'Measures are…maintained as long as the making available of…resources to Russia…poses, or threatens to pose, serious economic difficulties within the Union'.
I happen to concur, but I'm also wary: the EU, being primarily a kind of what used to be discussed under the rubric of 'oriental despotism'--that is, a bureaucratic apparatus where one's career trajectory is dependent on the good graces of the ruler--making it very, very hard to get rid of.
I doubt any of this will be swift, easy, or without massive obfuscation on part of the EU bureaucracy, as in, 'look, you don't know how to deal with these rules and regulations (which we, the EU bureaucracy wrote so as to render your continued reliance on us a given)'.
Those people... they have no understanding of things.
Think of a cottage. It is small and modest enough that one person can deal with most things in it and about it, and so that person understands all the needs and musts.
A mansion needs more than one and they need hierarchy and structure, but also autonomy: just as it is too large for one to handle, so too is the administration of every detail too much and so everyone working in the mansion needs autonomy to do their job right.
That same principle holds true for the EU, but the bosses here do the opposite: no autonomy, and just follow checklists to CYA, for all the servants and serfs.
Of course they don't know: Von der Leyen's last (and perhaps only) election campaign occurred in the early 2000s at the state level; ever since, all her positions were appointments, and 'for whatever reason', failure at literally everything only saw her move 'up' the career ladder: suck as family minister? No worries, try your hand at the Defence Ministry. While this has resulted in massive fraud, nepotism, and waste (to say nothing about the ludicrous state of military readiness in Germany), she was actually considered a viable successor for Mutti Merkel, that is, until it became clear that the CDU, after running the gov't for 16-odd years, would lose the 2021 federal elections. No problemo for VdL who, although she wasn't running™ at the EU level, she ended up succeeding Jean-Claude Juncker as EU Commission chief since then.
If you just consider these bullet points, it's obvious that her perception of reality-as-is has become increasingly distorted over time, hence here we are (that is, as far as the utter depravity of the EU is concerned).
Hypothesis, based on observation and on the statements of Rutte et al, on the war with Russia-issue:
The EU leadership does not in fact want a real war with Russia, since their informers and strategists will have made it clear to them that the EU as whole is
a) Unready for total war, which is what it would take
b) Popular support for aggressive war is very low (defending against Russian aggression is high, and this what is cited in media as high support)
c) Civil unrest escalating into real insurrection is a real risk in many member states
d) EU forces are not co-ordinated enough for an assault and there's no order of battle agreed upon
e) There's zero US support for this
And yet, we see and hear them pushing for war, speaking about war with Russia as a certainty and a duty. Why, when at least the "one step and to the side"-echelon knows all this, do they speak the way they do?
I've been pondering that for a while now and got an idea earlier today:
They don't actually want a war, only the threat of one. By evoking the immediate threat of a Russian invasion, they can enact the same changes and make the same deals as if a state of war was in effect, but without the risks and costs.
I think that's it, really. The bankers of London get to make debt-slaves of EU nations, the capitalists gets their profits from syates funneling taxes into their coffers, and the politicians get their ever closer Union under their un-elected control.
They have decided in advance what will happen, and there are few greater follies than that attitude, in politics.
Well, war being the ultimate democratic pursuit (i.e., the enemy gets a say, too), the permanent threat of (insert emergency™) is certainly preferable to these politicos™…
This type of rhetoric usually precedes a wholesale collapse. It does not create confidence at all.
I happen to concur, but I'm also wary: the EU, being primarily a kind of what used to be discussed under the rubric of 'oriental despotism'--that is, a bureaucratic apparatus where one's career trajectory is dependent on the good graces of the ruler--making it very, very hard to get rid of.
I doubt any of this will be swift, easy, or without massive obfuscation on part of the EU bureaucracy, as in, 'look, you don't know how to deal with these rules and regulations (which we, the EU bureaucracy wrote so as to render your continued reliance on us a given)'.
There are multiple crises converging.
Those people... they have no understanding of things.
Think of a cottage. It is small and modest enough that one person can deal with most things in it and about it, and so that person understands all the needs and musts.
A mansion needs more than one and they need hierarchy and structure, but also autonomy: just as it is too large for one to handle, so too is the administration of every detail too much and so everyone working in the mansion needs autonomy to do their job right.
That same principle holds true for the EU, but the bosses here do the opposite: no autonomy, and just follow checklists to CYA, for all the servants and serfs.
Of course they don't know: Von der Leyen's last (and perhaps only) election campaign occurred in the early 2000s at the state level; ever since, all her positions were appointments, and 'for whatever reason', failure at literally everything only saw her move 'up' the career ladder: suck as family minister? No worries, try your hand at the Defence Ministry. While this has resulted in massive fraud, nepotism, and waste (to say nothing about the ludicrous state of military readiness in Germany), she was actually considered a viable successor for Mutti Merkel, that is, until it became clear that the CDU, after running the gov't for 16-odd years, would lose the 2021 federal elections. No problemo for VdL who, although she wasn't running™ at the EU level, she ended up succeeding Jean-Claude Juncker as EU Commission chief since then.
If you just consider these bullet points, it's obvious that her perception of reality-as-is has become increasingly distorted over time, hence here we are (that is, as far as the utter depravity of the EU is concerned).
Hypothesis, based on observation and on the statements of Rutte et al, on the war with Russia-issue:
The EU leadership does not in fact want a real war with Russia, since their informers and strategists will have made it clear to them that the EU as whole is
a) Unready for total war, which is what it would take
b) Popular support for aggressive war is very low (defending against Russian aggression is high, and this what is cited in media as high support)
c) Civil unrest escalating into real insurrection is a real risk in many member states
d) EU forces are not co-ordinated enough for an assault and there's no order of battle agreed upon
e) There's zero US support for this
And yet, we see and hear them pushing for war, speaking about war with Russia as a certainty and a duty. Why, when at least the "one step and to the side"-echelon knows all this, do they speak the way they do?
I've been pondering that for a while now and got an idea earlier today:
They don't actually want a war, only the threat of one. By evoking the immediate threat of a Russian invasion, they can enact the same changes and make the same deals as if a state of war was in effect, but without the risks and costs.
I think that's it, really. The bankers of London get to make debt-slaves of EU nations, the capitalists gets their profits from syates funneling taxes into their coffers, and the politicians get their ever closer Union under their un-elected control.
They have decided in advance what will happen, and there are few greater follies than that attitude, in politics.
Well, war being the ultimate democratic pursuit (i.e., the enemy gets a say, too), the permanent threat of (insert emergency™) is certainly preferable to these politicos™…
The stupidity of the EU-Leadership knows no bounds
Shooting at Russia hasn't started officially™ (yet), so, I suppose: give it time may be the appropriate answer here. Sigh.