While President Trump is conducting peace negotiations in Ukraine, a general hysteria and psychosis of war is emerging in Europe. Fear is slowly taking hold of citizens of the European Union who are used to ordinary “civilian life”, while wars were regularly fought elsewhere.
It should be emphasized that in this entire psychosis that is being created on the Old Continent, politicians are undoubtedly adding fuel to the fire. As a rule, those in power – liberal, while, interestingly, those in opposition – right-wing, who by vocation should be more warlike and ready for wars – seek a more sober approach to the problem and not hasty, emotionally motivated decisions, which are then presented as strategic and achievable. If they are achievable, the question is at what price? Will it end up being too expensive and harmful compared to the benefits that are to be achieved? What will happen to that pile of expensive weapons that should be produced if there is no war in Europe in the end (by the term Europe here I always mean the EU and NATO members)? And, what about the citizens who will be impoverished under the burden of accrued debts, which will be huge, given that the armament must be started “from scratch” and without cash? The money will have to be withdrawn from banks or from the budget that was intended for various social, infrastructural and other projects, which will negatively affect the standard of citizens.
In order for decisions of this type to be strategic at all, a prerequisite is that there are previous in-depth, precise calculations and projections by the state analytical institutes responsible. This is not the case. The agenda is simply hasty and forced, and is by no means the result of in-depth consideration – and all those who deal with it professionally know that, but it is not advisable to talk about it publicly.
Hellbound and Down 