Will Europe Ever Break Free from American Pressure & Dominance? Geopolitical Trends

Hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. I'm your host, Dr. Oualaalou, excited to be with you. Hope you had a, a relaxing, uh, weekend and you are geared up for the new week. Uh, I have an interesting topic for you. I'm going to be addressing, uh, what is going on with Europe, especially not just from the European perspective, but rather from the US and how we see Europe. You know, that's kind of mind-boggling. If you have a chance to read the US, the security assessments that were just released recently, which I will share with you. But before I delve deeper into today's topic about this US National Security Strategy, which, as I said, it reveals a shocking vision of Europe. I mean, it just— when I read it, I was just like floored. So I'm going to be sharing with you my analysis as to where I see things moving forward. But first, let me say hi quickly to our wonderful community. Liang, good to see you. Willie Holman, as always. Say It Like It Is, a good day to you as well. Uh, François, good to see you. Uh, Who else is— Alwan Omer, good to see you here. Uh, who else is here? Let me see. Uh, Atin Wu, good to see you. Uh, Faradon de la— Faron de la— good to see you as always. Farhad Razavi, as always, good to see you. All right, uh, some housekeeping items. Remember to join me tonight at 1900 hours for my conversation with Jahan Bahndari. We're going to be talking about India. Will India stab Russia in the back? Will— can you trust India? Another word, trust India at your own peril. On the other hand, is it a common sense of India to do what it's doing? Strategic interests. So I'm going to be addressing these topics and more with Jahan Bahndari this evening at 1900 hours Central Standard Time. Also remember to join me on the 10th for my conversation with Professor Anna Malindog. We're going to be talking about Philippines taking over the chairmanship of ASEAN, but there is more than meets the eye for that, given that the country, Philippines that is, asking for, uh, Marcos Jr. to step down, and even ASEAN countries are now questioning the ability, uh, of the Philippines whether it can live up to the standards or not. So I will be addressing these topics regarding the Philippines with my, uh, dear friend Professor Anna Malindog on the 10th. So, and for today, once again, uh, I will be addressing, uh, the— not this one here— I will be addressing the European issue and how the US factor in what's need to be done with Europe. So I have some good headlines for you that you might want to know about. I am working on a particular, particular topic pertaining to China and Japan. I'm not going to get into the detail of it yet, but this one involves fighter jets, involves some maneuvering. So I'm going to be, uh, doing that live stream for you soon. So the first headline I want to share with you is that the Israeli software Yeah, this might shock you. Israeli software hacks phones in more than 150 countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. So as a matter of fact, yesterday Google and Apple confirmed and have sent an alert to their users around the world regarding a cyber threat against their phones. After the companies confirmed that the existence of a threat, according to Reuters. So, and Apple confirmed to Reuters that the attack targeted users in more than 150 countries around the world, without going into the number of users at risk from this breach or even mentioning who was responsible for it. But it turns out to be that it was Israeli software that accessed this one. Speaking of Israeli software regarding, uh, the access to this, the Americans found out that the Israelis were spying on them, meaning the US forces in Israel, in, in that deals with Gaza. So, and this was revealed today, that Israeli is spying on US forces monitoring the Gaza deal. So informed sources are saying that Israeli agents are carrying out large-scale surveillance of U.S. forces stationed at a new base monitoring the ceasefire in Gaza. And according to this informant— information or informed sources or leaks, whatever you want to call them— the commander of the U.S. American base, General Patrick Frank, summoned his Israeli counterparts to a meeting in which he informed him that the recording must stop here. That tells you it's nothing new. As one who works in Washington, we were familiar with what the Israelis will do. That's why Israelis were never allowed to access the Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters. They were never allowed to. The meetings has always to take place outside the headquarters. So that just was the norm. Because they will, they will bring gifts, okay? And those gifts, they have like listening devices, and you put them in your office and they will be listening to your conversation. So I wonder why the Israelis will do this, you know. Uh, a third headlines I have to do is from this particular individual. This is Mark Warner. He's a senator and he's a, a multimillionaire, okay? I'll let you reach your own conclusion on that. Here is what he's saying. He's saying that there is greater danger than Huawei, and this is why the Senate now is demanding oversight and a ban of a new Chinese company. Now, if you know the background of this guy, Mark Warner, he was into telecommunications. That's how he made his millions of dollars. He's in the business but also in the Senate, and now he's warning against the Chinese company., uh, uh, does because he serves on the Intelligence Committee, uh, and I'm very familiar with him, uh, during my days in Washington, DC. So he's calling now for the Chinese company BGI— there is a company by the name BGI, a Chinese company that is, uh, he wants it to be listed on the blacklist or placed on the watch list or blacklist, whatever you want to call it. And BGI is one of the largest Chinese