A comparison of the warmongering situation in EU vs. US *
By Professor Emeritus Marcello Ferrada de Noli (Sweden), The Indicter chief-editor
I have previously compared the stand-off situation that took place recently (12 Sept) between NATO and Russia regarding Ukraine, with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, adverting on the real risk of a nuclear war we were confronted during those hours. In this update, I look further into the persistent risk of a NATO/Russia nuclear-war confrontation. A ‘final’ public decision regarding the use of missiles for Ukraine has been postponed by the West powers to the end of this month. Meanwhile, longer-range missile attacks of Ukraine into Russia continue increasing days after Sept 12, and the European Parliament newly approved a resolution to lift current restrictions hindering Ukraine from strike military targets in Russia with Western weapons systems.
Background – chronology of the events
Amid US President Joe Biden’s statements signalling his government was “working on lifting the restrictions of the use of long-range missiles in Russia”, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy travelled to Kiev for a meeting with Zelensky on the same issue, all which was widely broadcasted. The day after (12 Sept 2024), UK PM Starmer departed to Washington, expecting Biden to at least allow British Storm Shadow missiles in Ukraine “to hit deeper inside Russia”. Meanwhile, the New York Times headlines announced, “Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia”. To the readers’ alarm, the message sounded unequivocal: Everything is set up for the approval to happen; the authorisation seemed imminent.
All above caused a harsh response from Russian president Vladimir Putin, who announced the same day from Saint Petersburg:
“If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement — it will mean that NATO countries, the United States and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine…This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
Thereafter, Russia announced the re-assumption of nuclear testing “at any moment”.
In waiting for the expected statement Biden/Starmer after concluding their meeting at the White House, my troubled heart took me back to old memories of the cold days of 1962: the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then, we were ad portas of WW3. And we were also on the past 12 of September. Are we now still?
In the meantime, and instead of cooling down the crisis, other European governments have come forward to support UK-Starmer’s belligerent stance on the missiles ban-lifting to target deeper in Russia. “Stop talking about ‘red lines’ and let Ukraine strike Russia”, said Denmark PM. While similar statements have arisen direct from other EU government officials. E.g. Finland President’s plaid urging NATO and the US to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles for use inside Russia. Previously, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Sweden had also declared Ukraine should not have any restrictions to use the misiikes provided by the West powers in order to attack targets in Russian territory.
In this article I also explore some political idiosyncratic differences between the US and the EU. E.g. a dissimilar anti-war mobilization, the political conduct of government elites, different degrees of anti-Russia xenophobia, etc. All which may determine a divergent decision-making (US vs EU) regarding the Ukraine war, and from this, the risk of a global confrontation which conveys the likelihood of become nuclear. New alternative scenarios are essayed in the Conclusion section.
Why the all-out confrontation risk persist after the meeting Starmer/Biden in the White House of September 12?
Western powers position
Even if Biden, apparently, was not ready to satisfy Starmer/Zelensky’s to approve long-range strikes inside Russia precisely on the occasion of their meeting of 12 Sept, what they did was only to delay the decision. And this, a “plan to revisit the issue” was announced to happen during the next UN General Assembly which will take place at UN Headquarters in New York. In meantime, instead of cooling down the crisis, other European governments had given support to Starmer’s position on the lifting the ban to enable strikes deeper in Russia.
Ukrainian attacks deeper in Russia continued after 12 Sept and the EU further radicalizes its positions
The Ukrainian attacks deeper in Russia have continued unabated. Newsweek reported, the same 12 Sept 2024, that an Ukrainian strike on Voronezh Warehouse last week destroyed North Korean Missiles. Another of such attacks, on 18 Sept, and using missiles, partially destroyed a huge arsenal complex in Toropets, Tver region, northwest of Moscow.
Anti-war protests in the US…and in Europe?
