Contributed by Drieu Godefridi © 2022
Any analysis of the international situation that ignores the fact that Russia is the world’s first or second nuclear power is childish:
If Russia did not have nuclear weapons, NATO would have already established a ‘no-fly-zone’ in Ukrainian skies. This is obviously unthinkable when Russia has six thousand warheads, as nuclear as they are threatening. The kind of ‘nuance’ that escapes fools like US Congressman Adam Kinzinger, whose idea of a ‘no-fly-zone’ in the present context leads directly, immediately and mechanically to all-out thermonuclear war.
I don’t know when Donald Trump last read Diplomacy, Kissinger’s masterful fresco, On War (Clausewitz) and Der Nomos der Erde (Carl Schmitt). What I have noticed, however, is that the New Yorker’s vision and practice of power relations is fascinatingly subtle, intelligent and proportional. At the recent CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Trump reminded us that the US is richly endowed with nuclear weapons, but that Russia is no less so, and that in this area the Chinese are only five years behind. Contrast this with the European leaders whose current ‘diplomacy’ amounts to matching Putin and Hitler. In the current concert, Mr. Trump’s return to business is a Churchillian necessity.
Nuclear weapons are the great equaliser of international relations – a reminder that equality is not a recommendable value. Nuclear weapons guarantee their possessor, if not immunity, at least a very large measure of impunity. This is regrettable. But one does not make politics, let alone diplomacy, with regrets. Thank you again, Robert Oppenheimer.
Europe is talking loudly and is about to experience its worst humanitarian crisis since 1945. The Ukrainians who are fleeing their unfortunate country en masse are our brothers and sisters; their natural, legitimate, authentic refuge is us, Europe. Like France for the Belgian refugees in 1940. These Ukrainians are genuine refugees: no one will dispute that. Admirable Poland which, after five days, had already taken in nearly 300,000 civilians from Ukraine! The same Poland whose ‘egoism’ and ‘lack of respect for European values’ Mr. Verhofstadt has been shouting about in the European Parliament for ten years. A sad sire indeed!
For the past fifteen years, under pressure from environmentalists of all parties, Europe has been massively committed to 1/ banning the exploitation of shale gas, of which our subsoil is overflowing, and 2/ destroying our civilian nuclear capacities. Dominique Reynié of the Foundation for Political Innovation (FONDAPOL) recently recalled that the Russian government has long been funding European environmental movements, NGOs, organisations and parties that are campaigning for a ban on shale gas and the destruction of civil nuclear power. And to cite the example of Belgium, whose current Energy Minister Christinne Van der Straeten of the ecologist party GROEN comes from a law firm that was massively paid by GAZPROM, the Russian government’s gas giant.
How can we explain this companionship – some would say collaborationism – between the Russian government and European ecologists? Because the ban on shale gas and the destruction of civil nuclear power automatically condemn Europe to depend on Russian gas. Forty percent of European gas is imported from Russia: 55% in Germany.
The question arises whether European voters for environmentalist parties will persist in giving their votes to movements that are subservient to the Russian imperialist regime. Worse: the money that finances the rape of Ukraine is Russian gas sold to Europeans. Let that sink in, gentle smiling voter with daisies in your hair.
In any case, it did not take Germany 48 hours to liquidate the entire sixteen years of Merkel’s mandate. There is nothing left of the Merkel era but the refugees of the catastrophic ‘Wir Schaffen Das’.
Overnight, Germany has just decided to invest an additional 100 billion euros in its armed forces. Boom, one hundred billion! Germany is rearming to the teeth and everyone in Europe is delighted: there is no doubt that times have changed. (The French, who have a long memory, will still have a slight acid reflux when faced with this ‘good news’). A heavy, German and serious reinvestment programme: in material. Not in pensions and personnel costs, as is the case with the clown armies of other European countries, those who will raise a white cloth as soon as a blowgun is pointed at them.
Not even the closure of nuclear power plants is being questioned in Germany these days. Belgium is the only country left to persist in this suicidal path, thanks to a quarteron of felonious environmentalist ideologues.
‘Diplomacy or total war’, summarises Nicolas Sarkozy. That is quite right. Let’s salute the role of France, which doesn’t limit itself to insults, virtue signalling and emoticons, as we don’t have the opportunity every day. Russia = Nazi Germany is an interesting idea, which unfortunately overlooks one detail: Germany was Nazi, but not nuclear.
In 1962 (Cuban crisis), humanity narrowly escaped thermonuclear annihilation.
God forbid amateurs.
Drieu Godefridi is a Belgian philosopher and author of several books.
THE GREEN REICH — GLOBAL WARMING TO THE GREEN TYRANNY. Ban everything we can, eco-tax the rest: this could be the motto of the environmentalists in politics. If human CO2 is the problem, then Man must be restrained, controlled, suppressed in every one of his CO2-emitting activities: that is to say, in the totality of his actions. Researching environmentalism from the root of its anti-humanist ethic to the staggering heights of its actual demands — banning cars, aircraft, meat, nuclear energy, rural life, the market economy, modern agriculture, in short, post-Industrial-Revolution modernity — Drieu Godefridi shows that environmentalism defines a more radical ideology in its liberticidal, anti-economic and ultimately humanicidal claims than any totalitarian ideology yet seen. “Dividing humanity by a factor of ten” is the environmentalist ideal.
“Godefridi says we have good reason to be alarmed. Not by climate change, but by the endless, hazardous-to-humans measures that activists propose in response. We need to read Godefridi’s book. And re-read it. Before it’s too late.“—Donna Laframboise.