Your post makes sense to me. :up:

Yes, but even among the newer books there's a big range in the interpretation of the new information, especially with regard to the Lenin-as-German-agent idea. — jamalrob

Correct. However, my view is not that Lenin was a “German agent”. On the contrary, he wanted to extend the revolution to Germany itself, which is why after seizing power he founded the Communist International (COMINTERN) to establish a Socialist United States of Europe which had long been a key objective of European socialists:

In connection with the slogan of “a workers’ and peasants’ government”, the time is appropriate, in my opinion, for issuing the slogan of “The United States of Europe”. Only by coupling these two slogans shall we get a definite systematic and progressive response to the most burning problems of European development…

- Leon Trotsky, The First Five Years of the Communist International

Lenin was particularly interested in a German revolution as he needed German industry to build socialism in Russia and Europe. Russia had neither the industry nor the class of industrial workers a.k.a. “proletariat” to establish a socialist system.

However, unlike Kerensky who wanted to carry on with the war, Lenin and his group hoped that Russia would lose the war as this in his view would have created the conditions for a wider revolution. And it is on this point that his interests coincided with those of the German government.

That Lenin received large amounts of money from the German government seems to be established fact. This does not mean that, from his perspective, he was a “German agent” in the sense that he represented German interests. It only means that the Germans used him for their own purposes in the same way he used them for his own purposes. It happens all the time that rival interests use one another and collaborate on projects that are seen by both sides as advancing their respective interests.

But if the evidence shows that Lenin received money from a foreign power, then it is incorrect to say that he didn’t.

The incident may not yet be in school books but it is in the mainstream press and on history channels:

How Germany got the Russian Revolution off the ground – Deutsche Welle

Was Lenin a German agent? – New York Times

I for one tend to doubt that DW and the Times are mouthpieces for Putin or peddlers of "conspiracy theories" ….

Yes Apollo, I know all of that, but thanks for the neat summary.

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. — Apollodorus

What do the Ukrainians say about it? Bearing in mind that if Ukraine were annexed by Russia, then this would become a meaningless question, as they would have no longer have any say whatever.

I think Ukraine is begging the West to 'shuddup already' because it doesn't want to further annoy the bear.

Today's NY Times headline: The Russian president blamed the United States for the crisis in Ukraine, saying Americans were goading the Kremlin to start a conflict as a pretext for enacting harsh sanctions.

So, get this: Russia, having already invaded Ukraine once, in 2014, and annexing Crimea, leading to a guerilla war which has killed thousands, assembles a massive invasion force right on the border, with tanks, troops, artillery and air force, and then blames the US for 'stoking war in the Ukraine'.

And the amazing thing is, there are those who will swallow it.

//there's a top selling book in Australia about domestic violence and partner abuse. It's called 'See what you Made me Do?'//

Yeah gee, it's so unlike the most blood-hungry and blood-soaked nation on the planet to be stoking war! So out of character! Must just be good ol' Russian propaganda.

Maybe Ukraine is begging the US to shut the fuck up because the US should... shut the fuck up.

That's correct. Gonna nuke Ukraine because why not?

Especially with NATO it comes to this: do you see NATO as an extension and a tool of the US or NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US? — ssu

Well, why don’t you start with a more logical question like, in what sense could NATO not be a tool of its founders?

Of course NATO is a tool of those who founded it. That’s exactly why they founded it, to serve as an instrument or tool of their interests. Perhaps you would like to argue that they founded NATO for no reason?

And “NATO as a security arrangement of European countries and the US”? Are you suggesting that NATO is just about “security”?

If you are, then you will be surprised to hear that NATO thinks otherwise. It thinks that one of its objectives is the political integration of Europe!

The Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

- A short history of NATO

BTW, this is from NATO’s own website so I don’t think it is Russian propaganda ....

If you ask me, I think for objectivity's sake (if nothing else) we need to look at Russia's case too, not just what "the West" says.

The fact is that both NATO and the EU have been constantly expanding ever since they were founded. Both of them refuse to set any limits to their expansion. So, what should Russia do? What would you do if you were Russia?

Russia is asking for guarantees that the EU and NATO will not expand any further within its own space or sphere of influence, a guarantee it apparently believes it had already received.

