Will US troop withdrawals lead Europe to develop strategic autonomy?

Añadido: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]Hello my dear friends and welcome to another episode of Diva. What I would like to talk to you about today is the issue of uh US troop withdrawals from Europe. Uh the United States have uh already announced these days that they'll be uh retiring 5,000 troops from Germany and that they will no longer be providing 4,000 troops for Poland. Um that should have been on a rotating mission so to replace the existing troops. Uh therefore the U the US seems to be withdrawing troops uh from Europe in an accelerated fashion. And um I'd like to discuss a bit what this entails, what the consequences of this are.

[00:00:42]On the one hand, you have one u side of the political spectrum screaming that Europe is losing protection.

[00:00:50]On the other hand, you have the other side of the political spectrum uh screaming that this is a very good opportunity for Europe to autonomize itself militarily and to stand on its own feet. Unfortunately, uh although I would rather side with the second camp, um I do not see the pro-Uropeans as they like to call themselves as developing strategic autonomy. So even though um they might have their countries free of US troops which might uh suggest a form of autonomy from the United States.

[00:01:26]However, the United States uh made sure before this uh troop withdrawal to completely vaselize the elites of our continent so as to not u lose the grip uh from uh from from these states from the political decisions that these countries make. So uh this would be good news in my opinion as a European sovereigntist.

[00:01:51]Uh but only if Europe were were able to um either develop its own common army and to use it for its own interests or to just uh renounce uh militarism and to be this uh region of prosperity and of development. So to go back to more pragmatic and uh ser foreign policy that is one of collab collaboration mutual cooperation with the rest of the powers of the planet.

[00:02:25]However the US is doing is doing basically the worst of both worlds. So on the one hand it loses so-called protection from the United States. On the other hand, it maintains American strategic objectives that those of defeating Russia and of weakening China and uh it is willing to take them onto itself. So to uh continue without American protection to further American objectives, American military objectives. So to continue its role as a proxy without having the protection that uh proxies benefit from.

[00:03:06]So yeah, in my opinion this is completely suicidal and um it comes in the worst possible time because um even though Russia was announcing for the past 3 years, four years that uh it has no intention of striking Europe uh and that Europe has nothing to be afraid of from Russia. In the past weeks, Russia has uh started to flip on this uh decision and uh to announce that it might strike uh either military manufacturing centers or even decision-m centers in Europe that are part of the war uh in Ukraine that are waging the proxy war against it. So basically Europe is moving in this position where it is uh continuously acting as a proxy of the United States but without uh without ensuring the benefit of protection from the United States. And it has basically taken it upon itself to strategically defeat or to try to strategically defeat or to just kill itself on the altar of strategically weakening uh Russia which is its neighbor and which is its uh most obvious collaborator in terms of um uh symbiotic economies. Um, basically Russia has these raw materials that Europe that the European industry desperate desperately needs. And it's a it's a no-brainer to have these two big economies collaborate. And um, Russia is also part of European culture. There's nothing quirky about that. Um, this used to be done. There used to be a collaboration from the 1970s onwards.

[00:04:47]But the United States ever since u ever since the end of the cold war managed to subdue the elites of our continent to such a degree that they are unable to think of um European objectives that are not uh uh part of the American strategic objectives and that would autonomize our continent from the interests of the Americans.

[00:05:14]And uh we have these elites in in our societies which were manufactured through these u um Atlantic bridges as it's called in Germany, the Atlantic bouet, but also the Eisenhower fellowships, the Aspen uh um Aspen Foundation uh uh fellowships and so on.

[00:05:37]Uh you have uh of course the open society foundation soros and uh yeah the grant recipients from the national endowment from for democracy of USAD of the national democratic institute institute of the international republican institute. So we have these transatlantic-minded elites uh which cannot help themselves from uh uh fulfilling the objectives of the United States even uh though they officially represent European interests and are elected by European leader by by the European citizens and uh are there to lead our continent.

[00:06:20]So um while uh while the part of society that argues that troop troop withdrawals are putting us in danger uh I would say that something else puts us in danger or mentality. The fact that we uh first of all that we might need uh the United States to defend us to defend us from whom? I mean the sheer uh idea that we might need defending, we the Europeans might need defending entails um a conflict with Russia. Um it starts on the premise that Europe is this bull work against Eurasia that needs to be defended by the United States. So we start off from a proxy mentality when we when we argue that uh we need defense from another continent and uh if Americans are are withdrawing their troops then the logical consequence is that we are less defended that we are less in danger.

[00:07:20]Uh I would say that the opposite occurs that the United States has this policy of utilizing vassels as proxies against its competitors and uh being a tool of the United States and being militarized by the United States, hosting military bases and vaselizing your policy decisions for the United States makes you weaker in terms of security, not stronger because the United States will uh uh eventually use you just like it is using Ukraine now uh in order to further its objectives through weak to weaken its strategic rivals and so conflict is actually ensured. Conflict is not avoided by having US troops on your territory but the other way around by having US troops on your territory. the political tutilage of the United States is insured and subsequently the vasilization of your political class and your use as a proxy by the United States against its rivals.

[00:08:25]Just like the Philippines do not benefit from having US bases uh in their in in their rivalry against China, but the other way around. Philippines. Uh uh the Philippines are set for conflict with China on the behest of the United States even though China is its main trading part partner and the biggest investor in in the Philippines. But uh through the militarization under the uh opices of the United States, the Philippines basically undergo this process of vas vasilization and eventually a war will be fought probably with China uh that will destroy the Philippines but will um strengthen the position of the US relative to China. So the US ensures um um an increase in the balance of power on its side towards its rivals with the help of using these proxies um that it politically captures and mentally subdues before probably in the Philippines and in in Southeast Asia in these countries taken over by the United States against China the same type of narratives uh circulate just like in Europe against Russia. China is this big danger. China is this imperialist power. We must do everything to defeat China. Whoever is not for the war is pro-Chinese and so on. Of course, China is a genocidal power. China is an imperialistic power, an expansionist power because it is trying to expand in its own territory that of Taiwan. So in the in the so-called Republic of China.

[00:10:06]Um and yeah, so all of these um um liable that are uh um constructed against uh Russia, in uh Europe also circulate in Southeast Asia and in and in Australia in the Indo-Pacific as the US calls it against China in order to ensure the compliance of the population uh to uh to to to the buildup of a military alliance against China that might do that might do the dirty work for the Americans further down further down the line because China is regarded as the main strategic competitor uh of the United States.

[00:10:51]So unfortunately we are still um we are still in the process of um developing some sort of sovereigntist European elites. Sovereigntism in Europe is only um is only manifesting itself at the country level. So there are various political forces inside member states that want to regain sovereignty from Brussels and not no longer to be used as vassels um and to be uh proxies for the United States.

[00:11:25]But we do not have such a panuropean movement. We do not have a panuropean um even a federalist movement that would have as go as a goal to obtain strategic autonomy from the United States and to develop u common European policy that would be in the interest of the Europeans because uh such pro- Europeans that are that have yet to appear should first and foremost want to do peace with Russia and to resume collaboration with Russia and to also collaborate with Turkey, collaborate with all the other um well of course with China to stop antagonizing China so as to ensure this base of prosperity and to um reindustrialize Europe and to retnologize it as it was uh as it was the situation 10 years ago, 15 years ago that Europe was this um area of development and of peace. uh it was not a militaristic zone. It was not a it was not um an area where the number one priority was to increase military spending to cut social welfare expenses and to uh militarize the population as much as possible. Um, in my opinion, a panuropean sovereigntist um agenda should first and foremost focus on the interests of the European people and not on the interests of the Americans that we are now blindly following.

[00:12:58]And I hope that these uh troop withdrawals will help in this direction even though um I'm afraid that uh even though there are troop withdrawals from Germany, the command centers in Germany will continue to exist. the command centers that uh are currently planning the operations uh the strikes against Russia and uh the Ukraine war in general. So, Rammstein, but also many other uh command centers, Grace, Val, Tutkat, um many NATO command centers in Germany that actually take part in the operations against Russia will uh will remain and uh it's only the troops themselves that will be withdrawn or will be moved further east.

[00:13:44]Um because uh in the past months um European states have committed themselves to further increase drone production for Ukraine and to accelerate uh military supplies for Ukraine and because uh the Russian air defense uh was powerless in stopping all the drones coming every night from Ukraine onto the onto the cities of Russia.

