On the obsession with creating a United States of Europe.
In addition to a completely unjustified war alarm, there is an idea that goes around "liberal" newspapers like the Corriere (and related intellectuals), and it concerns the fact that the EU should abandon the Union, and become a country like the USA. Only by becoming identical to the USA, according to these people, can we be truly happy, powerful and rich. The trouble comes from a simple fact: the USA is neither happy, powerful nor rich: it is an absolutely unhappy, absolutely overbearing country, and as for wealth, it is a niche phenomenon.
But let's start with feasibility first. Let's talk about insularity. The Anglo-Saxon countries have, perhaps with the exception of the USA, a strong problem of insularity.
Australia is surrounded by ocean.
England is surrounded by the sea.
New Zealand is surrounded by the sea.
Canada and the USA turn North America into an island, with the exception of the Mexican border.
That is, American culture is an insular culture. Like all insular cultures, they are used to thinking of representing a world in themselves, and are not used to thinking in terms of borders, except as "obstacles". For this reason the Mexican border is driving them crazy.
A normal country would solve the problem of that border with a summit meeting between the two leaders (Mexican and American) and a bilateral agreement for border and customs management. Instead, think of the border as an insurmountable obstacle, which is overcome only in the event of an invasion. There are no other crossings of note other than the invasion.
For a European country things are slightly different. We are aware of the fact that there are other countries beyond the border, and that movements and migrations are, all things considered, frequent and normal events. Only with nineteenth-century nationalism was this strong culture of absolute, ethnic and state borders formed.
This can also be seen historically by observing the figure of the Marquis. The Marquis, Markgraf in German, Marquis in French, is a nobleman who was born (the figure then evolves) with the idea that the "Marca" is a border territory. As such, unlike the Baron – which is also a very military title – he has the task of managing the border, customs (collecting taxes) and building military defenses. Bastions, moats, border posts, various fortresses and castles, etc. Obviously it is also the one that "manages" migrations.
The situation has obviously evolved, but if you look around for marquises, you will find them around Europe where there was a risk of invasions, and you will find many of them. The Marquis has a lot of autonomy, since he must repel or hinder the first wave of invasion.
But if you go to England, how many marquises will you find? Very few, in fact one or two, who are in Scotland or on the Scottish border (when they were much more rebellious). You will find arrogant barons, dukes as if it were raining, but very few marquises. How come? Because since there are no direct borders with other countries, they are not really needed.
This is why an American wouldn't understand why there are all these red-haired people in Sicily, or why there are places where they speak Albanian, or Greek, or Old German, or even Cimbrian. They don't understand the concept of migration very well, because in their way of seeing it is a real invasion.
Just as, in the Anglo-Saxon vision, behind the border THEIR language is spoken, within the border OUR language is spoken. Americans would not understand semi-French dialects like those spoken in Val d'AOsta or Piedmont. They would not understand the fact that many recipes and traditions of those places come from France, and vice versa on the other side of the border there are traditions that are as ancient as they are very Italian.
When you arrive in the USA and get off the plane, or the ship, you will only find people who speak American English. And we prefer to ignore the fact that in Texas there is a lot of bilingualism: the same bilingualism, encouraged in Europe, is incomprehensible to Americans, except perhaps in Canada with French.
The border, in Europe, is a very different thing compared to the Anglo-Saxon world: here it's a guy who walks on foot, in the UK it's a guy who disembarks. In the Anglo-Saxon world there is nothing like the cross-border worker, who gets up in the morning and goes to work on the other side of the border.
Except between Mexico and the USA, where they are going crazy building a wall. Their culture does not tolerate osmosis, cultural exchanges or mixtures: it is not for nothing that tea is considered an ethnically English custom. As if it were grown in England.
Because everything on the English side of the border is English. Even if he's Indian .
In Sicily, every year, the largest Mediterranean couscous festival takes place. This would not be acceptable or conceivable to anyone who does not recognize foreign influences.
Result: for an Anglo-Saxon, the fact that Schengen is real is inconceivable. If the border is completely permeable, why are the Germans still Germans and the French still French? And how could the United States exist if each state spoke its own language and had different traditions, if behind a border you have to speak only one language and have only one culture, otherwise there will be trouble? So far they explain it with the existence of governments, but if you explain to them that in Brussels the institutions have power over all governments, they start to get confused.
By this I mean that in any way Europe is unified, it could NEVER be like the USA, because the European continent does NOT have that insularity that serves to develop a culture like the Anglo-Saxon ones, which is particularly identity-based.
But the problem would be to ask why these "intellectuals" want the EU to become like the USA. What are you missing, exactly?
The first answer is “War”. But this concept comes from Hollywood. When you watch Hollywood movies, the USA always seems to win. But if we read a history book, we observe that the only war clearly won by the USA was the Second World War. In fact their Hollywood is obsessed with it. From that point on, honestly no American imperial operation (= foreign policy operations by means of military instruments) abroad has worked.
And there's a second thing. When you don't share a border because you're insular, if you lose the war you bring the soldiers home and that's the end of it. If, however, you have a common border with the enemy, you withdraw the soldiers and bring them home, but the enemy crosses the border and comes to your house. If an island country loses a war, it has lost the costs of the war and the political humiliation. If a non-island country loses, the costs are those of war, the political ones, and those of an enemy invasion .
We can't say that the US is particularly good at winning wars. We can say that they are particularly good at devastating nations. They are two different things.
They are two different things because ultimately if we want an offensive army like the US one, of that size, the question we have to ask ourselves is "but who do we have to devastate?". And the second is "and how do we manage any defeats?".
If they had been a European country, fighting with their neighbors, the USA would have been invaded by Vietnamese, North Korean and Afghan soldiers. These are all the places where they have been defeated militarily. Instead they just pulled their soldiers back.
We must ask ourselves, therefore, why a continent like Europe should dream of waging many wars. And are we sure that they would all be alongside the USA? I repeat the question.
Are we sure that if the EU had an army, every war would always and only be on the side of the USA?
And so I could conclude by saying that
All those who dream of a non-neutral and non-peaceful Europe (not a great Switzerland) are, generally, people who love watching war films on TV and, coincidentally, do not have children of military service age.
And if we're being honest, every time you build a powerful army and your government speaks with a confident and strong voice, we notice one thing: the US becomes your enemy. The US does not tolerate the existence of other powerful nations, especially militarily powerful ones, without becoming their enemies.
The united states of Europe that you dream of, dear intellectuals, would find themselves at war with the USA in a few years. Just for being militarily powerful and not being the USA. It makes no sense for a pro-American intellectual to dream of a militarily powerful Europe, because this implies an upcoming war against the USA.
I await an example of a large and powerful, as well as militarily notable, country that has remained at peace with the USA.
Muuuuh, Russia.
In all this hope of becoming the USA, the usual "we have to do it otherwise Russia will invade us" is introduced. This is usually followed by military trifles on the alleged military non-existence of Europe, on the fact that we only had peace because the USA was there (the USA notoriously sells peace, as we know) and so on. Well.
Then there is the reality: Russia is struggling to overcome the military containment that we are practicing in Ukraine, against a Ukrainian army that needs training because it was previously an inept and disarmed army, and despite the propaganda with just over 240 billion in aid in total (so far) the containment operation has worked . Considering that the total GDP of those who paid out the money is around $40 trillion, I would say that 240 billion in aid is a small figure.
The military math these guys make is completely wrong. In general, if a war is defensive (on the European side) and offensive (on the Russian side), approximately a ratio of dead soldiers of 1:3 must be taken into account as an inevitable cost. And that's what happened with Ukraine.
Then we need to take into account the projection costs: the EU is large, and we need to bring every soldier to France. Then add the costs, and we have a 1:4. More or less quail with the costs of the IIWW.
Just do the math, and it would cost the Russians around 4 million dead soldiers to invade the EU.
The Russia we are seeing at work in Ukraine is not a Russia capable of invading the EU.
Muuuhh nuclear.
Then you want an army for the EU with an impressive nuclear military arsenal. Well. And then? Nuclear war with the Russians?
I know, you're talking about a deterrent. And if two countries are separated by an ocean, and thousands of KM away from each other, it makes sense. The trouble comes when you try to talk about a nuclear deterrent between two neighboring countries. The argument of mutual destruction no longer works. For one reason: with two nations so close, we talk about nuclear DEFENSE and air DEFENSE.
The war with Ukraine shows us that Moscow is unable to stop a drone that goes about as fast as a Vespa: several drones of this type have already hit the capital.
Muuuuhhh, how many bullets do the Russians shoot.
If it weren't for the fact that the effectiveness is ridiculous, and that the aim of the Russian artillerymen is painful, the argument would also stand. But the same Ukrainian experience shows us that precise artillery can do much more with a very low number of shots. Simply because they hit the target.
All this alarmism is intended to push countries into entering a war economy. But do you know what a war economy is, exactly? I'll explain it to you:
- enormous investments in defense, obviously, at forced costs. Compulsory military service for both males and females.
- Forced costing means that the government contracts with companies at the price it wants. Or nationalize.
- there are no union protests, you work 70 hours a week, for a starvation salary, and you can't see when it ends.
which is what is happening (not in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but in all the other places of a "large" country) in Russia, and it is the meaning of "war economy" here.
Do you really want it?
Maybe some industrialist wants it. Not all of them clearly.
And those who think they want it only want it because they don't know what "war economy" means.
And if we remove the military part, what exactly do we want from becoming "a copy of the USA"?
Of course, we liked the USA in 1950, and until the 80s it was also an enjoyable country. But today, exactly, why would you want to transform everything into another America? To see Mc Donald's in the Leaning Tower of Pisa. To see the Pantheon become a shopping mall? To lose all vacation rights, and be ruined if you fall ill with a chronic illness? To have the worst police in the world and a ridiculous, if not pathetic, justice system?
What, exactly, would you like to live in the United States of Europe for?
Uriel Fanelli
The blog is visible from Fediverso by following:
Contacts:
- Fediverse: @ uriel@fedi.keinpfusch.net
- MATRIX: @uriel:mtrx.keinpfusch.net
- GNU JAMI: Ufanelli