population should have priority.
One of the reasons for war is that the entire "oligarchy running the West" only has (increasing) debt whereas Russia's natural resources are estimated at $75 trillion, enough to (temporarily) pay the debt.
A more ominous reason is that the West can't win a war with Russia or China because US arms are obsolete and ineffective. Predictably loosing a war that can't be won could be used to usher in a police state like "the West" did in its (former) colonies. No joke, one example:
There have been a lot of comparison to the start of WWI as countries that didn't want a war just fell into it (The landmark The Guns of August is a great history of this.) Then there are the comparisons to pre-crash 1929 with the stock market being propped up the the Magnificent Seven hi-tech companies whose growth promises to require the use of huge quantities of new energy; Cyber products, where one is investing in exclusivity of numbered virtual "assets" with the sole concern that it will be sellable at a huge profit, confirm that we are in a bubble. But recently it's become apparent that the historical period the US (the world?) is channeling is late 1945 when the US was unquestionably the most powerful country in history. Ugo, is it possible no European country feels ti has a choice but to go along with the US agenda? Or was this on their collective minds anyway?
honestly dear professor ugo bardi i believe in earth4all just like sandrine dixson decleve population will grow until 2040 or 2050 than it will decline because of fewer childeren because people will focus on jobs and there career we will try the do the 5 turnarouds before 2050 and have an earth4all if not population will decline by 2100 to 6 billion i follow you know for a few years but you always make every week a new scenario i do believe in both earth4all scenario's far easier and i trust sandrine dixson and her earth4all team per espen stoknes and jorgen randers also believe that the human population will grow until 2040 or 2050 jorgen randers said on a webinar explicet no collapse
Your latest prediction of European collapse reads less like sober analysis and more like doomsday theater. Your central conceit—that the EU is like your uncle dying of a brain tumor—is a category error dressed up as profundity. Political unions aren’t human bodies; they don’t succumb to tumors. They adapt, reinvent themselves. By your logic, the EU should have been buried a dozen times already—during the Eurozone crisis, Brexit, COVID, or the migration waves. Yet here it stands, still expanding, still commanding one of the world’s most stable currencies.
Your reliance on a clumsy 2012 enlargement video as an omen of collapse is equally far-fetched. PR gaffes are not prophecies. To claim that a withdrawn advertisement foretold the EU’s descent into militarism is not analysis—it’s conspiracy-minded projection. Likewise, your depiction of European defense spending as a “final spasm” ignores reality: Russia invaded Ukraine. Brussels didn’t suddenly sprout a death wish; it responded to a threat on its doorstep. That’s not collapse—it’s basic self-preservation.
Finally, your sweeping declaration that the EU’s end is inevitable is a hallmark of unserious prophecy. It’s unfalsifiable, conveniently insulated from evidence, and grounded in historical determinism that ignores how unions actually persist. The EU is flawed, strained, and messy—but terminal? Hardly. To confuse resilience and adaptation with “final spasms” is not just sloppy argument, it’s melodramatic nonsense.
Russia was provoked by NATO expansionism the same way the US would react with hostile military forces in Mexico and Canada.
NATO has been encroaching on Russia’s buffer ever since US promised Russia “NATO will not move one inch eastward” back when the Soviet Union imploded.
Read some true history not Western propaganda.
There was never any promise - and what has Putin achieved instead? NATO expansion. And did he think that others would not want to join NATO after that?
In your analysis of a clear and dangerous threat posed by Russias intervention in Ukraine I hear you repeating all the pompous mainstream lazy ill informed nonsense. Do some research, events don't happen in a vacuum.
That clip aside, do you not see danger in an aggressive, expansionist Russia?
Should the EU just all sit in an "OM" pose and sing "Kum By Ya" While Russia picks off neighbours?
Perhaps the EU should, instead of arming, offer them Austria, and then Sudetenland? Surely then, they won't go after Poland?
Besides Russia, the EU is facing an increasingly aggressive and expansionist US, who has threatened to take over a Danish protectorate, using force, "if necessary".
I by no means favour war. But when your former ally and traditional enemy both start rattling their swords in your direction, should you be putting yours away?
