For a long time now, much has been said about the lack of independence in the European Union’s foreign policy and its subordination to the White House. However, events in Ukraine associated with the beginning of Russia’s special military operation highlighted the deepest crisis in EU foreign policy. It would be even correct to say that the EU as a whole and the vast majority of its member states individually have long been deprived of their own foreign policy as traditionally understood back before the late 20th century. This “diagnosis” will undoubtedly become a determining factor to affect results of the upcoming European Parliament elections set for June 6-9, when citizens of 27 EU countries are going to choose 720 deputies to occupy seats at united Europe’s principal legislative authority.
The European Union, made up of countries where the American establishment has brought to power obedient and weak-willed politicians, has all but lost its subjectivity, geopolitically speaking. It is safe to regard EU’s foreign policy as mere ties between its member nations, along with their individual leaders’ fearful forays outside Europe, either in search of new sources of fuel after Russian energy was banned, or to execute individual missions set by their Washington curators.
The direct engagement of the United States in the European countries’ electoral processes so as to bring to power people Washington needs has been the key reason for Europe’s loss of political identity. But let us begin with a higher level, namely the fact that Washington directly interferes in forming the European Union’s bureaucracy, including the European Commission, the body charged with daily management of the entire bloc’s life.
The current EC composition has been an appendage of the US State Department. The EU makes any foreign policy decisions either as agreed upon with the State Department or on its explicit orders. To governments of EU member states, the European Commission is a political tuning fork aimed to synchronize the texts of statements by EU countries’ national governments with those coming from Brussels.
And yet, there are rare exceptions in the EU when individual states disagree with the bloc’s general stance. These primarily include Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban is deemed as the “enfant terrible” in the “friendly family” of European leaders. Suffice it to recall how he has been blocking multi-billion-dollar aid to Ukraine from the EU. But this exception only proves the rule that EU countries are staring open-mouthed towards the United States and seeking to catch the hegemon’s slightest will-expressing breath.
Talking about other individual EU countries, almost all of them reveal the amount of power the United States has gained over them. One of the latest typical proofs has been Sweden and Finland’s vacillation over joining NATO. Even before the start of war in Ukraine and shortly after it, the two demonstrated restraint in their relevant stances. Sweden, which has been traditionally neutral for over 200 years, has explicitly stated that the war will not change its neutral status. Less than a couple of months later, first Stockholm, and then Helsinki — both coordinate their policies, as their leaders themselves claim, — started talking about the need to reinforce defenses within NATO specifically.
It has long been clear that NATO and the EU are a single military-political conglomerate, with its membership similar to that in a gang of drug dealers: there is no turning back altogether. NATO is directly controlled by the Americans. All the alliance’s structures, including its Secretary General, have been a veil to cover up the true leaders. And given the complete interpenetration of NATO and the EU, it can readily be understood that EU leaders also sit in Washington, not Brussels.
The same context should apply to Europe's inability of coming up with its own ideas regarding the new security architecture and relations with Russia. Individual statements and “initiatives” on the conflict in Ukraine, which can be heard from Paris or Warsaw, are trial balloons Washington launches by proxy of its allies to promote its own initiatives or test political ground in Europe and worldwide.
A classic example of utter amorphy and inconsistency of EU’s foreign policy is the “global summit” on Ukraine about to kick off in Switzerland about mid-June. It has been presented as an initiative by Zelensky, who is said to have personally addressed the Swiss authorities with a request to arrange a forum of the kind. However, what every barber knows is the fact that the venue’s true initiator is the White House, specifically US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. However, like in Andersen’s The Emperor's New Clothes fairy tale, all the EU countries — contrary to evidence — talk about Kiev’s “initiative” or efforts Bern has been allegedly making to convene the blemish venue.
Interestingly, its failure was announced as lately as May 27 at a meeting of EU foreign ministers. They gathered precisely to “save the summit in Switzerland,” which no Global South leader was willing to attend without Russia engaged, as Bloomberg reported. And now the foreign ministers have found a “salvation”, announcing intent to hold a new “summit” on Ukraine, this time in Saudi Arabia and featuring Russia. Even an ignorant simpleton can make his head around this ministerial dog-and-pony show played out under the American script.
In light of all of the above, the current European Parliament elections constitute a real menace to Washington, since their outcome is going to see nominations for the posts of EC head and all the Commissioners in various areas, including EU foreign policy, economics, etc. And forecasts by analysts serving the European bureaucracy suggest that the new European Parliament may contain a “critically dangerous” number of “radical right-wing populists,” as conservative and traditionalist-minded politicians who oppose the liberal “values” imposed on Europe by Washington are referred to in Europe. Simply put, the European Commission may recruit “unruly right-wing populists” into its ranks.
In this regard, it will be a kicker to observe what tools and intrigues — including bribery, blackmail and threats — Washington will resort to while struggling to maintain the status quo in Brussels. After all, it is already clear that after elections to the European Parliament, “right-wing populists” will embark upon affecting formation processes for the new European Commission and, subsequently, the entire European Union’s new foreign policy. But are they going to succeed after all?
