Connect with us

Diplomacy

Europe has been under US occupation since World War II, Italian journalist and author Thomas Fazi says

Published

on

Editor’s note: Italian journalist and author Thomas Fazi, in his speech at the East-West Forum held in Istanbul on September 26, stated that European countries disregard their own fundamental economic and security interests, particularly in the context of the Ukraine war. Pointing out that this irrational policy cannot be explained by mere lack of foresight, Fazi expressed that the European continent has been turned into a “vassal” subordinate to transatlantic interests as a result of an ongoing process since the Second World War. Emphasizing that NATO operates as an apparatus to keep the continent under control rather than functioning as a defense organization, the author noted that the EU serves as the political wing of this imperialist order.

Thank you, Isabelle. And obviously a big thanks to the European Transcontinental Initiative and to Ulrike for setting up this amazing conference, which is a much needed breath of sanity. Amid the insanity that we’re experiencing in Europe at the moment.

Yeah, I’d like to start with something that Professor Panda said this morning when he spoke of the return of the national interest. And I think that got me thinking because I think that’s true for most countries. But there is one big exception, I think, to that rule. That big exception is Europe.

I think if we look at the actions of European countries in recent years in economic policy, security policy, geopolitics, most notably when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I think it’s really impossible to make the case that European countries have been pursuing their national interests, no matter how loosely you want to define it. European countries have systematically undermined their core economic interests, security interests and geopolitical interests. And so the question, the obvious question is why? And I think there are two explanations.

So one is that European leaders were simply misguided, foolish, that they were and still are pursuing what they believe to be their country’s national interest, even if even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think this may be conceivable if the consequences of these actions had been impossible to predict. But this clearly was not the case. It was self evident, for example, that decoupling from cheap Russian gas would have disastrous consequences for Europe, as has been.

And I, and many of us wrote about this in February and March of 2022, not because we were profits, but because it was obvious, just as it was obvious to everyone Ukraine had no chance of militarily defeating Russia, even with NATO support, support, and that therefore to push for a maximalist, military only solution to the conflict would have devastating consequences, first and foremost for Ukraine, obviously, but also for Europe, as has been not only in economic terms, but in security terms as well.

Of course, and again, many of us have said this right from day one. So unless we assume that European leaders didn’t understand this, that they would, that they’re just dumb, and as much as some of them clearly are, unless we assume that the entire EU establishment was simply too dumb to see what was clear to many observers, that is that these policies clearly ran counter to Europe’s interests and then doubled down on these policies when it became evident how contrary they were to those interests, I think then we have to consider an alternative explanation, and that is that Europe’s elites have not for a long time had the national interest in mind or even the collective interest of Europe as a whole, no matter how you want to define it.

In other words, I think the classic rule realist framework that contends that all states tend to defend and maximize their interests economically, militarily, et cetera. Really doesn’t apply to Europe because based on that framework, Euro’s policies are totally irrational. So I think in order to understand European policy, we need a different framework. And I think the framework that is most useful in Europe’s case is vassalization. Simply put, Europe, and by that I mean virtually every EU country, plus the entire Brussels establishment, has been hijacked by a transnational transatlantic elite that couldn’t care less about the objective interests of their countries, but is beholden to a completely different set of interests.

These are private oligarchic interests. Nowadays mostly transnational financial interests and military industrial interests, and of course foreign interests, namely the interests of Washington’s imperial establishment and by definition of Israel as well. So how did we get here? And this was clearly a very long process in the making, and one that started in the immediate aftermath of World War II, when the US identified Europe as a key pillar in their strategy of global dominance. Projecting US power globally required control in Europe economically, militarily, but also culturally. And Europe has effectively been under US military occupation since World War II, 80 years since the end of that war. We still have almost 100,000 US soldiers stationed in Europe. Europe still has about 30 key military bases across the continent. Officially, these are here to protect us. Protect us from whom? From Russia, which doesn’t represent a real threat to Europe.