But let's leave Ukraine aside for a second and ask the EU and NATO not if they are prepared to give guarantees on Ukraine but on Russia itself. Are they prepared to guarantee that they will never expand to incorporate Russia?

If the answer is "no", as it is regarding Ukraine, then I think we need to ask ourselves what the EU's and NATO's true intentions are. Where does unlimited expansion lead to if it is carried to its logical conclusion?

You say 'we should consider what Russia wants.' You don't think the democratic will of the Ukrainian people has any role in to play?

When Ukrainians voted for independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, all of its 24 “oblasts,” or regions – including Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea – supported independence. The large minority of ethnic Russians – 17.3% of the population at Ukraine’s last census in 2001 – were included as Ukrainian citizens in an independent state. For the most part, they too voted for independence.

For most of the first two decades after independence, ethnic Russians have lived peacefully with Ukrainians and the country’s other ethnic minorities.

But that changed in 2010 when Viktor Yanukovych, a politician from Donetsk, became Ukraine’s president. Though he did not state outright that he preferred a pro-Russian future for Ukraine, many of his policies marked a move away from the pro-European policies of his predecessors and played into Vladimir Putin’s designs on Ukraine.

Ukraine was on track to sign an association agreement with the European Union in 2013. Instead, Yanukovych decided to join an economic union with Russia. This set off mass protests around the country that resulted in Yanukovych’s being ousted. Putin then annexed Crimea on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians living on that peninsula.

Meanwhile, pro-Russian separatists took over multiple cities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the hope that Russia would have a similar interest in protecting Russians in eastern Ukraine.

....Most Ukrainians see their future as a sovereign country that is part of Europe. But this directly contradicts Putin’s goals of expanding the Russian World. They are conflicting visions that help explain why Ukraine remains a flashpoint. — Why Putin has such a hard time accepting Ukrainian sovereignty

Note the bolded passage.

Ukraine was on track to sign an association agreement with the European Union in 2013. Instead, Yanukovych decided to join an economic union with Russia. — Why Putin has such a hard time accepting Ukrainian sovereignty

Maybe one should look into these 'association agreements', hastily papered over in this propaganda piece, before recognising that they amounted to economic imperialism from 'the West' that was designed to fuck over Ukrainian workers:

In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reform[ing] and reduc[ing]” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public. Coup plotters like US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland repeatedly stressed the need for the Ukrainian government to enact the “necessary” reforms.

https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/

Maybe consider that the Ukrainian turn to Russia was on account of the Europeans offering a terrible, dehumanising, deal.

So why did the Ukrainians revolt against Yanokovych? Surely if they thought Russia was a better deal, they would not have done that.

Well, why don’t you start with a more logical question like, in what sense could NATO not be a tool of its founders? — Apollodorus

As long as you observe its founders are an assortment of sovereign states, not just few individuals that already have died. And it's a process as the leadership in those sovereign states change as does the political situation in Europe.

First, because Russia sucks too. Second, because the US and Europe was agitating for regime change precisely on account of Ukrainian resistance to neoliberal 'reform', to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars:

During the tug of war between the US and Russia, the Americans were engaged in a destabilization campaign against the Yanukovych government. The campaign culminated with the overthrow of the elected president in the Maidan Revolution—also known as the Maidan Coup—named for the Kiev square that hosted the bulk of the protests.

As political turmoil engulfed the country in the leadup to 2014, the US was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED), just as they had done in 2004. In December 2013, Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a long-time regime change advocate, said that the US government had spent $5 billion promoting “democracy” in Ukraine since 1991. The money went toward supporting “senior officials in the Ukraine government…members of the business community as well as opposition civil society” who agree with US goals.

First, because Russia sucks too. — StreetlightX

Yeah. And all things considered, I still they suck more.

Like I said, I don't play pick my favourite murderous imperialist.

You have the luxury of not living under the boot - you’re in a system where you can scream protests at the ruling party. You wouldn’t be in that position were you living under the other murderous imperialists.

What does this even mean? It's gobbldegook.

What does this even mean? I — StreetlightX

Hopefully, you'll never have to worry about it.

You don't think the democratic will of the Ukrainian people has any role in to play? — Wayfarer

Of course I do. But if we consider the interests and will of Ukraine, we must also consider the interests and will of Russia.

After all, if two parties go to court over a grievance, it is the duty of the court to hear both claims as impartially as possible. This is why I'm saying that a degree of objectivity is absolutely imperative if we want to have a proper discussion.