[00:14:14]uh various Russian officials have announced in the past weeks that uh Russia is going to do something actually about u Europe's involvement and what uh seemed to be uh a distant prospect or perhaps an impossible one a few years ago is now announcing to be uh certainty the fact that Russia will strike some uh European countries that Russia will strike production capabilities is in a European country or that Russia might strike um a European country that offers um an um that European countries that offer their airspace for Ukrainian drones. So um Russia has lately nominated the Baltic countries as being places where drone attacks actually originate.

[00:15:09]So not only that uh the Baltic countries together with Poland allow Ukraine drones to pass in hitting the St. Petersburg area but even more so that um uh I think Lithuania was accused or Latvia Latvia Russia accused Latvia of actually hosting the drone operators themselves the Ukrainian drone operators that are launching the the drones against St. Petersburg.

[00:15:38]So in that case, one of the Baltic countries might be struck demonstratively in order to uh show the Europeans that um article 5 doesn't really mean that much and uh that there is a limit to what Russia can tolerate in terms of their engagement in the war in Ukraine.

[00:15:59]How Europe might play this is hard to hard to envisage.

[00:16:05]The rhetoric goes that Europe will just double down on everything and uh in case it gets struck by Russia, it will strike back and so on.

[00:16:16]But given that this uh escalation contest definitely leads to allout nuclear war, um perhaps Europe might be wiser than to um escalate and might just decide to reconsider its strategy because as I said in previous episodes, it is hard to understand where Europe's strategy is going, where Europe's strategy of um um getting itself involved in the war against Russia Russia is leading us.

[00:16:47]What is the strategic objective that we're trying to attain? Were we able to conquer Russia? I don't think so.

[00:16:54]Because the previous two iterations of the United Europe failed to do so, both Napoleon and Hitler. So why would we be able to underafine and Kayakalas?

[00:17:06]Um will we able to defeat Russia on the battleground? Um, highly highly un uh highly doubtful because uh Russia has all sorts of um rockets and uh missiles that it might use not only on the front line but against our countries, against our capitals, against decision-m centers on our territories in Europe.

[00:17:35]uh that we definitely do not want to face. And um in case of an escalation, in case Europe actually sends troops to Ukraine to the battleground, uh Russia will treat those countries as combatants and will start bombing their capitals and I don't know if if if Europe has a has a response to that, an adequate response to to such an escalation if it can double down further and I don't know try to strike Moscow and so on. But anyway um even if uh this path is pursued what is the end goal except for the ext extinction of humanity. So um nuclear holocaust um in Europe why would this be an uh an end point? Of course, the official mantra is that uh we have to stand tough to Putin and that um we need not to appease him but to show strength and resolve and to always escalate so as to show him who's boss or something like this. U I would argue that it's childish but then again this is what we have become. So Europe u is this place where uh I would say the majority of the population indulges in u being in acting completely and yet thinking that this is the pinnacle of human civilization.

[00:18:58]So, um yeah, I'm afraid that it's hard to convince uh uh somebody like Kayak Kalas that she's mentally impaire impaired just like it's hard to convince the people feeling represented by Kayak Kalas that they themselves are mentally impaired if they uh think that a person of IQ, I don't know, 86 or whatever Kayakalas has is a is a worthy representative of European interests and uh and a good um good diplomat for our continent, a good negotiator abroad and so on. A person who said if we cannot defeat uh Russia, how are we going to be able to defeat China? As if the end goal of um of the European Union is to just conquer the whole planet to to dismantle the civilizational states on on Earth and to just conquer them. It's uh it's silly.

[00:19:56]It's idiotic but then again uh pointing this out pointing out the obvious has become a reason to become sanctioned in the European Union. So there are many people who now fall under European sanctions even though they are European citizens like Hussein Dru from Germany from Berlin because they are pointing out the obvious. So this is where we are. This is where we have become.

[00:20:20]I hope that uh this scenario will not unfold, but um this is where we're at now. So, thanks a lot for watching. If you like what I do, like, share, subscribe, and if you want to support me financially, you'll find a link in the description of the channel. Until next time, take