"I by no means favour war." = aalglatt gelogen
It would have been nice if you had made some argument — any argument — against the rest of what I wrote, instead of a two-word, self-righteous put-down.
Dear Jan,
my reply was not meant to be an arguement, it was just a (imho funny) statement. Concerning the rest of your post: Why not turn our "traditional enemy" into our traditional ally? ROI would be higher than the "19th Sanktionspaket"
Selbstgerechte Grüße;))
You have a lot in common with dein Neuerführer.
Well, *that* didn't age well, did it?
Poland just shot down Russian drones that had entered Poland's airspace without permission nor notice. This was apparently multiple drones at separate entry points into Polish airspace.
Realpolitik tells me that rearming is wise at this time. Common enemies stimulate cooperation amongst allies, and Ukraine is not the only target for Putin. The Baltics, Scandinavia, and other Eastern European countries are fearful. The EU should unanimously stick together against the bully, as he will proceed unless he is convinced he will be defeated. Sometimes pacifism is suicide.
Who is the bully? Could it be those who seek to advance their "defensive" alliance to the Russian frontier and dismember and "part out" Russia? And this despite their solemn oath not to expand "one inch to the east"?
The leadership in the countries you name are fearful only of losing their own power because their economies and societies are slowly falling apart. Their only hope of keeping the grift going a little bit longer is to spook the public into believing this lie, and spending what little wealth and resources they have left on arming up for war.
NATO did not expand until Russia invaded Ukraine, the second time this century.
The first time, the US and the UK let Ukraine down, by not honouring the terms of the Budapest Memorandum. And now, the US is proving to be a totally untrustworthy pseudo-ally, slapping onerous tariffs on the EU.
Pls email me Jan. kurtzsb AT yahoo DOT ca bytesmith form fails
Have a look at someone who works in Eastern Europe:
I've reported this before. Gorbachev agrees with this. Don't buy the spin of
left wing nuts and press.
Steve
-------
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7369322216334712832-4IgA
Volodymyr Kukharenko Verified Helping translation companies to automate
business and project management |
Helping translation companies to automate business and project
management Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn
"NATO promised not to extend in 1990ties, but they did!" is one of the
favourite stories of Putin and Russia worshippers. But it never happened.
There was no legally binding agreement, no written treaty, no signed
commitment about that. The only thing that existed were a few informal
discussions about German reunification, limited to East Germany, not about
Eastern Europe as a whole.
In fact, the Helsinki Final Act (1975) and the Paris Charter (1990), signed
by the USSR itself, confirmed that every country has the sovereign right to
choose its own alliances. Poland, the Baltics, Romania and others did exactly
that: they applied for NATO membership because they feared Russian
imperialism, and history proved them right.
No country was forced to join NATO, they willingly chose to do it. Especially
after looking at Russian aggression in many countries. Sweden was neutral for
centuries, but Putin sold them the idea of NATO.
So next time you hear someone repeat this myth, remember: it's not about NATO
expanding eastward. It's about free nations running westward, away from
Moscow. And ask them to show the document with "promises not to expand", they
won't be able to find it.
And Russia attacked Ukraine not because it wanted to join NATO. In fact,
before 2014 Ukrainians did not want to join, all polls show that. On the
contrary, it was attacked because it did not join NATO (if it was there,
Putin would think carefully before invading).
========
This IS the current left wing nuts and press saying this. While true that there is no "written agreement" and that countries should be free to join any alliance that will have them, the very rationale for NATO ended with the dissolution of the USSR. Given the verbal assurances (--on the record and not hard to find--) given at the time of Germany's reunification, NATO should have disbanded, as the Warsaw Pact did.
The only possible "enemy" that is used (as an excuse) to justify NATO's continued existence is Russia. And as the missiles and other arms moved ever closer to Russia's borders, I guess you believe that in their case, "pacifism would NOT be suicide" and they should wait until the West pulls off another Maidan in Moscow?
Reply if you must, but I will end my side of it here.
NATO has not invaded any country.
Russia has — four times (Ukraine, Syria, Ukraine, and Georgia) this century, already!