And you haven't answered my question. If NATO and the EU refuse to set a limit to their expansion, where will this end? In what position will it leave Russia? And how is Russia supposed to react?

As long as you observe its founders are an assortment of sovereign states, not just few individuals that already have died. — ssu

Well, I see zero consistency or logic in what you are saying.

You first implied that NATO was not a tool of US interests.

Now you are admitting that it was a tool, but a tool of "sovereign states".

I have no doubt that America was a sovereign state when NATO was founded. But you neglect to observe that European states after WW2 were (a) heavily indebted to America and (b) made to comply with American policy as part of the European Reconstruction Program (ERP) a.k.a. Marshall Plan.

The Plan was American and European states obediently complied with it. So you can draw your own conclusions.

And don't forget that not all European states were "sovereign". Germany and Austria joined the Marshall Plan and agreed to the US conditions attached to it while under Allied military occupation.

And it's a process as the leadership in those sovereign states change as does the political situation in Europe. — ssu

Same lack of logic as above.

If the leadership in those states changes and the political situation in Europe changes, it doesn't follow that NATO's (and the EU's) original plan of bringing about the political integration or unification of European states has also changed. On the contrary, the plan clearly remains to increase the political integration of Europe and to keep incorporating new states. Hence the Ukraine debacle.

(without having read the entire thread, as it's massive).

There are lots of clashing values here. The Ukranian administration obviously has popular support, and (if you're fan of states - I'm luke-warm, myself) if they want to join NATO, as a sovereign state, why should they not be able to?

A rejoiner is that you can't expect Russia to be happy with this. Whatever proportion of the Russian population actually supports The Kremlin, simply from fear most probably wouldn't want NATO forces (including potentially nukes) right next to them and encircling them - for (as someone pointed out) the same reasons that it was intolerable to the Americans to have soviet nukes on Cuba.

From the perspective of myself, as a CND member, this situation is especially tragic. Ukraine voluntarily gave up it's nuclear weapons in the 90s, on basis of an agreement involving both Russia and the US that they would not infere with it's future political development. Perhaps this was naive (of the Ukrainians), but it hardly encourages other regimes to give up their weapons now, does it?

One thing at the back of all this is: if the West hadn't been so stupid when the U.S.S.R. collapsed in their economic reconstruction advice, perhaps things may have been different. But then, that this the same economic approach which continues to widen inequality and to increase poverty levels in any place where it is unchecked, east or west.

From my perspective, we have an anti-democratic kleptocracy and it's adjuncts, verses a number of genuine democracies but which are quite imperfect as democracies (as illustrated by how their civil society's are decaying), but which are also imperial actors on the world stage (just look at what has been done to Africa etc.) The only defence the Russian regime can give is "if you let the West in, it will be even worse." And you know what, when we were last there, it was worse. I think if I was forced into a binary choice, I would choose to defend liberal democracy and self-determination, and so Ukraine, as at least that has the chance of improving our situation by democratic means. But that is a bitter pill to swallow. As this entire system keeps billions of people in poverty around the world, and is quickly ruining our environment. So perhaps we should simply let these monsters we support with our taxes - on both sides - exhaust themselves, and hope we survive to the other side.

But if we consider the interests and will of Ukraine, we must also consider the interests and will of Russia. — Apollodorus

When it comes to invading Ukraine, why should anyone consider that? Ukraine is a sovereign nation, why should Russia's territorial ambitions be considered? If Ukraine or some other country were to invade Russia, then sure, the interests of Russia are being infringed on.

If NATO and the EU refuse to set a limit to their expansion, where will this end? In what position will it leave Russia? And how is Russia supposed to react? — Apollodorus

Russian agitprop. Russia has economic opportunities for trade and peaceful economic cooperation, or would have, if it managed its affairs properly. In case you haven't noticed, it's a kleptocracy run by a dictator who routinely murders any legitimate political opponent.

I agree that American foreign policy is utterly dreadful in very many ways, and that the situation overall is a dire predicament, but keep in mind the fact that Russia has assembled an invasion force adjacent to a struggling democratic state and may well have already begun to use it, had not the Western democracies spoken up about it. Could so easily have been, and might still be, the Prague Spring all over again.

