Interview with Slovak MEP Ľuboš Blaha: Europe must decide whether it wants to remain a vassal of America or free itself

international | eu | opinion/analysis Wednesday December 11, 2024 08:00 by Piotr Jastrzebski

- If the alternative to Trump is to destroy Russia at any cost, even at the cost of unleashing a third world war, then Trump is the better choice, but that does not mean that the imperial and anti-Russian character of US policy will change dramatically.
- It is ideal for US imperialist intentions that there will be enough fools who will get their hands dirty and destroy the Slavs instead. The EU must recover, stop making a fool of itself, urgently start working in the interests of its citizens and stop supporting a war that has nothing to do with us.
- Biden has given Trump, Russia and the world a third world war to say goodbye to. Thus he finally finds himself, along with Adolf Hitler and his ilk, in the gallery of the greatest war criminals in the history of mankind.

How do you assess the results of the US elections? How will Donald Trump's rise to power affect the European Union? How do you assess the reaction of EU leaders to the election of Donald Trump as President of the USA? What is your prediction on how the relationship between EU countries and the new US administration will develop?


Before I get to the substance of the answer, I want to stress two things. The first is the fact that, ultimately, the US is not ruled by the President, but by the so-called 'deep state', which is a conglomerate of oligarchic and nomenklatura structures close to big business and big finance. Even the best American President can only do what is not too far outside the interests of this 'deep state'. And the second thing I want to stress is that we are not admirers or fans of Trump and the Republicans, and when we say that Trump is better than the weak Democratic candidate, it is only because absolutely anyone would be better than any representative of this fanatical and bellicose wing of American politics.
Well, now to your question. If the alternative to Trump was a policy of bloodshot eyes and a desire to destroy Russia at any cost, even at the cost of a third world war, then from every point of view - that is, from the EU's point of view, from Russia's point of view and from the point of view of those of us in Central Europe - President Trump may have been the slightly better choice, but that does not mean that the imperial and anti-Russian nature of American policy will somehow fundamentally change. I am under no great illusions on this point.
And as for the reaction of the EU leaders, their undisguised and unadulterated despair, anger, helplessness and dismay speaks for itself and proves that the EU is just an appendage of the Biden-style globalist syndicate.
You ask how the EU-US relationship will develop. I do not think that it depends too much on the US; its policy will not fundamentally change with the arrival of Trump. The ball is in Europe's court: it is Europe that has to decide whether it wants to remain a vassal or free itself. And yes, the empire will want to punish, the empire always punishes disobedience, but freedom is ultimately always the better option.

While Trump has repeatedly stated that he will stop arms shipments to Ukraine funded by US taxpayers' money, will Europe be able to independently fund Ukraine's combat capability? Should the EU be the first to abandon funding for Ukraine?

The first of your two questions is one of the main topics of political discourse in the EU today, which in itself is absurd and best demonstrates the insane quagmire into which European politics has fallen as a result of its domination by agents of the overseas empire. Here, it is no longer even politically correct to even ask the very first question, why Europe should actually voluntarily destroy itself over a conflict between non-EU countries of the former Soviet Union, which only a few decades ago formed a single state, and whose complex historical legacy is really none of our business. It should be said very openly: interfering in foreign affairs, in this case Ukraine, is not in the interests of the citizens of European countries, but is motivated solely by the imperialist and militarist policy of the US. This must stop.
It is, of course, ideal for the US imperial intentions to have enough fools to get their hands dirty and make the 'Russian world' nervous and kill Slavs instead. So the answer to your second question is: yes, the EU should get a grip, stop making a fool of itself, start acting immediately in the interests of its citizens and stop supporting a war it has nothing to do with.

How can you comment on the possible authorization of EU countries (France, Germany) to use long-range weapons by Ukraine to strike Russian territory? Can the escalation of rhetoric on both sides be seen as strengthening the negotiating positions to resolve the conflict in Ukraine?

It is, of course, very sad that the leaders of some EU Member States are so subservient to the overseas master that, at his behest, they will issue even such a suicidal order as permission to shell Russia with long-range missiles. It should be stressed that, unlike previous Western moves to escalate the conflict, where it was at least possible to pretend that the West was merely providing weapons but was not itself taking part in the conflict, in this case it is quite clear that the Ukrainians themselves could not use the missiles without guidance from satellites, and so the West has just become an official participant in the war against Russia. In fact, it can be said that Biden, as a parting gift to Trump, Russia and the whole world, has declared World War III as a farewell to the presidency, and has thus definitively entered the gallery of history's greatest war criminals alongside Adolf Hitler and his ilk.
If this extremely dangerous move was meant to strengthen bargaining positions, it would be another in a long line of evidence of the utter inadequacy and inability of Western regimes to perceive the realities of contemporary geopolitics, and especially the inability to understand Russia and how the Russians view the situation. Of course, the war will end in negotiations in which each side will have to make some compromises, but nothing fundamental will change in Russia's basic positions on principle, because it cannot change, and they are simply fatally unwilling to understand this.

Are you considering the use of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile a deliberate escalation of the conflict from Russia? How did Europe react to a missile attack on the territory of Ukraine?

The use of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile is quite obviously another in a series of warnings from Russia to the militaristic fools in Washington, as well as in Berlin, Paris and Brussels, to finally realise what they are playing with. However, instead of the substance of this clearer-than-the-sun message, the globalist media prefer to pay attention to the banal technical fact that the hypersonic missile is intended for a use other than the distance between Russia and Ukraine... here it's hard not to remember the old quote that it's hard to explain something to someone when they're being paid not to understand.

For the first time in history, the European Union has elected a Defence Commissioner. How do you see militarisation of Union? What security threats to the EU should the new Commissioner pay attention to?

Europe, as a major civilisational pole of the world, must have a natural ambition to be a sovereign bloc which will logically have a corresponding weight in terms of defence. Thus, the problem is not that Europe is building up its defence capabilities - the problem is that it is not sovereign and wants to use these capabilities to the unfair advantage of someone else who does not even make a secret of his foreign policy doctrine that the ideal is for Europe and Russia to destroy each other, thereby strengthening the US. Given the current climate at EU headquarters, it is also a shame to comment on the choice of a new Commissioner for Defence. I can well imagine how Russia will be declared the greatest threat, without a word being said about the real threat, the disruption of the EU from within as a result of uncontrolled migration.