In the previous quarter-century, Russia/SU invaded:
• Northern Caucasus, 1992
• Tajikistan, 1992
• Moldova, 1992
• Azerbaijan, 1990
• Georgia, 1990
• Baltic States, 1990
• Afghanistan, 1979
• Somalia, 1977
• Angola, 1975
• Ethiopia, 1975
That's an invasion every 1.8 years, on average!
(https://www.numbers-stations.com/articles/soviet-and-russian-invasions-since-1917/)
Can you point to *any* EU nation that has done anything like that, at least, since WWII?
Didn't think so.
Russia whining about increasing NATO membership is like your neighbour complaining that you called the cops when they stole your car, broke into your house, and killed your dog.
"In the wake of the 24 February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, support among the Finnish populace for NATO membership increased from below 30% to 60-70%" — Wikipedia
No wonder Convicted Felon Cat Meat loves Putin — they are both experts at causing a problem, then blaming everyone else for it!
Iraq? Afghanistan? Bombarding Iran? Venezuela to come? Did you forgot Allende?
Let's try Yugoslavia, for starters. I won't try to list the times that various NATO countries have joined "coalitions of the willing" to participate in various military actions in the Middle East, etc.
"Try Yugoslavia" for what? A civil war? When Tito went away, there was a vacuum, which caused one ethnic group to try to assert their will.
I'm not going to go to any length to defend the opportunism of the US. But Yugoslavia is a stretch. That's like saying, "Let's try Rwanda!" when the Hutus started slaughtering Tutsis.
NATO is a defensive and peacekeeping entity. It has supported UN peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts several times since it was formed. Russia has invaded and taken over countries on and off since WWII. The NATO arms that are in the region are deterrents against invasions, and are invited there by the countries involved. I suggest your vilifications are the results of left leaning media spin over many decades. I'll stop now, and let the readership research this for themselves.
Nato in Bosnia, Nato in serbia, Nato in Kosovo.
When humanitarian goals were their motive, they intervened in some cases. I never said they were perfectly impartial. But they never invaded to take over countries like USSR, Russia, Nazi Germany...
I hadn't seen that clip yet but consider it rather distasteful, aimed at "below IQ 70". Because a country / empire doing well (environmental condition, climate, education, social system, production, services and resources) doesn't need to attract immigrants: they will apply by themselves and will compete for a residence permit, improving the status of country / empire.
IOW for a region (too few or) without natural resources, skills and education of the population should have priority.
One of the reasons for war is that the entire "oligarchy running the West" only has (increasing) debt whereas Russia's natural resources are estimated at $75 trillion, enough to (temporarily) pay the debt.
A more ominous reason is that the West can't win a war with Russia or China because US arms are obsolete and ineffective. Predictably loosing a war that can't be won could be used to usher in a police state like "the West" did in its (former) colonies. No joke, one example:
https://www.doorbraak.eu/roofstaat-smerige-koloniale-verleden-nederland/
Bullshit, It’s banging good out here, you probably havent even touched europe lol
Once again,this is what post-peak oil is actually looking like...
There have been a lot of comparison to the start of WWI as countries that didn't want a war just fell into it (The landmark The Guns of August is a great history of this.) Then there are the comparisons to pre-crash 1929 with the stock market being propped up the the Magnificent Seven hi-tech companies whose growth promises to require the use of huge quantities of new energy; Cyber products, where one is investing in exclusivity of numbered virtual "assets" with the sole concern that it will be sellable at a huge profit, confirm that we are in a bubble. But recently it's become apparent that the historical period the US (the world?) is channeling is late 1945 when the US was unquestionably the most powerful country in history. Ugo, is it possible no European country feels ti has a choice but to go along with the US agenda? Or was this on their collective minds anyway?
This video seems like it sprung from the same mentality as the "garden vs. jungle" did.
honestly dear professor ugo bardi i believe in earth4all just like sandrine dixson decleve population will grow until 2040 or 2050 than it will decline because of fewer childeren because people will focus on jobs and there career we will try the do the 5 turnarouds before 2050 and have an earth4all if not population will decline by 2100 to 6 billion i follow you know for a few years but you always make every week a new scenario i do believe in both earth4all scenario's far easier and i trust sandrine dixson and her earth4all team per espen stoknes and jorgen randers also believe that the human population will grow until 2040 or 2050 jorgen randers said on a webinar explicet no collapse