companies operating in the DNA analysis and sample collection sector, as well as conducting a range of medical analysis. Well, the way I see it is that they are afraid that the Chinese will have breakthroughs in the health industry. That is the reason why they want— the same argument has been made about Huawei. You have to place Huawei on the blacklist. Is the fear that the 5G that was developed at that time by Huawei, when the US couldn't have that— I'm seeing the same arguments here. So, and, uh, one more, two more headlines. The next one has to do with Russia, which I will be addressing with my dear friend the Giant Bahndari. Now Russia issued its first bonds denominated in the Chinese yuan. Very, very, very interesting. And you know why is that interesting, especially for those who are interested in investing and so forth? Why is this interesting? Is because there is a 3.2-year bond with an annual interest of 6%, and there is another term for this bond of 7.5-year with an annual rate of 7%. No banks in the Western Hemisphere will ever give you this kind of return. So, but what's interesting about this, and for me personally, is whether now India will be paying for its import of energy from Russia in yuan. You know why? Because Russia promised India an uninterrupted flow of energy. And that's why I'm saying, will India end up stabbing Russia in the back? Makes you just wonder where things is going to go. And the last headline I'm going to share with you has to do with Mr. Emmanuel Macron, who was just in China 4 days ago. Okay, you're all aware, I mentioned this to you. What this— what I'm going to share with you is not about the visit, is at the time he returned back to Paris, he is now threatening to impose tariffs on China in the coming months. That is unbelievable. He was just in China, being given the red carpet treatment, smiling with President Xi Jinping. And as soon as he returned, he's stabbing China in the back by now imposing, threatening to impose tariffs on China in the coming months. And here is what he said. This is what Emmanuel Macron, he said, and I quote, "If Beijing does not take action to curb its increasing trade deficits with the European Union, we will threaten imposing sanctions." He added, "I told them," meaning Macron told the Chinese, "I told them if they don't act, We Europeans will be forced in the next few months to take drastic measures similar to the United States, such as imposing tariffs on Chinese products. End of quote. Well, duh, if you are saying this to the Chinese, why couldn't you say this to the Americans who went ahead and imposed tariffs on the Europeans themselves? And this is why I wanted to do this topic for you. Regarding the US National Security Strategy documents and how we see and view Europe. I mean, straightforward. I'm gonna say it from upfront. We are basically telling the Europeans, either you become a colony or you're gonna die. Simple as that. Because the third option might never exist for Europeans. And the third option is the idea of taking a stand on their own feet. I used to hear this since I was a kid. Nothing happened. So, so this is what I'm going to be detailing now. The new National Security Strategy, which was released on December 4th, 2025, revealed the shocking vision of Europe. So what options does Europe have? So what basically Trump saying within this National Security Strategy— I had a chance to look it up, read a few sections, and I'm gonna share one specific section in it. Has nothing to do with Europe, it has to do with China. Makes you just wonder, is this national strategy meant for Europe or is it meant for global or China or what have you? So, but in any event, the National Security Strategy marks a dramatic shift in the US-European relations moving forward. Why? Because the US now is abandoning the post-Cold— decades of the post-Cold sort of war alliance building in favor of ideological, critic, and conditional engagements. In other words, we are putting restrictions for the Europeans. So, and here is the harsh truth about it, which to me, it's also true. The strategy portrays Europe as facing a civilization— years of decline. A civilization of decline, that's a strong word. And this decline, the US is saying in the strategy, is through migration, is through demographics, which is true because the population in Europe is aging, is through cultural policies. And this, the US is warning that within 20 years Europe will cease to exist. That's a little too much, but I can also see the arguments for that, and I will tell you why as I move forward. And this is why now the Europeans are facing some sort of pressure from the US, because what we want them to do is we want them to align with our policies. It tells you it's not a sovereign state. The whole European Union. I'm talking about the European Union members there. And this, in my opinion, creates an unprecedented moment for the future of Europe if they want to take some sort of a reality check, because what they have, they have internal divisions, they have deep economic struggles, and they have lack of access to energy. So is Europe in possession to some sort of master unity and vision to chart its own path? I don't see that happening when you have the likes of Steinmeier, Macron, Merz in Germany and others. No, I don't see that happening. I think the Europeans will be and remain caught between American pressure and their own structural constraint and division. That's the way I see it. And this is why I'm saying you're gonna have to either think for how Europe is perceived in the eyes of Trump. He's looking at them and saying basically, you only have two choices: either become an American colony or just face death. That's the way I look at it. It's a hard truth. So, and this, by the way, was also pointed out by some major news outlets inside Europe, like for example Le Point. Le Point, it's a major magazine