This week marks our fundraising effort at Naked Capitalism. To date, 291 generous donors have contributed to our mission of exposing corruption and predatory practices, especially within the financial sector. We invite you to join us by visiting our donation page for various ways to contribute via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. To understand the motivations behind this fundraiser, explore our posts on our objectives, what we achieved last year, and our current target, supporting our comment section.
This article highlights significant commentary shifts from traditional written forms to platforms like YouTube and podcasts. This shift can be frustrating because it complicates tracking down original quotes, sources, and context. Nevertheless, we are sharing an essential discussion between Glenn Diesen and German journalist Patrick Baab. In their conversation, Baab argues that influential European decision-makers are heading towards full-scale conflict with Russia. His insights suggest that personal stakes and detrimental career incentives may lead them to push us further into war as Russia intensifies its actions in Ukraine.
From the beginning, I have expressed concern that while Russia might win military engagements, it could ultimately fail to secure a lasting peace. I have consistently maintained that a negotiated end to the conflict is unrealistic, given the deep divide between Russian and Ukrainian/Western positions. This perspective persisted during Trump’s attempts to negotiate with Russia while sidelining Ukraine and NATO, highlighting that Ukraine and Europe had agency in this situation. The strong backing from domestic and military-industrial interests for the conflict meant that Trump could not leverage his influence to curtail US military support, including critical intelligence and targeting assistance necessary for NATO weaponry. Moreover, there was the risk of political backlash, as witnessed when the military resisted his orders related to Afghanistan during his first term.
We initially believed that “losing the peace” could lead to ongoing acts of terrorism both in Russia and the territories it occupies in Ukraine. Mearsheimer has pointed out, however, that even after the conflict’s resolution, the West has numerous opportunities to instigate low-level confrontations, potentially imposing continuous costs on Russia through regions like Kaliningrad and Transnistria.
Yet, what Baab elucidates below is even more alarming, aligning with prevailing trends toward direct conflict with Russia. Recently, the Guardian published an article titled “Britain may already be at war with Russia, former head of MI5 says”, suggesting that Russia is currently “at war” with the UK due to alleged hostile actions, such as cyberattacks.
However, Baab appears cautious in connecting these dots, potentially hesitant to voice what could be deemed as an exaggerated conclusion. When assessed thoroughly, the prospect of a direct military confrontation seems increasingly likely, particularly as various Russian and some US officials have discussed the so-called “Estoniazation” of Germany and other parts of Europe—a notion that suggests an outright belief that Russia intends to extend its reach beyond Ukraine.
Moreover, Baab highlights the precarious financial state of Europe, particularly Germany, stemming from its handling of post-financial crisis banking crises, which has left governments even more beholden to financial interests. He indicates that Europe’s need for “collateral” may drive them to see Ukraine’s agricultural and mineral wealth as a potential remedy to their fiscal concerns that seem out of reach. In a related vein, Germany has made seemingly unfeasible commitments to finance Ukraine and bolster its military capabilities.
Interestingly, Baab does not delve into the complex issue of frozen Russian assets, estimated at over $200 billion, largely located in Euros through Euroclear. Efforts by EU leaders have hinted at desperate attempts to access these funds, yet such maneuvers would entail significant legal and institutional obstacles. Euroclear, based in Belgium, has strongly resisted the idea, fearing that such actions could erode trust in European financial institutions.
So, what could provide legal grounds for an asset seizure that even Euroclear couldn’t withstand? A genuine hot war with Russia. History shows that it is not uncommon to confiscate the foreign assets of nations engaged in conflict.
Baab points to a significant trigger in his analysis: the potential closure of Baltic airspace to Russia. Prior to the 2016 election, I warned that Hillary Clinton’s vow to impose a no-fly zone over Syria could escalate into a hot war with Russia, given Russia’s refusal to accept such limitations. If you believe that Russia will passively accept limits on its use of Baltic airspace, I have a bridge to sell you.
Baab emphasizes that the German military recognizes it is ill-prepared to engage Russia and that officials are aware of the years required for adequate rearmament, recruitment, and training. Yet, the escalating rhetoric from officials and media regarding alleged Russian transgressions into NATO airspace is becoming increasingly unhinged. Such responses could inadvertently pressure the US into deeper involvement in Ukraine. Recently, officials from the UK, France, and Germany even threatened to shoot down Russian aircraft encroaching on member airspace—a statement leading to stern remarks from Moscow. As reported by Anadolu Agency:
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked on Friday that statements from Western leaders about shooting down Russian aircraft are “reckless” and could lead to “dangerous consequences.”
“Statements regarding the downing of Russian planes are, at the very least, reckless, irresponsible, and, of course, perilous,” Peskov stated during a press briefing in Moscow.
The comments arose after US President Donald Trump suggested NATO should down Russian jets violating the airspace of alliance nations during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in New York.
Russian Ambassador to France Alexei Meshkov previously warned that such actions by NATO would equate to “war,” asserting that Western nations have not provided “tangible evidence” of Russian involvement in claimed airspace violations.
“Many NATO aircraft also breach Russian airspace … it occurs frequently … (but) they are not shot down,” Meshkov added, firmly rejecting the allegations against Russia.
Thus, this version of “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” poses a grave risk of nuclear conflict. Every scenario envisioning direct conflict between the US and Russia appears to lead in that direction.
Key quotes from Baab’s remarks can be found below the video. I encourage you to listen to the full discussion.
By Glenn Diesen. Originally published at his YouTube channel.
My hypothesis is that Western elites, particularly in Western Europe, are steering us toward war. They seek to lead their nations into a complete conflict with Russia. They have driven their countries down a dead-end street, unable to make a U-turn.
My analysis focuses on the economic, political, cultural, psychological, and military factors all converging toward this trajectory of war. It may seem straightforward, yet it arises from a complex assessment.
Elites should not be defined solely by their intellectual qualities, but rather by their access to power. A one-way street offers no opportunity for these elites to turn back; they must be replaced by the populace. Delving into Germany’s economic history reveals that the Europeans overstretched their budgets to secure war goals, leading to economic decline and mounting debt. Chancellor Merz’s proposal to provide €140 billion in loans to Ukraine as military aid illustrates this precarious situation, aiming to use frozen Russian assets as collateral with significant repercussions.
They appear to hope to prolong and escalate the war, possibly provoking Russia in the Baltic region, anticipating that in 5 to 10 years, they might weaken Russia. Their strategy seems to involve destabilizing Russia economically to bring it back into the fold of the EU and the so-called collective West. Furthermore, NATO’s recent escalation, such as the alleged drone incident in Poland, raises concerns about cognitive warfare directed at manipulating public perception. The Europeans aim to compel the US to align with their escalatory agenda against Russia, presenting Moscow with a difficult decision: accept the closure of Baltic airspace or respond militarily, which would lead to a full-scale war in Europe. They seem to hope that this conflict won’t spiral into a nuclear disaster.
Ultimately, however, the decision rests with Moscow, not the Europeans, pointing to NATO’s miscalculations regarding Russian military and economic capability. This situation highlights NATO’s desperation. Fearing defeat, they seek to expand the conflict and create new battlegrounds, perhaps over the Baltic Sea, forcing Russia to spread its military resources thin.
We seem set for years of ongoing conflict. I do not foresee a peace solution emerging from Mr. Trump; though negotiations are ongoing, it benefits the US for European politicians, their allies, to perpetuate the conflict, as it yields substantial profits from arms sales. America is 6,000 kilometers away, and the destruction of additional European countries has far less impact on the US.
