The European Union Goes to War

Antonio Turiel: "Europe could implode"

By Antonio Turiel: “In reality, the war effort, with the 800,000 million euros committed to it, may involve such an excessive effort and such losses in the already relatively tenuous state of welfare that Europe could implode, collapse socially, like those people of a certain age who insist on making efforts that decades ago they could do with ease and that today could kill them. It is something repeated throughout the history of humanity: great empires that, in a time of deep crisis, decide to try to recover the military glory of the past and succumb to the weight of military spending and the accumulation of internal problems.”

The Phantom Menace

The Oil Crash by Antonio Turiel

Dear readers

A spectre is haunting Europe. After decades of placidity (or so the media would have us believe), we have entered a state of panic, frightened (or so we are told) by an imminent invasion from Russia - importing into these lands the maxim attributed apocryphally to Kissinger, “The American people have only two states: complacency and panic”. From Brussels, EU citizens are urged to prepare an “emergency kit” to survive 72 hours in the face of a wide variety of risks, including war. Meanwhile, Europe launches its new defense program, called “ReARM Europe” (continuing with that practice, in the eyes of the European authorities, of listing its plans in the imperative because, I suppose, they see it as more challenging - a colleague always makes jocular comments about this practice: “get up”, “shower”, “have breakfast”..., like a mother on a school day). In Spain, the president Pedro Sánchez has announced that the defense budget will rise to 2% of GDP (which, taking into account that the Spanish General State Budget (PGE) is approximately a quarter of GDP, means that it will represent 8% of the PGE), and he will do this, he says, without affecting the other budget items (which we all know is a lie, but anyway, we carry on as if nothing had happened). Europe wants to move quickly towards rearmament because, apparently, Russian troops are already appearing in Helsinki, Prague, Budapest and Warsaw. Hurry, hurry, hurry... Don't they see the existential risk for Europe?

Obviously, there is no such thing as the Russian threat. Russia is not going to set out to conquer Europe and risk triggering a response from the United States. Moreover, two European countries possess nuclear weapons (France and the United Kingdom), which is an excessive risk. And finally, there is a problem of population arithmetic: although Russia is huge, it has only 140 million inhabitants, while the EU has 450 million. In fact, it would be a logistical challenge for Russia to try to occupy Ukraine, with its almost 40 million inhabitants, on a permanent basis - it is very different to defend your territory than to occupy someone else's.

That doesn't mean that Russia is a lamb, but obviously the scenario that is being proposed to us has no semblance of reality whatsoever. A confrontation with Russia would be exhausting and extremely costly for the Slavs, even if it did not involve the occupation of territory. And, after all, why would Russia want to do that? Even today, after the fanciful European sanctions, Europe is Russia's main buyer of raw materials. And there are many people, not only in Moscow but also in Frankfurt and Paris, who are hoping that the talks between Putin and Trump on Ukraine will come to a successful conclusion (without taking into account the opinion of the Ukrainians, of course) in order to re-establish the flow of raw materials at a good price to which Russia has accustomed us.

No. The European rearmament and militarist movement has another objective and another reason, and it must be understood in the context of the rest of the decrees and directives that have been signed in Brussels in recent weeks, as a desperate response to the telluric geopolitical changes brought about by Trump's Second Coming. We already commented in the previous post about the Omnibus legislation and its consequences on the environmental level. But the European legislative machine does not stop, and so a few days ago we learned that the EU has classified as strategic, and therefore eligible for subsidies, 47 projects for the extraction of critical materials, 7 of them in Spain (led by large companies, many with environmental lawsuits). In most cases we are talking about either small deposits with little production potential or deposits that are very harmful to the environment. If Europe is rushing to accelerate these projects it is because it perceives a desperate need to accelerate. The fact is that the energy and resources crisis is advancing inexorably. While some fools are entertaining themselves arguing about greyhounds and podencos about when peak oil will be, implying that it will be “never”, the CEOs of the main companies that exploit fracking in the USA (the only thing that keeps production minimally stable, although below 2018 levels) are clear that peak oil is “now”. At the moment, in Colombia and Bolivia the situation is quite complicated (to put it mildly) due to the lack of diesel, a problem that is spreading throughout Latin America and Africa (with Nigeria, Spain's main oil supplier) at the forefront. The only thing keeping Europe protected from the diesel shortage is the severe industrial recession in Germany, but that won't last forever - nor is it desirable for anyone. At the same time, the problems that the shortage is causing in areas critical to the supply of certain materials mean that the supply chain problems of a few years ago could be a joke compared to what is coming now

