On the situa­tion in Europe – Dr. Dragana Trif­kovic in conver­sa­tion with Russia expert Patrick Poppel

Dr. Trifkovic in analysis with P. Poppel

Our Russia expert Patrick Poppel, who has already been known several times at UM for his state­ments, expert opinions and „on-site reports“, toge­ther with Dr. Dragana Trif­kovic held a conver­sa­tion, among other things about the back­ground and the current situa­tion in Europe.

Director General of the Belgrade Geostra­tegic Insti­tute in conversation

Dr. Dragana Trif­kovic, Director General of the Center for Geostra­tegic Studies in Belgrade for around nine years now, met Patrick Poppel to analyze the current geopo­li­tical situa­tion, espe­ci­ally in Europe.

The ques­tions asked and analyzes are summa­rized below in brief.


In your opinion, how great is the American influence on Euro­pean foreign and secu­rity policy?


I think Europe’s main problem is that it has no real sove­reignty. The indi­vi­dual EU states are under the control of the EU elites and the EU administration.

It should also be said that the EU admi­nis­tra­tion is under great influence, not to say under the control of „Washington“. This is also the reason why a policy is being pursued here that is not „appro­priate“ for Euro­pean states. Rather, this policy is made to the „advan­tage“ of the USA“ and I see this as the main problem and cause of the current „situa­tion“ in which Europe finds itself.

The USA is involved in a variety of „areas of inte­rest“, such as global poli­tical stra­te­gies, NGOs, educa­tional stra­te­gies to name just a few, so they have worked inten­si­vely in recent years and decades to maxi­mize this influence in Europe as well.

I see Europe’s main problem not only in these „controlled elites“ but rather in a kind of „nega­tive selec­tion“ of the same. Leaders who have high intel­li­gence, poli­tical „drive“, „poli­ti­cally astute approach“ to change these „influen­cers“ do not fit into the US-driven stra­tegy for Europe. Ther­e­fore, people are “preferred” in the manage­ment levels who are not overly educated and other­wise would not have many “oppor­tu­ni­ties for deve­lo­p­ment” at the poli­tical level in Europe.

Ther­e­fore, I see them as „loyal agents“ of the US stra­tegy for Europe.


Would you dare say that Europe is beco­ming more and more a US colony?


Unfort­u­na­tely yes, the EU must now be regarded as a kind of satel­lite state of the USA. Even if this state­ment is curr­ently considered poli­ti­cally incor­rect, in the current situa­tion it is beco­ming obvious what was going on in the back­ground in the past.

German Foreign Minister Anna­lena Baer­bock, for example, who stated in a state­ment to jour­na­lists in Kyiv that she would deliver arms to Ukraine, regard­less of what the German people thought about it. So she doesn’t appear to be Germany’s foreign minister, but rather a foreign minister under US control. It is possible that she also feels more connected to Ukraine than to Germany.


Now a very specific ques­tion, since you also deal with conflicts and mili­tary stra­te­gies as part of your work. Why is there a Euro­pean defense stra­tegy and Euro­pean armies when you have NATO, almost all Euro­pean count­ries are members of NATO, isn’t that enough?


From the very begin­ning, NATO has been considered the basis of mili­tary archi­tec­ture and Euro­pean secu­rity, which is also the starting point of the Euro­pean Union. The control of Washington, as the „leading“ NATO member, also plays a decisive role here.

Some count­ries were strongly supported by the USA in instal­ling a Euro­pean army, and it was France in parti­cular that received support here. Charles de Gaulle, for example, had planned to spin off France from NATO, while Nicola Sarkozy later opposed such a “deve­lo­p­ment” entirely.

For a long time, this ques­tion created great poten­tial for conflict between France and Great Britain. Because the British had declared them­selves to be the abso­lute oppon­ents of an EU army. The fact is, however, that the Euro­pean count­ries do not have powerful armies in the indi­vi­dual member states, with the excep­tion of the Ukrai­nian army, which was desi­gned for a possible war with Russia. Even Germany does not have a „powerful army“ by today’s standards.

This repres­ents a major problem in the defense and secu­rity poli­cies of Euro­pean countries.

Finally, I would like to explain that I believe it will be neces­sary to support the idea of ​​a new global secu­rity archi­tec­ture. This should be based on coope­ra­tion and corre­spon­ding contracts between the largest „global players“ and no longer on the dictates of the USA. This approach was intro­duced by Russia at first reading, but has also been supported by China.

Bitte unter­stützen Sie unseren Kampf für Frei­heit und Bürgerrechte.
Für jede Spende (PayPal oder Bank­über­wei­sung) ab € 10.- erhalten Sie als Danke­schön auf Wunsch ein Dutzend Aufkleber „CORONA-DIKTATUR? NEIN DANKE“ porto­frei und gratis! Details hier.


Bitte unter­stützen Sie unseren Kampf für Frei­heit und Bürgerrechte.
Für jede Spende (PayPal oder Bank­über­wei­sung) ab € 10.- erhalten Sie als Danke­schön auf Wunsch ein Dutzend Aufkleber „CORONA-DIKTATUR? NEIN DANKE“ porto­frei und gratis! Details hier.


Kommentieren Sie den Artikel

Bitte geben Sie Ihren Kommentar ein!
Bitte geben Sie hier Ihren Namen ein