Amid Russophobia, an Admission of the EU's Powerless-ness = a Call for Nukes

As the US bids farewell to Neoconservatism's 'Project for a New American Century', the emergence of the surrealist turn in IR signifies the intensification of delusions in EU/Europe

Behold, the rise of the surrealist turn in international relations, courtesy of legacy media journos™ talking to military and security expert™ Col. Markus Reisner. Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.

---

Expert on Trump-Putin plan: ‘The US dropped Ukraine’

World politics is in turmoil [as if that wasn’t the case before last Monday]. Washington and Moscow will negotiate over Ukraine. Europe remains a spectator. Colonel Markus Reisner analyses the situation.

By Nicolas Butylin, Berliner Zeitung, 13 Feb. 2025 [source; archived]

Europe will probably only realise what happened on Wednesday evening the day after. ‘I think a bomb has gone off for Europe’, Markus Reisner tells the Berliner Zeitung. The phone call between US President Donald Trump and Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin has presented Ukraine and the EU with facts. ‘Crisis meetings will begin in the European capitals on Thursday morning at the latest’, says the colonel in the Austrian Armed Forces. Europe as the big loser in an impending deal between Washington and Moscow?

The dynamic that is unfolding in the Ukraine issue is remarkable. ‘We have a President Trump who, before talking to the Europeans or Ukrainians, talks to President Putin and coolly and power-politically slams the result on the table for his allies’, says Reisner [the chief delusion for these kinds of ‘experts™’ is that they believe the agit-prop spewed out by legacy media (the intel community); now, I’m not suggesting that this isn’t the case for vast swaths of politicos™ and journos™, too, which makes this all the more absurd: Europe’s NATO member-states may be technically allies (in the sense of the Roman ‘Social War’—which in German has always been called Bundesgenossenkrieg, i.e., the war of Rome’s ‘allied vassals’ vs. the metropole—and I submit that this is the most useful analogue here]. The hopes of the European allies in Ukraine that Keith Kellogg, the US special envoy for Ukraine, would get the Europeans on board at the Munich Security Conference taking place this weekend have now vanished into thin air [that’s almost tragicomically farcical as that issue has not been mentioned in virtually all Western media (but the German version of Pravda did)].

Can Europe Compensate for the End of US Aid to Ukraine?

‘The US has abandoned Ukraine,’ says Reisner, who has analysed and classified the war situation in Ukraine over the past few years for the Berliner Zeitung [i.e., Col. Reisner is one of the most credentialed of these ‘experts™’; check out his many videos on Youtube]. The battered morale of the Ukrainian soldiers, who of course also hear reports of an imminent Trump-Putin deal in the trenches in the Donbass, will continue to suffer. Even if Reisner assumes that Ukraine will continue to resist Russia, he does not rule out the possibility that the front in eastern and southern Ukraine could collapse in view of the current dynamics [the front might also collapse as Western media is loath of calling Mr. Zelenskyy—whose term in office technically (legally) expired on 19/20 May 2024—a usurper or (military) dictator due to there not having been elections: Mr. Putin repeatedly stressed he’s considering Mr. Zelenskyy an ‘illegitimate’ (via Reuters, 25 May 2025) ruler with whom he won’t talk (via Radio Free Europe, 29 Jan. 2025)].

Another key question is whether Europe will be able to compensate for the lack of US aid. ‘The Europeans must now develop a plan quickly’, the military expert demands [muahahahahahaha: good luck in Brussels or wherever—devise a plan (set up appropriately arranged working groups first to figure out what to discuss); if and when the preliminaries are sorted out—in, say, early 2027—good luck determining a common policy for now: either Col. Reisner knows something we don’t or he’s that stupid]. For a long time, the large EU member states had relied on the United States. The state of the European armies is therefore not in a position to replace the military support of the Americans for Kiev [see what a mean?] On the one hand, Europe does not have the military-industrial capacities of the USA [a questionable assumption given the drastic decline of manufacturing capabilities in both blocs]; on the other hand, lengthy bureaucratic processes are slowing down the modernisation of the armies [due to said armies having so many more chieftains than braves…like Col. Reisner, you know].