I read that Russia probably won't do a full scale invasion because of logistical challenges. IOW they could overwhelm the Ukrainian defenses, but they couldn't really occupy it.

Russian agitprop. Russia has economic opportunities for trade and peaceful economic cooperation, or would have, if it managed its affairs properly. In case you haven't noticed, it's a kleptocracy run by a dictator who routinely murders any legitimate political opponent. — Wayfarer

NATO agitprop. In case you haven't noticed, there are lots of similar, or worse, regimes everywhere: China, North Korea, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.

And you are not answering my question .... :smile:

Well, I see zero consistency or logic in what you are saying.

You first implied that NATO was not a tool of US interests.

Now you are admitting that it was a tool, but a tool of "sovereign states". — Apollodorus

Yes, those sovereign states are the member states. It's totally logical. Now the US formed various similar Treaty organizations, NATO, SEATO and CENTO and only NATO is still working. The idea of it being just a tool of the US isn't the whole picture. It is that European countries are happy with the arrangement of NATO that ought to be mentioned also. the organization had so much elan that it didn't dissolve once the Soviet Union went away. CENTO basically dissolved because of revolutions, and SEATO member countries just didn't see it as relevant. Once the other countries don't want to play, then the organization goes to the dustbin of history whatever the US would want. I'm sure the US would be all happy if there would be a SEATO nowdays. Now it has to stick with bilateral aggreements and AUKUS.

If you mean this question:

If NATO and the EU refuse to set a limit to their expansion, where will this end? In what position will it leave Russia? — Apollodorus

As I understand it, ‘their expansion’ in this case is simply leaving the door open to sovereign nations who wish to join them. NATO partners are not seeking to expand by invading Ukraine of forcibly occupying other nations. The issue at hand is Russia’s ability and implicit threat to do exactly that, whilst then hanging the blame on America for doing it. It’s transparently duplicitous.


I do agree that the militarism of NATO - America, Europe and of Russia - and the obscene amounts of money spent on weapons of mass destruction, and all of the research on new instruments of death and ways of mass casualty infliction, is a terrible evil which might yet be the death of all of us. The missiles that NATO has directed at Russia, if they’re offensive weapons, ought to be removed forthwith.

As I understand it, ‘their expansion’ in this case is simply leaving the door open to sovereign nations who wish to join them. NATO partners are not seeking to expand by invading Ukraine of forcibly occupying other nations. The issue at hand is Russia’s ability and implicit threat to do exactly that, whilst then hanging the blame on America for doing it. It’s transparently duplicitous. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, it isn't quite as simple as you are painting it. Russia has NOT been expanding. NATO and the EU have, by constantly incorporating new countries. NATO had 12 members in 1949. It now has 30. They may not have done this by means of military force, but expanded they have. This is the FACT we need to start with.

Take a look at a map of the region and you will see that NATO and the EU have largely encircled Russia, NOT the other way round.

http://www.socialistaction.net/2022/02/02/a-short-history-of-nato-eastward-expansion-and-the-current-tensions-in-europe/

Given that the EU and NATO (1) have been expanding, (2) have now reached Russia's borders, and (3) are refusing to set a limit to their expansion, I think Russia is perfectly entitled to be concerned. I know that I would be if I were Russia.

At the very least, it is proper to ask why the EU, NATO, and associated organizations are expanding? Where does the logical conclusion of permanent and unlimited expansion (i.e., incorporation of new states) lead to? World government???

We have seen that you are citing Russia as being a "dictatorship", but you omit to mention many other dictatorships that are even more repressive than Russia: China, North Korea, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, etc., where atrocities against political opposition and religious or ethnic minorities are perpetrated on a daily basis. IMO it doesn't make sense to single out Russia.

I think that for a better understanding of the situation it is important to understand exactly what the EU and NATO are, because to me they don't look like charitable or philanthropic organizations.

The fact is that NATO (= North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a product of the Anglo-American Atlantic movement.

Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Atlanticism - Wikipedia

We also know who was behind the Atlantic movement:

Following World War I, New York lawyer Paul D. Cravath was a noted leader in establishing Atlanticism in the United States. Cravath had become devoted to international affairs during the war, and was later a co-founder and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cravath was a former employee of Standard Oil subsidiary Globe Oil and was presiding partner at Guthrie, Cravath & Henderson, a leading law firm representing banking and oil interests.

