A-Infos (en) Italy, , UCADI, #204 - The Brussels Mess (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

On December 18-19, European Union leaders discussed in Brussels the 
possibility of seizing Russian assets deposited at Euroclear, a Belgian 
financial institution. The "brilliant" proposal to use Russian assets as 
collateral to finance a loan to Kiev came from Ursula von der Stupid and 
her entourage, and was supported by Chancellor Merz. However, it was 
clearly contrary to international law and, more importantly, opposed by 
the Belgian state, which would have been held accountable by rating 
agencies around the world, which believed this choice made it unsafe for 
international investors to invest in the eurozone. This was obviously 
opposed by Euroclear, which feared a loss of depositors' confidence and 
the consequent withdrawal of their investments. Furthermore, many states 
believed there were significant risks, as Russia, by appealing to 
international arbitration tribunals, could obtain orders requiring the 
restitution of the illegitimately held assets. Confirming this, it's 
worth noting that Moscow has already obtained the confiscation of 
Latvian assets from an arbitration tribunal, and now the Russian Central 
Bank is demanding EUR195 billion from Euroclear. If the Russian courts 
rule in Moscow's favor, the ruling could be enforceable in other 
jurisdictions, putting Western companies still operating in Russia at 
risk and forcing European Union taxpayers to cover any losses.
Awareness of these risks has also led Italy and France to oppose the 
proposal, fearing that Russia could recoup the losses from the two 
countries' assets, consisting of companies still operating in Russia. As 
for France, it also emerged that EUR19 billion of Russian property is 
deposited in French banks, a fact previously unknown. It follows that 
the confiscation order should have been extended to these deposits as 
well, with the resulting discredit and losses for French banks. Thus, 
the frozen Russian assets (EUR210 billion) will remain unused for now 
indefinitely.
The European leaders' decision, with some qualifications, thus fell back 
on granting Ukraine a zero-interest loan of EUR90 billion, to be 
financed through the issuance of a joint debt guaranteed by the European 
Union budget. However, it is quite clear that the cost of the loan will 
fall proportionately on the budgets of the individual states, while 
Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic will be exempt from 
contributing to the repayment of the joint debt. The bulk of the sum 
will fall to Germany, the Union's largest contributor, amounting to 
EUR29 billion annually at the current rate of 3.25%. Italy will be left 
with a debt of approximately EUR10 billion, which will be taken from the 
Italian people without the vote of Parliament.
The fact remains that, politically, von der Stupid and her associates 
have been seen as mountain fifes who went to play and were played. Yet, 
as advocates of liberalism as they claim to be, they should have known 
that when politicians make other people's property available and seize 
it for contingent needs, legal certainty erodes and the propensity to 
invest diminishes, while capital shifts to places where rights remain 
reliable and neutral and investments are safer.