Security experts [sic] Claudia Major and Lieutenant Colonel Aldo Kleemann from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs write in a publication on the parameters of a possible ceasefire [this is the point where a casual chat between two know-nothings is superseded by the sheer ignorance of two even more ‘credentialed security experts™]’:

The geographical situation is an immense challenge. The border between Ukraine and Russia is around 2,300 kilometres long. In addition, there are around 1,100 kilometres of border between Ukraine and Belarus, which is closely linked to Russia. The current front line stretches for around 900 kilometres. Russia currently has around 600,000 soldiers deployed. [that quote is on p. 5 of the above-linked ‘paper™’, and, of course, there’s not a single reference for the claim made; speaking of shoddy standards, there’s a footnote (2) on the same page adding ‘references™’ to another wild claim (this one’s about ‘data points indicating that, from 2026 onwards, Russia’s economy and military might get into trouble’), which rests (sic) on a newsletter item by the same Institute for International and Security Affairs (dated 24 Nov. 2024) and two legacy media pieces from the Financial Times (dated 20 Dc. 2024 and 12 Jan. 2025); to be fair, they also cite a ‘counter-position’, but that’s what passes for ‘expertise™’ on these matters].

According to military expert Reisner, the Europeans could provide Ukraine with sufficient support in purely numerical terms [i.e., cannonfodder]. But this is only the case in theory [so, the ‘expert™’ makes a patently absurd claim only to walk it back literally in the same breath]: ‘However, the political will is lacking’, says the Austrian [whose ‘army™’ consists of 16K professional soldiers plus 30K reservists (Miliz, like the National Guard in the US) and couldn’t even deploy to the frontlines], who points out that the EU is divided on key issues relating to Ukraine. While the Balts, Poles, and Scandinavians are in favour of far-reaching and sustained military support for Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia are among the biggest opponents of such a policy within the EU and NATO.

Turning Point: Russia is No Longer a Regional Power

Europe would also not be able to keep up with Russia in the area of military deterrence without the USA [i.e., Europe is powerless]. Thus Col. Reisner:

When we talk about deterrence, we have to refer to the weapon system that is the most devastating and most important—and I know that sounds harsh and we don’t want to hear it—nuclear weapons. And here I say clearly that NATO only works because it is essentially supported by the USA. If Washington’s nuclear potential disappears, NATO will only have a very limited deterrent capability on a par with the Russian arsenal [yes, you read this correctly: the representative of the army of a non-nuclear state calls for nukes, despite him knowing (I suppose) that Austria and most other EU member-states signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, i.e., what Col. Reisner did said amounts to both ‘creating instability’ (in the conventional sense of the term as used by US policymongers) and a double-standard beyond belief: Iran is pursuing the same policy = bad™ and evil™, yet it’s a-o.k. for the EU? Needless to say, what Col. Reisner said is illegal and there should be an investigation by military justices, isn’t it? None of this happens, hence you know what that means…]

For Reisner, something decisive has also happened. ‘Remember when Barack Obama called Russia a regional power in 2014’, says Reisner. Trump, on the other hand, described Putin as a ‘world leader’. ‘The US has effectively revised the narrative that Russia is only a regional player with this phone call’, says the military historian [oh, look, a fellow historian: ever heard or even read the ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ paper by the US neocons of the PNAC? The issue, I’d argue, isn’t Obama saying stuff in 2014 or Trump ringing Puting in 2025—the PNAC’s global strategy formulated in the mid-1990s: see below]. The USA would now negotiate the outcome of the Ukraine war with Russia on an equal footing. ‘This is a real paradigm shift, a major turning point.’ Especially for European security policy [what a stupid thing to say: yes, there is such a Potemkin thing, but its practitioners (like Col. Reisner) are either disingenuous or delusional; my fear is that they are both].

---

Bottom Lines: After the ‘New American Century’

Keeping in line with the last paragraph of the piece, here’s a reminder for the military historians among us (p. 5 from ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’) relating one of the USA’s four core preventive missions:

States seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter.

According to the logic™ spewed by Col. Reisner (and disseminated by the Berliner Zeitung), Russia was already a ‘regional power’ by the time Mr. Obama said what he said in 2014.

Mr. Trump, in 2025, merely stated the obvious, which makes him more of a realist (and, we’ll quite likely see, a statesman, too) than all of his recent predecessors.

