Strategic Geography & Worldviews: EU Elites

Do European functional elites actually believe in the "Liberal International Order" they preach, while the US has moved on to raw coercive politics? Or are they just cynical actors?

I would argue that trying to peer into the souls of “leaders” to find their true motivations is not necessarily the point. Whether they are true believers or cynical opportunists or a combination of both, is secondary. What matters is the structure of the relation, a structure where shared values can exist (particularly the orientation framework based on dichotomy), but in which geography also plays a role.

Symbiosis

The reality is that the political sphere has largely been superseded by the military-corporate one (or securitocracy). In this context, EU elites are symbiotically tied to US elites most specifically through the importance of geography, and, hence, territory. (Indeed, the role of simple geographic proximity and location has grown immensely in the last years for the operations and plans of the transatlantic elites, think Greenland, think Mexico.)

If the US ruling strata want to weaken Russia (and by extension, isolate China), they physically need European territory. It needs the ports, the rails, the airspace, and the industrial base. Therefore, EU elites maintain their positions of power by conceding to these planning demands. However, their power depends on US support, and US support depends on compliance with US strategic requirements.

Contradictions

This explains why we see such a confusing mix of justifications coming from European capitals (or just from Western functional elites in general). They deploy contradictory narratives simultaneously: “Trump is an isolationist/authoritarian who will abandon us, so we must increase defense spending." "Western civilization is under attack by Russia, so we must defend it militarily." Or likewise, a combination of both narratives.

Whether they believe Narrative A or Narrative B (or a mix of both) is irrelevant to some extent. Both narratives lead to the exact same outcome: compliance with US elite planning demands. Which translates into implementing "military mobility," building "dual-use infrastructure" (roads for tanks, not just cars), and integrating their defense industries into the US supply chain. The rhetoric may vary; but the logistics remain the same. (This is why currently elections seem to not change a thing in the EU and also in the US.)

Ideology

Right now, ideology seems secondary; it’s just the grease for the gears of elite compliance. But this is changing through the construction of a massive "Cognitive Warfare" infrastructure (under the guise of fighting "FIMI" or disinformation). Why build this now?

Because while elites can be moved by money and power, status, and so on, populations must be moved by ideology. As we move from "preparation" to "mobilization", where the population is expected to bear the costs of a war economy or actual conflict: ideology will shift from a secondary justification to a primary operational necessity.

This is why dissent is being criminalized through administrative actions. This is why "judicial warfare" is ramping up. They are preparing the ideological terrain for a whole-of-society mobilization.

Do look at what they say they believe ( because what they believe is also crucial in some sense, the dichotomous orientation framework, it’s what they are clinging to, their justifying framework for their position, material wealth in their countries and globally). But also look at what they are building. The strategic compass of the EU is not pointing toward autonomy but pointing toward being the logistical staging ground for the transatlantic elites’ grand strategy.