Anyway, if you look at the English-language Wikipedia article on Atlanticism, it reads almost like an advertisement. In contrast, the German version offers a much more balanced analysis with a whole section on Criticism of Atlanticism.

Moreover, the German version makes some disturbing claims that I don't think should be simply brushed off:

Research by historian Dov Levin, for example, found that between 1946 and 2000, the United States manipulated the democratic elections of other countries more than 80 times, including in European countries such as Italy and Greece … From a strategic point of view, there is criticism, among other things, that relations between Europe and the USA are unequal, as the US enforces its foreign policy with little consideration for European interests …

- Atlantiker – Wikipedia

So, I think it would be wrong to accept Atlanticism and its manifestations like the EU and NATO too uncritically, as you and @ssu seem to be doing.

The point I was making earlier was that if representatives of oil and banking interests initiated and led the Atlantic movement, then it is incorrect to say that Atlanticism has nothing to do with those interests.

But the main point is that the overarching objective of Atlanticism (a.k.a. Trans-Atlanticism) was to bring North America, Britain, and Europe closer together. Some Atlanticists, especially on the British side, were even advocating union (or re-union) of Britain with America and, above all, world federation or world state. This is an important point to remember because we can see that unlimited expansion of NATO, EU, and associated organizations inevitably leads to world government when taken to its logical conclusion.

This is why the architects of Atlanticism founded all those organizations like NATO, European Coal and Steel Community (precursor to the EU), Organization for European Economic Co-operation (precursor to the OECD), etc., etc.

If you look at these organizations, you will see that their memberships are largely overlapping, especially at the top. For example, among the 29 OECD member states, 16 are also NATO members.

List of OECD member countries - OECD

There is a top tier of the Five Eyes (FVEY) consisting of the Anglophonic sphere, US, UK, OZ, NZ, and Canada, followed by European collaborators like France, puppets like Germany, and the lower ranks of smaller satellites.

The FVEY association itself demonstrates the Atlanticist (i.e. Anglo-American) origins of this highly influential network of organizations. The original (unofficial) association in the early 1900s consisted of the very same countries plus South Africa!

In any case, when you have a wide network of multiple international organizations stretching across the globe, all of which aim for economic, military and political integration of member states, all having the same top tier with America at its apex, and you know that they were founded at America’s instigation, then this can only mean (a) that America is the top dog in all of them and (b) that their primary purpose is to serve US interests.

It was American interest groups that convened the national and international conferences at which they proposed the establishment of the UN, World Bank, IMF, Marshall Plan, European integration, and all the other top intergovernmental organizations that are now organizing the world and setting the rules by which the world has to abide.

For example, according to its own mission statement, the OECD (which was originally set up to administer US Marshall Plan funds) aims to “establish international standards” and “provide advice on public policies and international standard-setting”. Obviously, countries have to abide by those standards if they want to be allowed to join these organizations (which they may do under economic or political pressure) so they are accepting standards, rules, and laws, set or made by others ....

The Western narrative revolves on “human rights and democracy” which, if we think about it, has been used as an umbrella slogan (or pretext) for some questionable international operations. What is certain is that if Ukraine joins the EU it will be ruled not by Kiev but by Brussels. This is precisely why Britain conveniently left the EU!

On its part, Russia is basing its case on the principle of “indivisible security” according to which while NATO has a right to expand its membership, this right should not be absolute, and non-NATO states should have the right to oppose NATO expansion when it affects their own security.

Russia is referring to the 1999 European Security Charter and the 2010 Astana Declaration, both of which were signed by the US and Russia. The 1999 Charter (Article II, Paragraph 8) says countries should be free to choose their own security arrangements and alliances, but that they “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states”.

- Istanbul Document 1999 – OSCE

So, we can see that though the US has a point in insisting on “human rights and democracy”, Russia also has a point in insisting on security matters which the US chooses to ignore. I don’t know of any states which think that human rights should have precedence over national security. This is why I believe that a reasonable US government ought to be able to come to some kind of compromise. The problem is that it is easy and tempting for political leaders to style themselves “defender of freedom and democracy” in order to boost their ratings in the polls or to push other agendas.

But to revert to the point I was making. Since NATO and the EU are (1) expanding and (2) refusing to set limits to their expansion, I think it is safe to assume that it is their objective to keep expanding. And unlimited expansion ultimately leads to world government.

