„Das waren keine Verhandlungen“ (Tiefgang) | SZ Dossier
www.sz-dossier.de
„Wenn Sie mich das Wort ‚Verhandlung‘ nicht haben sagen hören – das liegt daran, dass es keine war.“ Mit diesem Satz beschreibt Sabine Weyand den geopolitischen …

Arnaud Bertrand

This is extraordinary. For the many of you who wonder how the EU could agree to such a humiliating “deal” with Trump, wonder no more.

We have an unusually straightforward answer directly from the horse’s mouth: Sabine Weyand, who’s the Directorate-General for Trade at the EU commission.

As she puts its:

  • “If you didn’t hear me say the word ‘negotiation’ – that’s because there wasn’t one.” => the U.S. dictated the terms
  • “From the Commission’s perspective, this was a strategic compromise, not an ideal economic solution” => they’re aware this completely f*cks the EU economically
  • “The European side was under massive pressure to find a quick solution to stabilize transatlantic relations – especially with regard to security guarantees” => the EU agreed to the “deal” under a protection racket
  • “We have a land war on the European continent. And we are completely dependent on the United States. The member states were not prepared to take the risk of further escalation – that would have been the consequence of European countermeasures.” => Europe acted out of fear, choosing economic submission because of its total dependence on the U.S. (which ironically will only worsen the dependence)

There you have it, she said the quiet part out loud: the EU is in such a terrible strategic situation and EU leaders have so little courage that they’re unable and unwilling to say ‘no’ to even the most humiliating demands.

https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1960603151154790469

  • JorgeEnglish
    2·
    5 months ago

    It is very hard to annex a territory with a people that hates you. Russia is suffering a huge cost to annex 20% of Ukrainian territory whose population is ethnically Russian, speaks Russian, and hates the current Ukrainian regime for good reason.

    Russia has an incredibly low demographic density, a total fertility of 1.41 (therefore some 30% less than replacement rate), negative growth, and 15.6% of its people are 65 or older. Losing the lives of so many young people is terrible not only morally (human cost), but economically too. I think even attempting to annex the other 80% of Ukraine would be a net loss. Then annexing European countries with a drastically different language and culture, different religion, and who were propagandized by decades of Russophobia? I don’t know Russia is even capable of that, and even if it was possible, the catastrophic cost would be far greater than any benefit. Russia would lose the few precious youth it still has and accomplish what? Enlarge a territory that is already resource-rich and enormous? Russia is already 78% larger than China, with only 10% of the population.

    Even if Russia was remotely as evil as NATO propaganda says, can anyone explain to me how the imaginary plan to annex Europe would be remotely advantageous to Russia?