in Europe, I think in France, if I'm not mistaken, reviews this. They also reviewed this national strategy. So, so It's just very, very mind-boggling. So the way I'm going to structure this analysis is by asking, I think, 3 or 4 fundamental questions. Why did— I'll start with the first one. Why did the new US National Security Strategy reveal the shocking view about Europe? You know, makes you just wonder. And the idea is that this National Security Strategy or document, we're going to use the term document from now moving forward. This document paints European allies as weak, very weak, and they are indeed, and includes scathing criticism of their migration and free speech policies. Now here is where I have to push back against the White House. Why are you telling other countries how to manage their own immigration affairs? What are you telling other countries how to deal with freedom of speech when we have the same problem right here? Who are we to dictate to the Europeans? But at the same time, this highlights much deeper problems that exist inside Europe. So the strategy or the documents warns that should present trends continue, if the trends keep going in Europe as we see in them, the decline in economy, the lack of investments, because there is no investments in Europe right now. I mean, look just what's going on in England, how England economy is sinking, poverty is rising. That applies to France, that applies to Germany, Spain to a degree, Portugal, and some other regional countries there. And this is why, in my opinion, and what that strategy also mentioned, is that Europe will be unrecognizable within 20 years, 2 decades from now. And this is where you makes you just wonder whether Europeans will take it upon themselves to take stand. I don't think so they can. So the most provocative aspects of this assessments includes assertions about Europe's fundamental decline. And it was for one reason, in my opinion. And you know what that reason was? Lack of access to cheap energy. Of course we pushed them into, uh, the Ukraine conflict. The same thing we are now trying to sell to them regarding the Far East, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea. We're already pushing the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea. And I will do the live for you regarding the recent incident between Japan and China. Doesn't look good moving forward. So the document, the assessment that is the national, the US National Security Strategy identified issues Europe is facing like migration, as I mentioned, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition. When, in quote, when you hear something like this, that gives you an idea. The US doesn't care about Europe. We wanted to sink Europe even further. And the reason we're doing it is by bringing up those issues to the forefront, which means what? In my own assessment, we are giving a green light to the far rights in Europe to rise. That's what you are noticing in certain elections in Europe. So when you consider, for example, the fallen, birth rate in Europe, when you're looking about the loss of national identities, when you're looking about the poverty going up, when you look at about the suppression of the freedom of speech, look what the Germans are doing to the demonstrations for those in support of Gaza. Look what England is doing. I've seen in England through some analysis that I read and there were some images, arresting an 80-year-old. A woman was demonstrating for Gaza. She was 80 years old. She's been detained. Heck, they even detained what's his name, uh, uh, the former MPs in, in England, George Galloway. They detained him and confiscated his equipment. That ain't right. What makes this striking is that while the Trump administration's broader philosophy emphasizes non-intervention, the European section explicitly endorsed efforts sort of from previous US strategies. Yeah, the European wants it. European wants to be at the mercy of the Americans. That's the same like Japan, same like South Korea, same like Philippines, and same like Australia. So, and here is the thing, the response from the European leader has been notably reserved. This is why I'm saying Europeans have— the leaders have no guts whatsoever. They just can't say no. Just look at the way they are sitting. It used to be Angela Merkel. She will say no to the Americans. Those knuckleheads here, they can't. So, so, however, some of the Europeans are now signaling that this strategy represents a serious departure from traditional transatlantic cooperation. What the transatlantic cooperation has to come to an end. How much can we be supporting Europe? How much can we funnel our own tax dollars to European infrastructure, to European military defense, to European NATO, to European whatever, you know? I mean, we have issues right here, and this is again where it's problematic. And I'm going to share the link with you of this document here. I'm going to put it in the chat box. If you want to read it in its entirety, uh, it's not that long. It's just about, I think, I think 30, if I'm not mistaken, uh, 30. The way I looked at it when I read, when I read it, it's about 38, not even that. It's about 30, 30 pages, 29, 30. But here is what's surprising about it. On page 22, if you ever get a chance to read it, on On page 22, here is what it says, and I quote: China's state-led and state-backed companies excel in building physical and digital infrastructure, and China has recycled perhaps $1.3 trillion of its trade surplus into loans to its trading partners. America and its allies have not yet formulated, much less executed, a joint plan for the so-called Global South, but together possess tremendous resources. Europe, Japan, South Korea, and others hold net foreign assets of about $7 trillion. International financial institutions, including the Multilateral Development Bank, which is, by the way, just for the back door of businesses, by the way, possess combined assets of $1.5 trillion. While mission creep has undermined some of these institutions' effectiveness, this administration, meaning the Trump administration, is dedicated "to use its leadership position to implement reforms that ensure they are American interest, that they serve American interests." End of quote. What leadership are you talking about, Mr. Trump? I mean, if the leadership that you're talking about, given what we've been doing around the world, I won't call that leadership. And this is why, end of quote of that, and you can read up the link I sent you, that's where the entire strategy is. And this leads me to my second question in this analysis. Is Trump giving Europe only two options? Either become a colony or die. What do you think? In your opinion, is Trump giving Europe the only two options? Either become a colony or die. If you can just answer in chat box and I'll share your answers with the community here if you feel like it. So the strategy, the strategy is critical to Europe's current trajectory and of course its future for that matter. So however, I don't see the strategy will work for Europeans anyway, because it only gives them two options. Of course, Europeans have a third option, but I don't see they're gonna exercise that third option. And that third option is to stand on their feet. So yes, Europeans now expressing alarms and all that stuff, but Americans also have expressed that about the decline of Europe. On the other hand, why would we worry about Europe when we have our own issues right here? Unemployment is going up here. The people, Americans here are struggling financially speaking. Our dollars is being sent to corrupted Ukraine. It's been sent to Israel, it's been sent to Jordan, to Egypt. Why? And this is where you are going to be seeing now an internal European resistance that's going to be emerging. So, and of course, what Donald Trump is saying is that we do not want to be or should not be the guarantor of European security in the way it has been historically. He got a point there because we paying over 70% of NATO's budget. Why? Let the European defend themselves if they want to defend themselves. But this doesn't reflect just Europe, the strategy in itself. It reflects a worldview, in my opinion, where Europe needs to fundamentally change its approach to even its own sovereignty. To its own issues, immigration, birth rate, whatever. So, and we shouldn't be continuing to subsidize European defense and institution. It's about time. And this is where you have to think in terms of where this is headed. The real tensions now that this document exposed, it's deeply critical. Of the European current path. So because the Americans are saying, we're not going to be as committed to traditional alliances relationship as we did before. But again, we have a next president in the next few years, he might reverse the course. This is the downfall of how our system is. What one president does, the next one will reverse it. So But at the same time, for Europeans themselves, even though they are, they are incompetent, the leadership I'm talking about, for them is that this creates some sort of a dilemma because they're going to now to figure out how they're going to navigate this relationship with the US. As of now, Europe will not survive without the US. Later on, they are talking like when you hear England We wanna fight the Russians. You won't be able to defeat the Russians. Come on. A whole Europe, NATO collectively won't be able to defeat Russia. And that is why you are seeing now more and more withdraw from the traditional role and more ideological demanding, demanding about how Europe should govern itself. We shouldn't be telling them, they should decide for themselves. So on the other hand, knowing how Trump operates, I would not go— I would not rule out that maybe all these hypes, Trump is doing it because he wanted to represent a negotiating position. So this fundamental shift in US strategy It's something that will be refined over time throughout negotiations. In other words, we're gonna get concessions from them. So even the documents in its wording is saying we're gonna abandon this post-Cold War alliance agreement or management. Nah, it's just words. Third question in this analysis will be, what will Europe do? Will it ever free itself from the shackles of the US dominance and influence? I've been raising these questions for so many years. I've been hearing European leaders from way back. We're talking about, for example, during the time of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in France, François Mitterrand, Helmut Schmidt, Helmut Kohl, even during the era of uh, what's her name, uh, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. You hear it from previous prime ministers in, in, in England, though England much less than like the France and the Germans. The French and the Germans were always pushing for that narrative. We need to create our collective security. And it was nothing but hypes. They won't be able to do what General de Gaulle did back in the '60s. And you all know what General de Gaulle did. He pulled France out of NATO altogether because he said, "I ain't gonna fall under the dominance of the Americans." Later on, we reached out to de Gaulle and tried to mend fences with him. Europeans are not in position because Europe's relations with the US has always been asymmetrical. So suffice it to say, we're going to have to differentiate between, or distinguish, that is, between the types of influence we are exerting on the Europeans. I mean, look at just what Macron just said as soon as he left China. Do you think that this happened in a vacuum? Was he pressured by, by Trump to say what he said? All of a sudden wants to impose tariffs on China? Makes you just wonder. The one thing that is certain is that the US has considerable military and economic power exerted on Europe, and Europe has historically relied on American security guarantee, mainly NATO. Like always, when I say NATO, what do I mean by NATO? The US. So, but I will not go as far as not ruling out or use the term dominance and shackles. Those are strong words, but I will use them because in my opinion, these, those terms suggest a level of control and there is. Yeah. Tell me if the Europeans can find a solution to the Ukraine war. They don't even want to have a solution. Then I said to, for us, why even bother? Let the European deal with it. Let them figure out how to fund it, fund corrupted Ukraine. So, and this is where I think this strategy, the National Security Strategy, in my opinion, could be a wake-up call for the Europeans. Wake up call for what? For them to build some sort of greater autonomy, independence. Europe could strengthen its own defense capabilities, reduce the dependency on the US, the security guarantees, and sort of develop a more independent foreign policy. I mean, can you see Europeans having an independent foreign policy? You, of course, Europeans always discuss this periodically, their Parliament meeting and so forth. They always talk about this strategic autonomy. It's nothing but hypes. It's in action that you find out. Wasn't that, uh, the, the, the late Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius said, watch what a man does, not what he says? Watch what the Europeans do, not what they say. Because if the Europeans wants to do this, this will require significant investments among the all 27 members, which is very difficult. And that in itself paved the way to the question whether European Union should disintegrate. Let European countries live on their own. Decide for their own, get rid of the European Union altogether? It's worth asking. What do you think? Should European Union disintegrate, yes or no? Let me see in a chat box here what your answers. Uh, okay. Yeah, in your opinion, should— yes, Alistair, can you say yes? Uh, Asim Schroeder, you say no. Fair, fair answer. Yeah, that's your opinion and it should be respected. Uh, Alistair, can you say yes? Dave H, you say yes. Truth Seeker, you say yes, definitely. Uh, YTT, you say yes. G4RG, you say yes, as European. Yes, for sure. Uh, Yanis, yes. So majority of you agree. My point is just, if the European wants to do it that way, let European countries decide for themselves. In other words, get rid of this EU because you're controlling policies for countries that they don't want it. Their traditions, their values, their customs, their whatever are completely different. You don't force someone into— because it's like what we're saying to to other countries. We're gonna impose democracy on you. No, can't do that. And this is where Europe has to also not only do this as far as independence in foreign policy, independence in security strategy and so forth, it has also to reorient its relationships. What do I mean by this? Because Europe could develop closer ties and relationship economically speaking with other powers, the likes of Russia and China. Now, if they want to do business with India, more power to them. They can do business with Japan, they can do business with South Korea for the benefit of the Europeans. Why you have to follow what the Americans doing? The Americans went ahead and imposed sanctions on Russia, the Europeans follow through. Why? The same thing when we imposed tariffs, the Europeans went ahead and imposed tariffs on China. That just doesn't make sense. And this is where Europeans need to negotiate some sort of new arrangements. And that's, I believe, why the wording of the national strategic, national strategy document is worded the way it is, so Trump can have leverage in negotiations. That is my honest opinion about this one. And Europe, individual, individual European nations sort of needs to pursue their own path rather than a unified approach, which could reduce the European influence overall. And this is why, in my opinion, the European Union should disintegrate. It's not a, it's not a failure. It's not bad. You just tried it and it's not working. You let other countries decide for themselves. So, so the honest answer is that Europe's actual choices are constrained. There are also geography that is part of it. There's also economics. There is also security realities. All those considered a constraint that prevent Europe from moving forward. But they could if they want to. Because true independence from what? It's from the influence, influence of the US. Of course, some analysts in Brussels and London and Berlin and Paris are saying otherwise. Oh, this is less realistic. No, I disagree. If the European, and this leads me to my next question. Does Europe have the political will to do so? If Europeans have the political will and determination, they will make it happen. That's crucial question. That's because this political will, it's been going back and forth. Europe has struggled for decades to achieve this strategic autonomy. So despite saying what we want to, saying versus doing, two opposite things. And this is why, if you notice, if you look at the history of how European Union proceeded, especially in its parliamentary deliveries, it has always made ambitious declarations but without independence. All this saying We do European Defense Fund, strategic autonomy, this and that, but nothing, nothing concrete, and hardly ever follow through with that. That's the reason for that is the deep division that exists among the member states. That is why I'm saying maybe its time has come for the European Union to disintegrate. So you look at, for example, Poland. Why? And Poland made the smart move by not linking its currency to the euro. They kept the zloty. Zloty is the currency in Poland. They wanted to stay independent. But there are other issues. Why Poland will follow what the Europeans saying? Why, why, why Poland is calling for you're going to have to defend against the Russians? Why? Yeah, I know the history of the Polish and the Soviets back then. That was the past. Russia has no interest in getting into Poland. So, and that's just one example. So, and this is where you have to think in terms of France mainly and Germany and some other countries occasionally calls for this strategic independence or autonomy. So, and that's where when you have this conflicting interest makes unified actions very, very challenging, to say the least. Then we ask, what is the reason for this political, uh, uh, uh, or potential lack of political will? So, because the— here is the thing, the Trump documents, this National Security Strategy Yeah, in itself might catalyze change by forcing Europeans to confront the reality that US commitments cannot be taken for granted. And that is more and more I am convinced about the language of this strategy is to position the US to negotiate from strength because the Europeans will have no other options. So when you think about, especially in France, France after Charles de Gaulle, the way after, you know, all the presidents, François Mitterrand, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, François Hollande, now you have Macron, all of them, all of them, they've been talking about this dependency. Forever. So maybe the younger European politicians may be less sort of attached to the Cold War era alliance structures. I doubt it. The reality is that Europe likely won't— yeah, sad to say, but is the way I see it— likely won't achieve full autonomy quickly. You know, you're looking at 2 or 3 decades for that, but at least you could start now. And the first step for this is to disintegrate the European Union, get rid of the euro. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons— do you know when the Russians issued the bond in the yuan? You know what we are doing to the Europeans? We are hammering Europeans now. You know why? Is because other countries around the, the world are borrowing in the euro, not in the dollar. So put the two and two together and think. That's one of the reasons also why we're pushing to really corner the Europeans, so when time comes to negotiate, we dictate the terms. So, so Europe The independence will not happen overnight, but it might gradually strengthen its own capabilities and reduce the dependency where possible. The real test for the Europeans, in my opinion, is whether the current moment, you know, the questions about, that's been asking about the US reliability, credibility, all those kind of questions, whether they produce sustained political commitment on part of the Europeans. To change or just a temporary concern that fades away once crisis passes. That's the only way I see it. I don't see any other alternative because what we are missing and the way as one looking from outside in, what it's been missing is that a compelling European vision. There is none. There is no European vision for the future. So, and without, without having individual countries making their own decisions, so nothing is going to change. That is just how I see it playing out. Liking this video so far? Don't just be a watcher. Go ahead and hit the like, share, and subscribe button. And don't forget to tap the bell so you will not miss any of my videos or live streams. This way, you will be supporting a channel that stands for the truth and objective reporting. The choice is yours. Thanks for your support. So the next question will be, it's what's next for Europe? What's next? And that depends on really a host of factors and factors, by the way, are not connected, they are inner, interconnected. So because those will fall in the upcoming months, so if we are looking at the short, medium, and long term, we'll start with the immediate term. We're looking at the next, uh, probably 8 months to a year. What are you looking at? You'll be looking at the European leader will likely begin serious conversations about defense spending, about military independence. So partly out of necessity. So, but because what they are witnessing right now is that they're looking at the US commitments becoming less reliable. We may say, we may see also an accelerated discussions of the European Defense Initiative. And that would be with NATO, of course. And this will probably lead to a diplomatic effort, but it's going to remain just words on paper for the moment. Medium term, you'll be looking at about between 1 to 3 years if you are to go that route. So what you're going to be looking at, you're going to be looking at a major fragmentation that will exist within Europe. And how are you going to see this? Because you're going to see Eastern Europe, mainly the countries of the Baltic, Poland, the Baltics and all that, staying with NATO and the US, while at the same time Western Europe, you're looking at France, Germany, potentially pursues more independent path. And this in itself, it might renew the momentum of the EU defence capability. Because now you're going to have separate defense entities. Whether they will achieve political consensus, whether they will try to find funding for all this, it will remain an obstacle for them. So the other aspects to which it has to do with the economic— if the European pivot east, then economically they will survive. If they don't, it will be no It will only be more decline economically speaking, because you have one fundamental issues within Europe, and that is a deep structural settings. So, and like I mentioned earlier, I'm not going to repeat myself here, the idea of the strategic vision. Europe does not have a strategic vision because even if they say we have a vision, it's remain uncertain. So you have 27 countries with all different, different customs, different political views, different traditions, and so forth. You know, it will be better if they are disintegrated and each one follows its own path. At the same time, coordinate for the greater old continent. My, my work. So because you look at now Germany as the the, the heart of European economy. Look where its economy is. France, you can't even be talking about France economically anymore, especially after being kicked out of the Sahel region because they don't have access to, uh, uranium and some other critical elements, you know. And this is where, when you think about where the economy of Europe is headed, so when Germany is saying we're going to pursue autonomy. How? How? When you can't afford to even pay the energy bills for the manufacturing. Manufacturers are shutting down in Germany. So, and this is again where that wild card of Donald Trump, the way he's approaching it. So of course this has to do with how Donald Trump behaves between now and the end of his term. We don't know who's coming after him. American political system is a mess anyway. You know, do you think who's going to come after Trump is going to be any better? No, no. American president has no power. American president is dictated to do what he— what the entities wants him to do. Make no mistake about it. So, and even with Trump, the hypes and all that, You know, will it turn to a policy or just be rhetoric, no more, no less? You know how Trump likes to talk big and all this. Oh, I challenged China on tariffs and I became to negotiations. No, no, no, no, it was you who requested a meeting with the Chinese to talk about the terms for coming up to some sort of a management regarding the trade war. It wasn't the Chinese, you know, it was you who reached out to President Xi Jinping for a call. It wasn't the other way around. You know, it's the truth. Truth matters. So the most likely scenario is probably will be some sort of a messy pragmatism on part of the Europeans. So because Europeans have now to figure out their way, have to muddle through some really, really serious issues like the increased defense capabilities, the investments in the economy, the social setting, the low birth rate. All those are very, very crucial. And that's again, I found myself going back to that question of, is it time for the EU to dissolve? And there are arguments for and against, so I'm going to share two with you. Let's talk about the arguments for the dissolution of the Union. In other words, the disintegration of European Union. Some argue that Europe has become too bureaucratic, too undemocratic, and disconnected from citizens. And we are seeing what happened for the last three years. Since the, the Russian-Ukraine conflict started. And by the way, who created the problem? So Europeans play a role into that as well. Because European Union is imposing some sort of uniform policies that don't reflect the diverse national preference. National sovereignty has been now eroded in those countries. Look no further than Hungary. Why do you think England, uh, left the EU? And by the way, who do you have to thank for that? Do you guys know who you have to thank for that? He wasn't the Prime Minister. He was George Callaway, who really advocated more for the independence from the EU. And look now how they are treating him. So And this is why you have the national sovereignty being eroded, and you have many people now feel their own country's voices are being drowned in Brussels. They have no say. So look at immigration issues, look at the economic integration policies, you know, and other countries have no say whatsoever. So why stay in this European Union altogether? Others are saying, no, you do not want dissolve the European Union. Why? Despite the flaws, the EU delivers genuine benefits, unprecedented peace among historically warring nations. Well, wait a minute, what did you do to Serbia? We all know how Serbia was, you know. What role did European plays into that conflict? Redrawing the borders. How do you think Kosovo came about? And they're talking about massive economic, economic gains, which was true. But how that happened? Because it was free energy from Russia. So that's my point. Individual European nations are saying, no, we could stay, uh, because we will be weak Those are in support of the argument. So, so, and again, I'm not saying which one is right, which one is wrong. I'm just providing the argument, both sides. It's because individual European nations fragmenting would likely weaken them economically and geopolitically. This is the argument that goes in support of maintaining the EU. And that in itself, they end up facing higher cost of defense, less leverage with the US, China, Russia, and of course reduced ability for them to address transnational issues like migration and some other health issues and so forth. So this is why dissolving institutions is also much harder than building them. The disruption cost will be enormous. That's their argument. But there is one neutral view which I would like to share with you because you need to understand that aspect. Rather than disintegration, the real question might become is whether the EU needs a significant reform, meaning making it more responsive to citizens. You know, ask any citizens right now in Europe, Do you want Europe to get involved in this Ukraine-Russia conflict? Most of them will tell you, no, we don't want to get involved. So, and the irony is that the current crisis with the Trump administration might actually strengthen the case for EU cohesion rather than disillusion, because Europe is very, very fragmented. As of now. That's, that's, that's, that's my question. That's my, my assessments. And this is why, to those who are in favor of not splitting up the EU, they are arguing that dissolution isn't really a serious policy on the table right now in Europe. What is debated, however, is that how to make Europe work better, not whether it should exist at all. But again, they are entitled to their opinion. And this leads me to the next entity, whether it should be dissolved, which is NATO. What about NATO? Isn't it time for this alliance, a relic of the past, to dissolve? And that's, again, it's, in my opinion, it's legitimate debate. We cannot just brush it off after what we witnessed now, the defeat on the Ukrainian theater. So, because NATO is a relic of the past, as you know, and I'm not going to bore you with the, the information you already know, the reason why NATO existed to begin with. So to those who say that NATO is outdated, they are right. The alliance was created to contain the Soviet expansion during the Cold War. Well, that threat ceased to exist. That threat is gone. So why are we worrying? Because you have to understand, as long as NATO exists, it will need to have a real or perceived enemy. Today is Russia, tomorrow is China, the next day it's South Korea— North Korea, the following day is Iran, then Venezuela, then Brazil, who knows. So, and this is why, if we— if the Soviet expansion was the threat and, and the Soviets used to exist, so why is NATO, like some argue, expanded all the way eastward after, after the Cold War was unnecessary? And why provoke hostility against the Russians? The same thing we are doing right now against China. Even NATO— and I read their analysis, their assessments of last year— they are stating that China now is a threat to NATO survival. I mean, just when I read that, I shook my head. So on the other hand, we have been carrying out disproportionate defense budget, 70%. Most Americans do not know the budget of NATO comes out of our tax dollars. I don't want to spend my tax dollars on NATO. I got enough issues here. When we have a, you know, a broken tax system, A broken education system. So, and if even if you are talking about this European defense, why are we going and trying to expand NATO into Japan now? Why are we trying to go and build military bases in Australia? Why are we turning the Philippines upside down? That makes you the argument. The counterargument to that, those who say, oh, NATO remains relevant for For what? Russia's 2022 military operations in Ukraine prove the threat of European security is very real. Well, wait a minute, who created the problem to begin with? That's like we create the problem and said, you know, we need to resolve it. So, but after all, wasn't NATO, wasn't the EU, wasn't the US that turned things upside down in 2014? With Maidan. And actually, I was aware of the beginning of it back in 2006 when it all started. $5 million was allocated from State Department towards this end. And all it is because the European— the, uh, Ukrainian, uh, Lukashenko at that time didn't want to be affiliated with Europe. Yes, you still can trade with them, and he choose not to. They didn't like that. So, and this is why those who argue for the remaining, that, uh, the relevancy rather of NATO justify it through this, because here's the thing, once the Ukraine-Russia conflict is over, they'll create new conflict and they'll say, see, we told you NATO remains relevant because of the current crisis or conflict, whatever that means. And again, when you find NATO in Afghanistan, when I was there, I said, what the heck NATO's doing here? That gives you an idea. So the practical reality is this, because the real debates, you're going to have to think about debate, whether about the EU or NATO, the dissolution of this requires conversation, requires debate, requires input. And it requires also the referendum from the citizens. So, because there's always an issue, complete disintegration would solve some problems, I'm not denying that, but also could create others. And this is again when you have to— and I'm going to conclude here, guys. That's— I came to towards the end of my, uh, analysis here. So So you're gonna have to think about where Europeans gonna be. One thing they're gonna need to do is that comprehensive restructuring will be very, very important. Because think about it, because when the document asserts that Europe will be unrecognizable within 20 years, this is nothing new. Because when you think about what his name right here, JD Vance, the vice president, what he said during the Munich Security Summit, you know, he harshly criticized Europe, you know. Well, wait a minute, man, you know, who are you to criticize whatever when we have our own issues here? And that's my point. So the ultimate goal of the Trump administration now with this is to push Europe into becoming an American colony that relinquishes its sovereignty completely and submit to Washington's control. At the same time, while restricting immigration, encouraging national— nationalist political parties against so-called liberal elites. So tell me, what do you think? Leave me a comment in the comment section later on. I would greatly appreciate it. So, uh, and it's right on, on the top of the hour. I take this opportunity to say thank you to American Citizen X for becoming a member on Buy Me Coffee. Truly appreciate you for that. Khadija, I want to say thank you for buying me cups of coffees. And Zero88, appreciate your, uh, you, uh, uh, buying me coffee. If you want to support the channel Here is the link. Should you decide to do so, I will greatly appreciate your support. Let me put it for you in the chat box, should you decide to do so. And just to remind you once again, remember to join me, uh, this evening for my conversation with, uh, Jayant Bhandari. It would be an interesting one, uh, uh, about— we're talking about India-Russia, especially with the Russian president's recent visit. So I look forward to that. Uh, all right, that's all I have. I'll— I will see you— sorry, I'm going to move this. I will see you at 1900 hours this evening here. If you can join me, that would be great. I look forward to seeing you then. As always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.