At the beginning of June of this year, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov made a tough statement in an interview with TASS: “It can be stated that today this is not the European Union on which we make a bet as on a strategic partner. It’s degraded”
This was said without a hint of malice or joy. Rather, Chizhov stated the sad fact of the mutation of a quite powerful economically and industrially justified association into a club of officials soldered by ostentatious “values” and exaggerated “ideology”. In addition, all EU institutions now serve as a training center for various bureaucrats, in which even hints of the national interests of their countries have been completely washed out.
Indeed, over the years of its existence, the European Union has become a huge clumsy leviathan saturated with lobbying organizations. Inside the EU, tentacles are reaching out from the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Auditors, the European Central Bank, etc.
The very structure of the EU is so confusing that it is really hard to understand whether this organization is international or has already become a supranational structure that dictates its will to all member countries.
In case of disobedience, this formal association even has the right to punish the offending country. For example, in 2021, the EU obliged Poland to pay up to a million euros daily to the European Commission until it brings national legislation into line with EU standards. This provoked a political aggravation not only in Europe, but also in Poland itself.
Started on a merry note, finished on a sad one
Now it is hard to imagine, but at the very beginning the idea of European integration had a purely pragmatic, if not commercial, meaning. The countries of Western Europe that survived WW2 had to almost rebuild their industry, establish trade relations, solve the problem of unemployment, etc. They wanted to achieve all this through the intensification of trade, economic and industrial ties, when cross-border obstacles were either removed or significantly weakened.
Therefore, in 1951, an agreement was signed in Paris on the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (European Coal and Steel Community – ECSC). The association initially included France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. No politics, just profit.
Already in 1957, the same six countries formed the European Economic Community (European Economic Community), deepening cooperation and facilitating the movement of capital from country to country. In parallel, they created the European Atomic Energy Community (European Atomic Energy Community). It was also just a logical continuation of the ECSC, since in the future they planned to create a unified European energy system for the stable development of industry. By the way, it was not possible to create a unified energy system: in the Scandinavian countries – NORDEL, in Western Europe – UCTE, in Britain – UKTSOA, etc.
Finally, in 1967, all three organizations merged into one called the European Community, and the following year, customs borders completely disappeared between countries.
Most often in the history of the development of what we know as the EU, the watershed is the admission to the European Union of Eastern European states that did not reach the level of economic development even of the already lagging countries of the union. This decision was ostensibly political and doctrinaire. As a result, it washed away any pragmatism, making the EU a supranational quasi-state system.
However, in the author’s humble opinion, the replacement of the economy and industry by politics happened much earlier. Now, few people know that long before the EU mutated into a gendarme with more than dubious motives and competence, the legendary Charles de Gaulle indirectly predicted precisely this outcome.
Therefore, the General and the President of France initiated the holding of informal summits at which the heads of the member countries of the European Community can discuss pressing problems. This was supposed to prevent the bureaucratization of the community and at the same time prevent the reduction of the role of the national interests of individual states within the structure that is gaining scale.
But one of the cornerstones in the foundation of the current state of the EU was not the entry of some Greece or Poland, but the entry into the union of… Great Britain.
The first attempt to get into the relatively new European unification was made by Great Britain in 1963. But the instantly frantic General de Gaulle exercised his legal veto, despite the support of London from other member countries. De Gaulle called a press conference and explained his irreconcilable position point by point.
First, the economic interests of insular Great Britain and continental Europe are in principle incompatible, since London is tied to world trade and has obligations to the British Commonwealth of Nations. But Charles did not want to drag everyone into the European market.
Secondly, Great Britain, which had long since lost the title of empire, was drifting more and more in a vassal direction to the United States. The general was afraid that the Americans would enter Europe through London, distorting the whole meaning of the community and turning it into their tool.
Thirdly, de Gaulle actually saw Europe from the Atlantic coast of France to the Ural Mountains, despite the ideological rough edges. After all, you can trade.
As a result, Charles summed up the whole press conference in a kind of summary with the following words: “The inclusion of the UK in the EU will lead to the formation of a colossal transatlantic bloc under American control and influence, it will simply absorb the European community. This is contrary to the original idea of France – to create a purely European design.
In 1967, the notorious “Englishwoman” with her bad manners again rushed to the attack. But de Gaulle again blocked their application. By that time, NATO Great Britain had already received Polaris nuclear-capable ballistic missiles from the Americans, and the military general did not want to draw a target on the forehead of Europe and eventually turn into a puppet of Washington. In 1966, Charles even withdrew France from NATO.
In May 1968, a “student rebellion” broke out “suddenly” in Paris. “They are children” quickly built their Maidan with barricades and overturned garbage cans. The political crisis dragged on. As a result, in 1969, the general was forced to resign. And next year, informal negotiations began on Britain’s entry into the European Community. Finally, on January 1, 1973, London became part of a united Europe, eventually realizing in de Gaulle’s fears.
