Atlanticism, McCarthyism, and Intra-German Political Struggles

https://www.politico.eu/article/blame-germany-russia-policy/

This represents an attack serving the interests of two factions. On the one hand it's a hit piece targeting elements within the German political spectrum that oppose Atlanticism and have (in some cases for years) pursued an independent agenda. First of all, it must be remembered that Politico is owned by Axel Springer SE – a company formally committed to Capitalism and the EU and will not allow even its employees to dissent on these points. In other words Politico is wed to the Atlanticist and EU Establishments, as well as long being rumoured of having ties to US intelligence.

So, on the one hand the German figures that have sought an independent path and have attempted to find a modus vivendi with Moscow are demonised and subject to what seems to be a European version of McCarthyism. Past associations are being dredged up and called to account with an aim toward blacklisting these people.

And yet there is also an intra-German struggle over Berlin's role vis-à-vis Brussels and the EU. Should Germany pursue an independent path within the EU and become the de facto (if not de jure) leader of Europe – above the rules and restrictions placed on second tier nations within Europe? Or, should Germany submit to the leadership of Brussels and subordinate its interests to the larger European Union? The Atlanticism question is not unrelated but can be separated from this specifically European focus. Politico (in this case) represents both the interests of the EU and Atlanticism, and so those who haven't demonstrated proper deference to these institutions are being put on notice.

Those who attempted to reach out to Moscow, especially in light of the break-up of the Soviet Union are being tarred and feathered. It's a good thing Willy Brandt isn't still around. A previous generation's hero, today he would be villainised.

The article makes the unfounded assumption that these figures were 'wrong'. The idea that Russia has been provoked is simply not entertained. Such notions constitute thought crimes – even if one condemns Putin for the invasion and yet places some of the blame for the conflict on the leadership in Washington and Brussels (home of the both the EU and NATO).

It's interesting that as popular as Angela Merkel was, this article attempts to dismantle her sixteen year legacy. Merkel was the consummate politician, a survivor who tweaked her views and positions over the course of time. She was never hostile to Washington but at the same time she quietly pursued a semi-independent path. Her German leadership policies vis-à-vis Brussels and Washington weren't aggressive enough for some, and yet too independent for others. The question of Russian relations plays into this.

The article assumes without question that any attempt to block Ukraine's accession to NATO was and is simply wrong – and grossly immoral. The Russian invasion seemingly proves this point – but in reality it does nothing of the kind. It's an outrageous assertion and an inversion of the truth. Politico implies that had Merkel allowed Ukraine into NATO then the invasion wouldn't have happened. The truth is that it was NATO's very pursuit of Ukraine and its relentless push to the East that brought Moscow to the point of launching a war. It's a question of dishonest blame shifting. An earlier aggressive push and attempt to incorporate Ukraine would have simply meant the war would have happened years ago. Arguments are assumed and the real geopolitical issues are ignored.

Steinmeyer is demonised and yet the article fails to make a simple connection. The energy diplomacy would have worked – if NATO hadn't pushed toward the Russian frontier and through overt and covert means attempted to encircle it. Had the SDP faction won out in terms of German policy, the NATO expansion would have stopped and none of this would be happening. Better yet, had NATO been disbanded, there would be no issue. Again, Politico seems to falsely assume that Putin's invasion was inevitable (as his desire to conquer all of Central and Eastern Europe) and thus these figures are to be blacklisted. In the Anglo-American sphere there's a similar process taking place among the group that I continue to label the Churchill Cult. Putin is compared to Hitler and yet an examination of Putin's views and elaborated concerns reveal this just isn't so. His invasion of Ukraine is not a quest for Lebensraum or to reconstitute the USSR. It's based on security concerns related to NATO's activities on Russia's borders and the West's attempt to destabilise his regime. If anyone is mirroring (at least tangentially) the policy goals of Hitler in terms of Ukraine and Southern and Western Russia – it's NATO and has been for years. The West wants those resources and control of that geopolitically critical part of the world. It would also open Central Asia to them.

Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is reserved for a special degree of condemnation. Many readers will remember how much he was hated by the Bush administration during the Iraq War buildup. There are still some extant figures within the NATO scene that would like to forever blacken his legacy. I suppose the Politico leadership would have also said that Willy Brandt was just 'following the money' with his Ostpolitik? It's ridiculous. No, there are different reads on history – the history of World War II and its context, and different reads on what NATO (and effectively American domination) meant for Europe in the years after. And to paint the Nordstream projects in such cynical terms is just plain dishonest. Did Schröder profit from the diplomatic energy projects he pursued? Of course he did. He's a politician and thus no different than the Clintons, Bushes, or Tony Blair. These are not upright people but Politico has no moral standing on these issues.

One is reminded of the movie re-boot of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears in 2002. Removed from the context of the Cold War, the re-boot posits a group of European fascists and their Neo-fascist allies attempt to spawn a Russia-US war. And while the main antagonist is specifically cast as a Nazi, some of his rhetoric is more than a little reminiscent of the European factions that resented NATO domination – many of whom were anti-fascists to the core. The 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' speech about European independence could have been given by either French or German politicians of the Gaullist or SPD stripe – and they have nothing to do with fascism. These views have a long history in post-war Europe and were revived in earnest in the 1990's with the end of the Cold War, and the creation of the EU. Obviously such views have been met with hostility in the United States.

Even media figures like Restle whose arguments are moderate and reflective are not tolerated. He's cast aside as a 'stooge' of Putin. Ironically his comments differ very little from those recently uttered by Pope Francis.

The bottom line is NATO support represents political orthodoxy and the new order emerging from the Ukraine War episode will brook no dissent and no questioning of the anti-Russian alliance's history.

I was amazed to see the Politico piece even targets Jürgen Habermas. Truly McCarthyism has come to Germany. The thought police are on the prowl and there are now calls to sanction individuals like Schröder. It's amazing to see the reversal. Just two years ago NATO was on the ropes and now under the leadership of Biden the alliance (a primary arm of US imperialism) has been reborn, is poised to grow, and is actively seeking out its internal enemies and marking them for destruction. Biden may be decried as weak by large segments of the American electorate and yet in the halls of Atlanticism – Biden is the saviour.

Truly the alliance should have been disbanded during the final week of 1991. The world would be a different and frankly better place. The wars of today and indeed much of the war related violence of the past thirty years could have been avoided if NATO had been consigned to the dust bin. Couched as a defensive alliance, its fundamental premise is a lie. It has always been offensive and remains a mechanism for the US dominated Atlantic oligarchy to main control of its empire. Its leaders know this, as does Putin. The problem is the public doesn't and as a consequence they are easily manipulated and like good lapdogs rush to help the Ukraine effort effectively giving the Western governments a mandate to continue their activities which only prolong the war and amplify the issues which led to its genesis.