5 Fallacies about the European Union,

Ann Carriage
5 min readJul 20, 2020


1) The E.U. is a European idea

The European Union evolved through a series of treaties beginning with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community through to the European Common Market, finally ending with the Maastricht Treaty of 1993 which laid the foundations for the European Union we know today.

Although the original idea wasn’t European but American, as author and journalist Claire Berlinski notes it was the brain child of post-second-world war American leaders.

The gist of the plan was to end conflict and preserve peace in Europe with Germany in charge of keeping the rest of Europe in line, while in turn reporting to the U.S.

Yet this grand scheme was only realized some 48 years later with the world on the cusp of a New World Order.

2) Russia opposes the existence of the E.U. in principal

Not the case at all.

This fallacy assumes Russia is NOT onboard with the Post liberal New World Order’s plan to replace the Old World Order of U.S. homogeneity, its institutions and influence.

Russia supports 100 percent the strategy of Charter Liberalism, forming part of the New World Order with regional powers or trade blocks as the new spheres of global influence just like the E.U., although other topics like liberal humanism or economic liberalism are up for debate.

Kingpin globalist Henry Kissinger’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in January 2016, prior to the decisive U.S. elections, was a clue big changes were on the way.

3) The E.U is Pro-American and Anti-Russian

No they not, the frost between key European nations and the U.S. set in pretty much at the end of the cold war due to changing political and economic realities.

The year 2014 was an eventful one; first there was the Ukraine Revolution in February orchestrated and funded by the U.S. State Department and other American entities to oust the Russian backed premier there.

Then between February and March Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula.

America’s strategy is to build a collection of pro-American or anti E.U states as a buffer against the E.U. and Russia said one source in 2017.

According to political scientist and head of a strategic think tank, George Friedman, America’s main objective is to prevent a German Russian Alliance from threatening American Empire.

The German spy scandal dominated the headlines in May when it was revealed top German politicians were under secret surveillance by U. S. Intelligence during the Obama administration.

It caused quite the stir but gives pause for reflection, was this action due to misplaced paranoia by overreaching intelligence agencies or suggestive of something much bigger in the intelligence wars.

4) E.U. and the Russian Federation oppose each other

False, the E.U. and Russian have strong economic ties and co- operate in many areas of mutual interest.

And if Germany and France have their way ties with the Russian Federation will be considerably strengthened.

A Reuters article late last year cites Emmanuel Macron’s stark description of the “brain death” of NATO meaning the E.U.’s looking to take responsibility for its own security so a European Defense Force is a necessity which means the end of NATO.

While Macron’s ideas may seem radical to more conservative E.U. members it resonates with Angela Merkel’s potential successor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.

Macron has opposed applications for E.U. membership by Albania and North Macedonia, 2 out of 6 western Balkan countries, in a possible nod to Russia and its Eurasian Economic Union, with Serbia already drawn in with a trade deal.

And what about Ukraine, its application for membership has been pending approval for some time, but will it finally happen or will the country continue to exist as one of a number of Eastern European ‘barrier states’ in a move that strangely mirrors U.S. policy objectives for the region.

Then again not so odd if understood Russia only ‘presents’ as an opposition for geopolitical purposes when in reality they’re a controlled opposition, meaning they on the same team as the U.S. for all practical purposes.

Not that this rules out the constant play of one side trying to gain advantage over the other like a game of high stakes global chess.

5) The Cold War done and dusted

If the writings of Soviet dissidents and exiles are believed Perestroika was for appearances sake only when it was just a ruse to lull the world to sleep.

We know from the writings of Soviet Bloc defectors (like Jan Sejna and Anatoliy Golitsyn) that a change in the Communist system was contemplated long before the 1980's. This change was envisioned as part of a long-range strategy.

Says KGB analyst Victor Kalashnikov: German unification was a scheme to produce a favorable outcome for the Kremlin, because pro-Soviet forces would come to power in Germany, mainly from the Left. We were confident of this outcome.

The main goal was to drive the Americans from Europe. If we succeeded, in that case, with destabilizing NATO, we would have more options from our fellow Europeans.

“It’s about the idea of launching the common European house,” said Kalashnikov, “allowing the Germans to unify so that they would ask the Americans to go home, and they would pay off Moscow and transfer technologies to the USSR, etc.

This strategy was in the spirit of the Rapallo Treaty [1922], or the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. The slogan was, ‘The Americans out, the Soviets in, the Germans up.’

However due to the rapid German unification process by the west the plan fell apart.

Then it was fast forward to the Ukraine revolution when Russia lost an important foothold that stymied the plans further.

In a book published in 1984, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn wrote about a secret Soviet plan to do away with Communist Party dominance. This, he said, would be a deception. The Communist Party would still exist underneath the surface. It would merely go underground, or break into various new parties that would control the Russian political process according to a script.

In diplomatic terms, the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union of today. It has all the prerequisites, with the Security Council, central structures, etc. And it retains the status of nuclear superpower.

The privatization of the Soviet Union merely signified the transfer of state property into the hands of the nomenklatura.

According to Kalashnikov, “In plain words, they started a process of transferring national wealth, factories, resources, etc., for nothing, into the hands of the Soviet elite, and trusted persons. In Russia, the nomenklatura took everything for themselves. They were not preoccupied with limiting themselves with laws, norms, or institutions of any kind.”

All this explains a lot of what we witnessing on a international scale today.



Ann Carriage

Political animal, interested in the story behind the story. A concepts driven individual.