Andrew Korybko
The only thing that might avert the Third World War
that looks increasingly inevitable is if Russia decisively restores deterrence.
European Commission President
Ursula von der Leyen’s annual address saw
her propose several defense initiatives, the most widely reported of which is
the EU’s designation of Canada as its first-ever “associate member”
for “integrating defence industrial bases” and “making the Arctic a flagship
joint project”, et al. In connection with that, Canada was invited to join a
new European Security Council that’ll also include Ukraine, the UK, Norway, and
unspecified others, who’ll also likely participate in the EU’s own Article 4.
This refers to the right of
members to urgently initiate consultations whenever they feel threatened.
Ukraine’s inclusion very strongly suggests that this will function as another
of the many security guarantees
that European NATO’s leading members have already extended to that country. On
that topic, von der Leyen proposed a joint project with it for creating a
modular missile-defense system and announced that remaining “Security Action
For Europe” (SAFE) funds will set up other joint projects.
On the home front, a new European security strategy will be adopted, the details of which she didn’t share but will presumably shape the bloc’s approach to Russia in the predictably tense post-war order. Finally, von der Leyen announced a European Instrument for Strategic Enablers, which refers to what she described as “the critical support assets and force multipliers that any credible defence relies on. From air and missile defence to strategic transport and air-to-air refuelling. From space to cyber.”
Putting it all together, von
der Leyen’s interrelated defense proposals will optimize the EU’s associated
decision-making processes, expand its influence over non-members, and overall prepare Europe for war with
Russia by 2030 in line with some of its figures’ earlier forecasts.
By tacitly treating Ukraine as a mutual defense ally via its inclusion in the
proposed European Security Council and its defense industry as the EU’s own,
Ukraine will remain the most likely trigger for an EU-Russian war in the new
era.
The war hysteria that’s taken
hold of the bloc is also expected to be exploited as a federalist
power play as the EU evolves from an economic union and then later a
political one of sorts into a military union. Von der Leyen’s Germany is
expected to lead the militarized EU due both to its predominant
economic-political influence over the bloc and its ability to spend much more on
defense than any other member. Although Poland currently commands European NATO’s largest
military, Germany’s is on pace to dwarf it.
Poland’s ruling liberals
envisage it being Germany’s top junior partner in containing Russia in NATO 3.0
while its conservative opposition, most notably represented by its president,
envisages it being the US’. If the incumbents remain in power after fall 2027’s
next Sejm elections, then Poland’s geopolitical fate will be sealed, but the
conservatives’ return (likely in a coalition with the libertarian-nationalists)
could see Poland try to assemble an Intermarium alliance
to counterbalance Germany’s re-emerging hegemony.
These are the two most likely
scenarios of what the new “cordon sanitaire’s”
western flank will look like, namely a German-dominated militarized EU or a
militarized EU in which the Polish-led Intermarium
counterbalances German hegemony over the bloc while complementing its efforts
to contain Russia. Either way, von der Leyen just put Europe on the path to war
with Russia, and the only thing that might avert the Third World War that
increasingly appears inevitable is if Russia decisively restores deterrence.
Andrew Korybko, Substack, September 19, 2026
Anteriores:Why Won’t Russia Sever Its Agreements With Western Organizations?
Why Won’t China Cut Ukraine Off From Drone-Related Sales?
The Leipzig Incident Has All The Hallmarks Of A False Flag
Who’d Expect To Gain More From A Serious Escalation: NATO Or Russia?
Is Sikorski’s “European Legion” Proposal A Way For Poland To Deploy “Peacekeepers” To Ukraine?
A Pragmatically Amended 1956 Compromise Could Speedily Resolve The Kuril Islands Issue
Would Russia Really Cease To Exist Without Maximum Victory In The Ukrainian Conflict? Korybko To MAGA: Here’s A Quick Clarification Of Russia’s Policies On Issues Of Importance
The EU under Ursula and Ggang was reshaped from an economic organization into a militant organization pushing the continent toward a nuclear war. What I find shocking is that other EU nations do not start on the warpath to stop this activity. Very few opposed any of this and the main reason is that Ursula and Gang controls the printing machines that distribute tens of billions of Euros and corrupts the already preselected leadership of the EU nations.
ResponderExcluirThere was always an EU plan to be one country with one military. There was no other reason for the UK building those two white elephant monstrosities, the carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.
ResponderExcluirThe political planning for them was done under that war-monger Tony Bliar (sic). His globalist dream was to be at the forefront of the EU and these ships were part of it. It gave the EU 3 x aircraft carriers, alongside the French Charles de Gaulle, thereby ensuring one carrier at sea at all times.
Without an EU navy, in support, neither of these UK carriers were able to have a battle group in support at all times, the Royal Navy having shrunk so much. Indeed, these carriers exacerbated the Royal Navy's problems by taking away funds for their construction and daily maintenance away from other vessels. Not to mention the expensive, useless F35s…