In fact, I would argue never really represented a threat, not even during the Cold War. That threat was largely created and inflated by NATO itself. So NATO was never about defending Europe, of course. So it was always about controlling Europe and ensuring Europe’s strategic subordination to US strategic interests and about projecting US power globally. And this is still true, I would say even truer today. Not only is NATO obviously still used to ensure Europe’s alignment to US interests, and the Russia Ukraine war is the most obvious example of that, but also to project US power globally. Just the other day, NATO’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, who tends to say the quiet part out loud, very often said that 5,000 sorties were launched from U.S. bases in Europe in support of the U.S. israeli aggression of Iran.

So Europe, despite the condemnation of some leaders, is actually fully complicit in the attack against Iran. In fact, Europe represents a key part of American military logistical infrastructure for military projection eastward towards Russia, but also southward towards the Middle east and, you know, NATO. And again, all the talk about NATO 3.0 and the supposed decoupling of Europe and America, this is just theater. In fact, NATO 3.0 will simply entrench Europe’s subordination to NATO further.

But of course, NATO was just one tool. America obviously had very, you know, America’s national security state developed very strong ties with the national security states of European countries. And America’s always exercised massive economic, technological and financial control over Europe. And of course it’s exercised massive cultural and ideological influence over the continent, not only through pop culture, clearly, but in the political domain through the English language media and the sprawling ecosystem of transatlantic think tanks and fake NGOs. And then you have a final pillar and I move you towards the conclusion which is often overlooked, but is crucial, I would say, and that’s the EU itself.

The EU has always been presented as a counterweight, potential counterweight to American power, but it’s never really been that. It’s always been a key tool for keeping Europe anchored to the transatlantic US led NATO system. It’s always been the political arm of NATO. And I think that is particularly obvious today under the rule of Ursula von der Leyen, who has gone out of her way to ensure the alignment of European countries to US interests, often against the will of individual governments themselves.

So now we’re in a very dangerous situation because through the eu, which is a structurally anti democratic institution, the transatlantic NATO establishment has achieved effectively full control, economic and political control over European countries. European countries are not sovereign and by definition they’re not democratic. And this makes the challenge of achieving systemic change through the electoral process all the more difficult.

And so to conclude, I would say that Europe is in many respects a continent under occupation. And so the question of how the people of Europe can achieve decolonization from the transatlantic system is maybe the key question facing Europe today. And hopefully a question that we will be analyzing throughout this panel.

So obviously political activism and political change necessarily occurred through violent struggles. That’s just the history of pre democratic Europe. So he wasn’t advocating, I mean, he was just like acknowledging the reality of the working class. And, and so I think this really points to, you know, a deeper problem, which of course, you know, I focused on my talk on the US’s role. But Europe’s problems predate America.

You know, America’s, America’s rise, the global empire by, By. By a very long time. And the problem has to do with, I mean, the visceral opposition of European economic political elites to democracy and to the working class for centuries. Today we speak of liberal democracy and we imply that somehow democracy is an outgrowth of liberalism. This is a total lie. All the great Liberal thinkers were viscerally opposed to democracy, mass democracy, democracy for everyone, a vote for everyone.

They the idea of democracy was democracy for the property owning classes, for the capital owning classes. Mass democracy was achieved through often violent struggles by the working, by the working classes and often the socialist movement. So that’s a problem. And we’ve had to, you know, the people of Europe have had to fight tooth and nail against their elites forever. It’s been a constant struggle.

We have the worst elites in the world and that’s, you know, who not only have no interest in the well being of other people in the global south, but have no interest in the well being of their own people, of the European people. Which is why Europe has always been mired in violence, political violence, class conflict. Even during the, you know, so called heyday of post war, you know, democracy, mass democracy was incredibly violent. And we had political, I come from Italy, my country had insane levels of political violence through the, you know, 60s, 70s and 80s. And it was the same in Germany and France and all major European countries. And this was the heyday of mass democracy. But that those were the years, the decades in which we achieved the greatest social and economic progress for the masses in Europe.