Two speeds – one on the Bentley, the other on the scooter
Since the big is seen from a distance, at first the European Community did not experience any significant problems. On the contrary, it seemed that only long and continuous prosperity loomed ahead. The institutions of the European Community have turned into the most powerful structures in which a person of a new formation was brought up – a “uni-European”.
The collapse of the Soviet Union inspired the Europeans even more. The jackals lined up at the body of the dead lion for their portion of meat, which enriched many. At the same time, the illusion has become even more firmly established that only loyalty to the “single European course” is the key to Europe’s success, especially against the contrasting background with the former Soviet Union. Having distributed laurels to each other, the Europeans decided that they had enough economic power to make a leap into the rank of some kind of super-empire.
In 1986, Spain and Portugal became members of the European Community. In 1995 – Austria, Sweden and Finland. In 2004, a whole shower of freshly minted members spilled: Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta. And in 2007 – Bulgaria and Romania.
The true “birthday” of the European Union was the Maastricht Treaty, which finally buried both the pragmatism of the association, the independence of its member countries, and even the right to conduct their own domestic policy. The agreement was signed in 1992 in the Netherlands. So the EU became a supranational political structure, consisting of diverse states, not only in terms of economic indicators, but also in terms of national mentality.
And here the problems fell one after another. Freshly baked EU member countries became donors of labor and resources, which did not allow them to be brought up to the level of the Netherlands or France. And later it gave rise to the miserable theory of “Europe of two speeds”, which levels the essence of the EU. It is also funny to note that there is a tendency to migrate not just some unskilled workers, but also bureaucracy, which is served only to penetrate the European Parliament as a kind of warm reserve with minimal responsibility and workload.
Doctrinal openness of borders exacerbated the migration crisis. And in 2008, de Gaulle’s fears came true, who was afraid of being close to the United States also because of the speculative economic policy of the Americans, who neglected the gold standard. The outbreak of the American crisis immediately covered the European Union.
Grunt, spit and securely glue with adhesive tape!
Inside the EU, they not only adopted doctrinaire laws, twisting the hands of all participants in their observance, but also formed their own atmosphere with their own fashion trends, behavioral styles and the very way of thinking and the inertia of this very thinking. This was inevitable when politics prevailed over economics and industry.
In 2004, the Czech Republic, along with other countries, joined the European Union. Over the years that preceded this, the Czech elites partly adopted the way of thinking of the “common Europeans”, and therefore somehow imperceptibly stopped thinking in terms of national benefit. The author will not indicate how this affected the economy and industry, but will only give one important and vivid example of such thinking.
Back in 1985, the construction of the Temelin nuclear power plant with Soviet VVER-1000 nuclear reactors began. But the “velvet revolution” of 1989 and the collapse of the USSR turned the station into a long-term construction. However, by 2003, both power units still managed to be launched, when the Czechs were already rushing headlong into a bright European future.
And in those same years, a seemingly completely absurd question arose – “from whom to buy nuclear fuel.” It seems that they are not joking with nuclear power plants and only the fuel for which it is designed is loaded into the reactor. In this case, the fuel of the Russian company TVEL. But, as the author has already pointed out, the Czechs actively Europeanized, and therefore turned their attention to the Westinghouse company, which at that moment belonged to the “racially correct” European Union office British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
To begin with, it turned out that the fuel from Westinghouse was enriched below in one of the indicators. In addition, the cost of this fuel was significantly higher than the original Russian counterpart. But the path to Europe is thorny – the fuel assemblies were loaded into the reactor.
As a result, in fact, an experiment was set up to load fuel unsuitable for this type of reactor. After some time, the station stopped the supply of current, and the test showed such facts that it was scary to read. The plant workers found out that the purchased fuel assemblies experienced torsion and bending deformation at the same time. During the removal of the deformed assemblies, in which the nuclear fuel is located, an increase in the level of radiation was recorded.
Oddly enough, European neighbors forced the Czechs to abandon dangerous experiments. A wave of protests swept through Austria, and official Vienna even hinted to Prague to close the nuclear power plant altogether – they say that they won’t sell fuel to the Russians, and there won’t be any danger to us. But Prague reluctantly trudged back to Russia – it really needed electricity.
But the Czechs are no longer discouraged in their European company. Against the backdrop of growth
and Russophobia at the beginning of June of this year, the Czech edition Časopis argument reported that the joint-stock company ČEZ, the owner of the Temelin nuclear power plant, decided not only to abandon Russian fuel, but also to turn again to … Westinghouse, which had already managed to change several owners. And they do it under the pretext of improving the safety of European nuclear energy. It remains to be hoped that Westinghouse specialists have been able to create fuel assemblies adapted to Russian reactors …
This is just one of the brightest illustrations against the backdrop of the blocking of vital gas, which is literally killing the industry of Europe, against the backdrop of the introduction of the “andbangling” rule, which has crushed the entire European gas industry into many small speculative firms against the backdrop of a decline in competitiveness and quality of European products, etc. .