We can get an idea of the means by which this is achieved by looking at how the EU was formed.

The EU was established in 1993 on the basis of the European Economic Community which in turn was based on the European Coal and Steel Community:

The union and EU citizenship were established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993. The EU traces its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), established, respectively, by the 1951 Treaty of Paris and 1957 Treaty of Rome. The original member states of what came to be known as the European Communities were the Inner Six: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany.

- European Union - Wikipedia

The largest member countries with the strongest economies were Germany and France. Germany was under Allied (i.e. US) military occupation and France joined under US pressure.

Germany was controlled by US High Commissioner John McCloy, a Rockefeller lawyer and partner of the same Cravath law firm that initiated the Atlantic movement in America.

Another Rockefeller operative, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, was a director of the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations and the main architect of NATO (the establishment of which had been proposed by Nelson Rockefeller in 1945). In 1949, during a meeting of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany, he put a gun to French foreign minister Schuman’s head, ordering him to form a United States of Europe with Germany.

Oct 22 1949, Meeting of United States Ambassadors at Paris (attended by McCloy):

As for US policy, it must be directed towards pressing for the acceptance of Germany into the European Councils. We must put pressure on the French to let the Germans come in on a dignified basis…

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers, Oct. 22

Oct 30 1949, Acheson letter to Schuman (in which he tells Schuman to take action “to promptly and decisively integrate US-controlled Germany into Western Europe”):

Whether Germany will in the future be a benefit or a curse to the free world will be determined, not only by the Germans, but by the occupying powers. … Our own stake and responsibility is also greater. Now is the time for French initiative and leadership of the type required to integrate the German Federal Republic promptly and decisively into Western Europe … We have also reserved to ourselves in the Occupation Statute very considerable powers with respect to the action of the German Federal Republic …

Letter from Dean Acheson to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) – CVCE

Once Germany and France had been “persuaded” to form the core of European integration, the other smaller countries whose economies depended on German and French industry, had no choice but to join. In fact they were obliged to do so as part of the Marshall Plan deal which stipulated European integration in exchange for financial and other assistance.

And we know that the Marshall Plan and associated schemes were intended to serve US economic interests, because the guys involved – from State Secretary George Marshall to Acheson - openly admitted it!

In a 1947 speech, Acheson himself stated:

These measures of relief and reconstruction have been only in part suggested by humanitarianism. Your Congress has authorized and your government is carrying out, a policy of relief and reconstruction today chiefly as a matter of national self-interest … There is no charity involved in this. It is simply common sense and good business. We are today obliged from considerations of self-interest to finance a huge deficit in the world’s budget … The International Trade Organization must be established … The fourth thing we must do in the present situation is to push ahead with the reconstruction of those two great workshops of Europe and Asia – Germany and Japan ….”.

Dean Acheson, The Requirements of Reconstruction, May 8, 1947 – Truman Library

Both Marshall and Acheson clearly explain in their speeches that the US economy needs to import goods from Europe and it needs Europe as a market for US exports, otherwise US economic growth would be unsustainable. And because US business preferred to deal with one single market, the US government put pressure on European states to form a single market. It was a form of blackmail sugar-coated with loans.

So, we can see under what conditions the “European integration project” came about. EEC and EU enlargement has happened along similar lines, mainly under economic and financial pressure.

US domination over Europe continues as before. London is Europe’s largest financial center, but the largest investment banks operating there (and in other European cities) are mostly American: JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group.

There is also the issue of cultural domination. Apart from English being increasingly used all over Europe, some Europeans feel that their culture is being gradually replaced with an US-imposed, alien substitute.

According to some observers:

As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it.

- The American world: U.S. culture's dominance is a mixed bag

From a European perspective, it is arguable that European culture is being replaced with US-made violent hip hop, rape rap, and the war drums of the slums. Not by force of arms, of course, but through the overwhelming influence of the US-dominated social media and entertainment industry.

Exactly how “democratic” this process is, is a matter of debate, but I don't think there has been a referendum on it yet .... :smile:

rape rap, — Apollodorus

Is that what Christian clergymen listen to when they're molesting boys?

Well, I don't know any clergymen so I can't tell. But I think that kind of stuff would be more like Nation of Islam style ....