The EU's Moral Decline - Part One

Lessons from the Ukraine Conflict

In light of Vladimir Putin’s peace deal proposal last week (June 14, 2024), which outlined conditions for resolving the conflict but was outright rejected by Kiev and Western leaders, I believe it is important to review who is morally responsible for enabling this conflict in the first place and preventing a negotiated settlement.

The war in Ukraine has not only hastened the decline of Western dominance but also exposed the EU's lack of foresight in its strategic planning. Despite clear indications of ineffectiveness, the self-inflicted policies designed to punish Russia for actions it was provoked into taking have only served to worsen the situation, driving de-dollarization and exposing numerous underlying problems.

The EU's strategic failures in Ukraine are numerous, but one of the most glaring is its failure to comprehend the strength and size of the Russian economy and military on the one hand and overestimating its own industrial output potential on the other. This lack of understanding has led to an inability to ramp up production of weapons and ammunition to supply Ukraine, and the freezing and potential seizure of Russian assets, which will ultimately tarnish the reputation of EU financial institutions and the European Central Bank. The introduction of sanctions has also backfired, raising energy costs for Europeans and leading to a loss of competitiveness in the manufacturing industry. In essence, the EU has become a service-oriented, middleman economy, incapable of producing anything of tangible value.

In this post, I will focus on the moral failures of the EU, which most analysts and journalists often overlook. While many writers focus on daily or weekly battlefield reports, these updates, though important for understanding the situation on the ground amidst media censorship and false narratives, often distract from the root causes of the conflict and the ease with which it could be resolved if the right decisions were made. The moral decay of Europe extends far beyond Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, encompassing foreign policy towards Ukraine and Russia over the last several years. This policy has revealed the true nature of European leaders, their astounding incompetence, and hidden globalist agendas pulling the strings. By leaders, I refer not only to Members of the European Parliament but also to members of the EU Council and EU Commission, the heads of EU states, and their ministers, who frequently play a detrimental role in shaping EU foreign and economic policy.

Of course, neocon forces dominating politics across the Atlantic also play a significant role in shaping European politics, perhaps to a greater extent than we should be comfortable with. However, as a European, I focus primarily on those who are supposed to represent us and ensure our well-being and lasting prosperity.

---

---

Morality

Understanding morality doesn’t require philosophical expertise; most of us have an intuitive sense of it means. Morality is a set of principles or beliefs held by individuals or groups at a specific time, concerned with distinguishing right from wrong. It evolves as we age and gain a deeper understanding of the world. Historically tied to religious traditions, morality remains significant in today’s secular world, spanning different societies, cultures, and civilizations.

In international politics, morality involves applying ethical principles to states and international actors. It encompasses respect for human rights, fairness, justice, and the moral responsibility to intervene in cases of human rights violations. There are various theories on how morality should influence international relations, ranging from realism to liberalism.

---

Principles and Values of the European Union

But how do we know what’s morally right or wrong for institutions such as the EU, or its member states? The answer is actually quite straightforward, as the EU’s key aims and principles are publicly available in Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty. Here is a short list of some of those aims:

• Promote peace, its values, and the well-being of its citizens.

• Offer freedom, security, and justice.

• Achieve sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability.

• Combat social exclusion and discrimination.

• Promote social justice and protection.

• Enhance economic, social, and territorial cohesion and solidarity among EU countries.

• Contribute to peace and security and the sustainable development of the Earth.

• Contribute to solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty, and the protection of human rights.

• Strict observance of international law.

The core founding values of the EU are human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and human rights.

So far, so good, nothing controversial or highly unusual here. Different people may have slightly different definitions of the rule of law or democracy, but for the most part, these aims and values resonate well with most people. They certainly resonate well with me.

However, when we consider certain decisions made by the EU during the conflict in Ukraine and in the years preceding it, as well as instances of silence and inaction where determined action was needed, we realize that the outcomes achieved by the EU contradict their stated aims and violate many of their own values, exposing Europeans to unnecessary risks and raising concerns about what are the real aims of the EU. The overall hostile foreign policy towards Russia further highlights this inconsistency. The moral compass of the EU is no longer pointing in the direction we were told.

Let's examine the EU's aim to "contribute to peace and security" and see how we can apply principles of morality to it. Simply put, any action that enhances the peace and security of the EU can be considered right, while actions that undermine the EU's security can be considered wrong. However, it gets more complicated when "security" is not well defined and remains ambiguous, meaning different things to different people. This ambiguity leaves room for exploitation, enabling the shaping of narratives to appear consistent with the EU's aims of enhancing security while, in reality, undermining it.

This complexity is precisely why the EU has managed to maintain the false narrative of Russia’s “unprovoked and unjustified” aggression for so long. However, by zooming out and examining the overall trend in the EU’s policy towards Ukraine and Russia, it becomes clear that morality is the last thing our policymakers are concerned with. Instead, they act in ways beneficial to the interests of globalist elites, sleepwalking into a military conflict with Russia, a nuclear superpower. It gets even worse when we realize that actions taken to “contribute to peace and security”, or at least their twisted version of it, violate other aims of the EU, such as the “strict observance of international law” while offering “freedom, security, and justice” only to those aligned with their interests.

---

Hijacking the Narrative

European Union leaders proudly emphasize their solidarity and military assistance to Ukraine, asserting that Europe's security hinges on a victory over Putin's so-called imperialist ambitions. Top EU diplomat Josep Borrell has stated that Russia poses an existential threat to Europe. However, he omits a crucial point: the crisis in Europe is mainly self-inflicted and was entirely preventable.

Initially, I dismissed the claim that the war in Ukraine presents an existential threat to the European Union, thinking it was an exaggerated attempt to bolster political and military support for the failing Ukraine project. However, upon further reflection, I now agree with his assessment. The war in Ukraine does present an existential threat to the European Union, though not from a military standpoint.

The conflict has exposed many inconsistencies in the EU’s policies, which contradict their official aims and negatively impact the European economy. The mainstream media, often compliant, helps shape narratives that favor European leaders and Ukraine, taking propaganda to the next level. The lack of journalistic integrity is evident, as many outlets uncritically reproduce information from Kiev and present it as fact. This benefits the US-backed government in Kiev, which seeks to distort reality to secure ongoing EU support. Even when truths about forced drafts and manpower losses in the Ukrainian army surface, they fail to raise alarm bells in Brussels. Instead, the EU doubles down on its failures, increasing the risk of war spreading beyond Ukraine and causing more casualties among demotivated and poorly-trained Ukrainians.

Furthermore, it has exposed the inability of European elites to stand up to the American establishment, which clearly benefits from the energy crisis and the severing of economic links between Russia and Europe. The lack of independent investigation following the destruction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is the best evidence of this.

Moreover, the significant damage and suffering caused to Ukrainian society is often overlooked or portrayed in media as entirely Russia's fault. While it is true that it is Russia that "pulls the trigger," the narrative lacks situational awareness and provides no context that would explain Russia's security concerns, which convinced it to use military force.

In my next post, I will break this down into smaller components, focusing on the most significant moral failures on the part of the EU, the selected few that disappointed me the most.

Please subscribe to receive a notification when my next post is published.