Stuck In The Middle With EU

Or Mearsheimer for me but not for thee

“When the fox hears the rabbit scream, he comes a-runnin'... but not to help.” Mason Verger, Hannibal.

I’ve spent the last few weeks listening to regime-approved, mainstream podcasts on geopolitical matters and discovered many things. One of the things I found is that they knew we call them “libtards”. The other is that they genuinely believe, deep in their hearts, that Vladimir Putin represents a massive and deadly threat to European security. They also think that Donald Trump is an imbecile and, more discreetly, suspect he’s under the control of Russia. Podcasters at Times Radio, The News Agents, Novara Media, and guests at Unherd seem to live in a loop of stunned disbelief.

I began listening to liberal views on geopolitics to understand the counterarguments to outlets such as The Duran, Judge Napolitano, Neutrality Studies, and The Grey Zone. There comes a point when the pro-Russian narrative framing transcends, sticking it to the libs and revealing itself to be what it is.

For a while now, I’ve begun to sense that geopolitical discourse in the network I’m part of is a little wonky, a tad off-kilter in a way that feels ominous and ill-fated.

Trips to Russia and podcasts in the Kremlin seemed all well and good during the tsunami of propaganda and bullshit that flowed from Western institutions after Russia invaded Ukraine. Still, now that NATO appears to be breaking apart, it seems more like Alexander Mercouris is instructing JD Vance and the Whitehouse than speaking objectively to a YouTube audience. It feels great to have articulate people, influential people, deride the abyss of charisma that is Keir Starmer or snigger at the ludicrously incompetent managerial females who seem to run European affairs. But what, in this era of profound geopolitical uncertainty, is to become of the Europeans themselves?

The Ghost of Kiev: Pitch Meeting

Awful and stupid as they may be, European liberal elites have an answer to this question: massively boost military spending and, somehow, arm the continent to the teeth. In all likelihood, given their proclivity towards censorship, this will require even more surveillance authoritarianism. But at least it is a plan.

The view from both MAGA and geopolitical YouTube is that what Russia calls “Gayrope” is a gaggle of warmongering lunatics, though luckily, they’re too homosexual and feminised to either build anything or field an army. You see, if Europe remains under the American security umbrella, they’re parasites who fritter away their economies on immigrants and early pensions. This is true.

However, when European leaders dig deep into our pockets and attempt to defend the continent, the same networks and commentators will shriek with horror at how Europe is full of war hawks.

So which is it to be? Either Europe remains a set of American vassals, or NATO is sundered, and Europe arms itself. Both, it seems, are morally repellent to the geopol punditry and MAGA commentariat. Europe should become as toothless militarily as it already is in its immigration policies, a borderless free-for-all. The only security guarantee given is that Donald Trump has copious amounts of Bro-energy with Putin.

Am I about to become a Neocon or NAFO shill? No, but I do know when somebody hands me a glass of piss and calls it a pint.

The Online Right's Kobayashi Maru Test

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, John Mearsheimer appeared like a predictive sage, having quite literally done so ten years prior. Mearsheimer’s realist approach to geopolitics has subsequently become the dominant form of analysis in right-leaning circles online. According to Mearsheimer, Western encroachment into Ukraine presented an existential threat to Russia, and whether they wanted to or not, Russia was compelled to invade. Pragmatic self-interest, not ideology, drives the policy of Great Power politics. Mearsheimer is well-regarded in geopolitical YouTube commentary and is very influential. If one had a pro-Kremlin bias, Mearsheimer offers a lucrative and valuable opportunity to present Russian policy as mere “common sense” or pragmatism, and perhaps it is. However, I find it rather baffling that those same people never use the Mearsheimer lens when discussing European security interests.

Here is how The Duran reported it:

The statement released by the European Union on defence spending said:

The first part of this ReArm Europe plan is to unleash the use of public funding in defence at national level. Member States are ready to invest more in their own security if they have the fiscal space. And we must enable them to do so. This is why we will shortly propose to activate the national escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact. It will allow Member States to increase significantly their defence expenditures without triggering the Excessive Deficit Procedure. For example: If Member States would increase their defence spending by 1,5% of GDP on average this could create fiscal space of close to EUR 650 billion over a period of four years.

The second proposal will be a new instrument. It will provide EUR 150 billion of loans to Member States for defence investment. This is basically about spending better – and spending together. We are talking about pan-European capability domains. For example: air and missile defence, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition drones and anti-drone systems; but also to address other needs from cyber to military mobility for example. It will help Member States to pool demand and to buy together. Of course, with this equipment, Member States can massively step up their support to Ukraine. So, immediate military equipment for Ukraine. This approach of joint procurement will also reduce costs, reduce fragmentation increase interoperability and strengthen our defence industrial base. And it can be to the benefit of Ukraine, as I have just described. So this is Europe's moment, and we must live up to it.

The Trump administration may quibble about funding for Ukraine, but by and large, this is precisely what they wanted — Europeans are now paying for European collective security. Geopolitical YouTube has three narratives in response to this:

1. It cannot be done because Europe is a de-industrialised backwater unable to innovate.

2. The liberal elites who govern Europe should not be fleecing their populations when they could better spend the money on infrastructure, care, etc.

3. The liberal elites who rule Europe are engaging in dangerous rhetorical games and escalating tensions needlessly.

In other words, Europe, devoid of the American security umbrella, should remain de-militarised.

Instead, European nations should wriggle free of the liberal elites and collective interests and deal one-on-one with countries such as Russia, America, and China. I suspect that if staunch nationalists or conservatives ruled the EU rather than Ursula and her cronies, Geopolitical YouTube would be even more contemptuous.

Thus, unlike China, Russia, or the United States, Europe’s role is to be subservient to one power or another or to dissolve its collective security interests entirely. But that’s fine because Trump vibes well with Putin.

Recently, American podcaster Judge Napolitano enjoyed a trip to Russia, where Foreign Secretary Sergey Lavrov quipped that “Fuhrer Ursula is mobilising everybody, mobilising everybody to re-militarise Europe.” The language, of course, is reminiscent of the justifications to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. Former CIA analyst and Judge Napolitano regular Larry Johnson gushed fawningly that Lavrov is the Metternich of the 21st Century and, indeed, superior to Metternich.

Yet, again, from the perspective of Mearsheimer-style realism, why should the EU not have “security interests”? The budget clearly denotes that it will be spread across the next four years. It is not merely a conduit to funnel more arms and, potentially, men into Ukraine but a general European defense policy, post-American security guarantees. Ironically, it is the liberal, regime-friendly podcasters who more correctly apply Mearsheimer’s logic. They argue that in a world of Great Power blocs, it is obviously against European interests to remain undefended and reliant on what they see in Donald Trump as a liability and an incompetent buffoon.

The emergent “trust me, bro” guarantees to a continent begin to ring hollow when one questions where the Trump administration is getting its geopolitical influences. At the same time, it is impossible to deny that the current crop of European elites is the most corrupt, anti-white, feminine, stupid, and incompetent in its civilisation's long history. But when in history has it ever been thought of as a virtue for Europeans to stand utterly passive and defenceless on the world stage?

If, for example, a series of Nationalist victories across the continent resulted in the sweeping away of the liberal elites, would it still be deemed immoral not to have robust armies and militaries?

Yet, there exists a network of highly competent influencers with massive audiences who deliver a relentless churn of content that frames narratives for us despite contradicting their stances on Russia and countering the realism they profess to believe in.

I’m increasingly reminded of the film Hannibal, which differs from the book. Hannibal Lector’s wealthy victim, Mason Verger, plots to lure out Lector by orchestrating a public humiliation campaign against Clarice Starling. Starling is used as bait, though in Verger’s calculations, Lector will emerge to gloat and enjoy her torment.

It is commonly known that Western liberal elites are widely despised, and there’s an audience to lure out to enjoy that being articulated. We want to see them distressed; it is good to see them, as Alex Mercouris relishes saying, “scared and confused.” But I can only ignore the bum notes for so long; I can only ignore the absence of mass immigration as a factor of European instability and not everything resulting from the Ukraine war for so long. I can only pretend not to notice the Duper’s Delight grin for so long.

I can only push Mason Verger’s line:

When the fox hears the rabbit scream, he comes a-runnin'... but not to help.

out of my mind for so long…