In the final analysis, what neither Col. Reisner (the ‘military historian’) nor his interlocutor (the ‘journo™’) understand is this: the phone call between presidents Trump and Putin signifies the end of Neoconservatism as a policy prescription.

This is as momentous as it comes; we’ll probably see the contours of the ‘new world order’ emerge in the next years. I doubt that this will be less violent than the ‘Project for a New American Century’, with the main difference being, most likely, that the kind of extra-Western violence, ‘restructuring™’ (à la IMW/World Bank) will become increasingly directed at esp. Europeans.

In all brevity, I expect the US to perform some agit-prop ‘retrench and re-group’ stuff while they roll out their new system. This being neither the place nor the time to get into speculation (for now), here’s a primer via the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s quite recent ‘2040 Outlook’:

Accelerating shifts in military power, demographics, economic growth, environmental conditions, and technology, as well as hardening divisions over governance models, are likely to further ratchet up competition between China and a Western coalition led by the United States. Rival powers will jockey to shape global norms, rules, and institutions, while regional powers and nonstate actors may exert more influence and lead on issues left unattended by the major powers.

There you have it, in a nutshell. We shall delve into this report before too long, but I recommend you read up on it on your own, too.

Coda: Implications and Take-Aways

Be that as it may, the above piece is stupid beyond belief, yet I chose to publicise it as it marks perhaps peak lunacy on part of European ‘experts™’ who know that all the EU (and most of NATO) can offer is—shit-talk.

Hard power has always been the foundation for everything else; Thucydides knew that 2,500 years ago, yet all our ‘experts™’ are raving loons without any kind of insights. (As a corollary, I’ll mention that soft power flows from from hard power, and it is arguably cheaper for the hegemon to use, say, the CIA and later US AID to wield influence than to send troops.)

And I’ll mention one other thing: back in September 2022, it was sufficiently clear—I wrote about the below conclusions on 14 Sept.—that the conflict in Ukraine wasn’t over the Donbas or ‘our values™’ there.

It was clearly a fight between the US vs. Russia, with future affiliation of Europe being the chief prize (we now know that, absent drastic changes, the latter will be consumed by the US). Notable thinkers, such as the Marxist economist Prof. Michael Hudson (see here) or the left-liberal blogger Yves Smith took note (see here).

I’ll denote but three main points here:

• Western (mainly EU) ‘sanctions™’ against Russia are way worse than any tariffs the US might slap on the EU (leaving aside the constitutional troubles of doing that being Congress’ prerogative, not the executive’s, but I digress)—and their chief target is Europeans’ industry and what remains of ‘our’ wealth. As the EU deindustrialises for lack of cheap Russian-supplied energy, companies are considering moving to the US; add to that the calls by Mr. Trump for increased ‘defence spending’ by NATO ‘allies™’, guess where that form of tribute will end up…

• This brings me to the second aspect, which relates to Col. Reisner’s call for a EU-European ‘strategic deterrence (i.e., nukes), which is blatantly illegal and, in all honestly, I doubt Europeans ought to be trusted with them: just look at some of the the more rabid Russophobes in East-Central Europe and let your thoughts wander off the reservation a bit…(now, I’m not saying that I trust anyone else with nukes, but it’s called ‘MAD’, or mutually assured destruction, for a reason, and that thing, perhaps more than anything else, has prevented the real-world use of nuclear weapons [and, for the record, that assumes nukes that were built decades ago still work…])—did you notice anyone: literally no-one got agitated about this call for EU-European nukes, which, thankfully, I’d add, tells you what the bigger fish think: ain’t gonna happen, so, it’s merely more agit-prop.

• Finally, let’s note that neither the ‘sanctions’ nor any future US tariffs will actually make EU-European leaders™ change their minds. They don’t work for you and me but for someone else; ditto legacy media and their ‘experts™’. These despicable critters hate the likes of you and me, and they do so with a vengeance. Our lives and livelihoods are pissed away by these critters while the woke-fied state schools are grooming our children, shitting into their precocious minds, and poison their souls (just listen to some of the songs that are top-ranked in any of the billboard charts: it’s an uphill struggle, if you have kids). If any problem arises, no-one will come to the rescue of you and me; ask the people in Appalachia or L.A., but then again, non-Westerners already know this. Hence, the final notion here is to act accordingly and be as ready as you can.