It is common believed that Vietnam won the war against the US thanks to their Spring Offensive operations of 1975, notion supported even officially in Hanoi. However, the tide of the war in favour of the revolutionary Vietnamese obeyed to a classical dialectical paradigm (would Mao said). Meaning, the tide changed long before, when the US government began to realize that it could not count with a decisive support from the American people for their military enterprise in Indochina. Such transition, or dialectical jump (would Engels said), occurred already in 1968, when the anti-war movement in the US took an irreversible speed. Autor Max Hastings (“Vietnam – And epic tragedy”) believes that the 1968 protests boom paradoxically coincided with the Vietnamese Tet Offensive of that year, which per se it was military unsuccessful. But I postulate that it was the visual testimonies of deeds, such as the My Lai massacre months after the Tet offensive, what radicalized the student movement.
In the same fashion, I would say, the atrocious spectacle of Gaza bombardments victims, or the visualization of Ukrainian Tochka missiles falling in the middle of Donetsk city and other concentrations of civilians elsewhere in towns of the region, began to motivate anew the reemergent US anti-war movement. The legendary multitudes that called to stop the US support to the corrupted government of then South Vietnam, are now, one and a half generation, calling for the stop of US support to Zelensky.
In present times, 61% of Americans have said being in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. Concomitantly, massive anti-war protests demanding end to US military support for Ukraine have taken place, following that of February 19, 2023, in Washington.
By contrast, in the EU, 27 countries with a total population of 449.2 million (which largely exceeds that of the US), only in Germany, as well as in Hungary, and to some extend also in Italy, could we record massive anti-war demonstrations protesting the sending of weapons to Ukraine.
One European exception: Budapest, June 24, 2024. AP Photos / Denes Erdos
On the other hand, in support to the belligerent Ukrainian side in the war and “condemning Putin”, there have been protests almost all over EU country capitals. I discuss further below, in relation to the freedom of expression issue, why the EU folks, with rare exceptions, do not seem mobilized in truly anti-war efforts.
Regarding country populations as a whole, as per July 29, 2024, according to a Pew Research Center report, more Americans overall think that the U.S. does not have “a responsibility to help Ukraine”. Another finding in a Pew Research Center of December 2023 had already suggested that “the US public is tiring of the fight”, establishing that only 18% favoured an increase in the aid to Ukraine.
Conversely, in the European Union a majority (55%) of its citizens “agree with providing weapons to Ukraine” (72% in Poland). Exceptionally, only in Italy, 60% of the polled people disagree with the idea of the EU offering weapons to Ukraine).
Anti-Russian xenophobia
The anti-Russian sentiment that, as observed in social media, seemingly prevails in political figures supporting the current US government, it is also observed in almost all the ruler elites in the EU countries. However, in my opinion, it is not congruent with what the peoples think in general. Even here differences may be perceived between the US and Europe.
It is worth to mention that the Russian American population (Americans of full or partial Russian ancestry) is estimated being 3.13 million. Its percentual share in the total US population is about the same than Scotch-Irish, or Asian-Indians. Inversely, the population of Russians in West Europe (including South and Northern Europe and excluded East Europe) is less than 2 million. In Sweden there are currently only 22,774 Russian-born people (among a total population of 10 million). Interestingly, it is marked that Russian immigrant women in Sweden “were the most highly educated immigrants in Sweden as of 2009”. My point being that beyond the discourse on human rights for all, civil liberties for all in ‘West democracies’, on the one hand it is more difficult for the Russian communities to have their voice heard in the EU countries in comparison with the US.
Here in Europe, I have never heard that the works of Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky or Pushkin are proscribed in the US. But they do are, if not directly forbidden, boycotted in countries of the EU. Russian president Putin “compared it to actions taken by Nazi Germany in the 1930s”, according to Reuters.
US vs EU leaders’ statements on the war in Ukraine
The hawkish position of known US Democrat or Republican politicians, and the warmongering of Biden/Blinken et. al. regarding Ukraine and Russia, is well known.
Concerning Donald Trump, the percent of people said to prefer him as the next president oscillate around (a varying) near half of the total surveyed. The point being that Trump, as well as vice-president candidate Vance, have a clear stated agenda regarding Zelensky and the ending of the Ukraine war. And they explicitly argue about the peril of an incoming WW3. During the last debate Trump/Harris, Donald Trump refused to state that he would prefer that Ukraine ends as victorious in the war with Russia. Conversely, he also warned that the Biden administration’s policy, likewise of a potential Harris’ government, would eventually conduct the Americans to a 3rth world war.
And this is the stance about the US arming Ukraine of other three of the five remaining candidates in the present presidential election
Jill Stein has criticized the sending of money and arms to fuel the proxy war in Ukraine, according to the Washington Post.
Cornel West blames NATO for Russia’s War With Ukraine (Newsweek).
Chase Oliver wants to “end aid being directed to nation-states currently at war. This includes Israel and Ukraine.”
Former candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also “rejected any U.S. involvement in Ukraine, including sending military aid”.
Meanwhile in Europe…
During the past week, as the governments of Finland and Denmark have also called for the lifting of the ban prohibiting the missile attacks deeper into Russia, Sweden just announced an enhanced military budget, aimed not only to a further assistance to Ukraine, but –according to Swedish Defense minister, “if Russia is successful in Ukraine and were to win that war, the threats to our security would increase”.
And the European Parliament –in a vote of 425 votes in favour, 131 against and 63 abstentions– not only called the European governments for the lift of the missile ban to target deeper in Russia, but also voted to maintain and expand sanctions again Russia.
Further, Kaja Kallas, former Estonia PM and EU top diplomat nominee by the European Council, recently declared: “The EU is united, clearly behind Ukraine and against Russian aggression”. For his part, Joseph Borrel, the currently EU High Representative, wrote newly in his blog (15 Sept 2024) ) that he supports “Ukraine’s right to target key Russian military installations”.
Adrius Kubilious, nominated EU’s defence commissioner, just warned on 18 Sept 2024 that “Defence ministers and NATO generals agree…The European Union must be quick to increase its defences as Russia may be ready for a confrontation in six to eight years”.
What we can observe, so far, is that there are clear differences between the distribution of pro and anti-war politicians, and public, in the US versus the EU. While in the US, if not the half, a considerable number of the elected politicians do not support the fuelling of assistance to Ukraine, the support in the EU leaders for a continuation of the proxy war in Ukraine, even public manifesting the need of activate preparations for a war with Russia, is nearly compact. Only two countries, Hungary and Slovakia would be the exception among the 27 countries of the European Union.
Another particularity is that the EU commissioners, a clique which have not been elected by the people of Europe, takes the representation of nearly half billion of European citizens. And that those in power in the EU respective country members refuse to call referendums among their peoples to establish the actual degree of support to the government elites’ pro-war stances.
Warmongering statements of high commanders of the armed forces in Europa
A most aggravating issue is the stance adopted towards Russia by high military commanders in countries of Europe, which otherwise –in the line of democratic traditions– should abstain of trumpeting for war, while there is not any declaration of war issued by the respective nations’ parliaments or their executive governments. Clearer forms of provocations inciting the occurrence of real war is hard to find.
Some of them active officers, others are ex generals or admirals. Pay attention, for instance, to these statements of European high ranking military people:
In Sweden, where the anti-Russian sentiment is widespread among the political elites and in the media, the commander in chief (Mikael Byden) stated in Jan 2024 that “Russia’s war against Ukraine is just a step, not an end game”. Later he affirmed in a national broadcaster that all Swedes needed to prepare for war.
To the best of my knowledge, it has never been presented in Sweden any evidence of such preparations by Russia to attack Sweden. Or to any other country of the European Union, for that part.
On 14 September 2024, Admiral Rob Bauer (Netherlands) and head of NATO’s military committee, said that “it is justified to allow Ukraine to target Russia with long-range missiles provided by the West”, and that Ukraine has the solid legal and “military right” to strike deep inside Russia. While Lt. Gen. Karel Řehka, chief of the General Staff of the Czech Armed Forces, “made it clear his nation places no such weapons restrictions on Kiev”.
According to Reuters, Germany´s Lieutenant General Carsten Breuer said meanwhile in a Poland visit that “Russia could be ready militarily to attack NATO countries in five to eight years’ time”.
Sir Ben Wallace, himself ex-military and defence secretary under the Boris Johnson government, said being “disappointed” with “the wrangling over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles in Russia”. Even US General (ret.) Petraeus intervened in favour of the potential lifting of restrictions over the use of long-range weapons inside Russia, calling the discussion “long overdue”.
Did not Clemenceau say that “War is too important to be left to the generals”? (He also said, “It is easier to make war than to make peace”)
Former defence minister Ben Wallace was rapidly followed by four other UK former defence secretaries (Grant Shapps, Gavin Williamson, Penny Mordaunt and Liam Fox, together with ex PM Boris Johnson), in calling on PM Starmer to allow Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles to strike Russian territory, even without US support”, according to The Times.
Meanwhile, European politicians continue misleading, ominously, on the origins of the Ukraine war. Latest, UK PM Sir Keir Starmer, in response to Putin’s statement quoted in the beginning of this article, said, “Russia started this conflict”. Facts on the table, however, Russia DID NOT star the war in Ukraine, as I make clear in the analysis “Origins of the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine”.
Conclusion
First, it is established here a significant difference between Europe and the US in reference to a grassroots mobilization opposing the war. While in the US that has started to reemerge, in the EU countries we could so far observe it just sporadically here and there in Germany, Hungary and Italy.
Then, the stances among European leaders concerning the war issue are shown different to those of the US. A meaningful difference here is that even if in the US the opinions about the war among political actors is divided, in Europe the warmongering of its leaders is nearly compact. Another finding is that the opposition to finance and arm Ukraine is majority among the US people, while in the EU folks prevails the opposite.
Thus, the position of the European rulers concerning the war, at cupola level i.e. the EU Commissioners, generals and admirals, as well as by those in power in the EU countries, appears as practically unchallenged.
Trump and other presidential candidates’ critical standpoints on the Ukraine war and the risks for a WW3 (nearly half of the US population support Trump, based in the polls so far in the 2024 election campaign) are in huge contrast with those of the EU leaders. Except of Hungary and Slovakia, government leaders, and military leaders, not only are increasingly depicting Russia as the only incumbent aggressor against Europa in a near future (without showing any evidence), but also calling for the immediate preparation for war against Russia.
The highest authority of the European Union, Dr Ursula von der Leyen, has clearly stated that, independent of the posture to be taken by the United States, European countries must and will pursue the military and financial assistance to Ukraine. She has said:
“The European Union cannot afford to let Russia win the war in Ukraine regardless of what happens in the United States after the presidential elections”.
And if necessary, a war confrontation with Russia: “Europe had been living under an illusion that peace is permanent”.
So, these are possible scenarios ensuing this crisis:
Scenario 1
For the time being, the US, EU and the UK will try to continue a subreptitious scalation, possibly measured after the kind of response (or absence) from the part of Russia. The proxy war in Ukraine will not end soon. After the presidential elections the situation may change, but even with a victory by the Democrats, the US will notably diminish – or completely cease– their military assistance to Ukraine during 2025. Left in situ will remain the US Intelligence apparatus and reinforced political presence. The proxy-war will continue with the solely assistance of the EU and the UK. The flow of weapons and other assistance to Ukraine will not stop as such. The production of weaponry will continue increasing in the USA, and these weapons will be purchased by the EU, which in its turn will deliver them to Ukraine. That will be the “trade formula” between the future US government and the industrial military complex, which has lobbied, and will continue lobbying, for increasing orders of weapons manufacturing.
If the compactness of the political decisions in the EU would suffer further fragmentation (i.e. Hungary, Slovakia, and later possibly Germany and others), other EU countries such as the Nordic and the Baltic countries will continue this assistance independently.
Eventually, Russia shall continue winning the war and with the addition of new military personnel, while, conversely, the manpower at disposal of Ukraine will continue diminishing. Further drastic reforms in the Ukraine conscription law are not likely prosper in the Rada because of popular opposition. In the negotiated peace, or cease fire, after the Russian strategic military victory, the Donbass territories will not return to Ukraine. Neither will be Odessa; in case it will be annexed by Russia during the course of the war.
Scenario 2
Any European country, independently of NATO “official” policies, decides to land troops in Ukraine, in a fashion difficult or technically impossible to conceal. Discovered and monitored by Russian Intelligence, even before these new forces are put in action, that becomes for Russia, legally and de facto, casus belli (jump to the last paragraph of this Conclusion chapter)
Scenario 3
Independently of a still ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
In view of:
- a) the political idiosyncratic behaviour of EU leaders, their fanatic xenophobia against Russia,
- b) the pressure towards action incited by military commanders,
- c) the severe and continuing worsening of the economic stance of countries of the EU, after the sanctions-trap in which they indulged themselves against Russia since February 2022,
- d) The aggravation of the social domestic situation principally in countries targeted by uncontrolled immigration, all which may convey social and racial polarization, with the repressive policies against the antagonising populations (“nationals” VS. “foreigners”), etc.
- e) Added that the governments’ breaches to the freedom of expression, the right to demonstrate and other civil rights, will continue unabated (following the current tendency regarding censorship on one hand, and drastic police repression on the other). And that those political behaviours will not leave social space for criticism, calling for accountability, transparency in government, or to any other possibility of influencing the decisions of those in power.
All those issues accounted, EU governments will essay an overtly warmongering behaviour against the “enemy” Russia, consisting either in provocations, hostile declarations, military mobilizations, hybrid warfare, etc., with the aim of tackle the internal conflicts and deviate attention.
Parallel, in that period the cohesion inside NATO countries and its allies will become (it has started to be) quite fragile. Disputes between Poland and Ukraine, Germany and Poland, Ukraine and Hungary, Turkey and the US, etc.
In the above scenario, sooner than later, purposely or accidentally, one EU-country missile will target deep in Russia’s territory –possibly after some Russian embassy has been attacked with the complacency of the authorities of that country…
Russia will respond (See President Putin statement at the beginning of this text). The attacking country will be calling NATO’s article 5.
Ensuing, we are then, within seconds, in (nuclear) WW3.
Scenario 4
Likewise, the approval and assistance from the part of NATO countries of long-range missile to reach deep in Russian territory, will result in war with Russia –as anticipated by President Putin himself (12 Sept). This, in the understanding that Russia is decided in making operative its red line. Regarding a “nuclear” response, West analysts consider that is an unlikely option for Russia, according to a most recent analysis of the Washington Post. Russian officials have stated during the week that the country has the necesary especial arsenal to deal with such situation.
A parallel scenario
Finally, even if the present circumstances are not exactly comparable to what we experienced between October 16 and October 28, 1962, while the Cuban Missile Crisis did flourish, one outcome then was that Khrushchev tactically backed in front of Kennedy’s ultimatum. I was in Cuba some time thereafter and learned that the local folks in uniform, and some of their commanders, did not completely approve the removing of the missiles from their defence capability. So, what did they do? They instead reinforced and supported, even militarily, the antiimperialist armed struggles in Latin America and Africa (it was then when I received military training in Cuba).
Likewise, in front of a potential negative from the part of the Biden administration to authorize the missile bombardment deeper in Russia, the Ukrainians will likely intensify their military engagement in Syria, helping to combat the Russian army there.
—
The current missile crisis in the Ukraine war: Is WW3 inevitable? Sorry, I think yes, unless…we are able to whip those wicked, vassal corrupted politicians out of the social temple of Europe and elsewhere. Forever.
A further development on these issues by this author can be found here in The Indicter