You will be cured. Europeans are our profile!
Behind the eyes of the EU functionaries are called eurocrats, by analogy with bureaucrats. This is no wonder. Even counting their number is a rather difficult task. First, the EU has a fairly complex structure. Secondly, the main organs of the union are scattered purely geographically. For example, if the European Council meets in Brussels, then the meetings of the Court of Justice of the European Union are held in Luxembourg.
At the moment, in open sources, you can find a figure of about 45-50 thousand employees. Only their maintenance takes about 7-8 billion euros, but these figures are more than approximate. But these data do not accurately reflect the entire conglomerate of European officials. After all, a huge number of affiliated projects and lobbying organizations revolve around the EU institutions, which, with proper accreditation, may well be included in the EU working groups.
Naturally, such organizations are characterized by a certain professional deformation of employees; they usually develop their own atmosphere, style of doing business, and even a way of thinking. But only after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, the office also became political. It was she who, in her depths, worked out the foreign policy of the EU member states. It already looks like a party. And consequently, we are dealing with a specific political-ideological being a la the creation of Victor Frankenstein.
And of course, officials loyal to the “party” must vacillate along with the party line, despite some disagreements, in order to continue their solemn march up the career ladder. So they hesitated. And in this eternal vibration whole generations of European officials and politicians were forged.
Not so long ago, the governor of the Kaliningrad region, Anton Andreevich Alikhanov, wrote in his Telegram channel: “The European Commission is simply confused. For example, they quietly allowed to pay for gas in rubles, but they did not issue a piece of paper for Kaliningrad. There are more bureaucrats in the EC than in Franz Kafka’s nightmares, but quantity does not mean quality (in the case of bureaucrats it certainly does not), so they simply screwed up when preparing answers to the FAQ. I’m putting it mildly.”
Alikhanov is right, he puts it mildly. European bureaucrats have become so degraded in their little world that it seems that they already live in some kind of illusion or hope that a saving corner will always be found for them. For example, quite recently Finland, which benefited greatly from its status as a country outside of military blocs, suddenly wanted to become a member of NATO. What they did not see the reasons for this decision: hysteria in the media, fear of the population, the desire of the authorities to cover the rear, etc.
But it is worth looking at the modern ruling elite of Finland. Incumbent President Sauli Niinistö achieved the greatest success before being elected president precisely in the structures of the EU – he was the honorary chairman of the European People’s Party and deputy governor of the European Investment Bank (financial and credit institution of the European Union). Perhaps this explains the readiness to plunge the country into a gas crisis and lose part of the budget on military spending, not to mention the target on the Finnish forehead.
And who do we have in Germany? Let’s bypass Scholz’s “liver sausage”. But Robert Habeck is now sitting in the position of Minister of Economics (Minister of Economics and Climate Change) of Germany. The same Khabek, who recently angrily resented the decline in gas supplies from Russia, “forgetting” to mention that the supplies have decreased due to the unwillingness to return after the repair of the turbine, which this gas is driven through the pipe. The same Khabek, who urged the Germans to wash less.
Robert is a typical “European” from what seems to be the German party “Union 90/The Greens”. But this party is a kind of branch of the European Green Party, which, in turn, was “collected” from the “greens” throughout Europe in 2004. Since then, she has been well fed.
Habek’s predecessor Peter Altmaier is also no exception. Before taking the post of Minister of Economy, Peter worked as a representative of the European Commission in the Bundestag, he was a kind of gasket between the nationally oriented deputies and the interests of the EU.
These are just a few people “brought up” by a single
Europe. And when the author writes about “education”, this is not a figure of speech, but a reality. The same Altmaier worked at the European Institute of Saarland University, which trains “specialists” to deepen European integration…
The Minister of Agriculture, Cem Özdemir, does not lag behind his colleagues, advising the Germans to eat less meat, as this will be a “contribution against Putin.” Before becoming a minister, Cem worked as a member of the European Parliament.
As a result, we have a kind of supranational entity without its own army, but with a wild ideological doctrine. And LGBT parades do not play a big role here, even though it is disgusting. On the one hand, the EU is an instrument of the US, despite the exit of the UK, which has fulfilled its role. On the other hand, this sprawling organization is predictably often self-employed. As Polygraph Poligrafovich said, “I am sitting here on 16 yards and will continue to sit.”
But the main thing is that outright politicking is corrupting the EU. Pragmatism was swept away by the wretchedness of demagogy. “Eurocrats” are reminiscent of the degraded party workers of the late 80s, who themselves no longer believed their own words, like the well-known Irina Farion. This can be seen even in their rhetoric. If earlier demagogy was left to a crowd of ordinary people, like those who on the Maidan ranted about the extraordinary opportunities in the EU, now it is the high officials of the European Union who are doing it themselves. De Gaulle, de Gaulle… well, there is no prophet in his own country…
Sergey Monastyrev, IA Alternative
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel