Reuters
The election headquarters of Joe Biden and Donald Trump could not help but analyze the reasons for the one-time failure of candidates from the ruling parties in the elections of 720 members of the European Parliament, held on June 6 and 9 in all EU countries.
Washington needed to understand: is this an accidental and temporary confusion in the minds of citizens who decided to reject German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the head of the Fifth Republic, Emmanuel Macron? Or is there a steady trend toward the right-wing sentiments and beliefs of an electorate disillusioned with the quality of the supposedly managerial elite imposed by the globalists.
The strategists of the election campaigns of the two presidents, the current and the previous one, had to understand the motives of the Europeans, who gave half as many votes as before to Macron-Napoleon’s Renaissance party, while at the same time promoting the National Rally party of Marine Le Pen, the very likely future president of France, to the first place (32–33%).
Political technologists had to assess the scale of the defeat of pro-American parties and politicians and understand why Alternative for Germany received about 16% of the vote and thus surpassed the ruling Social Democrats with 14%. In the former East Germany, the Alternative won first place with 27% of the vote. The same result was achieved in Austria by the Freedom Party, which unites under its wing both Euroskeptics and opponents of NATO’s war with Russia.
«President Joe Biden should be worried», says CNN columnist Stephen Collinson, as the European Parliament elections have revealed themselves to be «a potent political cocktail — public outrage over uncontrolled migration, voter anger over high prices and the cost of fighting climate change. Trump is actively using these themes in key swing states that will decide the outcome of the presidential election».
Washington will finally decide — is the triumph of the national realists in the not-so-influential EU body, a technical glitch or a long-running trend? — on the results of the first round of early elections in France, which will be held on June 30, and, most importantly, after the second round, scheduled for July 7.
The White House, according to Stephen Collinson, «will be watching the results of the French elections on July 7 even more closely than the European Parliament elections». There is a good reason for this.
Against the backdrop of Britain drifting away from the EU, where the Conservative Party is guaranteed to completely fail in the upcoming July 4 parliamentary elections, as well as Germany slowly and steadily sinking into deindustrialization, it is the will of the French citizens that will be the ideal stress test for the globalist dogma of liberal democracy, «the end of history», as Fukuyama prophesied, and the «rule-based world order» established by the West for everyone else.
Four experts — Armida van Rij, Professor Tim Benton, Creon Butler, Dr. Patrick Schröder, of Chatham House, aka the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a British think tank, — released on June 11 an extensive analysis of the consequences of what they defined as «growing support for anti-establishment parties as well as (specific) populists and Euroskeptics, both at the pan-European and national levels».
Their reassuring conclusion seems to be addressed to the mainstream ruling parties, as well as their companions in Germany and France, whom voters have refused to trust:
«While the far right has made significant gains in Italy, France and Germany, the picture in the rest of the EU is more subtly nuanced. Far-right parties took first place in only five countries, and second or third place in another five, mostly at the expense of liberal and green parties».
The wording «first place only (!) in five countries» cannot but cause bewilderment. This conclusion can be interpreted in two ways: as if the glass is half empty or half full.
Meanwhile, it is an immutable fact: virtually all politicians stigmatized by the term «far-right» are in one way or another committed to the supremacy of national-state sovereignty, essentially lost or limited by the ever-expanding powers of the unelected European Commission and the army of Eurobureaucrats.
In countries where supporters of national sovereignty have moved into the front row of decision-makers, there is a «new round of Euroscepticism», comments Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. In his view, in addition to painful topics such as the invasion of alien migrants and the ruinous green agenda, it is important for National Realist supporters, «without calling for an exit from the European Union, to insist on greater autonomy in areas such as defense, the economy and staying in the eurozone», he says.
Euroskepticism could possibly serve as a platform for building a mutual understanding with the U.S. administration in case Donald Trump wins the November elections. Certainly, national realists will not accept the likely 47th president’s directive that European NATO allies should henceforth take care of their own security and, in particular, finance the war in the Ukrainian theater.
Of course, the national-oriented supporters of the Westphalian system will not like the protectionist enthusiasm of Republican nationalists, who, under Trump, will continue to drain the Old World of investment resources and qualified personnel, and at the same time keep the needle on transatlantic supplies of their expensive shale LNG, which is killing the competitiveness of European industry.
However, such a seemingly unthinkable mesalliance can work out. However, on the condition that Europe’s national realists (not to be confused with the true far-right) do not go in all serios, as General Charles de Gaulle did when he took France out of NATO’s military structure, and humbly accept the role of little brother or little sister for the United States.
How can one survive in a Western-centered world where no one has abolished the laws of the capitalist market, based on social Darwinism, a well-established food chain where big fish eat small fish?
If we take out of the brackets the states-civilizations, which are predestined an independent way through the thorns of turbulent history, the secret of survival of yesterday’s imperial powers and the states of the second and third row comes down to the ability to join the right hegemon, ready to give them a place under the sun.
Back in the 1960s, a witty man named Art Buchwald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Washington Post, cited in his notebooks an aphorism he invented on the basis of a modified idiom Dog eat dog. It is usually translated as «Either you or your», referring to the Latin expression «Man to man is a wolf» (Homo homini lupus est). Buchwald proposed his own variant: «Dogma eats dogma».
The cornerstone of Trump’s ingenuous philosophy and policies — Make America Great Again — could, in theory, coexist quite peacefully with the yet-to-be-formed slogan of European conservative preservationists. Something like «Let’s make Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Slovakia …. (either abbreviate or add) great again».
It is acceptable therefore that the two dogmas will not devour each other. Why? In the emerging multipolar world, the supporting pillars will be the states that once experienced the domination of colonial metropolises. These are India, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, and so on. Let us not forget that Britain, having already subjugated India, called «the pearl of the crown», unleashed the «opium wars» to bring China under its control, or rather, the Qin dynasty that ruled in the Celestial Empire.
Thus, today the Anglo-Saxon empires, which are at different stages of semi-decay, will unwittingly have to take the countries of continental Europe as allies. Most likely, they will prefer to take them one by one rather than in a cluster, which will be facilitated by the collapse of the European Union, something that mega-nationalist Donald Trump secretly dreams of. It can be predicted that the coming to the forefront of the national-realist parties will play into Trump’s hands and benefit him. At least in the short to medium term.
Dogma will not eat dogma. Nationalist Trump won’t completely ruin sensible nationalists in Europe, unless… Unless there is a catastrophic reduction in the food supply, and the survival of the strongest becomes possible solely at the expense of the weakest.