Europe needs energy, it needs materials, and it needs them now. The much-vaunted renewable transition, has failed and is collapsing, and Europe does not have great natural resources. Where will we get the energy we need? The answer can be found in the first of the three questions we asked nine years ago.

Europe is going to invade North Africa.

Or, at least, this is the unconfessed intention of our leaders (and applauded by companies like Volkswagen, which sees not only cheap raw materials but also the possibility of converting to the military industry). That is why they want weapons, that is why they want to militarize consciences, that is why they need to silence critical discourse until it is too late.

We talk about defense and rearmament, but it is a clear example of double-speak in the style of 1984, George Orwell's novel (at the time of contemporary criticism but increasingly anticipatory). In reality, we are talking about aggression and preparation for war.

It goes without saying that the proposal is profoundly immoral. Europe, instead of following a path of evolution and transcendence for once in its history, wants to return to the worst of its past - from which it never disassociated itself, as demonstrated by so many shameful episodes in Africa in recent decades. But this time things are probably going to be very different.

Europe cannot achieve the warrior society that our leaders want, at least not in a few decades - but they don't have decades to wait. We have neither the technical capacity nor the experience, nor do our young people have that chauvinistic jingoism found in other places that makes them practically want to die for their country. Even worse, the few collective sentiments that could go in a similar direction are nationalist, and not at all pan-European: I don't see a Spaniard, an Italian, a Greek or a Hungarian going to die “for Europe”. In fact, I don't think we would find Germans or Frenchmen in that trench either...

But the fact is that Europe is a continent, today, aged and without resources, and with a disenchanted and deeply angry youth because the people of my generation have stolen their future. What life alternatives are being given to people who are now under 30 - or maybe 40?

On the other hand, the profoundly bureaucratic procedures that are common currency in the workings of the European Union mean that a great deal of resources will be spent on completely useless reports, evaluations, meetings, etc., which they will not do without in any way because they are what the European managerial caste uses to enrich itself, as well as to justify its existence. In other words, the way Europe functions guarantees the absolute inefficiency of this war effort.

In reality, the war effort, with the 800,000 million euros committed to it, may involve such an excessive effort and such losses in the already relatively tenuous state of welfare that Europe could implode, collapse socially, like those people of a certain age who insist on making efforts that decades ago they could do with ease and that today could kill them. It is something repeated throughout the history of humanity: great empires that, in a time of deep crisis, decide to try to recover the military glory of the past and succumb to the weight of military spending and the accumulation of internal problems.

In reality, we should be thinking about radically different things. About the recovery of humble technologies, about the relocation of activity, about regeneration and renaturalization, and about the consolidation of the community as a unit of social base. On this last point, the call for citizens to have their “72-hour individual survival kit” is significant. And why 3 days and not 7, or two weeks? In reality, given the complexity of the risks that really threaten us - which are mainly environmental and climatic - surely strengthening your community, your local group, constitutes a safer, more flexible, adaptable and resilient response.

I'm just finishing up. We are at a red line. One that we must not cross for ethical reasons, but also for logical ones: war is very bad for your health.

Dear readers, this is one of those moments when you cannot afford to look the other way. It is time to plant your feet on the ground and say clearly and firmly: No.

I don't want my children to be killed in a dirty trench in the middle of the desert in an attempt to keep the wheel of this unsustainable society turning for another three or four years. What about you?

NO TO WAR.

Cheers,