But it was also achieved through often violent struggle, not simply through voting. So this I think points to a deeper problem. I mean the gains that we achieved in the sort of the post war period were not just given to the people. They were the result of, of for a brief period the exist sort of the collective organized strength of the working classes, of the masses. And they were able to wrestle away some power from the organized power of the elites.

That’s basically, and it was always very relative victories. But they were able to wrestle away some power and control from the organized power of capital throughout the sort of, you know, first 30, 40 years after World War II and of course even preceding World War II. But the conditions that allowed that and that allowed mass to mass democracy no longer exist in many respects.

You know, the mass sites of production, big factories where workers could meet and unionize, none of that exists. And so the, the conditions that allowed for mass democracy no longer exist. Structural, material conditions. And so the real question is, you know, how do you rebuild democracy and wrestle away some power at least from, from, from, you know, from these political economic elites when the conditions that allowed us to do, to do that in the past no longer, no longer exist. Which is why you have our elites who are completely unleashed because they have, there is no real counter power anymore. I think that’s a big part of the problem.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Ukraine plans new business model to end street recruitment drives

Published

6 hours ago

on

27/10/2026

By

The Ukrainian government is preparing a new mobilization model that fundamentally alters military deferrals, requiring businesses to systematically supply personnel to the armed forces in exchange for shielding other employees from service.

Prime Minister Serhiy Koretskiy announced that under the draft framework, which is scheduled for completion by 1 December, enterprises will pledge to send a designated quota of staff into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to secure exemptions for remaining workers.

Speaking at the Kyiv International Economic Forum, as reported by the Interfax-Ukraine news agency, Prime Minister Koretskiy said the objective is to end the practice of drafting men off the streets.

Describing the projected structure as an idealistic social contract, Koretskiy said: “Let us establish a social model where employees are safeguarded, but businesses also commit to providing a predictable flow of mobilization for the military. If we can devise such a formula, the necessity of searching for people on the streets will also be eliminated.”

Koretskiy noted that deferrals will be renewed for over 90% to 95% of staff in critical sectors such as fuel, energy, and the defence industry. He emphasized that the criteria defining an enterprise as critical will be decoupled from economic exemption standards.

The prime minister stated that this regulatory change will curb unjustified deferrals, prevent an economic collapse, and bring certainty to the rotation expectations of soldiers serving on the front lines.

In separate remarks delivered the previous week, Koretskiy noted that the government intends to preserve exemption rights for companies that sustain national defence capacity and vital everyday services, while simultaneously increasing criminal penalties for unauthorized absence from military units and draft evasion.

Immediately following these statements, the official resolution overhauling the mobilization deferral system was published on the Ukrainian government website.

According to details reported by the UNIAN news agency, state institutions and regional administrations will review existing criteria and audit every business previously granted “critical” status within 10 days of the regulation entering into force.

Enterprises that no longer satisfy exemption conditions or whose justifications have lapsed may have the status rescinded prematurely.

A new coordination centre is being established to administer the process. This body will issue advisory decisions regarding the granting or revoking of critical enterprise status, as well as requests to raise exemption quotas.

The bureaucratic procedure limits the initial review to a maximum of 7 working days, after which the coordination centre will have up to one month to assess the file. A final decision must then be rendered within 3 working days of the recommendation reaching the commission.

For select enterprises operating in the energy and defence sectors, the ceiling for staff exemptions has been capped at 95%. However, this entitlement will apply strictly to personnel directly engaged in production processes.

Authority to raise the exemption quota above the 95% threshold will depend entirely on special approval issued by either the Ukrainian Defence Ministry or the Energy Ministry.

The compliance history of company leadership will directly influence the procedure; quota increase requests may be rejected outright if executives have violated military registration requirements two or more times in the preceding 12 months, or if they have received administrative fines on those grounds.

Companies granted quota increases will have 10 working days to conclude the required formalities.

If an enterprise fails to formalize worker deferrals through Diia, Ukraine’s digital public services portal, within this timeframe, the supplemental quota allocation will be revoked entirely. All approved exemption quotas will remain valid for a maximum duration of one year.

Martial law and general mobilization, which were declared in Ukraine on 24 February 2022, have been extended at regular intervals ever since.

On 26 October, the Ukrainian parliament renewed these measures for the 21st time, approving a 90-day extension that runs until 29 January 2027.

Under current legislation, men aged between 25 and 60 who are deemed fit for military service are directly subject to mobilization.

Men under the age of 25 are classified under conscription call-up status and are not dispatched to the front line through general mobilization.

Individuals in this age bracket retain the right to travel abroad between the ages of 18 and 22 via an age-based exception, but they lose this entitlement upon turning 23.

Front-line manpower deficits have long prompted authorities in Kyiv to pursue reforms to the military recruitment framework and to tighten deferral requirements.

The Defence Ministry announced in February that extensive measures were planned, including the automation of deferral procedures and adjustments to the operations of Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Centres (TZK), which function as enlistment offices.

In April, Member of Parliament Roman Kostenko stated that the ministry planned to separate the recruitment duties of draft centres from their social assistance responsibilities, while the possibility of transferring certain mobilization enforcement checks to the police was also raised.

By August, Kostenko reported that the Defence Ministry was examining radical measures, including potential alterations to the mobilization age.

Shortly before that, Minister of Digital Transformation Oksana Ferchuk announced that oversight over exemptions, particularly in the information technology sector, would be significantly restricted.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian military’s requirement for front-line reinforcements grows on a daily basis.

In an assessment delivered on 31 August, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Kyrylo Budanov stressed that the military must enlist at least 30,000 individuals each month to sustain its combat effectiveness.

As forced mobilization for the front lines accelerates, objections to heavy-handed practices by recruitment centre personnel have multiplied.

Official complaints concerning draft office personnel stood at just 18 in 2022, before surging to 514 in 2023 and 3,312 in 2024. The influx of grievances continued unabated, peaking at 6,127 official complaints according to 2025 figures.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

US drafts Ukraine plan with Nord Stream restart and sanctions relief

Published

4 days ago

on

23/10/2026

By

Draft proposals by the US administration to end the war in Ukraine envisage establishing a demilitarised line in the Donbass region, easing sanctions against Moscow, and offering a comprehensive investment package to Kyiv.

According to a report by the British magazine The Economist, citing Ukrainian officials, Washington is working on a broad framework comprising both economic and political points to persuade the parties to reach a settlement.

Under the draft plan reported by the publication, Russia is offered the opportunity to conclude trade agreements with the US, an easing of sanctions, and the normalisation of political relations.

Ukraine, in exchange for relinquishing its goal of NATO membership, is promised direct foreign investment and European Union accession.

The report notes that Ukrainian officials do not possess complete visibility over every detail of the final text on the table, but are closely familiar with its overarching framework.

Nord Stream pipeline and natural gas shipments on the table

The Economist reported that the package designed to persuade the leadership in Moscow also includes items such as the resumption of Russian natural gas sales to the European market and the reactivation of the Nord Stream pipeline.

The magazine also points out that decisions regarding the operation of a pipeline located on European territory do not fall directly under US jurisdiction.

Ukrainian negotiators, meanwhile, are concerned that the Washington delegation may lock in commercial agreements in line with its own economic interests before the fighting formally stops.

Speaking to the magazine, a Ukrainian official summed up the American side’s approach with the words: ‘Why wait and waste time? Time is money.’

Diplomatic contacts intensify at leadership level

Stating that it is ready for talks, the Russian government announced that an agreement had been reached in recent contacts with Washington to launch a trilateral negotiation process that would also include Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said: ‘The objective of these negotiations will be to address the issue of ensuring the security of Ukraine and Russia once peace agreements are reached.’

As part of these diplomatic efforts, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, met Russian leader Putin on 21 October at the Konstantinovsky Palace in St. Petersburg.

Speaking during the portion of the meeting open to the media, Witkoff noted that he had brought documents outlining a pathway to peace and asked Putin to examine these texts.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov announced that the president would evaluate the American proposals.

Noting that concrete ground for a ceasefire had emerged during the St. Petersburg meeting, Witkoff expressed hope for the start of trilateral contacts between Russia, the US, and Ukraine to address technical matters.

Putin thanked Trump for his interest in peace efforts and recounted that the US president had specifically emphasized during their recent telephone calls that the war must end as soon as possible.

Framework prepared in Oslo carried to Moscow

Immediately before his visit to St. Petersburg, Witkoff had attended talks held on 20 October in Oslo, the capital of Norway.

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner joined the meeting remotely due to illness, which was attended by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store.

According to information provided by Stubb, the parties at the Oslo meeting clarified key security and economic elements that the American envoy would present to Moscow. Air defence systems, energy infrastructure, and partial ceasefire measures were also discussed.

Commenting after the talks in St. Petersburg, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov argued that the newly presented approaches did not contain many elements useful for a resolution.

Noting that Witkoff informed Putin about the contacts in Oslo and relayed fresh nuances in the positions of European leaders and the Kyiv government, Ushakov stated that the meeting was thorough and frank, adding that the conflict is ‘moving toward an end.’

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

South Korea pulls part of embassy staff from Ukraine amid POW dispute

Published

1 week ago

on

20/10/2026

By

The South Korean government has decided to withdraw part of its embassy staff from Ukraine.

According to the Yonhap news agency, Foreign Ministry spokesman Park Doo-sun cited the Kyiv administration’s failure to take “positive steps” in the dispute that began with the leak of information concerning the handover of North Korean prisoners of war as the justification for the move.

The spokesman also listed the ongoing threat of air strikes, which complicates the safety of diplomats, among the reasons.

Following the withdrawal of part of the personnel, essential diplomatic contacts will continue under the leadership of the charge d’affaires ad interim to Ukraine. All consular staff tasked with protecting South Korean citizens will remain in Ukraine.

Prior to this move, the Seoul administration decided on 8 October to withdraw its ambassador. The Foreign Ministry stated at the time that it was ready to continue consultations with Kyiv to resolve the emerging issues constructively.

Tensions between the two countries began with a speech delivered by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Zelenskyy announced that two captured soldiers from the North Korean army had been handed over to South Korea.

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, meanwhile, accused Kyiv of breaching a confidentiality agreement.

Lee said the disclosure of this information endangered the prisoners’ families and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

Seoul expects a public apology

Dmytro Lytvyn, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, denied the existence of a confidentiality agreement.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry summoned Ukrainian Charge d’Affaires Andriy Veshkin on 28 September and issued a note of protest against Lytvyn’s remarks.

President Lee Jae-myung warned in a statement on 2 October that they would take additional measures against Kyiv if Ukrainian authorities did not acknowledge the agreement and make a public apology. Lee stated that Ukraine itself had initially requested that the transfer of the prisoners be kept confidential.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Heorhii Tykhyi said the dispute stemmed from differing interpretations of the confidentiality regime.

Tykhyi noted that Seoul, based on its constitution which recognises the entire Korean Peninsula as its own territory, requested that the prisoners be handed over “like its own citizens”.

Describing the handover as a “gesture of goodwill”, Tykhyi stated that they were conducting closed-door negotiations to resolve differences of opinion.

Ambassador Park Ki-chang returned to Seoul on 10 October. According to a report by The Korea Times newspaper citing the ministry, recalling the ambassador served as a diplomatic protest against the leak of information regarding the prisoners.

The newspaper wrote that South Korea had last taken a similar step in 2008 by withdrawing its ambassador to Japan.

Moscow warned foreign diplomats

On 3 October, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its warning to foreign nationals, including diplomatic mission staff, against remaining in Ukraine.

The ministry recalled its advice to leave Kyiv, citing ongoing strikes against military targets.

The ministry noted that those who failed to heed the warnings would bear responsibility for the potential consequences.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement on 24 September that they had no information regarding Kyiv handing over two North Korean prisoners of war to Seoul.

Peskov, noting that prisoner matters fall under the authority of the Defence Ministry and intelligence services, said, “Contacts through the special services are continuing.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey