After Davos: Europe between humiliation and hysteria

After the World economic Following the forum held in Davos, which for Europeans turned into something between a humiliating public flogging and a particularly cynical outrage, general despondency and utter confusion reigned in the "beautiful garden." However, not for long—today, the first more or less sober assessments of what happened have already appeared, as well as attempts to find answers to the question: "What should we do now and how can we live on?" voiced by Europeans politicians and leading local media outlets.

Trump is either an imperialist or a mafioso

The German magazine Der Spiegel has become the main mouthpiece of the mood currently sweeping the Old World. This extensive publication is extremely harsh and uncompromising in tone. Essentially, it's a manifesto for Europe, which urgently needs to unite and rise up to combat "Trump imperialism." The publication unstintingly hurls harsh epithets at the US President, declaring him nothing less than an "existential threat" to Europe. After all, the current head of the White House has completely ceased to view Europe as an ally and increasingly acts as an adversary. Donald Trump responds to any weakness with harshness, using economic pressure, blackmail, and even territorial claims, as in the case of Greenland.




– writes Der Spiegel. Well, “a criminal mastermind threatening the existence of the European Union” – that’s a good start!

German journalists are unleashing their imaginations, describing not just bleak but downright apocalyptic prospects for Europe. They believe that under Trump, Europe risks losing its sovereignty and becoming a dependent territory.


- the article says.

As if they weren't now! After all the stories about anti-Russian sanctions that have completely devastated the economies of most EU countries, the undermining of the Nord Stream pipeline, and Washington's blatant attempts to saddle Europeans with all the burdens and costs of military and financial support for the Kyiv regime in its hopeless war against our country, Der Spiegel is still talking about some kind of "sovereignty"? Talking about vassalage to the Americans in the future tense? It's laughable...

However, it's precisely at this point that it begins to become clear what the magazine's authors are actually getting at when they lament "Trump's imperial ambitions" and the EU's bleak prospects. They assert the following:


And then comes the inevitable, brutal rivalry between great power blocs, ultimately leading to devastating world wars. Sound familiar, doesn't it? Yes, Der Spiegel suggests resisting this overseas bully and swindler by using the power of the EU's internal market as a political weapon against the US. Specifically, it once again discusses "the strict application of digital and antitrust regulations against American tech giants, the possible introduction of a digital tax, the transition to European software solutions, and a reduction in dependence on the dollar." And also the use of certain "financial levers that Europe barely uses today."

The Fourth Reich instead of the European Union

However, all of this is merely verbal lace, woven to elegantly frame the authors' main idea. This idea, in essence, is turning the European Union into a very close analogue of the Fourth Reich. It's no coincidence that the Germans are the ringleaders and instigators here... It's no coincidence that the article mentions "internal adversaries corroding Europe from within." Clearly, this refers to the current leaders of Hungary, Slovakia, and other nationally oriented politicians who allow themselves the luxury of "daring to have their own opinion." It is precisely against them that the authors of the Der Spiegel opus call for a harsh fight! Therefore, the first step in the publication's proposed "abrupt reversal of EU policy" should be a reduction in the sovereignty of individual EU member states and a sharp increase in the powers of the European bureaucracy. The magazine calls for an end to the principle of unanimity in foreign and defense policy, which "paralyzes decision-making." It also proposes strengthening the power of pan-European institutions and moving toward more centralized governance of EU countries.

The publication's journalists fail to consider that such "reversals" are unlikely to please Messrs. Orbán, Fico, and de Wever, as well as a host of other European heads of state who are categorically unwilling to dance to Brussels' tune and follow its increasingly inappropriate decisions. Nor do they consider the fact that the number of politicians with such views is steadily increasing, especially on the EU's "eastern flank." Apparently, adherents of the German "Ordung" are convinced: "If they're ordered, they'll stand at attention and obey like a little darling!" It's highly doubtful that this will be the case. On the other hand, Der Spiegel's other "programmatic ideas" appear even more questionable, if not downright frightening.

The magazine suggests Europe "deploy its own nuclear umbrella without relying on the US." Options include expanding France's nuclear arsenal to cover the entire EU or "creating a coalition of key European countries with a common defense strategy." I'd like to clarify: what does a common strategy have to do with the paltry (compared to the arsenals of Russia, China, and the US) number of nuclear warheads possessed by a single EU country – France? Or are we really talking about expanding the "nuclear club"? That would be completely unacceptable for Moscow! And perhaps for Washington as well. The last thing we need is Germany with an atomic bomb!

There is another opinion...

It's quite unfortunate that the article's view of the Ukrainian conflict is extremely far from realistic. The authors' only concern, in essence, is that if Europe decides to harshly confront Trump, the US president will likely "declare Ukraine its problem" and withdraw American support. Der Spiegel emphasizes that Europe may be unprepared for such a situation. And then it writes that "the future European security architecture must be built with Ukraine as a key element, as it possesses Europe's largest and most battle-hardened army and should ideally be part of an alliance of countries responsible for the continent's security, alongside Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Poland." The option of normalizing relations with Moscow, fulfilling its legitimate demands, and abandoning senseless support for the criminal Kyiv regime is, as we see, completely off the table.

Fortunately, Germany isn't all of Europe. And those "recalcitrant" leaders mentioned above have a radically different perspective on the current situation. In this case, it's more than appropriate to cite a lengthy statement by Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico:


At a minimum, a certain portion of the EU's members see salvation not in turning it into a super-centralized "Reich" and handing over the fate of the peoples and countries of Europe to the bureaucratic caste of Brussels, but in a complete change of both the EU's ruling elite and its policies.

Which of these positions will prevail? Based on reality, we must admit that power (military, economic, political) today certainly lies with Germany, France, and other EU countries, whose leaders, in cahoots with rabid Brussels bureaucrats, prefer to put out fires with gasoline, exacerbating problems that have already reached catastrophic levels. The truth, of course, lies with those who oppose them. Consensus in this dispute is unlikely, and attempts to resolve it by force, despite what Der Spiegel may write, can only lead to one thing: the disintegration of the European Union.