EU Lining Up Countries For War

Elections - or not - provide the right outcome

May 20, 2025

∙ Paid

Three countries vote, UK 'capitulates', on path to remilitarisation
An agenda that bypasses democracy in the name of saving it
The issue is not 'pro-Europe' - it is having functionaries who are pro-war
Let's assume the good people won and we're gearing up to fight a just war
If Russia is about to invade might we delay the shutdown of food & energy?
The West can’t win against China while pursuing Net Zero
Why are policies contradictory and who is pulling the strings?
Demographics, migration, food, fuel insecurity are part of the military agenda
But who is the target: in the military doctrine of hybrid war, the target is you

(3,000 words or about 15 minutes of your company)

After cancelled elections, excluded candidates, the EU favourite Nicușor Dan wins in Romania

May 20, 2025

The European controllers celebrated four victories in the past two days, securing their candidates in Romania, Portugal and Poland (run off, June 1) — and in Britain, where the prime minister agreed to take part in the EU's re-militarisation.

Newspapers are presenting it as a reversal or reset of the Brexit vote to leave the EU. Actually, the UK is increasing its role as Europe transforms into a militarised federation.

Although it pulled out of the EU's trade and legal structure in 2020 (after a referendum in 2016), it never left the European Union's military wing.

The establishment media did not report this; we know about it largely due to the work of UK Column. See EU Military Unification.

In order to maintain its historic leadership in shaping war on the European continent, the UK was forced to compromise and write cheques to Brussels — as much as £16 billion in year one. This from a Labour government which claimed it was bequeathed an unbridgable gap in the budget of £22 billion.

The European Commission played hard ball: Starmer's delegation had to throw most of their demands overboard. They betrayed fishermen once again, reopened the borders to EU workers with no cap on numbers, and submitted all farms and food producers to EU courts and regulations.

Those worried about globalism will note that the UK is now subject to the EU's Net Zero schemes, including carbon trading and tariffs on carbon-intensive goods.

This is the price Starmer, and his handlers, were prepared to pay for its role in Europe's remilitarisation. We can guess that some arrangements were not mentioned. There was no word of the EC's plans for digital identity and information control (Digital Services Act).

This was a stitch-up at the top, otherwise known as a summit. Crucially the deal was not discussed in advance by parliament.

Brussels has a habit of making countries vote repeatedly until they give the right answer, as in the case of Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. Voters initially rejected an EU treaty only to vote in favour the second time.

But this is about more than reversing Brexit.. We are talking about the drive to war.

Phwoar, moar

We began this article with the UK-EU deal because it explains why the European Commission is determined to influence who wins elections.

It's all about war.

In Romania there was much fuss about the "anti-European" candidates. But Romania is already a member of the EU and NATO! What Brussels really worries about is anti-war. NATO is building a new, offensive base close to Ukraine, and it needs a compliant leader.

In Georgia, from where these words are written, EU leaders spent much of the past year on destabilisation tours to undermine the government in Tbilisi. Joining EU and NATO is written into the constitution, so when the EU and U.S. withdrew aid, it was not about Europe or NATO membership but because Georgia's government is not sufficiently pro-war.

Benefit of doubt

Let's assume the good people won. Why are their policies so contradictory and yet uniform, centralising and yet centrifugal, and destabilising in their effect?

In Romania, the "bit less Brussels, much less war" candidate George Simion led in the first round, and also in opinion polls, but a surge in ballots (the highest in 30 years — with according to Simion's campaign more than a million dead voters) lifted his opponent, the mayor of Bucharest Nicușor Dan over the threshold.

In Portugal the vote followed a trajectory seen in France, Austria and Germany and in last year's pan-European elections

The "less bureaucracy, less migration" party, the far-right Chega, took a record 22 per cent of the vote. The centrists (jab, starve, freeze but fight) fell far short of a majority but retain power.

Counting is still going on and Chega may yet dislodge the Socialists from second place.

In Poland's presidential contest the "centrist, pro-European" mayor of Warsaw Rafał Trzaskowski is neck and neck at 31.4 per cent with historian Karol Nawrocki of the Law and Justice party (PiS) on 29.5 per cent.

The Guardian calls Nawrocki, former director of the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk, and head of the Institute of National Remembrance, involved in the process of reconciliation, the anti-European candidate.

Make sense of that: a patriotic historian of WW2 is "anti-European." The vote, in which conservative parties did better overall, has gone to a second round on June 1.

Illogical and counter intuitive as it is — let the stale air of Brussels, where undocumented migrants and street buskers jostle with NATO generals and state-builders of the European Commission, march through your ears like a draught — or the draft.

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.