The proxy war in Ukraine: It is at Europe’s expense

After considerable delay reflecting partisan politics in Washington – and not a commitment to the proxy war in Ukraine, which is universal – conservatives in the US House of Representatives passed, on 20 April, what is universally termed an aid package for Ukraine in the amount of 61 billion US-Dollar. President Biden immediately signed the bill, which also includes funds for Israel and Taiwan, into law. This is not, in fact, aid and is not intended to benefit others: It is above all to benefit the US power structure:

1. 80 per cent of the allocated funds will not go to Ukraine, but to the American army and defence industry, which will use it to buy modernised replacements for the old armaments and weapons systems supplied to Ukraine. The fact is that the war in Ukraine has led to the realisation in the US that modern warfare has changed significantly. It is not just troops, tanks, and artillery that are the decisive weapons of war, but drones, missiles, long-range guidance systems, laser weapons, and aircraft. The American army must therefore be re-equipped. This re-equipment is now being passed off as aid to Ukraine, although Ukraine is not the principal beneficiary.

2. Most of Ukraine’s allegedly altruistic suppliers provide their weapons on credit – at least nominally, as it is widely expected that Kiev will never cover these credits: Ukraine is effectively bankrupt and has debts of more than 1 trillion Euro. Only Germany gives outright – and also more than anyone else, 43 billion Euro.
  However, the US financed the Maidan uprising a decade ago, as well as the subsequent purchase – in effect, via loans – of two-thirds of Ukraine’s black soil (a very fertile soil that can produce high agricultural yields) and 70 per cent of Ukrainian industry. Alone at that time, George Soros bought up more than 600 billion Euro in loans for the price of 25 billion Euro.¹ This is also why Ukraine is not allowed formally to declare bankruptcy but must be preserved as a borrower so that US creditors do not have to write off the loans.
  The US also made provisions in good time for financing the new “aid” to Ukraine: While passing the “aid bill”, it also passed a law authorising the US government to seize and confiscate all Russian assets, contrary to international law and to world trade policy, i.e., to confiscate the approximately 200 billion US-Dollar Russian assets in the US.²
  As the US knows that the theft of foreign investments flouts all international rules, breaks international law, and would provoke horror and reactions around the world, it wants Europe to carry out this financial crime first in order to direct the world’s anger towards Europe. They have been pushing their servant, Ursula von der Leyen, as well as the EU Commission for some time to release Russia’s 220 billion Euro in “secured” (in reality confiscated) assets to Ukraine so that Ukraine can use them to pay off American loans. If the global financial world is then shocked by this breach of all international laws, international investors will flee from this European system of injustice, and so the US can count on a corresponding influx of financial capital.
  Whoever breaks the rules of property rights in the international economic system loses the trust of international trade, international investors, and even of their domestic economic interests. However, the US vassals in the EU are probably prepared, under pressure from Washington, to pioneer such breaches, which are aimed even at the bedrock of monetary trust, i.e., at ownership. They do not see the consequences or do not care about them – as is the case with Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister.
  Just in time for this, the Biden administration has provided 370 billion US-Dollar in subsidies for companies that relocate to the US. The war in Ukraine is therefore not only a military war, but also an economic war waged by the US against Russia and the EU alike.

3. Making the EU pay for the US policy against Russia has already defined the consequences of the US-led sanctions imposed on Russia. The US had hardly any trade with Russia prior to declaring the sanctions regime and therefore did not suffer as they were implemented, while the European states – especially Germany – had, historically, the most substantial amount of trade with Russia. The Europeans have therefore suffer the greatest damage from the sanctions – even more than Russia itself.

4. The fact that the US is waging the war in Ukraine for its own benefit has also become evident in the energy dispute. Europe was penalised by the sanctions and by European politicians³ who have preferred to accept permanent damage – notably the doubling of energy prices – rather than risk disobeying President Biden. The result is that our energy is now three times as expensive as that of the US. Even a unique international crime, such as the US-NATO operation to blow up of the Nord Stream pipelines was accepted without comment by Berlin and by the largest opposition party, the Christian Democrats – just as Chancellor Merkel accepted as normal, years earlier, the tapping of her mobile phone by the US. The “fight against dependence on Russian energy” in favour of a much greater, and twice as expensive, energy dependence on the US has decisively damaged our industry in international competition, as Germany now has the world’s highest energy costs. As a result, our entire nation – every single family – has also been penalised by the doubling of energy costs due to the switch from Russian to US dependency.

This is how our politicians “serve the interests of their people and their voters”. The war in Ukraine makes it possible for Europe to betray its own interests in favour of American interests “in the fight against Russia”.
  The fact is, namely: The US has decisively weakened one of its economic competitors: EU-Europe.
  Moreover, by being able to dictate the price of its energy for Europe, the US has made Europe unattractive as an economic location and no longer viable as an international competitor, attracting, if not forcing, many companies⁴ to relocate to the US, where energy is cheaper.
  This weakening of the European vassals initially forced them into even greater economic dependence on the US. It was followed by the revitalisation of the “brain-dead NATO”, as Emmanuel Macron, the French president, famously called it. European contributions to the alliance have now doubled, while European members remain subjugated to the military command of the US.  Thus are they effectively forced to participate in a war in Ukraine that was not in the interests of Europe, but only in the interests of the US. In this war, Europe and above all Germany has now been assigned a ‘leading role’ and leading financing.
  Eighty years after Germany swore it would never again be at war and, most specifically, that war would never again start from German soil, we are now once again the biggest European supporter and driver of a war in which we have no interest of our own but because of which we suffer damage. What was the founding principle of NATO: To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down! The war in Ukraine brings NATO decisively closer to this goal.
  It was no coincidence that the US released its 61 billion US-Dollar in “Ukraine aid” only after Ukraine tightened its mobilisation laws. Ukraine has already lost so many soldiers that Western arms deliveries make sense only if Ukraine, after losing half of its army, creates new soldiers to operate the weapons.
  After all, the US has already prevented promising peace efforts twice and wants a “war lasting several years” to keep its economic advantages and its defence industry busy. To this end, the European vassals are driven to send not only weapons and ammunition, but also significant troop contingents to the war in Ukraine. Thousands of Poles have been fighting there for years, and recently also French troops. From the very beginning, the British have had their own soldiers take over target logistics for Ukrainian missiles, especially in the naval war off the Crimea. Had Chancellor Scholz not put the brakes on, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Friedrich Merz, Baerbock and other hawkish political figures would have sent German troops to Ukraine long ago. As it is, they were allowed to advance only as far as Lithuania.
  The war in Ukraine is therefore a war with few winners but many losers: Money is being made by the US defence companies and the US financial industry. And Europe has to pay, not only for the ongoing costs of the war, but also for US loans. Germany has even taken over the payment of Ukraine’s pension obligations for five years, at a cost of  22 billion Euro. The longer the war in Ukraine lasts, the greater the advantage for the US and the greater the damage and burden for Europe.
  The US plan: Because of their “care” for Ukraine, the war should apparently last “until the last Ukrainian” is dead, as the saying goes, so that the US world power is rid of two competitors (Russia and Germany) in the long term and can then devote itself to its conflict with China.  •

¹ In the meantime, Soros has earned more interest from this than he paid.
² In the same way that they confiscated all German assets during and after the Second World War.
³ Von der Leyen, Baerbock, Habeck, Merz, Lindner, etc.
⁴ Through the Inflation Control Act, the USA is spending 370 billion US-Dollar to subsidise the relocation of European industry in the US.