The issuance of a joint loan of EUR90 billion

If the decision solves Ukraine's immediate financing problem, the sum 
allocated is far less than the needs highlighted by the rapacious 
almsgiver Zelensky. However, he is cashing in, relying on the proceeds 
of future collections from individual states, leaving the Union with the 
problem of repaying the loans obtained and maturing. If the effete 
leaders of various European countries delude themselves into thinking 
they can cover these loans with Eurobonds or the issuance of national 
debt, they are deluding themselves: it is illusory to think that anyone 
would be willing to invest in such a loan, even if the returns are 
generous, unless the loan bonds are placed with arms suppliers, thus 
implementing a triangulation that has frequently recurred during 
conflicts. In any case, the loan granted constitutes an incentive to 
continue the war, as Ukraine's repayment of the loan is conditional on 
Russia receiving payment of war reparations.
It so happens that Ukraine is clearly losing the war, and since the dawn 
of time, those who lose a war do not receive payment for war 
reparations, but rather pay them, because it is the victor who benefits 
from victory on the battlefield. It follows that, as Zelensky, who is 
well aware of the true course of the conflict, has also stated, this is 
a non-repayable loan that Ukraine will never repay, to the great 
disgrace of the citizens of the Union who will be forced to pay for the 
continuation of a losing war. The decision therefore constitutes an 
incentive for all European countries to continue the war, because this 
would be the only way to obtain, with Ukraine's unlikely victory, the 
repayment of what was given.
Ursula von der Stupid and her acolytes, including Merz, continue to 
behave like clumsy cheaters at a poker table, trying to win with stacked 
cards and, gripped by gambling fever, continue to play, continuing to 
lose and accumulating debts for future generations.
It is worth remembering that among the reasons that led to the birth of 
a United Europe was the desire to ensure that the peoples of Europe, in 
the name of common interests, would avoid future recourse to the wars 
that had torn the nations of the old continent apart throughout the 
early 1900s. But if the result of this operation is that the birth of a 
unitary, albeit federal, state requires a bloodbath and the purification 
of war-as Senator Monti stated in a moment of cynical sincerity-then it 
is better to do without the European Union: the price to pay is too high.
The war in Ukraine must end as soon as possible and at all costs. We 
have repeatedly expressed our position on the war in Ukraine, but we 
believe it is appropriate to clarify and reiterate our views once again.
The war in Ukraine was born from the evil arts of American imperialism, 
combined with Britain's enduring interest in dividing the European 
continent, in the belief that a fragmented Europe composed of 
conflicting states is the means to ensure the perpetuation of the 
Anglo-Saxon empire under a new guise. But there's more: faced with the 
objective demise of the British Empire, Britain plans to rebuild its 
dominion by fragmenting the Russian state into numerous territorial 
entities that can constitute a plundering ground for the resources 
needed to sustain the dying well-being of an island with a depleted 
population and a marked economic, cultural, and social decline.
This project is embodied by the British establishment, regardless of 
party affiliation. Proof of this is the fact that with the change in 
government majority and the transition from the Conservatives to the 
Labour Party, Britain's foreign policy has not changed. The European 
Union's leaders are foolish and stupid. After having endured Brexit to 
allow Britain an independent foreign policy, they are now subjected to 
British input that guides and conditions their foreign policy (see, 
"willing").
They could have taken advantage of Trump's intentions to free themselves 
from the hidden British direction of the politics of the dying American 
empire, and from the political circles representing the City of London, 
to try to salvage what can be salvaged, reducing its dominance and 
freeing themselves from the British burden, allowing the island to sink 
into its contradictions. Instead, trained to obey the old Anglo-American 
policy, embodied by the mainstream of the US Democratic Party that 
occupies the American deep state-foolish servants that they are-they 
continue to obey their old master, now conditioned and incapable of 
independent thought.
Certainly, the interests that bind them to the old project are strong, 
but their expectations are rendered obsolete by the growth of new 
realities, by the emergence, albeit with great difficulty, of 
multipolarity in international politics, crushed by the growing weight 
of the BRICS, incapable of recognizing the now-altered balance of 
international power. Proof of this is that they are doing everything 
they can to persevere in their dream of balkanizing Russia, wishing for 
Putin's death, spreading rumors of his illnesses, and failing to realize 
that the Russian leader is a moderate among the contenders for his 
country's leadership, compared to many others who would like to 
re-educate the West with some nuclear sweets, drawing on their immense 
arsenal, instilling in Europeans the palpable sense of fear they seem to 
have forgotten.

The Ukrainian Variable

Britain has been able and capable of exploiting the interests of 
Ukrainian nationalism, which seeks, through confrontation and conflict 
with Russia, to lay the foundations of its existence and its raison 
d'être, putting an end to the existence of a multiethnic and 
multilingual country and establishing a centralized and nationalist 
state. To implement its plan, the current Ukrainian government is 
carrying out a cultural, linguistic, and ethnic genocide, aiming to 
shape not only the language and culture of the Ukrainian people but even 
their history.
He has therefore imposed only Ukrainian as the country's official 
language, persecuting and legally prosecuting those who speak other 
languages; he has created his own Church and established it as the state 
Church; he is attempting to erase the country's historical memory, 
demolishing monuments, burning books, rewriting history for his own use. 
He has attempted to reformulate the population, even erasing its 
memories, changing the names of cities and villages, erasing the names 
of saints of Russian origin from the religious calendar, and attempting 
to erase tradition by changing the date of Christmas, which is mandatory 
for December 25th, and by cracking down with administrative and police 
sanctions on those who still celebrate it on January 7th, as is Orthodox 
tradition. In doing so, he is enacting a criminal and violent, if not 
grotesque, revisionism that imposes by force what it cannot achieve with 
reason and conviction.
Aware that it could not achieve this goal by its own means alone, the 
Ukrainian establishment sought to exploit the international contingency 
afforded it by the clash between the various powers and embraced the 
dream of Russia's fragmentation, in the belief that the more fragmented 
and small the neighboring countries, the more Ukrainian nationalism 
would prevail. They theorized that the bloodbath and the shared 
suffering of the country, the war, were the necessary cement and the 
price to pay for the foundation of the nation and its identity. For 
these reasons, and for reasons of sinister interest demonstrated by the 
lavish profits derived from corruption and personal enrichment, the Kiev 
establishment sided with British policy, put national assets up for 
sale, making them available to multinationals, starting with land 
ownership, and offered itself as a vassal to the British political plan, 
in the belief that it would find a place in the future structure of the 
continent, carving out a hegemonic role for itself on behalf of its 
insular partner.
These strategies affect the interests of the European peoples, not only 
because they reintroduce fratricidal warfare between its member 
countries, but also because they destroy their standard of living and 
well-being, making it impossible to improve the social and political 
conditions of their peoples. They create the conditions for a further 
defeat of the lower classes, who find themselves relegated to a 
permanent state of subordination. They push towards the adoption of 
policies repressing civil liberties and the militarization of society, 
as demonstrated by the recent measures of censorship and deprivation of 
freedom of opinion adopted by the European Community against those who 
independently develop analyses and opinions, as happened to former 
Colonel Jacques Baud, who was deprived of his freedom of movement by an 
administrative measure and had his accounts closed for having written 
books and expressed his opinions by an administrative measure that 
cannot be legally challenged.
In essence, Jacques Baud and others, placed on a statute of limitations, 
were sentenced to civil death, without trial, without the opportunity to 
defend themselves, for having expressed their opinions, in total 
violation of the rule of law and similar to what happens in a 
dictatorial regime. However, he is the only Swiss citizen de facto 
detained within the territory of the Union, unable to defend himself 
before a judge.
Our opposition to war stems from the conviction that it leads to the 
deterioration of people's living conditions and undermines the 
possibility of any emancipatory movement, any social growth, freedom, 
and equality. To make matters worse, the policy pursued by Ukraine and 
its oligarchs and militias, in addition to being inspired by a 
historical fascism that had its national champion in Bandera, is 
characterized by xenophobia, racism, and narrow-minded nationalism. It 
is hostile to freedom of conscience and civil liberties, is profoundly 
corrupt, to the point of threatening to infect the entire Union, and 
must therefore be kept away from any proximity to European states. Hence 
our firm rejection of Ukraine's membership in the European Union.

This does not mean that we support the state it is fighting against, 
which, in turn, is characterized by a nationalism tied to the principles 
of Orthodoxy, tradition, and the master state. It is governed by an 
oligarchic government, hostile to civil liberties and equality, but 
compared to Ukrainian Nazi-fascism, it represents the lesser of two evils.

The interests of the European peoples

It is in the interest of the European peoples to select their 
interlocutors based on their willingness to accept peaceful coexistence 
and maintain open economic and trade relations, with a view to 
collaborating for the common good. Compliance with these conditions does 
not depend solely on the goodwill of the interlocutor, but is rooted in 
the objective, geographical, orographic, economic, social, and 
historical conditions that characterize the life of the European 
peoples. Analyzing the situation from these factors, it is clear that 
pursuing economic, trade, and cultural cooperation with Russia is a 
cornerstone of the interests of the union of the countries that make up 
continental Europe. This is not only because Russia is an integral part 
of Europe and what it is today, but also because it is part of its 
history in terms of social, economic, and cultural relations, the 
development of the values that have characterized the life of the 
continent over the centuries.
On a purely economic level, the human, economic, and structural 
resources of the two components of Eurasia-Western and Eastern-integrate 
admirably and form a single whole, the fruit of the encounter between 
two civilizations: the Roman-Barbarian and the Slavic. These 
civilizations laboriously learned to communicate, learned to understand 
and integrate over time, and, after fighting, chose to forge 
relationships of collaboration and exchange of experiences and cultures, 
making this part of the world a whole with a shared history. Both 
cultural, political, and economic areas have had the shared experience 
of establishing relations with Islamic civilization, which, not 
coincidentally, today constitutes a common element of both Russian and 
European society, albeit as a result of the migration of the last 
century, as far as the West is concerned.
All of this is actually part of humanity's common heritage, which should 
lead different civilizations and political systems to seek the reasons 
for coexistence rather than war, allowing societies and peoples to 
aspire to an ever-improving standard of living and inducing everyone to 
dedicate their strengths, energies, and resources to overcoming the 
internal imbalances within these societies, represented by the unequal 
distribution of wealth, which is the real danger, as it constitutes the 
causes of a war far more serious than that between states: namely, 
social and class war.
The peoples of Europe, like all other peoples, do not have the energy, 
resources, time, or interest to devote to fratricidal warfare in the 
name of state interests and vulgar, shortsighted, and miserable 
nationalism. However, they have every right to seek peaceful and happy 
living conditions, through coexistence and cooperation, in mutual respect,
putting an end to the exploitation of man by man, whether it occurs 
through an increasingly unscrupulous, cynical, and cruel capitalism, or 
through oligarchic regimes that govern peoples, suppressing their freedom.
Is this a utopian vision of relations between peoples?
Perhaps not, if we look to the future and have at heart the interests of 
humanity, the preservation of the species, the environment, and humanity.

The Editorial Staff

https://www.ucadi.org/2026/01/31/il-papocchio-di-bruxelles/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en